TubeNet

For those of you that have looked at recently made King 2341s, what are your experiences.

When these first came out six or seven years ago, most everbody was impressed with the overall sound but there were many complaints about rough valves, bad lacquer, other manufacturing issues, and, of course, the presence of but one single "water" key. After reviewing most of the "King" threads on TubeNet (old and new), these problems contined to be reported. Nonetheless, most reviewers/oweners continue to maintain it's one of the best BBbs for the $$.

If you have seen a more recent example (last year or so), are they being made better? Worse? the same? What's coming out of Eastlake? Since its just about the only BBb tuba still made in the US, you would hope somone is paying attention.

There was a period about 6-8 months ago when we went through about 7 tubas to sell three. We had an awful time receiving horns with acid bleed, lacquer flaking, poor soldering, and other such issues. Fortunately, our store is just on the other side of Cleveland from the King plant, and we were able to have the rejected horns replaced quickly.
According to our CS rep, there was a new guy working the final inspections, and he's been dealt with. We've had several new specimens arrive in the time since without these problems.

Alex F wrote:If you have seen a more recent example (last year or so), are they being made better? Worse? the same? What's coming out of Eastlake? Since its just about the only BBb tuba still made in the US, you would hope somone is paying attention.

They were better after the first year, when a few design improvements were made. As I recall, they added a well-placed water key on the fourth-valve tubing at that time.

You've already gotten your answer on quality control. It depends on who is doing the inspecting at the time, and that seems variable. They seemed to be better after the first year, but apparently they've had some dips more recently. I've seen bad ones and great ones.

Rick "whose positive recommendations are limited to good examples" Denney

Bob,you've actually had an intesting idea A king with an 18" bell would probably have a more focussed sound,making it better for quintet but probably not as good for large ensembles.Interesting....

If you are a pro player,why have a horn that can't be played in tune?Sounds like you don't really like the king that much...Just my observation from your post.

MikeMason wrote:Bob,you've actually had an intesting idea A king with an 18" bell would probably have a more focussed sound,making it better for quintet but probably not as good for large ensembles.Interesting....

I have an older 2341 that has a 22" recording bell AND a 22" upright bell. I fashioned an additional bell from one of my Mirafone clone 17" bells. The horn seems more focused with the 17" bell... without the ringing and overtones of the much larger bell. Experiments yield some interesting stuff some times.

Can anyone tell me what design changes, other than adding a second water key, have been made to the new 2341s since they were introduced?

Methinks that the 2341 seems to stand alone in its type and price range (4/4 size BBb PISTON, $4.5K). The Jupiter 582 now sells for close to what the King sells for (WWBW's 582 price is the same as BBC's King), the VMI 3301 (PT-2) has just about disappeared, and the Miraphone 1291 is much more expensive. The MW HoJos (both TA and FA) have yet to appear, if ever.

My 2341 is about 2 years old, and there have been NO poor quality issues. The valves are very smooth and fast, and the silver plate is blemish-free. Intonation is excellent- way better than my Besson Sovereign e-flat. On a hot day, the main tuning slide needs to be pulled WAY out to get it in tune with an A 440, but the note-by-note intonation tendencies are just what you would expect with no quirks.

One major production change that I recall is that the lead pipe was taken off the bell in the second year of production. I don't see any obvious differences between my horn and the newer ones sitting at Dillon's, but if you're really concerned about other changes, give Matt Walters at Dillon a call.

The receiver is oversize- there are lots of "european" shank mouthpieces that will fit it properly.

There are a few negatives- water tends to collect in the 3rd and 4th slide low spots, which don't have water keys. You need to learn the "king spin" technique to drain the horn. Low range is easily overblown and can be pretty harsh (small bore at work, I think). Mouthpiece choice makes a lot of difference to low range sound.

And the price is hard to beat. After 2 years, I still love this horn.

Bill Anderson

Another production change was that valve buttons on the older "new" King 2341 were smaller, and the valve buttons on the newer "new" King 2341 are oversized.

Why they didn't save everyone the confusion and call it the 2342 or something else baffles me.

By keeping the model #,the new horn stays on countless school bid lists automatically instead of having to be resold to directors.The old 2341 is universally accepted as a solid horn.Coat tails....

bloke wrote:I might have some of this wrong or only semi-correct...but her goes:

- shorter bell...thus
- *longer mouthpipe
- wider ( = longer) main slide crook
- *valveset shifted over a bit to accomodate this
- #4 tubing wrap simplified to save production $$$

King has been 'fiddling' with this basic design since the 30's! Every King I get my hands on seems to have something a little different about it. Some of the best changes I've seen is moving the 1st slide to the top, getting rid of the double wrap at the top of the 3rd slide circuit, and getting rid of the dog leg coming off the 3rd (or 4th) valve. I've even seen at least a couple of different lengths of factory tuning slides. Some of the slides are different enough that King took the time to stamp the last three digits of the serial number on the ferrule. Some of these changes may have been made under the guise of "making a better horn"... but those of us who are familiar with manufacturing environments know that is hardly ever the case. Those changes were made to make a product that costs less to manufacture and/or fix production screw-ups. Too bad there's not a King production engineer on the list to offer concise explanations.