Eastman Marketing - 836 versus 834

[gocsick]

I was looking at the ad copy for the new Eastmsn 5/4 CC the EBC834 abd found it very different in character to how the 836 was/is sold

834

The Eastman EBC834S is a 5/4 CC tuba designed for serious players who need a large-format orchestral CC with modern low-register options...

This model is a strong fit for advanced conservatory students, working professionals, and doubling players who want the power and breadth of a 5/4 CC while maintaining the clarity needed for section work and exposed passages. The 19 inch upright yellow brass bell and graduated bore help produce a full, foundational sound that blends well in ensemble settings.

836

The EBC836 is a 6/4 size tuba inspired by the legendary York orchestral CC tuba. This large tuba is at home on stage with a symphony orchestra or concert band, in the pit of an opera or ballet orchestra, and is nimble enough to play in small chamber ensembles. The next generation 6/4 tuba has arrived!

The marketing for the 836 is very much a one tuba to do everything kind of fairytale.. Selling the identity and idea of the York mythology.. you too can have a real orchestral tuba. In contrast the copy for the 834 focused on capability of what it does well..

Just an observation...

I've only played an 836 once for about 5 minutes at Dillon and I've never even seen an 834.. so I am not making any kind of commentary about the tubas themselves... just the very different way Eastmsn describes them on their website.

[arpthark]

I was at Dillon's a few months ago and played the 834 and multiple 836s side-by-side. The 836 was the clear winner. I can see why they are so hyped and popular, despite being the sort of tuba-du-jour that everyone likes to rag on these days.

The low register response on the 834 was better, but pretty much everything else on the 836 was nicer.

I think, as far as the ad copy goes, 5/4 sized tubas have a reputation of being good in auditions and they want to bank on the success of those other 5/4 horns (like the Thor and PT-6).

[russiantuba]

I was at Dillon's a few months ago and played the 834 and multiple 836s side-by-side. The 836 was the clear winner. I can see why they are so hyped and popular, despite being the sort of tuba-du-jour that everyone likes to rag on these days.

The low register response on the 834 was better, but pretty much everything else on the 836 was nicer.

I think, as far as the ad copy goes, 5/4 sized tubas have a reputation of being good in auditions and they want to bank on the success of those other 5/4 horns (like the Thor and PT-6).

I’m glad I didn’t try the 834 at HRTEC. The 836CC has been one of the worst tubas I have played (I played the first generation at a conference). It had all the typical York 6/4 issues and then some.

[Nemo]

The 836 has been touted as a do it all tuba and it is certainly nimble enough to achieve that title, as long as you have the skill to wrangle it. It's also got a pretty big sound that is not suitable for some situations without a lot of walking on eggshells by the player.

The 834 feels a little better to play and has a much more controllable sound especially in the softer dynamics, and was made specifically for that purpose. It sounds like they just haven't updated their website to emphasize the differences now that the 834 is in that niche between 832 and 836

[bloke]

Every tuba I've ever owned, I bought because of the blurb written underneath a picture of it in an advertisement.

Decades ago, I bought a Swiss-made tuba because the importer's advertising told me it was the Rolls-Royce of tubas.

[Misfituba64]

I was at Dillon's a few months ago and played the 834 and multiple 836s side-by-side. The 836 was the clear winner. I can see why they are so hyped and popular, despite being the sort of tuba-du-jour that everyone likes to rag on these days.

The low register response on the 834 was better, but pretty much everything else on the 836 was nicer.

I think, as far as the ad copy goes, 5/4 sized tubas have a reputation of being good in auditions and they want to bank on the success of those other 5/4 horns (like the Thor and PT-6).

I’m glad I didn’t try the 834 at HRTEC. The 836CC has been one of the worst tubas I have played (I played the first generation at a conference). It had all the typical York 6/4 issues and then some.

It could just be you. I’ve played on many of these horns (836) and haven’t played a bad one yet. I spent about a year trying many of them before I bought one because of hearing what people say about the pitch issues. Yes they all vary from horn to horn. I’m curious to know what about it stuck out to you. The York style quirks aren’t severe at all. Let us know why this was one of the worst horns you’ve played.

