TubaForum.net

Eastman says it's a euro receiver. They provide a euro Mouthpiece with the Horn. An American shank either doesn't work with it, or barely works with it.

What's so difficult about this?

I won't be explaining it to you fourth time.
I've dealt with Eastman "Euro" receivers (on the inside... The outside appearance means nothing).

You know me well enough to know that I'm not sort of a "because they say so" type of person, never have been and never will be. I investigate for myself.

Fauci and Pfizer told me to take their quaxines. Do you think I did?
After all, they told me to.

bloke wrote: Thu Apr 16, 2026 6:15 pm I won't be explaining it to you fourth time.
I've dealt with Eastman "Euro" receivers (on the inside... The outside appearance means nothing).

You know me well enough to know that I'm not sort of a "because they say so" type of person, never have been and never will be. I investigate for myself.
...

But Joe, sometimes you base your assertions on samples of 1. And the sample of the 534 you reported had different playing characteristics than anybody else's example of the same instrument, including mine, so what are others who have played this instrument supposed to think about it?

I will measure the receiver on my EBB534 accurately and report back. You know that I know how to measure accurately.

Rick "can provide another sample of 1" Denney

Manufacturers want to avoid having a bunch of people getting on the Internet and saying that their favorite mouthpieces don't fit the manufacturer's instruments.

When the English went away from the small shank tuba receivers (basically, bass trombone size) to standard receivers, they were still actually small receivers (to accommodate established tuba players with their favorite mouthpieces) but the receivers were simply extended out longer (larger, of course, on the tip ends) so that the customary amount of a standard shank mouthpiece would be covered by the receiver, but actually (again) those are just mostly small shank receivers that are extended out longer and larger. If a small shank mouthpieces inserted into those instruments, it still doesn't reach the choke point and it plays the instrument (some people believe better than with a standard shank mouthpiece). Many of the Chinese compensating instruments feature this same style of receiver. Nearly always, I've been able to use a small shank tuba mouthpiece in a compensating/English-style tuba which supposedly has a standard shank receiver.

As far as euro vs. standard (rather than English-small vs. standard) a German solution to this has been to make receivers that are halfway between euro and standard, which is another workaround for this.

The Chinese euro versus standard thing (when they build a model whereby they judge that there are players who would want to use Euro shank mouthpieces with those models) have often done the same thing that the English (and actually the Chinese) have done with the compensating instruments with the small versus standard shank, they've (for the twentieth time explaining this...??) decided to make long extended standard shank receivers which - extended outward longer and larger - cover what looks to be an appropriate amount of a Euro shank, yet a standard shank still doesn't hit the choke point (beginning of the mouthpipe tube) but covers up more then the normal amount of a standard shank. (King had been doing this as well with the newest version of the 2341 and 2340.)

Yes, Bach and Bach style tuba mouthpieces feature very short shanks with a sudden stop being that bulky ring. When someone tries to use a Bach or Bach style standard shank mouthpiece on one of these fake Euro receivers, there's a good chance that the extended receiver is going to bump up against that big trim ring, but other standard shank tuba mouthpieces that don't feature that sudden stop trim ring are going to work just fine in fake Euro receivers.

There's a high profile successful professional player who - at least, in the past, seemed to prefer using Euro shank mouthpieces in combination with standard shank receivers, offering a pretty epic setback from the end of the mouthpiece to the choke point and exposing a good bit of a first taper receiver. The fake Euro receivers accomplished the same thing but look better on the outside. My personal preference is not very much setback from the choke point... maybe only an eighth of an inch or so. maybe even a little less - if the back end of the mouthpiece is thin.

An acquaintance of mine (full-time Orchestra musician) bought the very first 836 sold. We took a look at that receiver and determined the things that I typed above. They used a standard shank mouthpiece.

.... all of these words - yet again: wasted time.

bloke "Consumers are going to look at the outside appearance (all sorts of products, including houses and cars), and that's what manufacturers know."

Mostly, I've noticed that honest to goodness euro receivers are found on older instruments made in Europe, and on the Holton 345 OEM receivers are pretty much honest-to-goodness euro, whereby a standard shank mouthpiece comes mighty close to going into the mouth pipe tuba itself.

AS LONG AS A (widely accepted as) "STANDARD" SHANK TUBA MOUTHPIECE DOES EXTEND BEYOND THE RECEIVER INTO THE MOUTHPIPE TUBE (ok...but standard shank mouthpieces "seat" anywhere from .001" to .250" 'or so' away from the beginning of the mouthpipe tube), THAT RECEIVER (WHETHER-OR-NOT EXTENDED FORWARD AND LARGER - WHICH WOULD OBVIOUSLY MORE OF THE MOUTHPIPE SHANK) IS A STANDARD SHANK RECEIVER (ok: 'in my view', but how could this 'view' not be considered to be reasonable, but someone who is reasonable?).

