Jupiter 1632

Post Reply
skaskaster
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2018 3:35 am
Location: Moscow

Jupiter 1632

Post by skaskaster »

Sooo... I searched this forum about this bone, and as far as I know this is one of the most controversial pro 0.500 horn out there. Some people say it is very good for only "quiet" playing (like the mister fedchok or bill watrous style), or when you play miced on 1st bone in jazz orchestra or the brass pack like trumpet-tenor sax- trombone in rock-pop-commercial. Some people say that bone is pretty well when you need to "peel the paint off the walls" (not pretty well like the old 3b or 6h, olds pro bones, etc. but steel good).
Well, I would like to call and collect in this topic all 1632 guys to talk about this horn :hi:
Conn 6H
King 4B/F - waiting for its time in the closet.
atopper333
Posts: 94
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2022 9:40 am

Re: Jupiter 1632

Post by atopper333 »

I can’t comment on a pro level, but I have owned and played this horn for a few weeks and do love it. I can’t say I can compare it to a multitude of other small bore horns, but I can compare it to an Olds Super from the 1940s…

I found the XO to be easier to play. I can get higher notes more cleanly with it. I’ve also found that the partials have been easier to dial in. To me, it projects well and I do enjoy the feedback that the thinner bell provides. It is an extremely light horn to me, and I feel that it requires more ‘focus,’ I guess would be the word, to keep it under control at the higher dynamics than the Olds.

The Olds was way more bell heavy. It also was a lot more picky when it came to slotting for me in the upper range. Projection wise, I never did feel like I could open my throat or jaw enough to get everything out of the horn that I thought was there.

I also had an older XO 1032 prior to the 1632. To me there is a night and day difference. Both the XOs I’ve had have had an excellent build quality. The finish has been well done and the slides were great out of the box. There was no acid etching, poor solder joints, or any other issues at all. Honestly they are to me, we’ll made horns

The 1032 felt way more heavier and the brass felt of a thicker gauge. It was way less responsive and I could never center the tone on it. As far as volume, I don’t feel dynamically like I could have gotten more out of the 1632 than the 1032. They are completely different in response and feel.

I will say this, I do love my XO, but there was just something that felt different about the sound from that Olds. A smoothness and character that, to my novice ear, felt richer than the 1632. The 1632 is much brighter and lighter in sound. I know that’s player specific, and the terms I’m using are quite subjective…

I will say this, the slide on my Olds Super was smooth as butter, and the horn was made in 1947. That’s hard to argue build quality there.

I wound up parting with the Olds and choose the 1632 over it for these reasons: I felt I would have to spend more time with the Olds to make it sound as good as I was sounding on the XO, and in a perfect world, I would have stuck with the Olds for the sound, but I just can’t devote the time I would want to between five children and a full time job, and two, I have small children…and the duo-octagonal slide was perfect…and I had a couple of scares and just didn’t want to see that beautiful of an instrument be damaged due to my environment. It was an awesome horn that deserved to be played and enjoyed.

I will say this, I’m still getting back into playing, but I still haven’t been able to push the 1632 past my capabilities…hope this is helpful…and also, I was able to pick one up for about 850 in mint condition, which was definitely a price I was willing to pay to take chance on the horn…
User avatar
ithinknot
Posts: 1037
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2020 3:40 pm

Re: Jupiter 1632

Post by ithinknot »

I've tried one (the R), don't own.

You'll hear a lot about how light it is, which mostly means what you would expect (good and bad). It's very light.

Nicely put together for the price, and slide was excellent. At low volumes there's floof from the rose bell ('warm' but not especially rich/complex), and the general feel is very open, and/so it holds together without much color shift for quite a lot longer than expected and then suddenly changes (to something not very attractive). Some will like this; I prefer things to get snarky in stages, both for musical reasons and by way of advance warning. When it arrives, I wouldn't call it a particularly 'good' overloaded character sound - not like the bark of a 2B, or the more trumpety thing the Jiggs does (and to a lesser extent the 2B+). Doesn't get tight up high, but the silly slots weren't great on this particular example - high E was pretty squirrelly everywhere I bothered trying it, etc.

I think they're very good value, and I'd guess that for a lot of people it's probably an easier Normal Small Horn than various 2Bs. Günter Bollmann sounds great on his.
PaulT
Posts: 372
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2018 9:55 pm
Location: North Dakota

Re: Jupiter 1632

Post by PaulT »

One thing to be aware of with the 1632 is that it comes in yellow brass as well as rose. I ordered in one of each wIth the intention of keeping the one I liked best and returning the other. And I came so, so, so damn close to keeping both. The only reason I didn't was I just didn't want to continue the back and forth business of wondering which one to play (as my .508 Yamaha was also strongly in the mix, as well as all kinds of mouthpieces with each horn... enough is enough, plus I have to practice on my .525 trigger horn as that's the one I use in city band. 4 horns out on stands each night waiting to be wiped down and put away was too much to contemplate dealing with).

I kept the rose brass 1632R, I just love its warm rich sweet tone. But man oh man, that 1632G gold brass had such a pure, clean, crystalline tone... like a glass bell, ethereal... I damn near cried while boxing it for the return. (It's for the best. You'll find a good home, one that will play you every day. It wasn't you, it was me. Damn, now I'm tearing up. You are such a good horn, Damn it.)

I was surprised at just how different the two horns were. I expected the rose brass/yellow brass deal to be subtle, a difference forgotten once well into playing. But the difference wasn't subtle. Or ever forgotten. I wonder if perhaps the thinness of the respective bells highlighted the difference of material more than a thicker , heavier bell would.

Anyway, if the 1632 is a horn you are interested in, (and you should be), be aware that there isn't one 1632, there are two delightfully different 1632s.
Last edited by PaulT on Sun Jul 31, 2022 10:30 pm, edited 2 times in total.
PaulT
Posts: 372
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2018 9:55 pm
Location: North Dakota

Re: Jupiter 1632

Post by PaulT »

Ok, I'll try this.

The 1632 Rose is cedar-topped rosewood. Cozy. Warm.

The 1632 Gold is spruce-topped maple. Clear. Cuts.

Both are 00s and fit the lap so sweetly.
Post Reply

Return to “Instruments”