[russiantuba]

It could just be you. I’ve played on many of these horns (836) and haven’t played a bad one yet. I spent about a year trying many of them before I bought one because of hearing what people say about the pitch issues. Yes they all vary from horn to horn. I’m curious to know what about it stuck out to you. The York style quirks aren’t severe at all. Let us know why this was one of the worst horns you’ve played.

First of all, pitch issues are one of the things I consider least when buying a tuba. I have to learn them eventually, and my pedagogical concept is the pitch generates from my head. Some of the most in tune horns to some are some of the worst in tune horns I have played, due to my inability to adjust them for where I am playing. (if you are wondering, when every note is out of tune in octaves with one another, that is a red flag to me).

I have never been an overall fan of the 6/4 York Style tubas in terms of sound concept, some like the Gronitz PCK and Baer are closer to what I envision in that size range, but in terms of larger tubas, I much prefer kaiser BBbs.

The Eastman in particular had no color in the sound, and even more so than other models I have played like Yorkbrunners, there was no tonal evenness between the upper and lower registers--simply put, it sounds like two different tubas. The lower range has a wider, more spread and less focused sound than the upper range. Normally when I test horns, I do a Jacobs turn study (what many refer to as a beautiful sound exercise from the brass gym), and when I played the 836, it was hard to control top to bottom evenness. The Big Mouth Brass 6/4 CC had a similar effect and each note side by side had uneven colors, where some notes were "hotter" than others. The tonal "weight" in different partials didn't seem to match when I played it either.

A tuba, to me, should be a blank canvas, that allows me to express a large tonal color contrast, volume dynamics, and evenness of sound. Simply put, tonal control of the 836 in various ranges was a big effort. I felt like I had to muscle more on that horn to get the effects I was wanting in various styles of playing as well, and it didn't bring any color or vivacity. For those who feel like the need much larger horns, I have found a very good PT6 (I have found them to be very inconsistent from model to model) gives this along with much better consistency and overall "all around" playing, the Thor, which seemed to be 1 color, very much like a Kaiser BBb, but I will say a smaller bell Thor seems to give more color, Alexander 163 tubas offer a lot of what I look for in a sound, and while the tuning can be challenging, the other playing characteristics are there. The rest are a little smaller than that or in BBb of the horns I didn't mention earlier.

No tuba is perfect, and that is why so many models exist, and for some people that want a specific sound, it might work for you

[bloke]

I'm not shouting down anyone, and I like James a lot, but I've had my fill of out of tune tubas. Therefore, intonation characteristics are at the very top of my list and - out of ten important characteristics, intonation tendencies probably rate first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth. Particularly with Auto-Tune employed with so many of the recordings that we hear on television and in popular music, an extremely large percentage of the language of western music for the past several decades (though the most remarkable musicians for decades before that were right there as well) has been intonation (either stretch tuned equal temperament when a keyboard is involved, or perfect interval tuning when there isn't one involved, and a tuba with really excellent innate intonation characteristics can easily deal with either one of those), particularly with wide slotting (though admittedly wide slotting can be a curse for someone who really hasn't learned to tune their scales/chords, whereas narrow slotting - as long as it's pretty close to accurate - can help such players).
If there are a couple of pitches that are noticeably out of tune when an instrument is cold, those partials had better line up pretty close after an instrument is warmed up. Otherwise, those partials had better be barn door wide as far as the so-called "slots" are concerned, so that (at least, if it's me) I don't feel any resistance when playing any significantly imperfect pitches in tune. (About the only pitch with my huge six quarter B-flat that centers flat is second valve C-sharp in the staff (whereas open D is spot on in tune, and C natural is spot on in tune with the first slide all the way in)... but the saving grace is that the C sharp fifth partial's "slot" is barn door wide, and it sounds (and feels) just as resonant flat, in tune, and even sharp. For every other pitch, they are all either in tune with everything default, or there is some sort of easily accessible slide position solution that puts every other pitch on the instrument dead center (without having to favor them).
>> I believe that the main reason we split attacks when playing the tuba is because we are trying to play out of tune pitches on our instruments in tune.
Spending significant practice time to continuously remind ourselves so as to continuously involve ourselves in "learning a tuba" - rather than to learn the MUSIC that I have to play...(What's the saying again...??)
oh yeah:

I ain't got no time fo dis.

