TubeNet

Well, Adam Frey used to play a Hirsbrunner. Now he plays an 842, and sounds just fabulous on it. I attended a lecture/recital/masterclass he did last fall. He loves the 842.

there is no substitute for practice...and i should know,having spent $xx,xxx over the years trying to spend past my problems...

I play an 842, and I love it. But I must stress, the only reason that I got one is because I just happened to find the right person selling one at the right time to get a great deal. It could have just as easily been a Prestige or an Exclusive and I'd have probably made the same choice.

I second the practice your butt off post. I like the Hirsbrunners. And unless there's something major about your horn that you can't get around, I'd lean towards sticking with it. I love my 842, but it's still a metal tube, with all the usual intonation tendencies.....alas, I guess I'll have to keep on the ear training.....

BAC Horn Doctor, a new and excellent brass shop in Kansas City got a used 842 in today. It was traded in by a "big name pro." I have played it, and it is a truly superbe instrument. Mike Corrigan is the shop owner. 913.438.5338 or wwwbachorndoctor.com

This guy does amazing trombone slides, too. End of sales pitch.

I posted an amateur's comparison of the Yamaha 842S and the Willson 2900S a couple of weeks ago on Dave Werden's excellent Tuba-Euph forum site:

http://www.dwerden.com/talk/forum/messa ... erthread=y

The bottom line is this amateur thinks the 842S is an outstanding instrument, but the Willson had its own strengths and was right up there with it.

I have played the 842 for about nine months, switching from the 642. I kept the 642 for about eight weeks before selling it. I was going to make sure this was the right horn for me. The 842 won hands down. My experience is that, once I adapted to the instrument, I was able to get a better, more rounded, darker sound, without losing focus, than I could get with the 642.

Among the top horns I have tried, the most contrast is with the Willson 2900 with the euro shank. The 842 is very free blowing. The 2900 has a lot of resistance. Both work; they just are played diferently.

If the 842 seems right for you, there is certainly no reason not to go for it.

John

I read those attached threads and websites and i got a lot of info.............but my situation is a lady has to BRING in my list of euphs i want to try and im skeptical about the 2900 and 2950. From reading, I like the 2900 better but im really scared of the European mouthpiece.............how common are these? If i look for another mpc will i be able to find some the right size?

XtremeEuph wrote:... but im really scared of the European mouthpiece.............how common are these? If i look for another mpc will i be able to find some the right size?

A month ago I would have said it is no big deal. However, I just had a student buy a horn with the medium sized mouthpieve and we did struggle to get a mouthpiece. The Dennis Wick SM mouthpieces are difficult to get right now. Willson/DEG/Brian Bowman Mouthpieces are available. We ended up special ordering a Shilke 51D (which is what we wanted in the first place), and it cost a little more than a stock large or small shank version.

I personally prefer the mid-sized shank and you can get mouthpieces, but it does take a little more looking around. Of course, it is not too big of a deal to have the reciever swapped to a large shank if the mouthpiece is the only thing holding you back.

u just scared me more LOLz

Just get the receiver changed!

All the 2900's in the UK have the large ones as standard, it really opens up the instrument!

CB

How difficult is it to go about changing it? how much would it cost

yeah but i heard the 2950 takes a lot more blow.....but w/e lol

There's a bit more than just mpc receiver that's different. The bore and the bell size differ some.

Willson 2900
Standard Valve Bore .591"; 4th Valve .670", Compensating Side .632" Bell 11.5"

Willson 2950
Standard Valve Bore .591"; 4th Valve .680", Compensating Side .640" Bell 12.25"

Hi Jim,

No losses, believe me! Why should there be?

(BTW, Rick is correct, the 2900-2950 are completely different sounding euphs)

Intonation will vary with what ever m/p you use. I have fine tuned my Doug Elliot set up to best advantage with only a handful of adjustments that I have long got used now.

If I use a Wick in the 2900, it changes the whole set up again, and so on with each variant.

http://charley.myphotoalbum.com/view_ph ... &id=chill4

CB

Hi Jim,

OK; 116 wide Lexan rim, LB K cup, M8 (2004) shank.

I know, Doug says not to mix cup/shank letters, but after a lot of experimenting, this really works for me.

How about a pic of 2005?

CB

snorlax wrote:Rick, I have a 2905, not a 2950
Evidently the 2905 is not well known. It is a 2900 without the extra "armor plate." Same bell and bore as a 2900. So the question still stands
Jim

Hi Jim,

My post was actually directed to "Brian Bowman is God's" where he posted...
"Aren't the 2900 and 2950 the exact same thing except for the large shank on the 2950. If you want the large shank, I'd say go with the 2950."

The 2905 sounds like a nice horn Jim.

Similarly, when I played Besson, I used a 968--11" bell instead of the 967 with the 12" bell. Just my pref for a brighter sound.

What do u use now? or didnt i read carefully lol. Anyway I have a question about intonation............the talk has been going around that besson has major intonation problems but one horn to the other is also very different.......so, whats yours like? and is that a very sound generalization (....no pun was intended)