TubeNet

Instead of talking smack and conjecturing on King v Conn sousaphones, this guy put the metal where his mouth is. You're welcome for finding this, I can't imagine how many blattastic videos you'd click to find this if you weren't a subscriber.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zonx-nL ... NjAyMjAxNg

The Conn is obviously not stock with 5 valves (you won't see him use the topmost 5th piston in any of his videos). But it's close as it gets to stock v stock.

Sounds like the King is warmer and broader, while the Conn is denser and more focused, opposite what you might suspect. Declare a victor in the poll!

There are so many ways in which such a comparison can be biased, than I voted on the basis of my own comparison, not on the basis of some other guy. So, forgive me, but I did not listen to the video (plus, I pay for my bandwidth here and a video has to be pretty compelling for me to want to watch it). First, there are Kings and Kings. A modern King might not be that much like an original H.N. White with a matched bell and real craftsmanship, for example.

I played a King sousaphone in school for six years, and now I own a 14K, and both were about the same vintage (60's--certainly pre-Macmillan in the case of the Conn), and unmodified. The King was easy to play, sure. Forgiving of insufficient air, more than most. Loud, yes. When I've played King sousaphones since those days, my memories have been reinforced, though there is no doubt I'm a much better player now than I was then.

But the Conn makes a fuller and more interesting sound, with more depth. And it's also quite easy to play, though it seems to want a bit more air.

Rick "who is not interested in the ability to peel paint, however" Denney

I've played both. If outdoor projection is needed, the King is better with its smaller bore being more conducive to the development of higher overtones. If what is needed is a "rounder" tone, especially if the souzy has to do double duty as a concert instrument, the Conn is better with its larger bore.

I've not had as sever a 3rd space C issue on the specimens I have played. But I have encountered the sharp 6th partial on the King which is not often talked about due to the repertoire only rarely ascending to those pitches.

But the real reason I prefer the Conn: the ability to convert the upper loop of the first valve circuit into a movable slide. When your tech does it, have him shorten the outer legs about 3/8 inch so that you can push for 3rd space C, and make the inner tubes as long as possible so you can pull 1 a little for 1+2, somewhat for 1+3, and enough to make 1+2+3 actually in tune.

Since trilling on the third valve is rare to non-existent in most of the concert band repertoire, then in conjunction with the movable 1st valve slide, set the third valve slide so 2+3 is in tune on Gb and Db, since 3 alone just really is not used. Then you can "ride throttle" on the first valve slide to adjust resonance and intonation of the usual suspects in both the low and mid registers.

Isn't the 14K a King 2350 with different engraving?

I mean, of course it wasn't always, but worth considering the possibility that depending on dates, this may be comparing the same apple.

Donn wrote:Isn't the 14K a King 2350 with different engraving?
I mean, of course it wasn't always, but worth considering the possibility that depending on dates, this may be comparing the same apple.

No. It is the current fiberglass 36K that is a King in Conn livery. The 14K is not in production anymore. Only the 20K is.

From 1986, the King 2350 and new Conn 14K were the same instrument with different bell engraving, although the most recent brochure no longer mentions the Conn 14K. The Conn 14K to which most of us refer is the Elkhart, Indiana Conn 14K sousaphone, which is a design that basically pre-dates WWII. If the C in the staff tends to be low, that is to differing degrees common in almost all American tubas. On a Conn, I have typically had the 1st slide between 3/16" pull and completely closed, other slides set as per normal, and just used my ears, embouchure and airflow - it's really not bad.

My biggest beef with the Kings is that the main tuning slide digs into my ribs and causes a bruise if I play it for very long. The other criticism is that the bore is a little small-ish for me, as I can easily push it too far, whereas the 14K is more in my comfort zone.

King, hands down. Excellent intonation, easy to play, big clear sweet sound.

iiipopes wrote: I've not had as sever a 3rd space C issue on the specimens I have played. But I have encountered the sharp 6th partial on the King which is not often talked about due to the repertoire only rarely ascending to those pitches.

Isn't that same 6th partial 'F' also sharp on the old Conn 14K?

Lee Stofer wrote: My biggest beef with the Kings is that the main tuning slide digs into my ribs and causes a bruise if I play it for very long. The other criticism is that the bore is a little small-ish for me, as I can easily push it too far, whereas the 14K is more in my comfort zone.

Same here. The main tuning slide and inner branch on the King dig in the ribs a little bit. It would also be cool if they made a larger-bore version of the 2350.

toobagrowl wrote:It would also be cool if they made a larger-bore version of the 2350.

They used to before WWII - the 1270, which had a .750 bore and a larger throat bugle and diameter bell.