TubaForum.net

https://reverb.com/item/101872158-custo ... -austin-tx

That model looks so much better than the production model. Aesthetically, I mean. On the production model, the fourth valve tubing is all doubled over and sitting in the front of the tuba which makes it very front-heavy and sort of asymmetrical.

Yes that's a handsome tuba

Genuine King valve set. Genuine King engraved bell.

The valve section and leadpipe are not removable. The leadpipe has been moved around and looks to be nearly out of its ferrule now. (Sweet spot?) Removable 5th uses a different union lock ring.

Is this one of the Matt-built instruments? To me, this looks more like Conn built an exact copy of Matt's design. (That's my guess as to what this example is.)

THEN on subsequent prototypes, they altered the design to use as many off-the-shelf parts as possible so they could keep it cheap. You know, that moment when they F-ed it all up…

the elephant wrote: Wed Sep 16, 2026 12:24 pm Genuine King valve set. Genuine King engraved bell.

Is this one of the Matt-built instruments? To me, this looks more like Conn built an exact copy of Matt's design. (That's my guess as to what this example is.)

That's what I was thinking. I was around NJ the time of these prototypes and I remember Matt's being raw brass.

Unless the former owner "collector" then had that instrument silver plated?

I can't imagine the chagrin that Matt Walters, of Dillon Music, the developer of this prototype, must have felt after all his hard work, and after submission to the Cyborg, that the Cyborg, after all of Matt's hard work to develop a superlative CC tuba, essentially gutted all of his hard work for the production model.

I'm not a CC tuba kind of guy, but if I were, this horn (or a very similar-in-concept Getzen/Stofer G50) would be the exact kind of thing I'd go for.

Also, regarding the prototype process of this horn, I've heard from a few sources that Martin Wilk was actually quite involved with the design in addition to Matt in the early stages of the process. Just trying to give credit to all involved.

And yeah it's a shame that a lot of those design elements got axed in favor of cost savings in the end. Could've been a great horn. I'm sure this one is excellent.

Those stock 5xJ’s are so ugly. This one is so nice to look at. Honestly, I’ve never played any of the Conn CC’s. I like the looks of this one more than the Eastmans too.

I remember reading somewhere that the first prototypes of the 5xJ series were actually King branded, and not Conn. This seems to be one of those.

I think the 4th valve tubing still looks odd, and looks vulnerable sticking so far out. It's especially strange to me how it sort of loops around the second-biggest bottom bow. It looks like a creative solution, but not suitable for production. Also, I think it still looks sort of awkward how the valve section is so far down and to the player's left. Maybe it's really comfortable to reach. But I've played and owned horns where it just feels like you are reaching really far across the tuba to get your fingers on the valves.

For me, the big win for aesthetics (yeah, and some functionality too) is that the 5th valve on the prototype is much closer to the rest of the valves. It looks pretty much in-line with the first valve tubing. On the production 56J, the fifth valve is way far away. And IIRC, the linkage for that fifth valve was a mile long as well.

The tuba for sale used to belong to me, and is for sale by the friend I sold it to. This was Matt Walter's prototype for Conn-Selmer of a CC version of the well-known King BBb. To my knowledge all parts originated as King parts, except for some customizations used by Matt. The bell thus has King engraving. Somewhere there is a thread where Matt addresses the features of the prototype not implemented when the Conn 56J was introduced. My understanding was that C-S considered Conn to be its pro-level instruments over King (but there may be nuances to that I don't know). I had the instrument silver-plated when I bought it from Dillon's.

This horn has the characteristics of most (if not all!) Matt creations: great response and intonation, a well-thought out design, and features for serviceability like a detachable connection to the 5th valve. I sold it only because: 1) my friend was then looking for a good CC tuba; and 2) I have other of Matt's masterpieces that I was playing more.

Yes there are similarities to the Eastman 632 that came out later, where Matt's customizations were implemented. Though, to me, the 632s I have played do not play nearly as well as this instrument. Of course, YMMV.

Mike

^ Those Conn 52/54/56j tubas were actually developed at the end of the UMI (United Musical Instruments) era.
I'm pretty sure I remember a prototype at the UMI booth at the summer 1998 Minneapolis tuba conference....
Conn-Selmer didn't exist until after year 2000, and these tubas -- especially any prototypes w/Matt Walters involved -- definitely came out well before then

I played a prototype in 1999 at Eastlake. It was frosted brass version, and played great. Richard Murrow played that horn for years as his personal Tuba
I have the prototype gig bag that Glenn cronkhite made for it for sizing. It was built for sizing without backpack straps or pockets. Richard gave it to me when I build my monster York, and I use it for that and my Eastman

I bought it. I'll drive out to meet with the seller on Monday.

bort2.0 wrote: Wed Sep 16, 2026 11:40 pm"… the 5th valve on the prototype is much closer to the rest of the valves. It looks pretty much in-line with the first valve tubing.

On Matt's horn, the original pigtail knuckle that keeps the MTS closer to the valves was retained. (I do not think that was the purpose of it when King built it, but it is there, and Matt chose to leave it alone.) The production Conn straightened that knuckle, making it more "open" (but which may have removed some of the "good" resistance in the process. And yes, it contributes to the horn looking a bit *odd*. I prefer the way the 4th circuit routing looks from the front, but when you are holding it, the thing reminds me of a sousaphone wrap. And it feels and looks like it is hanging out in space. I think Matt's layout looks and feels better as you are holding it, but looks a little ungainly from the front.

And I don't give a rodent's behind how it looks to anyone else.

This will be a lot of fun to play when I need it. I may be retiring soon. If I do, I will need to offload all my expensive tubas, and I'm hoping this one will become my go-to baby for my post-retirement work-life. (Post-retirement work-life; what an oxymoron!)

Mikelynch wrote: Fri Sep 18, 2026 3:12 pmI had the instrument silver-plated when I bought it from Dillon's.

Now it all makes sense…

Hey, Mike!

Wade, if you bought it, I'm half expecting you to fully disassemble it and make all sorts of insane and cool but insane adjustments to it.

I'll read every word of it.

Like the YamaYork, I only alter things I think I can improve upon. The YamaYork is exactly what I want and need. This, too, is in that category. I *might* add a waterkey to help remove the King spin from my life, but Matt fixed the 4th loop. Only time will tell me whether one is needed on the 3rd loop. The horn needs no modification. There are a few dings, but I do not care; plus, I can fix them if they bug me.

I only dislike the satin finish, as it is difficult to polish, so I will have to figure out how to care for it. Many others do so every day, so I am sure I'll figure it out.



The nice thing is, whenever I *do* end up retiring, I have the Yamaha available for a large improvement in my "personal liquidity". I consider this tuba to likely become a 4/4 analog for my Yamaha, so it will become my main horn eventually.

Do I get a finders fee?

Sure! Snickers or Milky Way?