TubeNet

There seems to be a lot of talk about Yamaha coming out with a euphonium with the 'xeno' name. Does anyone know when this is supposed to come out, and general characteristics/specs?

tjonp wrote:There seems to be a lot of talk about Yamaha coming out with a euphonium with the 'xeno' name. Does anyone know when this is supposed to come out, and general characteristics/specs?

I dunno... the whole thing kid of scares me. I don't think I will like anything that it not exactly like what I have now. This thing sounds different from what I have now. It might even be made in a foreign country, by people who are different than me. As far as the new Yamaha horn... I guess I am a XENOphobe.


(You knew it had to happen)

I really do not have anything useful to say about the horn.

tjonp wrote:There seems to be a lot of talk about Yamaha coming out with a euphonium with the 'xeno' name. Does anyone know when this is supposed to come out, and general characteristics/specs?

Let's see ... was supposed to come out in 2004 ... then in 2004, it was "next year" ... then in 2005, it as "real soon now" ... then in 2006, it was "next year" ... then last year, it was "real soon now" ... then at TUSABTEC this year, it was "next year" ... so next year, the answer will be "real soon now."

General specs:

gold brass ... or maybe red brass ... or copper ... or bronze ... or cheese
300 mm bell ... or maybe 310mm
two piece bell ... or maybe one piece
15mm main bore/16mm compensating ... or maybe 16/17
interchangeable mpc receiver ... or not
stainless steel valves ... or maybe monel
bright silverplate w/gold trim ... or maybe bright nickelplate with black nickel trim ... or clear lacquer on raw brass ... or black nickelplate with bright nickel trim ... or bright silverplate with black nickel trim ... or bright silverplate with bright nickel trim ... or flaming pink and electric blue powdercoat with dayglo orange highlights

This post is so funny, I have changed my signature.
Peace.
ASG

News to me. I haven't heard anything about a Xeno euph.

WaltTrombone wrote:News to me. I haven't heard anything about a Xeno euph.

The Xeno euph is rumoured to be Yamaha's forthcoming entry in the British Brass Band market. It gets brought up in British Brass Band forums every time someone asks about which euph to buy. Supposedly, the prototypes have been "nearly ready" for 4-5 years now. A number of big-name euphers in British Brass Band circles are alleged to have been consulted on the design, but none of the alleged "consultants" have owned up to having done so. It's more or less a standing joke among British euphers: kind of like we joke about finding pianists who can play the Hindemith ... except that there actually ARE pianists who can play the Hindemith.

Well, euphs are not a big market for Yamaha, outside of the YEP321/201 in the school market. I'd never say that they weren't working on a Xeno euph, but with the 842 and 642 already fairly successful, and the fact that euphs are a small part of their business, my guess is that another high-end euph is not really high on their list of priorities. If I hear anything, I'll keep you all posted.

sounds a lot like the oft-rumored, but proven-currently-dead Conn F tuba, from a few years back........

mclaugh wrote:it was "next year" ... then last year, it was "real soon now" ... then at TUSABTEC this year, it was "next year" ... so next year, the answer will be "real soon now."

Yeah, it's sort of like the Loch Ness monster, there but no one has seen it.

I even read on some Australian brass board that someone down under was testing a Xeno euph prototype with a trigger.

Who knows.

dwaskew wrote:sounds a lot like the oft-rumored, but proven-currently-dead Conn F tuba, from a few years back........

The prototype of that actually existed, and I can say I've seen it and played it. It was a very nice horn... But we'll never see it on the market, I think... Conn has other priorities.

J.c.S.

Bob1062 wrote:So what? It'd just be another regular comp euph, and any real difference from existing euphoniums will be so slight that only euphonium players will pretend to notice it.

Now if it was a big bore horn with front valves (comp or not), that might be something (but Yamaha already makes one like that, the 621 F! ).

Spoken like a true tuba player! Bob1062 and I have argued for the last two years on at least two different forums about how his idea that a front valve, large bore professional euphonium is somehow preferable to the current design of top valve 3+1 compensating horns. NOT! (check the last 100 professional euphonium performers you have talked to. The only one I know playing a front valver is the trombone player from Canadian Brass who playes the Marzan design Willson 2975. And it is a doubling instrument for him.)

