Just curious about any differences/similarities between trhese horns.
Anybody?
Differences Between YEP 641 & 642
-
Z-Tuba Dude
- 5 valves
- Posts: 1319
- Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2004 7:08 am
- Location: Lurking in the shadows of NYC!
-
Rick F
- 5 valves
- Posts: 1677
- Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2004 11:47 pm
- Location: Lake Worth, FL
The bore is exactly the same on both horns at .590 (.660 for 4th valve section). The YEP-641 has an 11" one-piece bell. The YEP-642 has a 12" bell. I believe the 642 does not have a one-piece though. The space below the valve section of the 641 is a bit less than on the 642 so that the valve trough made for the 642 does not fit on the 641 without some modification.
I have a 641 myself and like the horn alot. I've also played a 642 and think the 642 responds better in the lower range.
I have a 641 myself and like the horn alot. I've also played a 642 and think the 642 responds better in the lower range.
Miraphone 5050 - Warburton mpc (Brandon Jones)
YEP-641S (on long-term loan to grandson)
DE mpc (102 rim; I-cup; I-9 shank)
YEP-641S (on long-term loan to grandson)
DE mpc (102 rim; I-cup; I-9 shank)
-
imperialbari
- 6 valves
- Posts: 7461
- Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2004 3:47 am
Your description of the differences is right. And it is only the 641, which has the one piece bell, which I think is a strong factor in the very well balanced overtone structure. Also at louder dynamics. The sound is very far from being edgy or trombonish.
Glenn Call of Rochester plays the 642, but played the 641 before that. He speaks well about both models.
(I once asked him, which other makers made one piece euph bells. According to GC it only is Willson.)
There are a couple of differences:
The 642 has a bell engraving, which the 641 has not.
Some reports also have told of differences in the leadpipe, but I am not sure which ones they are.
Your reporting of the 642 responding better in the lower range is interesting.
The larger bell on the 642 should make the pitch more bendable (less slotting) than on the 641 according to a recent thread on this forum.
In my opinion response and resonance has a lot to do with pitch. If there is no slot at the right pitch, the instrument will be perceived as dead and stuffy.
One interpretation of your finding the 642 responding better in the low range might be, that you found better resonance within the wider slots, when you placed the notes at the pitches you wanted to.
From playing bassbone, I was used to doing a lot of exercises from the open pedal note to the notes just above it. Very well possible on a trombone, where one can adjust the tube-lenght very precisely.
I didn't like the low C and B natural on the 641. Of course the compensating system already in theory lets these notes be sharp. And I couldn't bend them sufficiently to make them in tune. The slots were too narrow. Having a main tuning slide trigger mounted on the 641 solved the problem. (Of course these notes still have not become exactly the easiest ones to play).
Klaus
Glenn Call of Rochester plays the 642, but played the 641 before that. He speaks well about both models.
(I once asked him, which other makers made one piece euph bells. According to GC it only is Willson.)
There are a couple of differences:
The 642 has a bell engraving, which the 641 has not.
Some reports also have told of differences in the leadpipe, but I am not sure which ones they are.
Your reporting of the 642 responding better in the lower range is interesting.
The larger bell on the 642 should make the pitch more bendable (less slotting) than on the 641 according to a recent thread on this forum.
In my opinion response and resonance has a lot to do with pitch. If there is no slot at the right pitch, the instrument will be perceived as dead and stuffy.
One interpretation of your finding the 642 responding better in the low range might be, that you found better resonance within the wider slots, when you placed the notes at the pitches you wanted to.
From playing bassbone, I was used to doing a lot of exercises from the open pedal note to the notes just above it. Very well possible on a trombone, where one can adjust the tube-lenght very precisely.
I didn't like the low C and B natural on the 641. Of course the compensating system already in theory lets these notes be sharp. And I couldn't bend them sufficiently to make them in tune. The slots were too narrow. Having a main tuning slide trigger mounted on the 641 solved the problem. (Of course these notes still have not become exactly the easiest ones to play).
Klaus
-
Rick F
- 5 valves
- Posts: 1677
- Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2004 11:47 pm
- Location: Lake Worth, FL
Interesting. On my 641 the B natural (4-2) is about 10 cents flat. I always have to lip it up. Doesn't matter what mpc I use either... Doug Elliott, Wick-5AL, SM-4, 51D. One section mate who plays on a 642 plays flat on B natural also. BTW, 4th valve slide all the way in.Klaus wrote:I didn't like the low C and B natural on the 641. Of course the compensating system already in theory lets these notes be sharp
No problem with low C. Hi B natural (second valve) doesn't speak on my horn Bb and D are fine, but the one in between is a bear. I've read it's better on a 642 and 842.
Miraphone 5050 - Warburton mpc (Brandon Jones)
YEP-641S (on long-term loan to grandson)
DE mpc (102 rim; I-cup; I-9 shank)
YEP-641S (on long-term loan to grandson)
DE mpc (102 rim; I-cup; I-9 shank)