[Pauvog1]

This thread might be shifting a bit, but I consider pitch and response first. I tend to be able to adjust MP or approach enough to get different colors if I'm not having to work too hard for pitch. I agree every horn has a quirk in some aspect of playing, and we all have to find the trade offs we want to deal with. I think response / feel is the easiest thing to judge in an elephant room setting.

[bloke]

I think response / feel is the easiest thing to judge in an elephant room setting.

Yes sir.
Other than shininess of finish (ok...possibly build quality, for those who are the most observant, how heavy an instrument is, and how well it fits an individual person - as far as holding and playing) it's just about limited to this.

Not easily judge-able are intonation and sonic characteristics (the stuff that matters the most)...UNLESS someone skips a super-high-draw concert/lecture (whereby the elephant room has just about emptied out).

[Misfituba64]

It could just be you. I’ve played on many of these horns (836) and haven’t played a bad one yet. I spent about a year trying many of them before I bought one because of hearing what people say about the pitch issues. Yes they all vary from horn to horn. I’m curious to know what about it stuck out to you. The York style quirks aren’t severe at all. Let us know why this was one of the worst horns you’ve played.

First of all, pitch issues are one of the things I consider least when buying a tuba. I have to learn them eventually, and my pedagogical concept is the pitch generates from my head. Some of the most in tune horns to some are some of the worst in tune horns I have played, due to my inability to adjust them for where I am playing. (if you are wondering, when every note is out of tune in octaves with one another, that is a red flag to me).

I have never been an overall fan of the 6/4 York Style tubas in terms of sound concept, some like the Gronitz PCK and Baer are closer to what I envision in that size range, but in terms of larger tubas, I much prefer kaiser BBbs.

The Eastman in particular had no color in the sound, and even more so than other models I have played like Yorkbrunners, there was no tonal evenness between the upper and lower registers--simply put, it sounds like two different tubas. The lower range has a wider, more spread and less focused sound than the upper range. Normally when I test horns, I do a Jacobs turn study (what many refer to as a beautiful sound exercise from the brass gym), and when I played the 836, it was hard to control top to bottom evenness. The Big Mouth Brass 6/4 CC had a similar effect and each note side by side had uneven colors, where some notes were "hotter" than others. The tonal "weight" in different partials didn't seem to match when I played it either.

A tuba, to me, should be a blank canvas, that allows me to express a large tonal color contrast, volume dynamics, and evenness of sound. Simply put, tonal control of the 836 in various ranges was a big effort. I felt like I had to muscle more on that horn to get the effects I was wanting in various styles of playing as well, and it didn't bring any color or vivacity. For those who feel like the need much larger horns, I have found a very good PT6 (I have found them to be very inconsistent from model to model) gives this along with much better consistency and overall "all around" playing, the Thor, which seemed to be 1 color, very much like a Kaiser BBb, but I will say a smaller bell Thor seems to give more color, Alexander 163 tubas offer a lot of what I look for in a sound, and while the tuning can be challenging, the other playing characteristics are there. The rest are a little smaller than that or in BBb of the horns I didn't mention earlier.

No tuba is perfect, and that is why so many models exist, and for some people that want a specific sound, it might work for you

Thanks for your comment.

I think you’re overexplaining a pretty simple issue.

A lot of what you wrote sounds polished, but it also reads like a long way of saying the horn did not line up with your concept. That is fine. But that is not the same thing as proving it is a flawed instrument.

Saying pitch is one of the least important things when buying a tuba is already a pretty strange starting point, especially when most people are trying to find something that gives them both a usable sound concept and a manageable playing experience. If a horn makes the job easier and more consistent, that matters.

