TubeNet

Does anybody know if the valve set and general ergonomics on the 842 are the same as the 642? I'm going to try out an 842 tomorrow but want to know if it is the same as a 642 in terms of ergonomics (i.e., valve stroke length, distance between valves, valve button size, location of 4th valve.)

Thanks.

MA

The length of 642's valve throw on the 642 is slightly longer than the 842's.

A couple more ergonomic differences:

the 642 leadpipe is mounted slightly higher than it is on the 842;

the false piece (hand brace) on the 842 attaches in front of the branch; on the 642 it "T's" into the branch:



One consequence of this, if you're not careful, is that it's very easy, for your wrist to "collapse/slide over" against the inner branch, so part of the weight ends up being supported by the right hand. (Can you say "impaired dexterity" and "Carpal Tunnel Syndrome"?)

A few other physical difference that may or may not be a big deal, depending on one's preferences:

the 642 has a water key on the first valve tuning slide; the 842 doesn't;

the 842's first valve slide is slightly shorter than the 642's to correct the flat fifth partial C (middle C) on the 642, at the cost of further raising (sharpening) the already sharp sixth partial Eb;

some of the bracing has been reposition to improve responsiveness and darken the tone;

the 842 has a thinner bell than the 642, which Yamaha claims makes it more responsive than the 642. The consensus among folks who have played both agrees that this is the case, especially at low (soft) dynamic levels. OTOH, the consensus also seems to be that the 642 is less prone to breaking up at high volumes and is able to project better over a band.

tuben wrote:

LJV wrote:Tarted up GP on 842.

Love it.

It would be costly to change the tooling for every models revision issued. Boosey => Besson stayed with the same valve block through most of a century on their Eb compers and likely also on the other comp models.

The false piece for the hand support is a much less sophisticated item, which easily may be revised. Yet it is a factor which is of an outmost importance for especially small hands.

I wonder why Yamaha hasn’t put a main tuning slide trigger on their euphs as a standard feature. I have had one added to my YEP-641, and haven’t regretted.

Klaus

LJV wrote:

imperialbari wrote:I wonder why Yamaha hasn’t put a main tuning slide trigger on their euphs as a standard feature. I have had one added to my YEP-641, and haven’t regretted.

Klaus

Maybe because to some the presence of triggers, push rods, and pull rings is an admission of guilt. Although becoming more standard on euphs, a trigger would signify that a trigger is needed. Just a thought...

I don’t disagree with you, but whereas Steven Mead around 1998 in a conversation told me, that he mainly used the trigger added to his Sovereign to correct sharp 6th partials, then my purpose was different. From the bassbone I was used to having perfect low C’s and B natural’s. I wanted these being available on the euph also, as I practiced scales across the difficult jump from the very open Bb pedal to the next notes with almost twice the amount of tubing involved.

Back then I hadn’t planned going into tubas big time. And I still think the low range euph is a marvelous tuba, when it comes to clarity.

Klaus

I guess I'm finally realizing what my "real" question is, and that is: what 3+1 compensating euphoniums out there have the best ergononics for small hands? That is, shortest valve stroke, closest-together valves, not reaching across the pond just to find the 4th valve?

We are doing some quite difficult music in brass band, and I simply will not be able to play that fast on my King. It looks like a violin part; I can play lickety-split on violin, and pretty much even on horn, so I know it is an ergonomics issue and not just a competence issue.

MA

MaryAnn wrote:I guess I'm finally realizing what my "real" question is, and that is: what 3+1 compensating euphoniums out there have the best ergononics for small hands? That is, shortest valve stroke, closest-together valves, not reaching across the pond just to find the 4th valve?MA

Having just recently sold a 642 in part because I too have small hands I'd say Besson Sovereign (967, 968) or Ambassador if you want to shell out the bread. The 642 has a noticeably longer valve stroke than the Bessons.

MaryAnn wrote:I guess I'm finally realizing what my "real" question is, and that is: what 3+1 compensating euphoniums out there have the best ergononics for small hands? That is, shortest valve stroke, closest-together valves, not reaching across the pond just to find the 4th valve?

Mary Ann,

I have small hands (as in, I can just reach an octave on a piano) and relatively short arms (5'-5" wingspan).

After trying (and rejecting) every 3+1 I could get my hands on (Buffett-Crampon Besson 968, 968, 3051, 3052, Globe-stamp Sovereign, B&H Imperial, Besson New Standard, York 3067, 3068, 4052, Willson 2900, 2900BT, 2950, M-W 451, 551, Miraphone 1258A, 5000, 5050, Yamaha 641, 642, 842, Kalison, B&S Perantucci 35, 37, Hirsbrunner Exclusive, Stealth, Dillon, Tuba Exchange, Kanstul, Nirschl), I ran across a blog post by Dave Werden mentioning that Sterling tweaked the Virtuoso (see Thurs Feb 22 post) to make it easier for those with smaller hands.

Based on that, I ordered one and tried it side-by-side with an 842, 2052, 2900BT and a Besson New Standard.

All I have to say is, I couldn't be more pleased with the ergonomic, mechanical, or the musical attributes of my Virtuoso.

Of course, YMMV.

elimia wrote:

MaryAnn wrote:I guess I'm finally realizing what my "real" question is, and that is: what 3+1 compensating euphoniums out there have the best ergononics for small hands? That is, shortest valve stroke, closest-together valves, not reaching across the pond just to find the 4th valve?MA

Having just recently sold a 642 in part because I too have small hands I'd say Besson Sovereign (967, 968) or Ambassador if you want to shell out the bread. The 642 has a noticeably longer valve stroke than the Bessons.

Brain fart - I meant Besson Prestige, not Miraphone Ambassador (which I haven't played). To comment on the Sterling, they are creme' de creme' but a used Besson won't cost as much.

If I hadn't bought a Virtuoso, I'd have gone with a Miraphone 5050. The sound and responsiveness are remarkable. It is slightly more compact across the width than my Virtuoso, and the outer third valve tuning slide receiver is positioned slightly closer to the main branch, making it even less of a reach to the 4th valve than on my Virtuoso, however, the diameter of the valves is noticeably wider and the length of the valve throw is longer. That, ultimately, was the deciding factor for me.

Again, YMMV.