Chinese copies of cut-to-C Kings

[bloke]

What’s the difference between 632 and 832 ?

[LeMark]

You Mean the Chinese copies of Matt Walters CC prototype that happened to use monster Eb parts for, and then Conn based the redesign of the 2341 on his prototype to save money on in production?

The Eastman CC tubas are not based on a cut down 2341. As for the differences in the two models. I think the valve block is a bit different, but I've never spent enough time with both of them side by side to compare them

[matt g]

I own one of Matt Walter’s creations that the 632 is based on. My slide layout is nearly identical. Mine has a Conn Eb bell and bottom bow, and the remaining bows and branches are reworked from an older 2341. The valves are King also, but the valve circuits are all fabricated from something else as the inner and outer slides are nickel silver.

Regarding the Eastman horns, I’ve wondered this as well. The 832 has the same valve circuit layout as the 836, so at first I thought the 832 was 0.748 bore. Nope, it’s 0.687 like the 632. Per the website, the bottom bow on the 832 is hand hammered whereas I’m guessing the 632 is hydroformed.

I don’t see any benefit to the valve circuit differences as both allow for easy access to 1, 3, and 4 slides. Valve 2 has a pull rod on the 832. I’ve never needed a 2nd valve pull rod. Regardless, if you need one on the 632, that should be an easy fix.

Unrelated: it’s cool to see a lacquer finish 6/4 option.

[bloke]

Dear friends,
Either “IDK” - or just waiting for someone to answer who does now – would have sufficed.

[LargeTuba]

Dear friends,
Either “IDK” - or just waiting for someone to answer who does now – would have sufficed.

The wrap of the circuits and the bottom bow difference was not explicit in what I said? Or are you looking for playing differences which is a moot point typically given in between variance of iterations of most tuba models?

[BuddyRogersMusic]

832 has a slightly smaller bell, shares the same valve block (and bore size) as 632 but different circuits to resemble the 6/4 836; fifth valve is different as is its location (top loader v. bottom loader); 832 is formed from lighter gauge sheet brass

[bloke]

Thanks Chris!

(to others:
I’m just as guilty as anyone – if not more so – of posting when I don’t have any information, so I was laughing at myself as much as I was laughing at anything.)

[KingTuba1241X]

...

[greenbean]

Thanks Chris!

(to others:
I’m just as guilty as anyone – if not more so – of posting when I don’t have any information...)

You mean like this post here?...

[bort2.0]

What’s the difference between 632 and 832 ?

-200

My career is in math education, sorry, I couldn't resist...

[bloke]

No… I actually knew something, after Chris answered my questions, and I also knew to thank him.

… actually, I was more referring to a few of my posts, which could be said to be similar to your nonsense, below.

You mean like this post here?...

[bloke]

Chris,
Do you prefer one over the other?
Were they the same price, would you still pick the more expensive one?

[BuddyRogersMusic]

Chris,
Do you prefer one over the other?
Were they the same price, would you still pick the more expensive one?

As a player and a repair tech, I prefer the 832. I don't have to disassemble any slide tubing to remove the fifth. BUT, I do enjoy playing the 632 and don't really have a negative thing to say about it. Matt designed a very nice horn and Eastman did a great job of replicating it consistently. The 832 seems to fit my playing style and its lighter construction allows me to spin up sound with a little less effort. Over the course of a long show that may be a benefit.

In the case of a recommendation for institutional use, I'd recommend the 632 over the 832 due to the difference in construction. I estimate that the 632 could handle a little more (I said little) abuse than the 832 before showing the effects. Anyone can trash a horn in six seconds flat but normal wear and tear may show quicker on the 832. A purely unscientific assessment but I think it might hold water.

Priced the same, I'd go for the 832.

[bloke]

Having owned/used/played/toted .5mm thick tubas and (many more) .6mm thick tubas, .6mm take minor bumps a LOT better.
My .5mm thick PCK - as an example:
The advantage of the two or three lbs. less weight was lost on the absolute necessity of carrying it around in a hard case.

I understand that there was a lot of emphasis on seeing how lightweight they could make their Yama-like 836… but the only reason that the original (preferred) York was so lightweight and thin is because - several decades ago - some goon buffed the holy crap out of it, as it was originally a satin silver finish instrument.

