TubeNet

I did not have the chance to ask what tuba it is. All of the tubing hanging out front was intriguing. Can anybody identify it?

That's a Conn 56J (also sometimes labeled a 52J).
Essentially it's a King 1241 cut to CC. Matt Walters designed the prototype, but Conn Seller made a lot of changes to the production model to save money, hence the weird 4th valve wrap.
The new Eastman 4/4 CC is basically another version of this horn that is more faithful to the original prototype.

SousaWarrior9 wrote:That's a Conn 56J (also sometimes labeled a 52J).
Essentially it's a King 1241 cut to CC. Matt Walters designed the prototype, but Conn Seller made a lot of changes to the production model to save money, hence the weird 4th valve wrap.
The new Eastman 4/4 CC is basically another version of this horn that is more faithful to the original prototype.

I agree with SousaWarrior9's analysis.

FWIW, there is a physical difference between the 56J and 52J - the bell size. viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2719

Thank You

NCSUSousa wrote: FWIW, there is a physical difference between the 56J and 52J - the bell size. viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2719

Huh, didn't know that. Good to know.

KiltieTuba wrote:Depends on bell size. The 52J had the smallest bell (18 inches I think), then the 54J (19”), then the 56J (20”).

Indeed. I got the information years ago from a friend who played tuba, had one (I forget which variant), and who was also a rep for a music store dealing in Conn instruments:
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=14627" target="_blank

And more info about the technical aspects:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=45678" target="_blank

He also agreed that Conn, to pinch pennies, er, um, "reconfigured" Matt's prototype (as opposed to saying ****** it up). My friend also did the mod of removing the 5th valve and installing a straight pipe so it would play less "stuffy." And so, instead of staying true to the original design, Conn wondered why they couldn't sell the tubas once their playing characteristics were realized as not being as favorable as Matt's prototype!!!

iiipopes wrote: ...And so, instead of staying true to the original design, Conn wondered why they couldn't sell the tubas once their playing characteristics were realized as not being as favorable as Matt's prototype!!!

Amazing isn't it. We're now in the era where US manufacturers are the ones cutting corners on design for cost, so you have to take your horn design to China to get it made better, comparatively.

The student instrument movement of the 60s really did shake things up, didn't it? No longer a bunch of smaller companies competing for design innovations and quality to out-sell the next, and instead huge corporate machines pumping out mostly mediocre horns.

While that is depressing, I do appreciate the accessibility of fairly low cost, but fairly high quality horns that are now available from abroad. There's a lot more middle ground between "cheap and terrible" and "expensive and nice" horns now, which is nice.

That's my buddy Sean Clancy. It's a Conn 54J, not a 52 or 56. Great guy and great player.