TubaForum.net

What are your thoughts on overall build quality? How do they compare to German/Swiss instruments in build quality?
What is the difference between the 632 and 832 models? Specs and playing-wise?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The 632 uses a 0.687” or so valve set like the horns Matt Walters used to build from King and Conn parts. The 832 is a lot of the same bugle, it seems, but with the 0.750” bore valve set off of the 836.

I mainly read positives on both.

Both the 632 and 832 use .687" bore pistons.

The 832 is a 632 reworked to look more like a smaller 836.

cjk wrote: ↑Tue Sep 15, 2020 6:39 am Both the 632 and 832 use .687" bore pistons.

The 832 is a 632 reworked to look more like a smaller 836.

Thank you for the clarification. I thought I remembered the 832 being listed at 0.750 somewhere, but it might’ve been a typo or a leaky memory!

You should read bias into my post, because I sell another Asian line of instruments that competes with Eastman.

I have seen instruments from quite a few factories. These days, more and more of them are of acceptable quality, but only a few are near the top. Eastman is near the top. And I’m still pretty impressed with the Wisemann build quality, and wonder (??) if they are making those Chinese Besson tubas.
Though the John Packer line of tubas is limited (though growing - now: with both a piston and a rotary F tuba, which are both excellent), I have not seen better build quality out of China. Further, I have tried to buy straight from the factory - to avoid the JP middle man… The quality hasn’t been as good (when I have circumvented JP) because apparently JP insists on a higher standard than the factory’s default standard. When buying straight from the factory, the components are as good, but they are not as carefully assembled.

bloke wrote:You should read bias into my post, because I sell another Asian line of instruments that competes with Eastman.

I have seen instruments from quite a few factories. These days, more and more of them are of acceptable quality, but only a few are near the top. Eastman is near the top. And I’m still pretty impressed with the Wisemann build quality, and wonder (??) if they are making those Chinese Besson tubas.
Though the John Packer line of tubas is limited (though growing - now: with both a piston and a rotary F tuba, which are both excellent), I have not seen better build quality out of China. Further, I have tried to buy straight from the factory - to avoid the JP middle man… The quality hasn’t been as good (when I have circumvented JP) because apparently JP insists on a higher standard than the factory’s default standard. When buying straight from the factory, the components are as good, but they are not as carefully assembled.

Thanks . . . Given your repair background, very interesting comments on build quality.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I have handled several Eastman tubas in the past month, and I am impressed with the build quality and finish. Beautiful valves, everything looks straight, soldering is clean, lacquer is nice. I have seen just a couple small areas at ferrules with some acid bleed. Overall, nice tubas!

Matt Walters is proud to sell 'em.

Pretty strong endorsement in my book!

bort2.0 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 15, 2020 6:29 pm Matt Walters is proud to sell 'em.

Pretty strong endorsement in my book!

When I bought my smaller horn from Dillon Music, a horn which looks a lot like the 632, I asked him about the Eastman tubas. He told me that they are fine horns and that the batches he was getting in of late (this was in 2018?), need little to no prep/clean up and the slides are in excellent alignment. I’d assume things are as good if not better now.

I would put my EBB534 on the level with VMI-branded tubas, but not as well built and finished as Miraphone or the Swiss makers.

It seems to me significantly better built than the King 2341 it emulates.

Rick “prettier than his Yamaha 621” Denney

I'd stick with the American counterpart, unless you want that short pancake bell style horn. The older detachable Kings certainly play better than the modern ones and the general consensus is likely in favor of that statement. But regarding the CC Eastman 4/4, I guess the only thing comparable would be the Conn counterpart?

KingTuba1241X wrote: ↑Tue Sep 15, 2020 10:36 pm I'd stick with the American counterpart, unless you want that short pancake bell style horn. The older detachable Kings certainly play better than the modern ones and the general consensus is likely in favor of that statement. But regarding the CC Eastman 4/4, I guess the only thing comparable would be the Conn counterpart?

From all tales, the Eastman fixes many if not all of the 52/54/56J flaws.

matt g wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2020 6:02 am

KingTuba1241X wrote: ↑Tue Sep 15, 2020 10:36 pm I'd stick with the American counterpart, unless you want that short pancake bell style horn. The older detachable Kings certainly play better than the modern ones and the general consensus is likely in favor of that statement. But regarding the CC Eastman 4/4, I guess the only thing comparable would be the Conn counterpart?

From all tales, the Eastman fixes many if not all of the 52/54/56J flaws.

That's my understanding also. I seem to remember Conn/Selmer thinking they were smarter than Matt and did not stick to his design, hence the failure of that model. But Eastman's is a winner because they stuck to Matt's design. Am I remembering all that correctly?

