Tubas, euphoniums, mouthpieces, and anything music-related.
Forum rules
This section is for posts that are directly related to performance, performers, or equipment. Social issues are allowed, as long as they are directly related to those categories. If you see a post that you cannot respond to with respect and courtesy, we ask that you do not respond at all.
aarongsmith wrote: Sat Oct 10, 2026 8:38 am
Definitely smaller than a PT6 or a Thor, but clearly larger than their 4/4 and smaller than their 6/4. It's a 5/4 like a Miraphone 129X is a 5/4.
The 834 appears to have a smaller bottom bow than their 4/4 models, even if the valveset bore is larger and the bugle a slightly more open wrap. And it's no larger than the Yamaha 623 CC or BBb tubas, or the B&S 795 CC, which is a 4/4 Nirschl CC copy. Those are all 4/4 tubas.....
catgrowlB wrote: Sat Oct 10, 2026 1:32 pm
The 834 appears to have a smaller bottom bow than their 4/4 models, even if the valveset bore is larger and the bugle a slightly more open wrap. And it's no larger than the Yamaha 623 CC or BBb tubas, or the B&S 795 CC, which is a 4/4 Nirschl CC copy. Those are all 4/4 tubas.....
I agree that if it were compared to a M-W, B&S, or Yamaha it is a 4/4.
The fractional system is a bad system to describe the size of tubas, but it's what we have. One could just as easily argue that the M-W and B&S undersize their instruments like the Fafner and MRPCC, which I have never felt are the same size as a Thor or PT-6.
The bottom bow is wider in span. However,, it is narrower in diameter at its widest point than EBC832 much like the Merlin. The Merlin is also described as 5/4: https://www.willson.ch/en/content/news/c-tuba-merlin and I disagree with that too.
I've had all 4 of their CC tubas side by side. In the context of Eastman's line it fits in a "5/4" slot in the line, whether we all agree with it actually being a 5/4 or not.
These users thanked the author aarongsmith for the post (total 2):
catgrowlB (Sat Oct 10, 2026 2:37 pm) • arpthark (Sat Oct 10, 2026 4:20 pm)
Rudolf Meinl 5/4CC
Mirafone 186-5U CC
Miraphone Norwegian Star
Besson New Standard Euph
I agree that the fractions are dumb and don't offer any useful information.
A straight-on picture of a particular model with the bell diameter, valve section bore, overall length/height, and girth across the bottom bow ferrules (bonus: diameter of the large end of the bottom bow) would tell a pretty good story, in regards to size.
Of course, the word "professional" would always mean "pitched in C", and the words "student" would always mean "pitched in B-flat".
All of those amazing central European tuba players are a bunch of amateurs.
Out of all seriousness of the sizes, I think the Eastman 834 was marketed (when I first heard of it this way) as a 5/4 to compete in the market with a PT 6 or Thor, since those horns are in vogue. That is how several were pitching it, but after seeing these pics (okay, I studied with Mark when he had a Cerveny Piggy, and when I saw him the first time, I thought it was a euphonium because he is 6'10" or so), it is a bit smaller than I expected.
I play a Miraphone 1291CC, and I think Miraphone has accurately described it. In this comparison, the 1291 and 291 Bruckner are very similar. The 1291 having a .772" bore is a bit larger than the .750" York bore as well for a piston tuba, and rotor tubas seem to have larger bores in comparison (the Miraphone 1291 BBb is listed as an .835" bore). The Miraphone 186 is considered the standard 4/4 CC tuba, though I would argue it is a bit on the smaller size. Using that, the Miraphone 188CC has been advertised as a 4/4+ CC, which I will buy that as it is a bit larger than the 186. The 291CC (Bruckner) is a bit bigger than the 188, which is a 4/4+CC, so Miraphone labels it as a 5/4--a 5/4 on the smaller size, while I think the PT6 is a larger 5/4, it is comparing apples to bananas.
A size of tuba isn't determined alone on physical size alone, but also bore size, branch size, rate of taper, etc., and it is hard to effectively judge and compare. Each company has their own designations, and if Eastman wishes to market it this way, it is their choice, but many see their teachers playing the horn and will blindly purchase without testing. B&S was more than willing to list several similar tubas as 4/4, even when some were bigger than others, and they still effectively sold, and people knew what they were getting.
These users thanked the author russiantuba for the post:
Dr. James M. Green
Lecturer in Music--Ohio Northern University
Adjunct Professor of Music--Ohio Christian University
Gronitz PF 125
Miraphone 1291CC
Miraphone Performing Artist www.russiantuba.com
The sizing designation doesn’t really matter. As far as Eastman’s lineup goes the 834 certainly has a bigger sound than the 832 even if it’s physically quite similar looking. It makes sense for their offerings.
Please give one a try if you haven’t already folks, you might fall in love :) I’m not an Eastman artist, this is my independent opinion.
One thing to consider when sizing tubas based on bottom bows is height. A 44 inch tall tuba will have the bottom bow ferrules at a very different point in the taper than a 32 inch tall tuba.
