King 2280 euphonium compared to Yamaha 321 euphonium

[bloke]

If are any here who have spent time with both of these models and view themselves as having informed opinions...

Overall, which one sports fewer intonation issues, and which one is easier to play in the high range, assuming the player has a mouthpiece which already promotes the high range?

I really don't have much experience with the King model. From the little I've played them - after repairing them, they seem to offer sort of a noble type of resonance.

[LeMark]

I have always taught in schools that bought the Yamaha.. Used to be All schools, now it's just Middle schools. the high schools here all use compensating instruments

Here's the main difference between the 2,and I've owned and played the 2280 for a long time. In fact I have sold all of my 4v compensating euphoniums to play the 2280 as my main Euph. (for several reasons, including the fact that I still don't like 3+1)

Intonation winner... the King by a slight margin. Both are great, I think the King has a better High F.

Tone... I give it to the king, but some people like the smaller, lighter sound of the small bore yamaha.

Cost: I think the king is overpriced when new, but you can find great deals on them used.

convenience: I like the larger bore and large shank receiver of the King. It's much easier to match it with a larger cup mouthpiece. The yamaha seems to be made for a 6 1/2a, but works well with a small shank 51d or the elusive Wick 4AY

Valves: the king is a shorter, lighter valve, very fast and short. Even after owning my short action adams E3, I dont feel like I went backwards on the valve action. I think the gap between the valve and the wall of the casing must be a bit larger than normal, because my valves never stick, even when sitting for a long time

design: yamaha wins this one. The king with the 4th valve loop that goes up and down in front causes two problems. It make the valve cap hard to get a grip on, and It is so heavy with all of the 4th valve tubing that close to the side of the horn, it has a tendency to tip over easier than the 321. When I modified my 2280, I changed the loop to solve at least the first issue.

size: The king is a taller instrument with a higher leadpipe. Makes finding a gig bag a little more difficult (protec is about your only option) but it fits the average to above average height player better. I can play mine without a lap pad if I prop it up on my left leg and put my heel on the chair leg. Literally can't do that with a single other euphonium in the world.

build quality. going to have to give this one to yamaha. just because I have been rather unhappy with anything that has come out of conn selmer for a while. My horn is older, like metal valve guides old.

[joshwirt]

I have to yet to find a more consistent intermediate Euph than the Yamaha 321. I like the 321 over the King for the following reasons:

1. Better valves - those Kings have inferior plating
2. Yamaha nylon valve guides vs those klanky (and often loose) metal King ones
3. Better intonation top-to-bottom - use a small shank 51D or a Wick 4AY
4. You want a large receiver? Put the Yamaha marching euph on it and use a bigger mp (lots of LA pros do that) - very cheap upgrade
5. Taller leadpipe on King can be very awkward for all but the longest torso's
6. Better right hand ergonomics on Yamaha
7. Better stock case with Yamaha
8. Sometimes you can still find the plug-in 5th valve - I had one with mine - super versatile for teaching all day
9. Did I mention it's the choice for MANY pro's as their euph double? Heard Alessi use his on Mahler 7 in Avery Fisher....that was THE tenor tuba sound
10. You can find VERY nice used 321's for a reasonable price ALL DAY LONG

[bloke]

Maybe I should explain what my objectives are:

I post so much that I sort of assumed that people have seen this, but I probably shouldn't assume it...

I have one of the largest compensating euphoniums ever made that I use for some types of things (including some things that quite a few people would play on an F tuba, and not just a large bore valve section: a Wick euphonium mute with un-trimmed corks nearly bottoms out in the bell of this instrument) and I have a 321 that I use for playing anything that's exposed and high, or maybe even not particularly exposed and high, so that's why I was being inquisitive about the high range ease/response of the 2280...

... actually, right now there are two different 321 instruments here, so I guess I'll be choosing between the one that I've had for a long time and the one that just arrived. Neither of them represent any sort of investment, as they just sort of ended up here. Neither of them require those "use for 6 months and throw in the garbage" nylon/metal sandwich guides, as both of them are the fine-cap-threads actually-made-in-Japan metal-guides instruments.

These things just seem to fall into my lap, but what do NOT seem to fall into my lap are any 2280s, so it makes me wonder about them. If I'm looking for a easy-to-play-high euphonium, should I just hang on to one or the other of these 321s?

[bloke]

i've never noticed one being any easier in the high range than the other, I'm a high C max kind of guy on either instrument

[bloke]

i've never noticed one being any easier in the high range than the other, I'm a high C max kind of guy on either instrument

Same here. Rich Matteson was a freak, and to me even when really strong players play much above the pitch you mentioned, the resonance seems to diminish. Personally, I consider C to be about the highest note that I would ever hope to encounter, and E-flat to be about the highest pitch that I can actually play.

The last time I played "Mars" was in one of those Halloween pops concerts, and the concert B-natural (B-flat treble clef C-sharp, for those like me who are almost more comfortable reading treble clef baritone/euphonium music) was just so much easier for me to play on the 321 than with the giant euphonium, that it was a very easy choice. The fact that I was also quite sick and had a cracked molar didn't help, but the 321 pretty much came to the rescue and "compensated" for my poor physical condition.

On the very same concert, (in contrast) I used the giant compensating euphonium to play the French tuba bass line from the Charles Gounod Alfred Hitchcock theme with which everyone is familiar, the marionette funeral march.

[LeMark]

i was so tired at the end of the last time I played the planets on Euph, I took the last high C down an octave

absolutely nobody noticed or cared

[bloke]

A couple of the trombone players were chomping at the bit to play that part, so I pretty much felt obligated to play it where it is on the staff for reasons that probably should seem obvious.

There's one thing about the "tenor tuba" solo passages in Mars: They can't be omitted. The low tuba part, however, does nothing more than double the basses and/or the trombones.

Here's something else: I actually have a Boosey & Co. compensating euphonium which surely dates back to the time when The Planets was composed. The valves are rebuilt beautifully by Secrist, but I've never finished putting the instrument back together. The bell diameter is only 10 inches. I'm not sure whether the bore is .580" or smaller, but - once I get it all put back together - I would expect that it plays smaller than a 321. Owning that instrument - even though I've never been able to play it - sort of explains why Holst felt okay writing that high pitch in Mars for the so-called "tenor tuba".

It's been quite a while since I have visited Texas and I have fewer and fewer reasons to go there, but I would really enjoy playing your 2280, if I can find my way back down there.

[LeMark]

ha! that reminded me. the first time my symphony did the planets, they were a little cheap in the hiring department, so they gave me doublers pay to cover both the tuba and euphonium part, with the instructions to just pick whichever part I thought was more important at the time.

It wasn't the mouthpiece swap that was tricky, it was going back and forth between Concert pitch bass clef and Transposed treble clef

they also had me cover contrabassoon parts with a metal tuba mute

[bloke]

Not very good at editing and proofreading my stuff before submitting it, and often have to fix it after the fact. You respond so fast - when you and I end up in conversations - that every single one of my posts to which you respond in our conversations ends up being edited after the fact, even though I'm hurrying like the dickens.

[jose the tuba player]

4. You want a large receiver? Put the Yamaha marching euph on it and use a bigger mp (lots of LA pros do that) - very cheap upgrade

Interesting, on the old forum I read a few threads where people used the King receiver for this upgrade, î just ordered a king receiver from my repair guy but if the Yamaha is cheaper I'll default to that for future projects.

[joshwirt]

I don't know about the King receiver, but I've owned 2 different 321's over the years. Had the larger Yamaha receiver installed on both...made a huuuuge difference.

Love my 1975 B&H Imperial for the sound, but sometimes I think of nabbing another 321....

[bloke]

I'm pretty sure the king receiver is going to be cheaper. Yamaha sells nothing cheap

[bloke]

Owning a huge compensating euphonium, the small shank receiver is one of the things that makes the Yamaha 321 worth keeping on hand for me, in my view. It makes it MORE different, and if it's not much different, there's no need in having it.

