TubeNet

I'm contemplating the acquistion of a euph for use by TWO doublers: I hack away at tuba; my son is a strong trombone player - we both could benefit from access to a euph.

The classic answer to this question has been the Yamaha 321. 4V inline, non-compensating. As produced, I believe it accepts a small shank - but a commonly recommended "upgrade" is to swap out the receiver so that it can accept a large shank.

And then there were the Werils...which seem to have fallen from favor.

The flavor of the month might be Jinbao - fully compensating 3+1.

The prices (econo-rehab 321, with receiver swap vs. shiny new Jinbao) are pretty close.
The pluses and minuses appear to balance. So...opinion time!

The most valued opinion would come from someone who has actually played both (an exception will be made if you are the Resident Genius). Keep in mind
that the players are both doublers - one with a tin ear...and one with a highly trained ear.

Vote early, vote often (but please...explain your vote!)

just switched from 321 to jb.if mack still has them for 795,go for it...

I've played both... To me the reason the 321 was bad was the ergonomics. I really disliked the 4 valves on top. I felt I had to twist my wrist inward to get a decent amount of speed and control over the 2-4 valve combination. The tuning on the 321 tends to be adequate with the exception of the high Eb which cand sometimes be really bad. (I played a small shank version all the way to end of first year university) I never got the large shank update because it wasn't my horn and it would have cost a ton of money.

The Jinbao (I got the M&M version 4 years ago) was pretty decent event back then. The valves had to be worked on a bit, the guides had to be tweaked, a couple leaks had to be fixed (These issues would surely not arise today and they could be reimbursed by the seller)

The horn feels like a 95% YEP-642... What I mean by that is the response, the slotting and the sound quality with identical mouthpieces sounds just like a 642 that is just a bit off. ( I think that if I put this in horn in a group of different 642s I propbably couldn'
t pick this one out as a different model but I wouldn't think it would be the best one. Would I still play it? probably... (I no longer have it, I traded it back for a bass trombone...)

Of the two, I think the Jinbao would be the better choice. It is easier to order, will be ready to play when you get it. If you get a 321, then you need to spend some time getting it to a tech and having a new leadpipe put on.

YWWV....

I've owned several 321s and a 621, which is the 3+1, large-shank version of the 321.
I've played two of the Schiller Jinbao 642s, and two of the Werils.

One of the Werils hung on the wall of a local music store, and surprised me with its playability. Machining was chintzy cheap, but a good horn for the price. A while later, a friend of mine bought one sight unseen, and neither of us could make it play in tune with itself. A terrible sample. She returned it. Don't know which of the two experiences is closer to the norm.

I bought my first 321 new ~1981, and sold it a couple years later in search of the bigger, rounder, juicier sound of a Besson 967.
I like the 321s sweet, smooth, lyrical tone and "pick up and playability". It sips air, and is easy to control, so it served well when I was more of an "occasional player". I like the 4-across, and don't need the compensation, but the 321 sounds small to me, and I can overblow it.

The 621 is closer to what you're considering - non compensating large shank (but also with a larger 4th valve bore, made possible by the 3+1 arrangement), and although it played remarkably similar to a 321 in overall feel, in a side-by-side, it seemed to have a higher volume ceiling, and maybe a slightly larger sound. I could still overblow it, though, and this particular sample had some odd transitions. I've never seen another 621, never mind played one, but I'd bet the playing oddities were specific to this one horn.

Notwithstanding the 321's availability as a reasonably priced used horn and its higher manufacturing quality (much nicer look and feel than the clones), I vote the Jinbao. Had a deposit on one, in fact, but canceled in favor of a Willson.

The two SchillerBaos that I played may as well have been my friend's 642. Played beautifully. Even scale for projection, tone, volume, and easy, push-button intonation. Nice horns, and a silly low price.

Hi-
Very easy-JinBao.
Mark

You gave me an exception but it still constrains me--I have not played the Jin-Bao and my skills on euphonium are insufficient to render a judgement. But if I found a Besson New Standard or early Sovereign in a similar price range, that's the course I might be tempted to pursue. They are not quite as big and dark as a 642 (or a clone thereof) to my ears. But then I also prefer the Willson 2900 to the more popular (bigger, darker) 2950.

Rick "who already has a tuba" Denney

One (often overlooked) difference between an up-shanked 321 and a Jin Bao 3+1 stencil is that the 321 is a small bore (.571) horn, while the Jin Bao is large (.590/.661) bore. Depending on who the primary user will be, that may be something to take into consideration.