Also, describing the 836 as having “no color,” “two different tubas,” lacking “vivacity,” and needing to be “muscled” just feels exaggerated. Plenty of very serious players have had the exact opposite experience on those horns. At a certain point it starts to sound less like objective evaluation and more like personal bias dressed up in fancy language.

You clearly prefer a different sound concept. Cool. But that does not automatically make the 836 one of the worst horns ever, and it definitely does not mean everyone hearing/having success on them is somehow missing something deeper.

To me, this just reads like you do not like that style of tuba and are trying to intellectualize it.

[bloke]

hmm...
I wonder if someone owns an 836.

[Misfituba64]

hmm...
I wonder if someone owns an 836.

Clearly I do. I trust you know how to read, and I would imagine you’ve had plenty of time to look through the posts, considering how much time you spend on here.

[bloke]

hmm...
I wonder if someone owns an 836.

Clearly I do. I trust you know how to read, and I would imagine you’ve had plenty of time to look through the posts, considering how much time you spend on here.

I didn't know what you had (until I read between the lines of your response), and didn't recognize your handle, but it's not hard to tell when someone is sticking up for the model they own.

What's probably THE most humorous thing about this site is the "no politics" rule, when THE MOST POLITICAL thing on here is when someone criticizes a make and model owned by someone else here.

No one's played what I have, so I only get criticized for trolling people.

[Misfituba64]

hmm...
I wonder if someone owns an 836.

Clearly I do. I trust you know how to read, and I would imagine you’ve had plenty of time to look through the posts, considering how much time you spend on here.

I didn't know what you had (until I read between the lines of your response), and didn't recognize your handle, but it's not hard to tell when someone is sticking up for the model they own.

What's probably THE most humorous thing about this site is the "no politics" rule, when THE MOST POLITICAL thing on here is when someone criticizes a make and model owned by someone else here.

No one's played what I have, so I only get criticized for trolling people.

I’m glad to know you actually can read.

[bloke]

I can't read music.

I have a little ink stamp that I use which stamps three little circles.
I've got my fingering chart saved from my 1968 beginner band book, and I go through each piece of music that I'm supposed to play and black in the circles above each note to show me which buttons to mash (which is why I only buy tubas that play in tune pretty well, because Belwin Band Builder didn't include any alternate fingerings).

For 47 years, everyone told me that I was playing sharp.
I finally realized that it's because I was playing these professional grade "C" tubas, and the chart wasn't set up for those, so I'm finally playing the beginner style tubas again. I believe the company that built mine is Daisy, because they said something about BB when I bought it from them.

bloke "I don't know if James will argue with you, but if you try to argue with me, it's like jumping into a pig pen and wrestling the pig. The more you do it, the more the pig likes it."

[russiantuba]

It could just be you. I’ve played on many of these horns (836) and haven’t played a bad one yet. I spent about a year trying many of them before I bought one because of hearing what people say about the pitch issues. Yes they all vary from horn to horn. I’m curious to know what about it stuck out to you. The York style quirks aren’t severe at all. Let us know why this was one of the worst horns you’ve played.

First of all, pitch issues are one of the things I consider least when buying a tuba. I have to learn them eventually, and my pedagogical concept is the pitch generates from my head. Some of the most in tune horns to some are some of the worst in tune horns I have played, due to my inability to adjust them for where I am playing. (if you are wondering, when every note is out of tune in octaves with one another, that is a red flag to me).

I have never been an overall fan of the 6/4 York Style tubas in terms of sound concept, some like the Gronitz PCK and Baer are closer to what I envision in that size range, but in terms of larger tubas, I much prefer kaiser BBbs.

