EDUCATE ME! (ECB632)

[the elephant]

Okay, so I thought my classic 1971 Mirafone 186-5U was my "forever" tuba. It may be; it may not. My playing life is in flux now due to my recent purchases of the YamaYork and the Adams F. I find that my needs are being met in different ways than in the past, and that they are being met more completely by these two horns than the three I had used in the past, giving me some leeway in the disposal of "currently unneeded property" (as well as how I define "unneeded").

Soon my beloved Holton 345 and Kurath F will be up for sale, and I am considering the sale of the Mirafone as well. It is by no means a perfect example of the classic, small=belled 186, but it is very, very good. It is also thin-walled and lightweight by design, and I am becoming a bit more of a clod as I age. I nearly smashed it at a gig recently, so I am worrying about this possibility now.

I want something that plays as well, with very solid intonation and a decent low register response. I also want it to be less easy to smash. In this specific case, the long bell is what I am worried about. I need a more "squat" tuba like the King 2341 or that cool Holton Monster Eb I built many years ago. I need to be able to more easily negotiate low ceilings in steep stairwells. My near-disaster was ascending to a choir loft via a narrow, steep stairway. I kept hitting the bell on the sloped ceiling, and when turning at a landing the bell got caught and nearly toppled me backward down the stairs. With all my recent medical issues I do not need to add "fell backward down steep stairs onto tuba, crushing tuba and snapping spine". <heh, heh, heh>

The bell did not trip me up but nearly did. My chief worry, however, was that I had bent the bell stack. I did not do this, but I was really scared to open the gig bag once at my seat in the loft. (It is 3.5 stories above the sanctuary floor, by the way.)

I tried the two Eastman tubas in the 4/4 range, one being an 8-series horn, the other a cheaper (and IMHO better) 6-series instrument with a smaller bore. I think the one I preferred was an EBC632, but am not sure. It was very 2341-ish in sound and playability but in CC with a 5th valve. It seemed to be what the Conn 5x=J series could have been.

I am thinking of selling my too-nice-for-a-klutz 186 and searching for a replacement something like one of these, even considering cutting a new-version 2341 I can get very cheaply. But I liked that Eastman.

If you know both the classic 186-5U CC and the 832 well (as in have owned both) please compare/contrast here for me and tell me which of the two you would pick if able to do so. Keep in mind that I am trying to prevent another such accident from almost happening as it freaked me out, and has happened about a dozen times in the past for very nearly the same reason, at several churches with the same physical layout. I freelance on a 4/4 CC 90% of the time, so switching to the much shorter Adams is not really an option unless it is a quintet gig, in which case I would have brought it anyway.

I do not want to unload a much-beloved instrument for a horn I will not like. I do not care about resale or depreciation. I have owned a few Chinese tubas that I liked and one that I detested. I understand all that. I am simply seeking out comparative info to help me decide whether this would be a stupid move on my part.

Thanks!

Wade

[the elephant]

I go back and forth on if I like the 632 or the 832 more. I know if I was going to buy a CC tuba again, it would be one of those 2.

the 632 seems to have a little more "bite" and the 832 is a little more buttery.

The 632 is also available used far more often, because it's been around much longer

The 832 has the valve section of the 836, and the 632 valve section is closer to the 534, which I own

[arpthark]

The valve section of the 832 is in the style of the 836, but it is still the smaller .68x" bore. I loved mine, owned it for a couple years. Picked it out of a lineup of 832s and 632s at Dillon. I preferred the ergonomics of the 632 but the intonation of the 832 was just stellar. I have also owned a plethora of both newer and older 186s. 832 is much more poofy/pretty sounding, reminds me a lot of playing an old American Eb tuba. "Blossomy?" Both the 832 and the 186 share the trait of being a little stiff in the lower register (for me).

I had trouble getting different tone colors out of the 832. I found it somewhat monochromatic, which is why I eventually sold it, and now I'm back in Alexander land. But while I had it, it was a joy to play. Very nimble, with narrow, in-tune slots.

[kingrob76]

I was *this* close to buying an 832 but my re-worked and rehabilitated Getzen is perfect <chef's kiss> for the role I ask it to play. All of Lee's mods plus MAW valves just works for this horn.

