TubaForum.net

Hello,

I have no intention of buying one, and I'm merely curious, but what are the main differences between the Eastman 632 and the 832? Both are advertised at 4/4 CC tubas with same bore and bell size. I see the valveset is different. Anything else? Does that make any difference in how they play? I've played a 632 for a few minutes and liked it, but again, I'm just curious why they have two tubas they seem to tick all the same boxes.

Thanks for satisfying my curiosity!

I was in the market for a 4/4 CC this past summer and went to Dillon to try out the 632 and 832 back to back. I spent the maximum time allotted with the tubas during my appointment and ended up picking the 832.

You pretty much hit the nail on the head, but the one other difference is that the 632 has an American shank receiver and the 832 has a Euro shank.

They both played very similarly and I preferred the ergonomics of the 632, but the 832 had slightly better intonation. I was not able to lip second line Bb and B in the staff up to pitch on the 632 I tried. On the 832, those pitches were a bit flat, mitigated with a slide push, but otherwise spot-on. Besides that, I found the two models to be very close.

You're right, it is an interesting overlap. You'd have to imagine that Eastman will eventually prioritize one over the other. One of the new piston F tubas also shares the 832/836 valveset layout, so that might be the future.

An idea I see knocked around the internet is that the 832 is a "4/4+ size" or "small 5/4" size tuba, a la the Miraphone 1291/2/3 tubas. I don't think that is a true assessment. It's as 4/4-ish as 4/4 can be, in my opinion.

This is great info --- I have played the 832, it was physically too large for me, and I was considering the 632 thinking it was physically smaller. Apparently not, and you have saved me some hassle.

Mary Ann wrote: ↑Mon Feb 27, 2023 1:10 pm This is great info --- I have played the 832, it was physically too large for me, and I was considering the 632 thinking it was physically smaller. Apparently not, and you have saved me some hassle.

Yes, they are nearly identical in footprint.

curious what MW's opinion might be.

I'm thinking the 6XX was closer to his original design...

He sent me one, and I thought it was pretty darn good (never handled an 8XX).

As is known, I'm more focused on a B-flat - in this approximate config.

The 632 is Matt's original design and continues in production nearly unchanged. The 832 is made of lighter gauge sheet brass, has a one-inch smaller bell as well as a graduated bore, where the 632's is 0.689" through all four. The fifth valve is obviously different with the 832's being a drop in and the 632's, a traditional rotor. The fifth valve and slide circuit is secured by three Allen screws and takes a little bit of extra time to remove while avoiding damage in the process.

Both are fabulous horns and one will have to play them both to discern a preference.

BuddyRogersMusic wrote: ↑Mon Feb 27, 2023 5:28 pm The 632 is Matt's original design and continues in production nearly unchanged. The 832 is made of lighter gauge sheet brass, has a one-inch smaller bell as well as a graduated bore, where the 632's is 0.689" through all four. The fifth valve is obviously different with the 832's being a drop in and the 632's, a traditional rotor. The fifth valve and slide circuit is secured by three Allen screws and takes a little bit of extra time to remove while avoiding damage in the process.

Both are fabulous horns and one will have to play them both to discern a preference.

Yes, I am surprised at how light the 832 is.

I thought the bell size was different, but the Eastman website lists both at 19-3/4". I'm guessing a typo.

There are a few typos in their catalog. Takes a while to fix those things and the reps are working on that.

Personally, I'm slightly a klutz, so if one is made of a roughly 6 mm sheet metal and one is made of roughly 0.5 mm sheet metal - and I sort of like them about the same amount - I could see myself picking me thicker less expensive one.

The biggest difference I noticed was the layout of the valve block and tubing is nearly identical (if not identical) between the 836 and 832, where the 632 has a different layout. I tried these side-by-side in an isolated practice room and had a distinct preference for the 832, which felt more agile and "locked in" to me. Both are very good and many people will prefer the 632 for their own reasons.

I could see myself picking up an 832 some day to sit between my 836 and Besson 983, but, not for a couple years....

bloke wrote: ↑Mon Feb 27, 2023 4:21 pm curious what MW's opinion might be.

Several weeks ago I called MW to inquire about 832 they had for sale. Was wondering if that would be an upgrade to 632. He said Eastman did their own changes to 832. He still likes his 632 better. He advised to keep 632. I have not played 832 so can’t tell what I think of it. But I like 632 a lot and have decided to keep it.

The last time I played a 832, it was my thought that it was not an upgrade over the 632

SIDEBAR:
I still believe that if somebody would make a superb B-flat copy of a 32-in tall X 19" 4/4 York or Holton with a modern valve section, that people would love it, compared to Kings and copies of Kings - whether the King copy were B-flat or cut to C.

Mine (modernized Holton B-flat) is amazing, and it's not because it was me that stuck it together. Also, I'm not particularly easy to please.

bloke wrote:SIDEBAR:
I still believe that if somebody would make a superb B-flat copy of a 32-in tall X 19" 4/4 York or Holton with a modern valve section, that people would love it, compared to Kings and copies of Kings - whether the King copy were B-flat or cut to C.

Mine (modernized Holton B-flat) is amazing, and it's not because it was me that stuck it together. Also, I'm not particularly easy to please.

Your little Holton project looked amazing to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Looks are not deceiving, in that case.

I didn’t particularly care for either, but I remember liking the blow of the 832 a little better.