The Eastman in particular had no color in the sound, and even more so than other models I have played like Yorkbrunners, there was no tonal evenness between the upper and lower registers--simply put, it sounds like two different tubas. The lower range has a wider, more spread and less focused sound than the upper range. Normally when I test horns, I do a Jacobs turn study (what many refer to as a beautiful sound exercise from the brass gym), and when I played the 836, it was hard to control top to bottom evenness. The Big Mouth Brass 6/4 CC had a similar effect and each note side by side had uneven colors, where some notes were "hotter" than others. The tonal "weight" in different partials didn't seem to match when I played it either.

A tuba, to me, should be a blank canvas, that allows me to express a large tonal color contrast, volume dynamics, and evenness of sound. Simply put, tonal control of the 836 in various ranges was a big effort. I felt like I had to muscle more on that horn to get the effects I was wanting in various styles of playing as well, and it didn't bring any color or vivacity. For those who feel like the need much larger horns, I have found a very good PT6 (I have found them to be very inconsistent from model to model) gives this along with much better consistency and overall "all around" playing, the Thor, which seemed to be 1 color, very much like a Kaiser BBb, but I will say a smaller bell Thor seems to give more color, Alexander 163 tubas offer a lot of what I look for in a sound, and while the tuning can be challenging, the other playing characteristics are there. The rest are a little smaller than that or in BBb of the horns I didn't mention earlier.

No tuba is perfect, and that is why so many models exist, and for some people that want a specific sound, it might work for you

Thanks for your comment.

I think you’re overexplaining a pretty simple issue.

A lot of what you wrote sounds polished, but it also reads like a long way of saying the horn did not line up with your concept. That is fine. But that is not the same thing as proving it is a flawed instrument.

Saying pitch is one of the least important things when buying a tuba is already a pretty strange starting point, especially when most people are trying to find something that gives them both a usable sound concept and a manageable playing experience. If a horn makes the job easier and more consistent, that matters.

Also, describing the 836 as having “no color,” “two different tubas,” lacking “vivacity,” and needing to be “muscled” just feels exaggerated. Plenty of very serious players have had the exact opposite experience on those horns. At a certain point it starts to sound less like objective evaluation and more like personal bias dressed up in fancy language.

You clearly prefer a different sound concept. Cool. But that does not automatically make the 836 one of the worst horns ever, and it definitely does not mean everyone hearing/having success on them is somehow missing something deeper.

To me, this just reads like you do not like that style of tuba and are trying to intellectualize it.

I think you misread a lot of my post. I have played other similar horns, and though not my sound concept, the MW 6450 Baer, the Gronitz PCK play much easier, have a ton more color, and less muscling than the Eastman 836. In addition, though it has been ages since I have played a Yamayork, I thought the horn played much more consistent top to bottom than the Eastman 836. So, though I do not like the style of tuba, I effectively have compared other similar "competing" horns of the same style and size. My DMA professor designed tubas and taught me how to judge tubas--this was one of the things he mentioned was to compare to similar sizes and styles in giving an effective comparison. I guess that since those aren't made in China that I didn't effectively compare, since those are obviously better.

It is obvious that you own an 836. That is fine, and glad it works for you. Success matters not on the horn you play, but on the musician themselves. I will say last time I criticized one of these, after a lot of arguing from an artist of this brand and demeaning comments on that I obviously couldn't play tuba, he came to think that I tested the first generation model and said that was my issue on hating them, that the new "3rd generation" model is a totally different horn (I am not sure which generation I last tested was). I have had confirmation from a couple of pros that there are inconsistencies in the horns and the way they play. I will wait till the 5th generation model of the 836 comes out to effectively test again unless I can get one that is proven to be a good one tested and stamped by one of these pros, and the 3rd generation of the 834 so these design kinks are further removed of earlier generations.

[tubanh84]

First of all, pitch issues are one of the things I consider least when buying a tuba. I have to learn them eventually, and my pedagogical concept is the pitch generates from my head. Some of the most in tune horns to some are some of the worst in tune horns I have played, due to my inability to adjust them for where I am playing. (if you are wondering, when every note is out of tune in octaves with one another, that is a red flag to me).

I have never been an overall fan of the 6/4 York Style tubas in terms of sound concept, some like the Gronitz PCK and Baer are closer to what I envision in that size range, but in terms of larger tubas, I much prefer kaiser BBbs.