I liked the 832 slightly better. Same bore on both horns I believe but the 832 just felt more... refined in terms of feel. I suspect if I wanted to play one of these in a larger ensemble setting regularly the 632 would work better, but, that's not the role I have in mind for this horn. I spent a lot of time at the Army workshop playing through these models to understand how they fit me and I'm glad I did. That being said, a used 632 could be a real bargain. Eastman does a really nice job adjusting how they build these to make small, incremental improvements over time.

Find yourself a Getzen and make it a shop project - you'll be glad you did.

[BuddyRogersMusic]

We've had many 632s and 832s in the showroom and shop. The 632 has a .689" valve bore through all four pistons where the 832 is a graduated bore. The 832 is made of lighter gauge brass which gives the feel of a slightly more nimble instrument (my opinion). Fifth valve linkage and position are very different. Current 832 models have the Nirschl-style short action linkage that is very quick. Early 832s had the Yamaha-style lever which I felt was very comfortable but did have a longer throw. Properly maintained, both are quick and reliable. Both play very well and there are equal fans of both models. My recommendation has been, institutional use (need for greater durability over many years and multiple users), choose the 632. An advanced player that enjoys the lighter construction and graduated bore, the 832. Both have the large bell flare which can be susceptible to "dishing out" if leaned on but a pro or discerning player won't intentionally do that. The 534 in a school environment has the same problem (same bell).

Hope this helps.

Chris

[UncleBeer]

I need a more "squat" tuba like the King 2341 or that cool Holton Monster Eb I built many years ago.

It always irked me that Miraphones (and other brands) made tubas where half the length of the instrument was *just bell*. C'mon, factories: wrap 'em a teensy bit tighter!

Quite happy with my squat CB50.

[russiantuba]

I think the 632CC is better for what you are looking for. I still think the 832CC needs a big larger of a bore overall at the start to get the depth I feel like it is lacking. The 832 isn’t a bad tuba, and I dare say when I’ve tried it, it seems very picky on mouthpieces. I would like to spend time with one in a larger hall to get a final say on projection—I think if you are in a section, like a military band or brass band, and everyone had these, it would be a great sound balance and blend.

With that being said, I would get a Conn 54J before the 632CC. My repair tech, Rob Phillips, was the designer of the Conn 5XJ tubas, and every one I’ve played that he has worked on plays night and day different than ones he hasn’t, and also play better than the 632CC.

[bloke]

Road trip to Dillon or some such might offer infinitely more information than the freak jury.

EDIT: @the elephant Buddy Rogers (Cincy) has 'em too...closer, yes?

[the elephant]

I really liked the experience of trying instruments at the DC conference. There were adjacent to to the main elephant room (at least this year) and you could get away from the noise

[jtm]

I can't say anything about the Eastmans, but the last time I tried a '70s CC 186 it was so delightfully light and easy that it left an impression. So I'll be watching for the sale (which I shouldn't, since I have a perfectly fine old 188, but, ... you know how it is).

[Sousaswag]

I’d bet you could pick up a Marzan/B&M for a few grand, if cost is at all a factor…

Ive played a bunch of the Eastmans, and their very thin bell flares have always concerned me. A bunch of them used by college kids have bent bell flares. Mishandling? Thin construction? A bit of both? Regardless, I think you’d be happy with playing either model. They’re both good, more in-tune than my B&M 4/4 as well, by a long shot.

Personally, I’d pick the 832 over the 632, but that’s just me. The 632 is a fine instrument.

[Mary Ann]

Just out of curiosity, how many people have PM'd you wanting to buy the 186? If it has the 2+3 5th valve you can add me to the list.

[BuddyRogersMusic]

I do have a B-stock 632S but am sold out of the 832. Hopefully getting one soon, not sure if silver or lacquer.

Road trip to Dillon or some such might offer infinitely more information than the freak jury.

EDIT: @the elephant Buddy Rogers (Cincy) has 'em too...closer, yes?

[bloke]

I do have a B-stock 632S but am sold out of the 832. Hopefully getting one soon, not sure if silver or lacquer.

Road trip to Dillon or some such might offer infinitely more information than the freak jury.

EDIT: @the elephant Buddy Rogers (Cincy) has 'em too...closer, yes?

Is there a friendly local happy buyer of the 8 series who keeps their instrument in really nice shape, and who might be willing to bring it in for a half hour supervised audition?