[Matt Walters]

Besides what Chris said:

832 has a slightly smaller bell, shares the same valve block (and bore size) as 632 but different circuits to resemble the 6/4 836; fifth valve is different as is its location (top loader v. bottom loader); 832 is formed from lighter gauge sheet brass

The 832 has a larger bore in the 4th valve tubing that is wrapped like the Eastman EBC836. The 4th wrap of the 632 is because I was told to use the valve block from the EBB534 that has both 4th tubing loop ports coming out the same side. Also, the 832 has a larger Euro Receiver, different leadpipe taper and different main tuning slide crook. Plus obviously the top loader 5th rotor valve. I like the looks and lightness of the 832 but personally prefer efficiency of the 632 better. For players that push too much air too fast in the lower register, the 832 will play better for them.

[bloke]

warning:
This post response morphs from one topic into another.

A 632 came here - via Matt - a few years ago, and I thought it was quite nice indeed. So far, I have not encountered an 832… thus the questions.

My recent construction of a similarly-sized (though subtly smaller-sized) Holton B-flat has caused me to be a bit more interested in this genre/class of tubas.

The Holton body/bell size is remarkably similar to a York 33.
Having pretty much completed the project (other than a finish), I’m thinking that a York 33 body with an 11/16 inch bore size valve set in >B-flat< could be the next really popular style of tuba to be introduced into the market, but it might require that more money players (and wannabe money players) get their heads out of the “C only” thing (as well as ceasing to pretend to themselves that they “don’t remember“ how to play a B-flat tuba). Things similar to which I described in this paragraph - (York 33-size bodies that have been chopped down to C) - just seem to often be too squirrelly (in the intonation department)…compared to my B-flat experiment, which ended up nearly point-and-shoot. (I may be different from other tuba players, but the less different things I’m required to do while playing, the more I can concentrate on the music, and less I have to concentrate on the mechanics.)

…and don’t confuse my York-33-size B-flat comments with the 632 C comments, which (again, in my experience) actually behaves itself darn well.
It’s just the York 33 size body (as opposed to the size of the body of new-style King 2341) is just (barely) enough smaller to offer a B-flat instrument some really special “zip/sparkle”, and a faster (the thing that attracted so many of us to C instruments…??) response.

[LargeTuba]

Are the Eastman 4/4 CCs large enough to support a big ensemble?

[LargeTuba]

Are the Eastman 4/4 CCs large enough to support a big ensemble?

There was a recent post somewhere by Chris Olka about using the 832 for lighter repertoire.

Like most 4/4 tubas, it’s likely capable of keeping up in most instances.

Regarding other reasons for the existence of the 832, I’m wondering if it’s to better capture the “feel” of the horns built by Matt Walters wherein the bottom bow and bell were likely handmade when the donor horns (York, Conn, Buescher) were originally made.

[bloke]

possibly a better question:
How much unnecessary work - considering how much the upper overtones are dampened - do people do, who use gigantic tubas to play reinforcing bass lines in symphony orchestras?
After all, all they have to balance is a one-on-a-part brass choir (no euphonium), a one-on-a-part woodwind choir (no saxophones), and 45-or-so bowed strings.
How often have any of us shown up to audit an orchestra concert, and not been able to hear the tuba - regardless of the model? (ever?)
Would Arnold Jacobs have bought that oddball York tuba, had something else more appropriate been available locally at the same price point, and with the same financing offered?
Is there anyone who doubts that they could make an ass of themselves (or - OTOH - gather up splendid compliments) in a symphony orchestra using an Olds model O-99 tuba?

To me, the value of those gigantic tubas - with three-quarter inch bore valvesets - are to imitate the sound of a string bass section in wind bands, (and) with their lack of higher overtones keeping their sound out of the way of the clarinets, which also lack the advantage of the shimmer that violins offer… and who gives a flip whether they are 16 or 18 feet long (??), as long as someone can manage to play them in tune.
I suspect that Mr. Jacobs developed his “ping attack” style to assist his not-very-distinctive-sounding instrument in being heard on entrances and on pitch changes… but I am completely aware that this is tuba blasphemy.

Are the Eastman 4/4 CCs large enough to support a big ensemble?