The Eastman in particular had no color in the sound, and even more so than other models I have played like Yorkbrunners, there was no tonal evenness between the upper and lower registers--simply put, it sounds like two different tubas. The lower range has a wider, more spread and less focused sound than the upper range. Normally when I test horns, I do a Jacobs turn study (what many refer to as a beautiful sound exercise from the brass gym), and when I played the 836, it was hard to control top to bottom evenness. The Big Mouth Brass 6/4 CC had a similar effect and each note side by side had uneven colors, where some notes were "hotter" than others. The tonal "weight" in different partials didn't seem to match when I played it either.

A tuba, to me, should be a blank canvas, that allows me to express a large tonal color contrast, volume dynamics, and evenness of sound. Simply put, tonal control of the 836 in various ranges was a big effort. I felt like I had to muscle more on that horn to get the effects I was wanting in various styles of playing as well, and it didn't bring any color or vivacity. For those who feel like the need much larger horns, I have found a very good PT6 (I have found them to be very inconsistent from model to model) gives this along with much better consistency and overall "all around" playing, the Thor, which seemed to be 1 color, very much like a Kaiser BBb, but I will say a smaller bell Thor seems to give more color, Alexander 163 tubas offer a lot of what I look for in a sound, and while the tuning can be challenging, the other playing characteristics are there. The rest are a little smaller than that or in BBb of the horns I didn't mention earlier.

No tuba is perfect, and that is why so many models exist, and for some people that want a specific sound, it might work for you

Thanks for your comment.

I think you’re overexplaining a pretty simple issue.

A lot of what you wrote sounds polished, but it also reads like a long way of saying the horn did not line up with your concept. That is fine. But that is not the same thing as proving it is a flawed instrument.

Saying pitch is one of the least important things when buying a tuba is already a pretty strange starting point, especially when most people are trying to find something that gives them both a usable sound concept and a manageable playing experience. If a horn makes the job easier and more consistent, that matters.

Also, describing the 836 as having “no color,” “two different tubas,” lacking “vivacity,” and needing to be “muscled” just feels exaggerated. Plenty of very serious players have had the exact opposite experience on those horns. At a certain point it starts to sound less like objective evaluation and more like personal bias dressed up in fancy language.

You clearly prefer a different sound concept. Cool. But that does not automatically make the 836 one of the worst horns ever, and it definitely does not mean everyone hearing/having success on them is somehow missing something deeper.

To me, this just reads like you do not like that style of tuba and are trying to intellectualize it.

I think you misread a lot of my post. I have played other similar horns, and though not my sound concept, the MW 6450 Baer, the Gronitz PCK play much easier, have a ton more color, and less muscling than the Eastman 836. In addition, though it has been ages since I have played a Yamayork, I thought the horn played much more consistent top to bottom than the Eastman 836. So, though I do not like the style of tuba, I effectively have compared other similar "competing" horns of the same style and size. My DMA professor designed tubas and taught me how to judge tubas--this was one of the things he mentioned was to compare to similar sizes and styles in giving an effective comparison. I guess that since those aren't made in China that I didn't effectively compare, since those are obviously better.

It is obvious that you own an 836. That is fine, and glad it works for you. Success matters not on the horn you play, but on the musician themselves. I will say last time I criticized one of these, after a lot of arguing from an artist of this brand and demeaning comments on that I obviously couldn't play tuba, he came to think that I tested the first generation model and said that was my issue on hating them, that the new "3rd generation" model is a totally different horn (I am not sure which generation I last tested was). I have had confirmation from a couple of pros that there are inconsistencies in the horns and the way they play. I will wait till the 5th generation model of the 836 comes out to effectively test again unless I can get one that is proven to be a good one tested and stamped by one of these pros, and the 3rd generation of the 834 so these design kinks are further removed of earlier generations.

Full disclosure: I'm loving the quote upon quote upon quote here and want to keep it going.

