Yamaha 642

[JTJ]

After careful consideration of the price vs. performance question, I have decided that the Yahama 642 is the horn everyone should buy who does not know what to buy.

John

[RickF]

Yamaha 642

I agree John -

For the money, the 642 is a good all-around instrument with excellent intonation. In owning a 641 -- almost the same thing -- I really think the 642 responds better in the lower register than a 641. Not sure if that's because of a 1" bigger bell, or some gentler turns under the valve cluster, etc. It's been awhile since I play-tested a 642 so not sure how the concert high B natural plays on this horn. It's non existent on my 641. The valve action on the Yamahas is a bit longer than Besson, Sterling, and I think Willson. But one can get used to that.

[euphdude]

Yamaha 642

I'm with you John! I didn't part with my 642 (sold to one of Rick's friends) because I was unhappy with its sound, response, or intonation. While attempting to work up Sparke's Two Part Invention, the angle of the hand brace coupled with the longer travel valves gave me a very bad case of tendonitis...it even started bothering me on regular pieces...I even had an orthopod. look at the problem and he agreed with my observations before I parted with the 642. In fact, I didn't play any euphonium for 4 months after that. I almost jumped at a Buffet Besson 967, which, in my book, still has the best valves (speed, smoothness, and tactile feel) of any horn I've ever tried...however the sound was too bright and spread for my tastes. The large shanked Willson 2900 is, in my mind, an improved 642. Slightly darker sound with shorter action valves and a better hand position (for me). Although I haven't done a comparison of my Willson and a 642, so I'm basing this off of what I remembered the 642 to be...a very outstanding axe!

[JTJ]

Yamaha 642

Yeah, what I was thinking is that it is a remarkably good instrument in all respects, a middle way euphonium. Not the best in any one dimension, but a great horn to learn on and get good on. Good for brass bands; good for wind bands; good for world class soloists like Thomas Ruedi. And when you get good, you can appreciate the unique elements other makes and models offer, from that place in the middle.

John

[JP]

Yamaha 642

What are the advantages/disadvantages of the Yam 642 as compared to the King 2280? I know one advantage is better intonation, and two disadvantages are higher cost and heavier in weight. But what else? And how significant an improvement is the intonation difference? Thanks.

JP

[fsung]

Yamaha 642

Comparing the 642 to the 2280 is an apples-to-oranges comparison. The 642 is a compensating horn; the 2280 is non-compensating. In terms of ergonomics, the 642 uses the 3+1 valve arrangement; the 2280 valves are arranged 4-inline (top). The 642 is considered professional horn, while the 2280 is an intermediate horn.

[davewerden]

Yamaha 642

Originally posted by: fsung
Comparing the 642 to the 2280 is an apples-to-oranges comparison.

Correct he is! The 2280 is a nice intermediate horn, but you won't get the response and sound you will on a pro horn (like the 642) and there are almost NO professionals who use a non-compensating horn (other than trombone doublers).

The King actually has decent intonation. The Yamaha may be better, but there is not a magnitude of difference (although I have not compared the two in close succession). However, in the low register (below concert E) there is no comparison. The compensating system makes that range quite good, vs. the compromises you face with the 2280 (and any other non-comp horn).

See this article for more:

The Euphonium Compensating System

[JP]

Yamaha 642

Originally posted by: fsung

Comparing the 642 to the 2280 is an apples-to-oranges comparison. The 642 is a compensating horn; the 2280 is non-compensating. In terms of ergonomics, the 642 uses the 3+1 valve arrangement; the 2280 valves are arranged 4-inline (top). The 642 is considered professional horn, while the 2280 is an intermediate horn.

I am aware of all these fundamental differences. I am more interested in what these differences mean in playability. Dave has touched on them - thanks.

The purpose of my question is to try to better determine when I might want/need to make the next move up.

JP

[angeloR]

Yamaha 642

Would it be a wise move to purchase a 642 if I do music in college and/or the armed forces? I still have two years to graduate from high school, but all of my school's horns are in very bad condition and it doesn't look like the school will buy any new ones soon; since I think they are holding me back (and many directors around my district think so, too), I am thinking about purchasing my own horn.

[fsung]

Yamaha 642

If the school's horns are truly holding back your development and the school will not be getting new ones, then it's certainly reasonable to consider purchasing your own horn.

