TubeNet

Not really an answer to your question... but I've played both, and they both play well. Gnagey tubas use really old bells, and those just seem to have a very sweet sound characteristic to them. Some people say they this difference is only apparent to the player under the bell, and out front, it's all about the same. True? Who knows!

Hi guys ! I owned a 5 valve Gnagey before I moved to Texas, which I sold. I currently own a 4 valve version (for sale on this board). I also owned a 52J a while back and my son still owns a 56J. And, I played a 632 a couple of times. Honestly, I can't give you many details, as I haven't played a 632 in a while. The Conns were fine instruments, but as it's been said, they weren't the exact design that was sent to Conn to mass produce by Matt. Conn cut corners in producing those. Yet they were still fine tubas, with some pitch quirks and an after thought 5th valve set up. The Eastman 632 is basically what the Conn was supposed to be. I'm sure you guys know this already. So what I remember from playing the 632 was that, it slotted better, had better pitch and the 5th valve notes seems easier to play than the Conns. As far as the Gnagey tubas, I guess I would say they closer to the 632. Great response and excellent pitch. The 5th valve linkage is a little weird with the coat hanger thing, but it works. Size wise, bore wise, and look wise, they are all very similar. I do think the Gnageys have a special sound (more Yorkish?) probably due to the old bells that Sam uses on his horns. Based on tone, I would pick the Gnagey over the other 2.

Now I never played a 4 valve Eastman (because the don't exist.) I inquired about having one made and it wasn't going to happen. I just love 4 valve tubas. When I easily removed the 5th from the 52J, it played so much better, more even, and freer blowing response. Now, I have the Gnagey 4 valve version and I feel the same about this horn - better, instant response. It has that sound. I know 4 valve tubas aren't exactly what we're looking for here. I guess it's a plug for my tuba for sale. If it doesn't sell, I have no problem keeping it. I just don't get to use it much.

And, one other the big difference is, the Eastman is nice and shiny and the Gnagey isn't (most likely.)

And here is the response no one asked for...

I recently picked up a Matt Walter's build Conn Monster Eb + King 2341 + other parts CC that he built in 2005. It looks nearly identical to the Eastman 632 but has a slightly larger bore 5th valve.

I bought it because of how well-remembered previous Matt Walter's creations played and had no business judging tuba playability at the point in time I was buying. So a good bit of the purchase was based on faith.

One of the advancements in playing since I put the horn down are the technologies available to support (kinda) productive practice. I was doing some digging and found out about the Petersen tuning app from some posts here from years back. Once I sat down with the tuner and lined up the slides correctly, everything is now within +/- 10 cents of in tune (basically dead on) once the middle C is on the screws. I thought the G below the staff was a bit off, but it was because the notes I had around it (F and A) were both on the high side. Once I set up 4th properly (both D and low G are fine), Db is only a hair high. I set up 3rd valve so that E and A are a smidgen (<10 cents) flat and Eb and Ab are dead on. That allows the A and E to be played 3rd only, which is cool but takes a bit of getting used to*. F and Bb require about 1" of pull. D in the staff about 1/4". Yet I have easy access to slides 1/3/4 to pull at any time. But I only need 1st for most playing. low Eb is good with a solid pull (~2.5") on 1 with 1-3-4 with a similar pull for low Db (1-2-3-4-5). Low D seems close with 2-3-4-5, but 4th is easy to pull out if needed. Regardless, most of the money register is pretty darn consistent and only requires a little thought once set up. Play E/A 3rd valve and E in the staff 1-2 with a pull or 3. Works fine either way.

Reason I mention all of this is because the 632 is supposed to be pretty similar in intonation. That's pretty good for a piston mid-sized CC**. I've heard great things about Gnagey tubas, but never played one.

*I've played enough horns that this isn't all that odd to me.

**I guess I'm now old since I remember a time when the small and midsize piston CC tuba market was a newer thing. Some of the offerings were awful. Amazingly, some are still around.

Matthew Gilchrest wrote:And here is the response no one asked for...

I recently picked up a Matt Walter's build Conn Monster Eb + King 2341 + other parts CC that he built in 2005. It looks nearly identical to the Eastman 632 but has a slightly larger bore 5th valve.

I bought it because of how well-remembered previous Matt Walter's creations played and had no business judging tuba playability at the point in time I was buying. So a good bit of the purchase was based on faith.

One of the advancements in playing since I put the horn down are the technologies available to support (kinda) productive practice. I was doing some digging and found out about the Petersen tuning app from some posts here from years back. Once I sat down with the tuner and lined up the slides correctly, everything is now within +/- 10 cents of in tune (basically dead on) once the middle C is on the screws. I thought the G below the staff was a bit off, but it was because the notes I had around it (F and A) were both on the high side. Once I set up 4th properly (both D and low G are fine), Db is only a hair high. I set up 3rd valve so that E and A are a smidgen (<10 cents) flat and Eb and Ab are dead on. That allows the A and E to be played 3rd only, which is cool but takes a bit of getting used to*. F and Bb require about 1" of pull. D in the staff about 1/4". Yet I have easy access to slides 1/3/4 to pull at any time. But I only need 1st for most playing. low Eb is good with a solid pull (~2.5") on 1 with 1-3-4 with a similar pull for low Db (1-2-3-4-5). Low D seems close with 2-3-4-5, but 4th is easy to pull out if needed. Regardless, most of the money register is pretty darn consistent and only requires a little thought once set up. Play E/A 3rd valve and E in the staff 1-2 with a pull or 3. Works fine either way.

Reason I mention all of this is because the 632 is supposed to be pretty similar in intonation. That's pretty good for a piston mid-sized CC**. I've heard great things about Gnagey tubas, but never played one.

*I've played enough horns that this isn't all that odd to me.

**I guess I'm now old since I remember a time when the small and midsize piston CC tuba market was a newer thing. Some of the offerings were awful. Amazingly, some are still around.

Just curious what's the difference in the Peterson app and tonal energy?