However, I agree with Bob1062 that Yamaha doesn't really need to come up with another professional compensating euphonium. The 642 and 842S are really fine horns and have significant market share in US wind bands at the high school and college level. They are not favorites in British brass bands, since the tone is a bit light compared with the Besson (or Besson clones such as York). Willson (another US and Japanese favorite) is almost unseen in Britain. I just returned from a week playing under the Childs brothers and with some of the finest euphonium performers in Britain so I got to see this first hand.

If Yamaha were to come out with another compensating euphonium, I would think they would target the brass band market in the UK as Willson has with the new 2960.

Doug

druby wrote:If Yamaha were to come out with another compensating euphonium, I would think they would target the brass band market in the UK as Willson has with the new 2960.

Virtually all of the talk about the Xeno euph I've run across prior to this thread has been on brass band sites, either in UK or Australia, so IF—and at this point I think it's a pretty big "if"—Yamaha does come out with a Xeno euph, I expect that to be the target market.

Bob1062 wrote:I think that's a case of playing what's out there, or what their teachers played.

I played a 4-valve front non-comp (King 2268) all the way through junior high and high school and in college. When the time came to buy a horn of my own, I tried a Marzan 4-front comp, which I could have bought for a very attractive price, because that's what was familiar to me but went with a 3+1 Besson New Standard instead because I could play eighth- and sixteenth-note runs more cleanly and much quicker activating the 4th valve with my left hand rather than the pinkie on my right hand. And as my orthopedist has since pointed out, the 4-front setup makes one more susceptible to developing RSI owing to the angle and reach of the pinkie.

My joke/point is that even if Yamaha comes out with another euphonium, what would be the real difference between it and the 150 clones already out there?

Oh, probably about the same as the difference between the six or seven gazillion York clones.

Looks like we're just going to have to be stoic about it and wait them out.

I got an email response from Kurt Witt at Yamaha. I asked him if he knew anything about a new model euph being developed called the 'Xeno'. His response...

I'm not aware of any new euphonium development, in fact we recently proposed a few tweaks and pretty much found there isn't any interest in euphonium development (at the moment). I know the Yamaha UK guys have been working on some new brass band horns, and perhaps they have a slight variation of the 842 they're calling a xeno. I doubt it, but it's possible.

But officially I'm not aware of anything.

I don't think a Xeno euphonium is coming. It just doesn't make any sense to Yamaha's current lineup. When the 842 came out, it was touted as the best of the best, and still is. The problem for them is that it just can't get any better than the 842. What would they do? Electromagnetic valves? Hand-stitched cases? Your choice of colour (for REALLY cheap!!:-)?

What would they do?

Well, they would add a trigger and tweak it a bit to deepen the tone for the brass band market.

Jesse Brook wrote:I don't think a Xeno euphonium is coming. It just doesn't make any sense to Yamaha's current lineup.

I have to disagree.

The 842 is a very fine instrument, but there is a reason it hasn't been able to gain so much as a toehold in the brass band world outside the US. If Yamaha has any aspirations of making inroads into the British and European brass band world, they will need to come up with model with a darker tone to match the sound profile those bands are seeking, like WIllson's done with the 2960 "Celebration."

When the 842 came out, it was touted as the best of the best, and still is. The problem for them is that it just can't get any better than the 842.

Oh really? So I suppose the flat middle C and sharp Eb are really just an illusion, and that the Yamaha artists who think the 842 sounds thin and light compared to the 642, and prefer the 642 because they believe it projects better are a bunch of idiots who don't know what they're talking about.

[quote="mclaugh
Oh really? So I suppose the flat middle C and sharp Eb are really just an illusion, and that the Yamaha artists who think the 842 sounds thin and light compared to the 642, and prefer the 642 because they believe it projects better are a bunch of idiots who don't know what they're talking about.[/quote]

Dude! Relax...