King full size tubas:
My experience is that the really old ones (124X series) featured large receivers - ornate on the outside and sort of like Holton 345 on the inside. I don't know what the bottom size of those receivers was / is, because I've never measured them, but I stuck one of those on my compact little Holton tuba, and I have used both Euro and standard shank mouthpieces on it and the standard shank mouthpieces don't enter the mouth pipe tube, because I know where the mouth pipe tube starts since I built the instrument.
LATER with the King models, I've witnessed some straight ahead standard shank receivers. They're not bulky and the large end isn't large enough to cover up a customary portion of a euro shank tuba mouthpiece.
With the so-called NEW STYLE versions, King seem to revert back to something more like the really old receivers on the inside.

intonation:
- The intonation characteristics of King sousaphones are a little bit better than with the JP copies, but there are several negatives to consider with King vs. JP. (I SELL JP, but I am fixing up a KING for my own use - having sold my King fiberglass sousaphone, and am replacing it with a scrounged-parts brass one.) Both JP and King are fine. JP fit-and-finish (particularly when compared to King sousaphones of the last couple of decades) is clearly superior, but I've scrounged some (mostly) 1960's King parts (luckily, with good valves) from which I'm going to assemble a King for myself.
- The intonation characteristics of King full-size tubas are a little bit better than with the Eastman copies (so far, in my experience - with Eastman owners - rightfully so, particularly in the last few years - boasting "build consistency"), but there are several negatives to consider with King vs. JP.
- People are going to FIERCELY CHAMPION models that they own, here. THE MOST POLITICAL stuff (not Trump, not The Squad, not Republicans and Democrats) on this site is when someone points out the imperfections in models owned by others.

Isn't this just a receiver gap discussion then? I thought the consensus was gap matters much less on tuba than on high brass like trumpet.

catgrowlB wrote: Tue Mar 03, 2026 11:50 pm

bloke wrote: Tue Mar 03, 2026 4:56 pm
With more redundancy, again, I was shocked at how much more resonant (candidly, in a good way) a couple of old beat up and bloke straightened out Yamaha 201 top action tubas (a widely berated model) are compared to the Eastman, and I tend to suspect they out resonate the King original as well.

I actually have an old 1970s silver YBB-201 in a back room down in my studio. I've used it on a few band concerts in the years past; it still plays very well. The valves have some pitting, but the compression and valve action is still excellent when oiled. I don't care what anyone says about the YBB-201/321 tubas --- they sound very good and blend well in concert band. Not only have I played mine in band and have the recording, but sat next to other tuba players playing them, hearing recordings of them, as well as sitting up in the balcony in the audience hearing them during a live concert. Those tubas are gangly/awkward in design, but they pleasantly surprise me when I hear good/decent players on them. They sorta sound like a brighter, yet more 'vanilla'd' MW-25.

As for the King 2341 and Eastman copy tubas -- it's been a while since I tooted on a King 2341/1241. They are nice; I prefer the older tall detachable bell version. Haven't played the Eastman yet....
Hearing other players on those tubas (modern King and Eastman) ----> meh.

I find nothing here with which to disagree.
The old tall King tubas are just a bit awkward (but whatever, and I'm only really referring to transporting them), and obviously I prefer the early well built 2341 version of the talk detachable Bell Kings (with the first and third circuits which aren't excessively long), but I prefer the tall ones to the new style ones, and not just because of build quality.
The widely hated Yamaha tubas are really only hated because they are top action. I don't hate top action. Their tuning isn't perfect, but people play a lot more out of tune tubas that cost a lot more money. The Yamaha tuba sound just about as good as Besson instruments they copy. I wish someone would bring back the three valve compensating system. It's a damn good system, particularly for large tubas that offer good sousaphone-like false tones below e natural. That system does much more for tuba intonation then does for non-compensating valves.

gocsick wrote: Fri Apr 17, 2026 10:59 am Isn't this just a receiver gap discussion then? I thought the consensus was gap matters much less on tuba than on high brass like trumpet.

That's what I'm trying to discuss, but since people really can't see the inside of their instrument right there - particularly with the mouthpiece inserted obviously, most people choose to only discuss the outside appearance with the mouthpiece inserted. It's difficult to carry on a conversation when I'm talking about the inside fit and they're talking about the outside look.

gocsick wrote: Fri Apr 17, 2026 10:59 am Isn't this just a receiver gap discussion then? I thought the consensus was gap matters much less on tuba than on high brass like trumpet.

That's what I've been thinking all along as I've read through this mile-long thread. It's just yet another way manufacturers are trying to sell a more generalized, cheaper product in larger volumes and make more money. I hate how everything in manufacturing everywhere is evolving downward rather than upward. Its always the older stuff that's better, not the newer stuff. "Boy, this new XYZ instrument(car, refrigerator, etc.) sure is made of such better quality materials and craftmanship than they were 50-100 years ago!" I don't recall the last time I've heard that.

Isn't it strange that the 832 and the 534 have different ID at the point of entry of the receiver is they have the exact same part?

I think Joe is trolling us all into thinking that not only should we not believe what Eastman tells us, and not to believe our eyes, but also to not believe measurements with a dial caliper

There's another King knockoff here for repair.
no dents, but none of the valves go up and down.
Maybe it fell over on a carpeted floor or something...(??)
I'll have a look at it.

slide alignment is good.

