Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 678910 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 96

Thread: Yamaha 642 Neo

  1. #71
    I never liked the 51L which ships with the 642 Neo, too narrow and shallow for me. I use an Alliance E2, which has the cup depth roughly of the SM3 or 3AL. When the horn is warmed up, I usually pull about 1/2 inch for best intonation.

  2. #72
    Quote Originally Posted by Snorlax View Post
    I posed the same question to the individual who works on my horns--he said that the design of the tuning slide is somewhat of a compromise in that any commercially manufactured instrument has to accomodate players of various styles and ability levels. He told me he has done the same shortening on numerous tubas and euphoniums. So certain players have certain tendencies in that aspect, just as certain players have upstream or downstream embouchures.
    That's a good point!

    Guess mouthpiece, like superted mentioned, also would make a difference. A friend recently told me that he did not have that issue after watching the video. He said he didn't have too much issues with sharp notes too, on his Neo w/o a trigger.

    Quote Originally Posted by superted View Post
    Yamaha provides a 51L with the Neo and they way I understand Japanese engineering - that's the mouthpiece the instrument was designed to operate under. So then you replace that mouthpiece with a bucket (say SM3 classic) and you quickly see why there would be a problem with the tuning slide being too long.

    You look at the market of middle class high school student vs hobbyist / professionals then you would understand why they have set the instrument up that way.

    When I was watching that video, I was wondering if anyone would think the 842 sounded better? It sounds so thin compares to the 642. But Matonizz prefers the 842 sound, and I know that there is plenty to like about the 842 sound I just don't think the recording captured the true quality of the 842...
    I personally like the Neo better, but not sure if it's just me being used to a darker sound concept.

    Also, interesting that you mention about the market of middle class high school student. My friend considered Neo as a mid range "intermediate" horn instead of a "professional" upper-range horn like Besson and Adams. Not sure if it's because of the price range or he really noticed a huge difference between the tone quality et. al. of Yamaha Neo and Besson/Adams.
    "Never over complicate things. Accept "bad" days. Always enjoy yourself when playing, love the sound we can make on our instruments (because that's why we all started playing the Euph)"

    Euph: Yamaha 642II Neo - 千歌音
    Mouthpiece: K&G 4D, Denis Wick 5AL

    https://soundcloud.com/ashsparkle_chika
    https://www.youtube.com/user/AshTSparkle/

  3. #73
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    338
    Honestly, I see the difference in price between the Neo and 842 similarly to the difference between a Sovereign and a Prestige. Both are professional-grade horns, but are at a different price point and different qualities to them in terms of sound and design. I don't think it's fair to judge whether a horn is professional or not purely on the price point... Honestly, in my opinion, every horn that's compensated and of good quality should at least be considered to be professional to a certain degree.

    About sound preferences, I think the Neo is closer to my perfect sound concept because 1) I'm European, so I naurally grew up with that sound concept, and 2) I think the Neo's sound embodies the meaning of the word 'euphonium' more - 'sweet/beautiful sounding'. The 842 with its brighter sound just doesn't do it for me - it sounds more like an instrument in the tenor range that functions as a euphonium with a sound that's very *close* to one; It just doesn't quite have that typical euph sound I've grown accustomed to and have in my head when I think of a euphonium.

  4. #74
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Location
    New Jersey, U.S.A.
    Posts
    155
    The Yamaha 600-series brass instruments should all be considered "professional". I don't see why anyone could consider the Neo to be "intermediate". I think WWBW used to categorize some instruments as "artisan" level, which was above "professional", so maybe that's where it belongs. The Neo is also available in Lacquer and without a Trigger, so that version further reduces the price. Just because they are less expensive than the Besson, Willson, etc doesn't mean they are any less professional. Yamaha makes great instruments, and yes they are often more economically priced than some other brands. They are also a HUGE company.

    The Yamaha 321 is definitely their "intermediate" line.
    Sterling / Perantucci 1065HGS Euphonium, 1952 B&H Imperial Eb Tuba, and a bunch of trombones.

  5. #75
    Quote Originally Posted by TheJH View Post
    Honestly, I see the difference in price between the Neo and 842 similarly to the difference between a Sovereign and a Prestige. Both are professional-grade horns, but are at a different price point and different qualities to them in terms of sound and design. I don't think it's fair to judge whether a horn is professional or not purely on the price point...
    Agreed! Looking on the Besson side, we have Steven Mead playing a Prestige and Misa Mead playing a Sovereign. I'm sure Misa could have a Prestige any time she wanted, and is certainly playing on the professional stage, so I assume she simply likes the concept of the Sovereign better. Let's also keep in mind that the Sovereign was the ultimate-top-of-the-line Besson before the Prestige was introduced, and served almost all of the top British players. It'd be hard not to call it a pro horn.