I've tested most of the Eastman tubas, and I purchased a 562 BBb. They are really good instruments in all respects (as best I can tell). The 632 is a real jewel. Prior to trying/purchasing anything, I asked Matt about the 632. He told me (I'm not stating anything he hasn't already publicly disclosed) that the 632 does everything he asks it to do, and does it easily. It seems to me that all Eastman tubas are built equally as well and offer that same ease of playability (although the 632 is, to me, the most point-and-shoot, plug-n-play tuba they sell).

I can tell you from my own observations (for whatever that's worth), that the 562 is very tough to beat as a great playing rotary BBb tuba. Matt also said that about the only way to improve on it or get something better is to buy a Hagen. And that's what I did, but even then, it was not an easy decision (The handmade 5v, if it ever arrives, has the potential to be stupid good). What's the point of this BBb sidebar? To further demonstrate that Eastman is making excellent instruments overall, not just one CC model, and that they are dedicated to producing quality instruments that work for all players.

Got to test one in January (feels like a lifetime ago).
Hard to say anything definitive in a few minutes but the response was good and noob intonation was very good.
The tone was slightly warmer than whatever ethereal expectation I'd put in my own head.
Nice tuba.

Band here will be putting in an order (BB though).

KingTuba1241X wrote:I'd stick with the American counterpart, unless you want that short pancake bell style horn. The older detachable Kings certainly play better than the modern ones and the general consensus is likely in favor of that statement. But regarding the CC Eastman 4/4, I guess the only thing comparable would be the Conn counterpart?

With all due respect, that is not at all the case. I have not heard any such consensus, and I find more fans of the new style than the old.

And while the 1241 maintained high production standards, typical of the American manufacturers before about 1970, the 2341’s old and new are not as well-constructed nor as consistent, based on my personal experience. I’ve seen some poor examples of construction with the new 2341, and not by any means how American manufacturers will regain their former glory.

So, I would agree that the old 1241’s play better than some of the modern 2341’s, but that is a statement more of inconsistency than design.

The bell of the 1241 is as much a pancake as the bell on the new 2341 or the Eastman version, it seems to me. Here is a 1241 next to the formerly mine York Master. Note the 22” bell, and the relatively narrow throat that precedes it. That throat is no wider, it seems to me, than on the new version. (The forward bell was even wider.) The York Master’s 20” bell was also a bit of a pancake, possibly constrained (compared to one-piece bell and Marzan versions from the same maker) by the attachment ring.



Here’s the Eastman next to a similarly shaped fiberglass Martin from the 60’s:



Nevertheless, the OP’s question was about 1.) Eastman construction quality and 2.) C tubas, not which Bb tuba he should buy.

Rick “thinking the pancake contributes to dispersion pattern more than anything” Denney

With all due respect, that is not at all the case. I have not heard any such consensus, and I find more fans of the new style than the old.

And while the 1241 maintained high production standards, typical of the American manufacturers before about 1970, the 2341’s old and new are not as well-constructed nor as consistent, based on my personal experience. I’ve seen some poor examples of construction with the new 2341, and not by any means how American manufacturers will regain their former glory.

So, I would agree that the old 1241’s play better than some of the modern 2341’s, but that is a statement more of inconsistency than design.

The bell of the 1241 is as much a pancake as the bell on the new 2341 or the Eastman version, it seems to me. Here is a 1241 next to the formerly mine York Master. Note the 22” bell, and the relatively narrow throat that precedes it. That throat is no wider, it seems to me, than on the new version. (The forward bell was even wider.) The York Master’s 20” bell was also a bit of a pancake, possibly constrained (compared to one-piece bell and Marzan versions from the same maker) by the attachment ring.

So much to dissect here, so I will use the Numbered bullet reply form per paragraph.

1) All the old TN archives favored both equally, it's just something you have to search when you have a free weekend because the threads run deep.

2) I would say there was still amazing production quality all the way into the late 80's on the (early 2341 designs with detachable bells). The mid 90's started having some inconsistencies right before the sale to Steinway in 2000. I've owned 2 late 90's Kings (and 1 late 80's King 2341) which were very acceptable but heard they could have issues with slide alignment and valve troubles. Mid-to-Late 70's later 1241's were still some of the best built ones and are still in circulation after 40+ years of school band service which speaks a lot to quality. And yes, the current pancake bell 2341 is not how American manufacturers will regain their former glory, you're right! ON EDIT** Just looking at Serial Number counts for King band instruments in the early 60's through the 1975 mark they were only making less than 10k instruments total per year then. In 1975, production went to almost 63k instruments per year til 1980 6 times higher than previous decades. Perhaps if there WERE any inconsistencies it was for the fact they ramped up so much (probably to compete with Mirafones at the time). Still dont see too many in those late 70's models though.

3)When I reference "Pancake bell" it's just as to distinguish the new NEW style versus the old. What I should say is "Monster E-Flat" style designed by Rob Phillips in 1999 versus "Detachable Bell style" of the previous years. It really all boils down to preference of horn height (for me), I don't like short squat horns personally due to slide emptying issues and bad lower back reaching to pick it back up while it's on the bell.