From what you post, I still suspect you don't understand what I was attempting to point out:

That it's the diameter of the CHOKE POINT - down in there - at the small end of the receiver (down there where calipers are unable to measure) that determines whether a receiver is bass trombone size (aka "old small English tuba mouthpieces"), standard tuba shank, or euro tuba shank.

I WILL MEASURE THIS ONE. I HAVE A MEASURING DEVICE THAT CAN MEASURE THAT.
THERE'S NO WAY IN HELL TO GET CALIPERS DOWN IN THERE.

Just because I'm unable to explain something to you adequately doesn't mean that I'm trying to troll you, but - actually - I thought I had given up on trying to explain it.

In the very first post on this thread you claimed the 534 has a euro shank receiver.

that is completely false by every definition of how a true euro shank receiver would interact with an American shank Mouthpiece, or vice versa.

I don't know why the 832 and 836 eastmans come with P receivers or euro receivers, (probably P) I think that's dumb, but there is one thing that cannot be debated, is that the 800 series eastmans and the 500 and 600 series eastmans are sent from factory with the SAME receiver.

I just went out to the shop and examined/measured the Eastman King-knockoff's receiver.

(I doubt if any further explanation - even with measurements - will clear up confusion, and - with apologies to those who already understand my point...)

The choke-point on this instrument (where the contracting-bore receiver ends, and where the expanding-bore mouthpipe tube begins (ie. the "venturi") is way the heck towards the back of this receiver. Further, it is REMARKABLY SMALL - a scant 1/2 inch (.500", which is the SAME choke-point diameter I chose for my BASS TROMBONE SHANK RECEIVER F CIMBASSO).

As shown, it IS W-A-Y back there - just about 1-3/4 inches from the large end of the receiver...

I apologize for holding the calipers slightly crooked, but the lower leg of the calipers shows (on the OUTSIDE) where I located the choke point (on the INSIDE) with tools OTHER THAN calipers (which obviously cannot measure i.d.'s this narrow which are that deep, due to the design of typical calipers).




First:
- Yes, there's no way (with a well-under-average-size .500" choke point) that this is a "legitimate" euro shank receiver, because (what is accepted as) a "euro" shank mouthpiece's shank's small end is WELL-OVER .500" (as is a "standard" shank's small end, for that matter), so - with EITHER shank size, there's absolutely no chance of either shank size (neither euro nor standard shank sizes) penetrating past the choke point into the mouthpipe tube...

...so - LEGITIMATELY - the knockoff's receiver is barely large ENOUGH (much less TOO large) to qualify as a "STANDARD" shank receiver (and is not-quite-but-nearly small enough - based on the I.D. of the choke point - to qualify as a "bass trombone shank" receiver ).

YET - as the receiver extends out so VERY FAR from the .500" bore choke-point - the receiver's large end COVERS UP enough of a "euro" shank to "look good" on the outside. I refer to receivers (such as these) as "fake euro", due to their external appearance, YET their INTERIOR dimensions EASILY accommodating a STANDARD shank receiver (again: with absolutely no chance of a standard shank mouthpiece "bottoming out" (unless - possibly - it's a short-shank BACH-STYLE mouthpiece - whereby the elongated receiver HITS on the fancy ring at the top of the Bach-style tuba mouthpiece's quite short shank).

I'm pretty sure that the "new-style" genuine King receiver is set up the same way, thus a "good copy" of the original model's receiver.

Here are how
- STANDARD SHANK
- EURO SHANK
(and - just for fun)
- OLD BRITISH TUBA aka BASS TROMBONE SHANK

interact (both inside FIT and outside APPEARANCE) with the King knockoff receiver (realizing - again - that the choke point is WAY down in there at 1-3/4" deep).

EURO SHANK:

- LOOKS the best on the outside



and sits REALLY FAR OUT from the choke point on the INSIDE
(insertion depth of euro shank is 1.050" so it sits .700" OUT from the choke point (which - again - is 1.750" in from the end of the receiver)



===============================================

STANDARD SHANK:

- LOOKS sorta "swallowed up" by the receiver:



- YET is the closest to appropriate setback (in my opinion) from the choke point:
(a half inch, which is still pretty damn far out from the choke point, in my opinion)



================================================

OLD BRITISH "SMALL" TUBA SHANK - SAME AS BASS TROMBONE SHANK:

- LOOKS totally swallowed up, and is within angstroms (with this length shank) of hitting the large end of the shank (which would prevent full insertion)



- YET (as the insertion depth is right around 1.700") still DOES NOT "bottom out" on the INSIDE (is somewhere between .040" - .050" of risking surpassing the choke point).




This post took some time to prepare, and I doubt if will put an end to lack of understanding.


KEY PHRASE to glean from this post:
"FAKE EURO"
A REAL euro shank receiver is not going to result in a choke point as tiny as half an inch.

secondary point:
Standard shank is best for these, yet (in my opinion) still dictates way too much of a "gap".
Were it that I owned one of these, I might consider sanding down a standard shank to reign in the epic "gap" (between the end of the mouthpiece and the choke point - as a half-inch "gap" is STILL quite long).