Much smaller bell, much smaller bore, much smaller mouthpiece with much smaller shank and back bore

I do have an oem Yamaha 5th valve rotary accessory. I don't need it, but I have it, and I'm not selling it.

[Finetales]

Considering you also have the big euph, I think the 321 is the clear winner.

I personally don't find the 321 and the 2280 that different playability-wise, but I prefer the 321 overall and it definitely has a smaller/lighter sound. I do think the large shank conversion is worth it. To me the smaller bore/bell have a lot more to do with the lighter sound than the small shank receiver, which feels more like a hindrance than anything. I feel the same way about medium shank compensating euphoniums...there is no sonic advantage to keeping the medium shank, it just makes your job a little harder.

But the 321 is still a great horn even without the conversion. It is the gold standard "trombone player's euph"; lots of studio trombonists have them, and M. Dee Stewart used one for all tenor tuba duties in the Philadelphia Orchestra for his whole career.

I've secretly wanted to find a 621 (same as a 321, but with a large shank receiver and 3+1 configuration) for cheap to have a lighter-sounding euphonium.

[bloke]

Considering you also have the big euph, I think the 321 is the clear winner.

I personally don't find the 321 and the 2280 that different playability-wise, but I prefer the 321 overall and it definitely has a smaller/lighter sound. I do think the large shank conversion is worth it. To me the smaller bore/bell have a lot more to do with the lighter sound than the small shank receiver, which feels more like a hindrance than anything. I feel the same way about medium shank compensating euphoniums...there is no sonic advantage to keeping the medium shank, it just makes your job a little harder.

But the 321 is still a great horn even without the conversion. It is the gold standard "trombone player's euph"; lots of studio trombonists have them, and M. Dee Stewart used one for all tenor tuba duties in the Philadelphia Orchestra for his whole career.

I've secretly wanted to find a 621 (same as a 321, but with a large shank receiver and 3+1 configuration) for cheap to have a lighter-sounding euphonium.

The really big euphoniums (such as the huge one that I have) are seductive to many players, because - up close - they sound so "rich"...but - far away - their sound doesn't have much "meat", which is why I mostly use my "huge" euphonium for stuff that was written for French orchestras (which featured "French" tubas) or music which was originally written for serpent/ophicleide (and later handed to the tuba player...who was the person available to cover those parts...well...when not covering librarian/personnel manager duties). Yeah...for several decades, I've been an "F tuba hero", but post-modern-era F tubas (particularly most of them cranked out today - whereby the VERY large B&S "Symphonie" F tubas of the 60's and 70's have now been downgraded to "4/4") which feature such large capillary bore sizes are mostly (in reality) too large (and too fat-sounding) to cover pre-tuba-age written parts.

again...For parts mostly written in-and-above the staff, the "small" (ok...but not really all that much smaller than "old Bessons") Yamaha 321 euphoniums (as you intimate...) put out a clearer/easier-to-interpret-out-in-the-hall type of resonance, and - when there's no really low tuba-range stuff - there's also no need for compensating gadgetry. btw...When covering "tenor tuba" parts with the 321, I insert a (yes: small shank) Schilke 51...(not 51D...not 51C4...). I suppose the (basically) 6-1/2AL (which is stock with the 321) would serve me just as well as the 51.

...large shank receiver...??
Thanks for the experienced opinion. I'm willing to give it a shot. Being a guy with a bunch of junk laying around - as well as a torch, a rag, and a polishing machine (and a bunch of m'pc's) I can try it out and either leave it that way or put it back the other way.

[arpthark]

I'm surprised we've gotten this far and nobody has pointed out that the difference between a 2280 and a 321 is a 1959.

[LeMark]

Let's not talk about what GM did to one of their best looking cars (1958) and turned them into this

[bloke]

Okay we've talked this one out. I guess we should get back to libeling university studio professors, and then allowing ourselves to be trolled by old men.

[Cameron Gates]

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.