As John said, the 642 is a great horn to learn and get good on, and it's hard to beat in terms of price-to-performance. Also, the 642 will hold its value nicely and command a good resale price, should your career plans change, or if you eventually decide to switch to another model. (Of course, all of the premium euphs will hold their value and command a good resale price, provided they're well maintained.)

Used 642s turn up fairly regularly on Craigslist and ebay, so there are deals to be had, as long as you do your homework before bidding and don't let yourself get caught up in a bidding war. (BTW, IIRC, you mentioned in the Bach 1110 thread that there's a music conservatory nearby. It's probably worth contacting the low brass instructor to see whether any of his/her students or former students are selling a horn.)

[angeloR]

Yamaha 642

Okay, I'll keep that in mind if i come up with the money for a horn. Thanks.

[daruby]

Yamaha 642

My private teacher, Mike Milnarik, is a Yamaha artist. Recently he acquired a Yamaha YEP-642S euphonium to go with his collection of tubas. I had asked him to bring it in to so that I could play it during one of my lessons. Today, I had a chance to put nearly an hour on the horn in comparison with my Buffett-Besson 2051 Prestige.

Without a doubt, the native intonation of the 642 is better than my Besson. Once I pushed all of the valve slides in and tuned Bb, I found that the 6th partials were almost spot on. F below tuning Bb was also good (very sharp on Besson).

The valve action was excellent, but not on the same par with my Besson. The valves were noisier and not as smooth, but still had a good feel and I felt that I could move around on the horn quite nicely. The hand rest fit my hand better than the one on my Besoson, but the horn felt shorter and didn't fit me quite as well as does the Besson.

In the middle and high range, the 642 was as responsive as my Besson, and high B played much more easily. However, the low range (below low Bb down into the pedal range) was not nearly as open, responsive or robust as on my 2051. I must say that my 2051 has just about the best low range sound of any euphonium I have ever played. The 642S felt more like my old Besson Sovereign 967 in that it was kind of stuffy and the notes didn't have a nice round open sound.

While I liked the tone of the 642, I did not feel that it was particularly remarkable. My teacher felt there was a large difference in sound between the two horns when I played them both with my Wick 4AL. The Yamaha sounded a bit rougher and quite a bit brighter. The Besson was darker and had a pleasing "pillowy" quality to the sound. While he preferred my sound on the Besson to my sound on the 642 by a significant margin, I did not try a darker mouthpiece like my SM3 or Alliance 2 to try to tame the brightness in the tone. The 4AL is fairly resonant and may not be the best choice for this horn. I know that Roland Froescher played the SM3 on his Yamaha prior to getting his York and he sounded wonderful.

I still agree with JTJ that the Yamaha 642 has got to be the best overall value for a professional quality euphonium. The intonation, mechanical action, and general reponsiveness are excellent. The tone quality is nice, but not stellar. For me, the biggest downside to the horn was the stuffy low range and the fact that the tonal quality of the horn doesn't quite reach the level I personally am looking for.

Doug

[angeloR]

Yamaha 642

Thanks for your input, Doug. I think I will get this horn, since I'm not near your level of experience; I think it will be a huge upgrade from the Bach B1110 that I'm currently using.

On the Bach, the valves are noisy and really slow, the pitches on the high range aren't good at all, the second valve is never in tune, it has many dents, and there are just so many things wrong with it.

Angelo

[JTJ]

Yamaha 642

I think Doug is right about mouthpieces. The 642 is rather lively and benefits from a darker mouthpiece. Back when I played a 642 all the time, I once grabbed an SM4 by mistake, instead of my usual SM3, went to band and could not believe how bright it got, especially in the upper range.

[Guest]

Yamaha 642

I also agree about the 4AL on Yamaha horns. I have the 641, not the 642, and I find the Wick to give a bit of a rough-sounding attack, and a tone with a bit too much edge to it. It is nice and open and loud, but doesn't give that characteristic Euph sound.

Rather than going to a bigger, more open-throated mouthpiece, my solution was to go with the Schilke 51D. While this limits the volume and intensity of the sound somewhat, it gives a beautiful round euphonium sound, with very smooth, natural attacks.

I am very interested in trying out the Yamaha 53HL - I guess it was designed for use with the 842, so I was wondering how it would work with the 641/642 horns.