Very few horns are objectively good or bad. Different people have different opinions. What I've learned practicing law is that it's impossible to get to an objective truth in most things. There are facts marshalled on each side, and whoever makes the decision has to weigh them. Lots of pros play the 836. You can hear recordings of people sounding good on them. But they would sound good on anything and are sponsored by Eastman. Lots of 836s end up on the used market. Each iteration/batch/individual horn will be slightly different. They're priced way under even a used Nirschl or Yorkbrunner or YamaYork so of course they're seemingly more popular. Take your pick of what facts matter to you.

Someone played one and like it. Someone else played one and didn't. Both legitimate opinions based in personal experience and thus will not change.

So.

I'm just here for the embedded quotes.

[bloke]

Thanks for your comment.

I think you’re overexplaining a pretty simple issue.

A lot of what you wrote sounds polished, but it also reads like a long way of saying the horn did not line up with your concept. That is fine. But that is not the same thing as proving it is a flawed instrument.

Saying pitch is one of the least important things when buying a tuba is already a pretty strange starting point, especially when most people are trying to find something that gives them both a usable sound concept and a manageable playing experience. If a horn makes the job easier and more consistent, that matters.

Also, describing the 836 as having “no color,” “two different tubas,” lacking “vivacity,” and needing to be “muscled” just feels exaggerated. Plenty of very serious players have had the exact opposite experience on those horns. At a certain point it starts to sound less like objective evaluation and more like personal bias dressed up in fancy language.

You clearly prefer a different sound concept. Cool. But that does not automatically make the 836 one of the worst horns ever, and it definitely does not mean everyone hearing/having success on them is somehow missing something deeper.

To me, this just reads like you do not like that style of tuba and are trying to intellectualize it.

I think you misread a lot of my post. I have played other similar horns, and though not my sound concept, the MW 6450 Baer, the Gronitz PCK play much easier, have a ton more color, and less muscling than the Eastman 836. In addition, though it has been ages since I have played a Yamayork, I thought the horn played much more consistent top to bottom than the Eastman 836. So, though I do not like the style of tuba, I effectively have compared other similar "competing" horns of the same style and size. My DMA professor designed tubas and taught me how to judge tubas--this was one of the things he mentioned was to compare to similar sizes and styles in giving an effective comparison. I guess that since those aren't made in China that I didn't effectively compare, since those are obviously better.

It is obvious that you own an 836. That is fine, and glad it works for you. Success matters not on the horn you play, but on the musician themselves. I will say last time I criticized one of these, after a lot of arguing from an artist of this brand and demeaning comments on that I obviously couldn't play tuba, he came to think that I tested the first generation model and said that was my issue on hating them, that the new "3rd generation" model is a totally different horn (I am not sure which generation I last tested was). I have had confirmation from a couple of pros that there are inconsistencies in the horns and the way they play. I will wait till the 5th generation model of the 836 comes out to effectively test again unless I can get one that is proven to be a good one tested and stamped by one of these pros, and the 3rd generation of the 834 so these design kinks are further removed of earlier generations.

Full disclosure: I'm loving the quote upon quote upon quote here and want to keep it going.

Very few horns are objectively good or bad. Different people have different opinions. What I've learned practicing law is that it's impossible to get to an objective truth in most things. There are facts marshalled on each side, and whoever makes the decision has to weigh them. Lots of pros play the 836. You can hear recordings of people sounding good on them. But they would sound good on anything and are sponsored by Eastman. Lots of 836s end up on the used market. Each iteration/batch/individual horn will be slightly different. They're priced way under even a used Nirschl or Yorkbrunner or YamaYork so of course they're seemingly more popular. Take your pick of what facts matter to you.

Someone played one and like it. Someone else played one and didn't. Both legitimate opinions based in personal experience and thus will not change.

So.

I'm just here for the embedded quotes.