    I also classify the 642 among the pro horns.
    Dave Werden (ASCAP)
    Euphonium Soloist, U.S. Coast Guard Band, retired
    Adams Artist (Adams E3)
    Alliance Mouthpiece (DC3)
    YouTube: dwerden
    Facebook: davewerden
    Twitter: davewerden
    Instagram: davewerdeneuphonium

  6. #76
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    338
    Quote Originally Posted by JTJ View Post
    I never liked the 51L which ships with the 642 Neo, too narrow and shallow for me. I use an Alliance E2, which has the cup depth roughly of the SM3 or 3AL. When the horn is warmed up, I usually pull about 1/2 inch for best intonation.
    Thinking about it, it surprises me that they deliver it with a 51L, instead of a 51DL, which is specifically made for euphonium according to their chart.
    Euphoniums
    2008 Willson 2960TA Celebration
    1979 Boosey & Hawkes Sovereign (Round Stamp)
    Mouthpiece: Denis Wick SM4
    Baritone
    1975 Besson New Standard
    Mouthpiece: Courtois 10

  7. Quote Originally Posted by davewerden View Post
    Agreed! Looking on the Besson side, we have Steven Mead playing a Prestige and Misa Mead playing a Sovereign. I'm sure Misa could have a Prestige any time she wanted, and is certainly playing on the professional stage, so I assume she simply likes the concept of the Sovereign better. Let's also keep in mind that the Sovereign was the ultimate-top-of-the-line Besson before the Prestige was introduced, and served almost all of the top British players. It'd be hard not to call it a pro horn. I also classify the 642 among the pro horns.
    Dave I am in full agreement. I am not completely certain why Misa Mead plays a 967T (Sovereign with a trigger), but note that the leadpipe of the Sovereign makes it more suitable for a smaller player (it curves around the bell more). Also, Besson modified the wrap of the 3rd valve slide on ALL of their euphs in 2011 to reduce the grip width for the left hand. The distance between the 3rd valve slide and outer branch on Besson euphs is now similar to the Yamaha 642. The Yamaha 842 has an even smaller grip and lower leadpipe more suitable for smaller players. All four of these horns are "pro level" and with availability of triggers on all, the differences are matters of preference and cosmetics.

    Doug
    Adams E3 0.60 Sterling bell - Prototype top sprung valves
    Concord Band
    Winchendon Winds
    Townsend Military Band

  8. Yes they are both pro horns.

    642 Maestro was mass production pro model.

    842 was introduced as a custom/limited production model - it was hands down better than the 642 at the time.

    Then they revamped the Maestro for the brass band market - Neo 642ii. It was so good that the Custom no longer had a clear advantage over the Neo and became a matter of preference.

    At least that's how I remembered it.

  9. #79
    Quote Originally Posted by superted View Post
    Yamaha provides a 51L with the Neo and they way I understand Japanese engineering - that's the mouthpiece the instrument was designed to operate under. So then you replace that mouthpiece with a bucket (say SM3 classic) and you quickly see why there would be a problem with the tuning slide being too long.

    You look at the market of middle class high school student vs hobbyist / professionals then you would understand why they have set the instrument up that way.

    When I was watching that video, I was wondering if anyone would think the 842 sounded better? It sounds so thin compares to the 642. But Matonizz prefers the 842 sound, and I know that there is plenty to like about the 842 sound I just don't think the recording captured the true quality of the 842...
    I feel like I can answer this one fairly well. I played a Maestro for my first 2 years of HS, a Neo(no trigger) for the last 2 years of HS, and just picked up a Custom for College. The Neo and Custom both blow the Maestro out of the water in every way possible- intonation, clarity, etc. The difference between the Neo and Custom is mostly player preference in my opinion. To me, the Neo is definitely darker but can feel really stuffy at times, especially when multi tonguing. Custom is a lot clearer to me and I can blow through more multi tonguing passages with ease. Custom is also a lot heavier in my opinion, even considering the trigger system. The silver just feels like it’s a better quality plating. I have to also agree with someone earlier in this thread that praised the Neo’s extreme high register- it is much easier to play up there with Neo. On the flip side, I find Custom’s compensating range to have a lot better response. Custom also has the water catcher which really helps- water got everywhere with Neo when I played it. As a fairly tall person(6’3) I have to give ergonomics to the Neo. Custom is a bit annoying to hold with the leadpipe placement for sure- getting some foam pads for my leg to rest it on fixed this. Overall, I like Custom a bit more but it’s very, very close- try both before buying one

  10. #80
    I am sorry for derailing the thread into the whole discussion about what constitutes an "Intermediate" horn and a "professional" horn. Just brought it out because it was a discussion I had just some time ago and I was rather confused/fascinating to hear someone say that many of the horns are considered "intermediate" to that person. Aside from price, he said he can perceive a significant difference in workmanship and the sound that comes out of the horns to classify them as such (e.g. between Neo and Customs/Adams/Geneva OldRoy/Miraphone. Anyway, apologies!


    Returning to the topic at hand, I've noticed people have been bringing up the leadpip placement on the Customs, is it possible (or even easy), for any technicians to re-adjust the leadpipe if, say, we bring it to a workshop?
    "Never over complicate things. Accept "bad" days. Always enjoy yourself when playing, love the sound we can make on our instruments (because that's why we all started playing the Euph)"

    Euph: Yamaha 642II Neo - 千歌音
    Mouthpiece: K&G 4D, Denis Wick 5AL

    https://soundcloud.com/ashsparkle_chika
    https://www.youtube.com/user/AshTSparkle/

Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 678910 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •