TubaForum.net

Time for my two cents. A 2280 was my learning experience on ebay, first thing I bought. I played it for quite a few years and never liked it. Found the low range to be flat unless a lot of attention was paid. And of course the four top valves just didn't work for me and I had to reach around and play the 4th valve with my left hand. It took several more iterations though euphs / baritones before I got the Sterling I now have, which plays much better in tune, although still is pistons. I have never played a 321 so I'm not comparing anything. I suspect due to my size that I'd prefer the Yam.
I played Bydlo on that though -- six weeks after I got it, and I bought it FOR Bydlo because I was too dumb to hand it off to a trombone and not good enough on the then F tuba to hit the high notes. (Totally off topic on that MW 182 F tuba: I sold it locally to the fellow who is now the Tucson Symphony tuba, and he told me recently that it is now being used in the Pittsburgh symphony. It was a good F tuba.)

I have a madly purring cat on my lap trying to get me to quit typing and start cuddling. So I will comply.

Everyone has different weaknesses/strengths, and - thus - different things work to individuals' advantages/disadvantages.

Were I to acquire one of these (as a replacement for my mostly higher range euphonium-playing requirements), I wouldn't be too concerned about the low range intonation, and - if indeed flat-natured, I wouldn't need to be too concerned about blowing the crap out of the low range and ending up playing too sharp when doing so.

bloke wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2024 10:40 amEveryone has different weaknesses/strengths, and - thus - different things work to individuals' advantages/disadvantages.

Very true.

Cameron Gates wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2024 9:21 am I do realize that this is a discussion about the playing characteristics of both horns. I can offer no opinion on that. However, I would like to vent on the horrible way the King holds up to school use. From the imbalance of the horn sitting on its bell, to the small brace flanges that get sunk into the side branch when it falls over, to the loopy and relatively unsupported mouthpipe (compared to the 321), and the poorly soldered (at times) tubing into ferrules, I view this thing as a non-purchase with prejudice. Hate, hate, hate these things.

Back to the regular discussion about the inner beauty of cheap baritones sounds.

There aren't many of those around here.. a few. Kids are really resourceful, and I have spent plenty of annoying hours piecing 321 euphoniums back together the best I have been able to manage.
The most annoying thing about really torn up top action instruments is that the geometry of the entire instrument effects the alignment of several of the slides, so they can't just be repaired and stuck back together. Rather, they have to be stuck back together with the same exact geometry with which they were originally built in order for the slides to work.

bloke wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2024 11:46 am

Cameron Gates wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2024 9:21 am I do realize that this is a discussion about the playing characteristics of both horns. I can offer no opinion on that. However, I would like to vent on the horrible way the King holds up to school use. From the imbalance of the horn sitting on its bell, to the small brace flanges that get sunk into the side branch when it falls over, to the loopy and relatively unsupported mouthpipe (compared to the 321), and the poorly soldered (at times) tubing into ferrules, I view this thing as a non-purchase with prejudice. Hate, hate, hate these things.

Back to the regular discussion about the inner beauty of cheap baritones sounds.

There aren't many of those around here.. a few. Kids are really resourceful, and I have spent plenty of annoying hours piecing 321 euphoniums back together the best I have been able to manage.
The most annoying thing about really torn up top action instruments is that the geometry of the entire instrument effects the alignment of several of the slides, so they can't just be repaired and stuck back together. Rather, they have to be stuck back together with the same exact geometry with which they were originally built in order for the slides to work.

I just put one of these back together and sold it to a school in Texas. I had a heck of a time with the very issue you describe.

This was the first valve slide. I kept it as a memento.

Sometimes - when I think about it, I measure the inside measurement of the bottom bow before unsoldering (you know, the measurement that's not crushed in completely flat, cuz it's on the inside). If a bottom bow is screwed up enough so as it's wider when it's repaired, I'll push it in to the original dimension before re-installing it. Inevitably, it gets a little fold line along the sides when that happens, but the remedy for that is to put a barrel shaped dent ball inside after reinstallation), and push down with a very strong magnet to get it round again after it's installed... (The main slide and #4 slide braces are never adjustable on such instruments.)
...so is it "under tension" when I re-round the bottom bow post-reinstallation?
Hey, guess what: I'm not the one who broke it.