I have nothing productive to offer, but I'm - per the previous request - trying to help keep the chain of quotes going too, as well as my chain of trolls.
The only two factories in China whereby I view the build quality to be really close to European quality are the so-called Wisemann (Beijing Deyong) factory - which makes the second tier B&S stuff, and the factory that makes the JP stuff (when manufacturing in that plant is specifically at JP quality specifications, as that factory doesn't only make stuff for JP, but - as some of us have noticed - makes other stuff as well).
I've watched Eastman build quality get better and they do offer tons of models, but/and - once build quality got to a certain level - it seemed to stop, and seemed to consider itself to be good enough...which is probably true, particularly when factoring in recent-era Conn-Selmer standards.

[russiantuba]

Not going to keep the chain going (what happens when you are responding in a sea of other things).

Artists who are paid to market their horns are not going to tell you anything bad or things they dislike. Many people who are on artist rosters who don't get paid will not say what they don't like about their horns. People often feel "hurt" when their horn is criticized negatively.

I will be different and say what I don't like or could be improved with my Miraphone 1291CC, which I am on the Miraphone artist roster for:

1) The sound I would like to contain more character (this isn't saying it is dead, but it could have more personality). Though it is a solid sound, I REALLY liked the sound color of the Gronitz PCM. Gold brass or the older style Miraphone metal might do what I desire. Then again, it could hurt the things I do like about it.

2) The flow into the 5th valve feels a bit clunky. The 1293 with the larger 5th rotor feels like it has fixed that, but this change was not implemented into the 1291 or 1292.

3) The stock valve setup is painful. One of my in town colleagues bought a 1293 and he liked the horn, but it hurt his hands. I almost sold mine after getting it for the same reason. Roger Lewis mentioned the Yamaha Euph/Tuba springs. That, plus removing the stock felts and going to blokefelts and later the PVAK, plus using a specialized valve oil and custom thumb ring has helped.

-----

When I am buying a more expensive product or service I am debating, I look at the reviews. Scores of 4.8, I look at the good, I look at the bad, but I focus on the 3-4 star comments. Those are often the people who had a decent experience with the product or service, but know where there are further room for improvement. I look at the age and then look at other comments and notice where they have been changed--many companies will change or improve based on feedback. If I go with that one, I will pay close attention to that detail and if a music product, work out that kink first in the return window.

When I go to vendors at these events, I am not afraid to give feedback. At the Buffet showroom a couple conferences back, I talked to Warren Klus about the Thor, in particular the small bell Thor. That was the first Thor I played on and played Bloke's small bell. Warren told me that the artist, Jens Bjorn Larsen, was the one who immediately asked for the change, but several others had recently approached him on that topic and he would talk to the company.

With Eastman, after a horrific experience with the 632, in fact, advertised to me as what the Conn 5XJ series wishes it would have been, I left the exhibit and I said, having played some of the best of the Conn series with the correct tensions set by the chief engineer (Rob Phillips), this horn doesn't come close to comparing. This is when I played the 836. I tried the 832 at a conference because everyone was telling me how I must play this, how my students would love this horn, and everything about it was perfect. I sat there, played a few notes, and thought there was something off. The exhibitor quickly told me to play a certain model mouthpiece (I can normally tell when the issue is a shank issue), which I did, and I felt it made it even worse. I quickly asked, "what bore is this horn"--because I felt the sound was diffused and had weak projection, how the rate of taper was great, and honestly, a great rate of taper like my horn, like an Ursus, like a Kalison DS, and I was told it was a .689 bore. I mentioned having a much larger bore on it would fix all the issues I was having and what that would bring. They tried "a larger" bore than .689, not sure if they tried others, and stuck with that. I felt I was a bad guy for critiquing it in anything but saying "it is amazing, it is the best horn I have ever tried". I have my opinions and I can make suggestions, some might be stupid, but I believe, telling why I don't like something, and conversely, what I like about something, can help build product and design improvement.

If I went out and advertised a tuba "this is the best horn ever and you are not allowed to disagree", then there will be no advancement in product design. Being honest, both about why we like something, and why we don't like something, is important for improvement. Bringing it back to the topic, it is even more important to focus on marketing and what elements and crowds to market to.