[BuddyRogersMusic]

That could certainly be arranged.

I do have a B-stock 632S but am sold out of the 832. Hopefully getting one soon, not sure if silver or lacquer.

Road trip to Dillon or some such might offer infinitely more information than the freak jury.

EDIT: @the elephant Buddy Rogers (Cincy) has 'em too...closer, yes?

Is there a friendly local happy buyer of the 8 series who keeps their instrument in really nice shape, and who might be willing to bring it in for a half hour supervised audition?

[MiBrassFS]

I’ve never owned a classic 186 (I owned a nice 188 that I should have kept…). I did however own a lacquered 632 and a silver 836. I got a good deal on both of them and was curious, so I bought them. I sold them a year or so ago as part of a “thinning of the herd.” The reason they were selected for the cull is that every time I picked them up I was distracted by some important-to-me quality issues. These issues reduced the enjoyment of playing and increased the work. I could have kept them, but didn’t need them, so they went to a friend who actually asked to buy the 836 and took the 632, too! The 186 and the 4/4 Eastmans are pretty far apart (says Cap’n Obvious…). Only way to know the possibilities would be to spend some quality with the lot of them.

[Mary Ann]

One does wonder why the method of carrying the 186 isn't changed so that the tall bell stack is not a problem. I say that because of having the opposite problem with the straps on gig bags, such that the bow bangs me in the back of the knees making it damn near impossible to walk properly. Maybe a strap-moving operation on the gig bag would lower the top of the bell sufficiently that this problem is no longer a problem.

Or, heh, you could get a Hagen 494, which is a squatty tuba with near perfect intonation and a whale of a sound, and enter the realm of the BBb Miraphones.

[bloke]

I’ve never owned a classic 186 (I owned a nice 188 that I should have kept…). I did however own a lacquered 632 and a silver 836. I got a good deal on both of them and was curious, so I bought them. I sold them a year or so ago as part of a “thinning of the herd.” The reason they were selected for the cull is that every time I picked them up I was distracted by some important-to-me quality issues. These issues reduced the enjoyment of playing and increased the work. I could have kept them, but didn’t need them, so they went to a friend who actually asked to buy the 836 and took the 632, too! The 186 and the 4/4 Eastmans are pretty far apart (says Cap’n Obvious…). Only way to know the possibilities would be to spend some quality with the lot of them.

The 836 scales are a bit curious, including one that I repaired/played yesterday (as I also repaired/played the very first one ever sold).
It sure looks like another make, but it just isn't. The 4X-cost Japan one doesn't offer perfect tuning, but it's much easier.

[arpthark]

One other option would be to reach out to Matt Walters and see if he has a lead on anyone wanting to sell one of the Conn/King tubas he built years ago.

It’s too bad the one I had at Dillon Music has already sold, as it’s a good comparison point. It went used for a $2k premium over a new ECB-632 (that is based on those horns he used to make) and for good reason… it spoke way easier with a larger tonal palette than the Eastman. Intonation was really good. Main notes to mind were E and Eb in the staff (8vb fingerings worked great).

That being said, I think both of the 4/4 Eastman piston valve C tubas are pretty good. They don’t compare well in terms of timbre to a 186/188 as those German horns will have more teeth in the sound at a lower level of effort. In my mind, the sound of the 186/188 is “through” versus “under” from the Eastman horns.

When I had my 4/4 horn here next to the 2165, it was a really nice pairing. Both had a lot of similarities in terms of timbre and didn’t require a real shift in thinking. The air and articulation approach to both was nearly identical so in the end, the difference was really “less” and “more” with regards to sound output. Luckily the 2165 also had pretty solid intonation so even most of the finger wiggling and slide tugging was similar.

If I had been able to fully reassemble my chops, I might’ve entertained the idea of a 4/4 rotary C for those times I wanted to match sound with the bass trombone a bit more. However, most of my approach was just to let the bass trombone provide the initial impact and just lay back and let the tuba supply the follow through. The lineup I was assembling was based on that approach. Mind you, if things had gone well and I was going to get an F, it would’ve been a typical “German” F with 6 valves.

To close out my rambling, I think that these stout 4/4 C tubas, Getzen G-50 included and the King 2341/Eastman EBB-534 (model number) are very much the “York/American” sound but just a bit less effort to use with the concurrent bit less wattage of output.