Like Rich Matteson (did), I play a Yamaha 4+1 Yamaha. Love it. If the entirety of my work were on Euph, I might reconsider it, but I like this instrument. Ideally, there would be one of these with the 5th in the main pipe instead of off the 4th tubing, but so be it. It is about the same weight as a Besson Imperial, but a little more alive in some respects.

Tubists may have a different viewpoint, though I started (after flute) on a front valve euph, and I still prefer that; there are no options in that category I can use, unless another Conn 4v falls into my lap ready for a 5th valve addition. I hate Wilsons, and nothing else really is made at a professional level. So I'm stuck with Top Action. But as we are not "hangin' around" typically in the Eb-B range, I don't think a compensating mechanism is necessary. But it is a good system. It'd be cheaper though, I think, to have a 3+2 Instrument with the same build quality as these other top-end instruments, and I think the reduced weight may indeed liven up these instruments.

No one here's an idiot... yet; just people disagreeing with one another. If they have a strong opinion, that doesn't mean they think all who disagree are idiots (I hope); they just disagree...

J.c

bloke wrote:If one examines all of the absurd contraptions-within-a-contraption, trouble, expense, and handstands that the widely-consumed 3+1 compensating system goes through to offer the player just three pitches in the extreme low range (with one of the three ironically, the B natural, being unusably sharp)..... Just because something is made and people buy it doesn't mean it is the best possible solution to a perceived problem...
bloke "Even though it was rotary, find an old picture of Rich Matteson playing his Meinl-Weston euphonium. It was FRONT-ACTION, and he could cradle it over his left arm and hold it effortlessly while standing and playing for hours...and - btw - HIS Yamaha euphonium - even though top-action - was NON-compensating with 4 pistons and 1 rotor."

Yeah....so what I draw out of this discussion is that tubists who blow an occasional Bydlo or Holst Planets and don't live on their euphoniums like I live on mine prefer euphoniums that look and play like their tubas.

Keep in mind that we owe a great debt to Bell, Jacobs, Phillips, Bobo and others who popularized the large American style front action piston valve (largely) tubas built by Holton, York, King, and others during the 1930's to 1960's. You prefer this style of horn because it sounds better and not coincidentally because these same artists established the model for what a good tubist should sound like. If I happen to think that pulling lots of slides and having to keep track of 5 or more valves and play with my pinky finger on my right hand is "trouble, expense, and lots of handstands", well....I am not a tuba player so what do I know?

Full-time euphoniumists prefer the professional 3+1 compensating horns modeled after the British-built Bessons and Booseys' of the 50's and 60's and first popularized in the States by Harold Brasch and the US Navy band. We like these horns first and foremost because they sound better. Not coincidentally our model of a good sound comes from the same artists (Brasch, Lehman, Louder, many British bandsmen, and later Dr. Bowman) who popularized the horns in the US. That these horns have the compensating system reduced the need for additional fingerings and slide pulling in the very demanding, technical musical repertoire of the British Brass Band euphonium literature for which they were designed. Keep in mind that the 3+1 system came about specifically because the 5 and 6 valve British euphoniums and French saxhorns of the late 1890's-1910's were cumbersome to play!

I grew up on 4-front valve Conn CONNstellations in the '60's and still own one which I play regularly. But I play my Besson (or pick one of about 10 or so other pro quality clones from York, Meinl-Weston, Willson, Miraphone, Yamaha, etc.) for all of my serious performances and for daily practice. While I don't know much about tuba's, I do know something about euphoniums. If you want a good quality, fantastic sounding horn, pick a 3+1 compensating horn. If you want a nice cheaper horn, a Yamaha 321 (with or without a 5th valve) is a nice horn, but it just isn't in the same league as the good 3+1 horns we have today.

Beyond a doubt, we are right now in the midst of one of the best times ever for choosing a wonderful sounding professional quality euphoniums from a variety of manufacturers. There are more GREAT horns outthere than any other time that I can imagine. Plus, there are new models coming out, even if Yamaha isn't doing a XENO. ALL of these horns happen to be 3+1 compensating horns modeled after the classic British Besson.

Doug