I would vote for the Jin Bao, with the caveat that slotting can be spotty above the 8th partials. I've had the opportunity to try out about 20 Jin Bao 3+1 comps in its various guises (Dillon, M&M, Tuba Exchange, Schiller, JZ) over the past 12-14 months. On some, the slotting locked in nicely ; on others, it could be "a challenge" to find and stay on the desired partial. (although, interestingly enough, even on the samples with "challenging" slotting, the dreaded high B natural, fingered either 2 or 3, popped out much more easily and securely than it did on any of the other 50-60-odd euphs, comp or non-comp, I've played or tried over the years.

Of course, YMMV.

Bloke, is the low range, assuming a large mp and time put into it, good enough?



Bob"remembering that Miraphone 1258 that was on here for $2000 a few years back"Kolada

For whatever it is worth, I had very good experiences with a Weril and sold it a few years ago. Most doublers don't NEED the compensating system, and the Yamaha 321, Weril, and probably some other less expensive four across horns, with a good mouthpiece, will fill the bill nicely. I have not played a JB yet.

Tom Coffey wrote:For whatever it is worth, I had very good experiences with a Weril and sold it a few years ago. Most doublers don't NEED the compensating system, and the Yamaha 321, Weril, and probably some other less expensive four across horns, with a good mouthpiece, will fill the bill nicely. I have not played a JB yet.

Nobody REALLY* needs a compensating euphonium in any situations(amateur or pro)... How many pieces in the euph repertoire use a low B natural... (I can't think of any, and a non-comp could use 1-2-3-4 with the first slide pulled out to get it if they really wanted to)

The compensating system just helps out with tuning... And the distribution of pistons between 2 hands (3+1) makes it ergonmically easier to play and hold.

If ergonomics were THE reason for 3+1, why not just have front action horns instead?

RE the low B (and, let's be honest! the low C as well)- I like the idea of a euphonium as a catch-all/miscellaneous horn especially for brass quintet on the 5th part.

PMeuph wrote:...And the distribution of pistons between 2 hands (3+1) makes it ergonmically easier to play and hold.

To me, this is just a matter of what we get used to. Tuba players, with much bigger and heavier valves, seem to find a way to push that fourth button down when needed. And most five-valve C tubas with front-action pistons require the right thumb for the fifth valve.

Rick "wary of confusing acclimation with superiority" Denney

Bob Kolada wrote:If ergonomics were THE reason for 3+1, why not just have front action horns instead?

RE the low B (and, let's be honest! the low C as well)- I like the idea of a euphonium as a catch-all/miscellaneous horn especially for brass quintet on the 5th part.

That was MY personal argument for the Jinbao over 321...I would have a front action horn, but a Yamaha 642 is fine and considerably cheaper. And, besides the Willson 2975 and the older Conn 24/25, can you think of any Large-bore 4-valve front action euphoniums?
(they are pretty hard to come across while these Jinbaos are a dime a dozen)

I think THE reason for the 3+1 is it makes those low B/C easier to play and easier to finger. Just think of the fingerings used going up a Bb scale from the pedal Bb to the F (0-1234-234-124-0) the succession of 234-124 (D-Eb) is difficult to really master because the ring finger and pinky share common tendons.

Rick Denney wrote:

PMeuph wrote:...And the distribution of pistons between 2 hands (3+1) makes it ergonmically easier to play and hold.

To me, this is just a matter of what we get used to. Tuba players, with much bigger and heavier valves, seem to find a way to push that fourth button down when needed. And most five-valve C tubas with front-action pistons require the right thumb for the fifth valve.

Rick "wary of confusing acclimation with superiority" Denney

Note that I said 'easier' not 'superior.'

Also, do not forget that I also mentioned holding the horn. 3+1 or 4 on top makes holding the horn (while standing up) easier than 4 front action valves, IMHO...

From my point-of-view in the shop, I would not really want a Weril, or an Asian euphonium.

The fit-and-finish of Weril instruments has gotten better, but is still not first-rate. I have managed to improve Werils for customers, but the valves, slides and silver-plating can be terribly frustrating to work with.

I repair many YEP-321's in the course of a year, and although I am not fond of their tonal quality, they have been very dependable and solid instruments over the years. I would rather have an older Japanese-made model than a newer Chinese-made one, though.

I am not comfortable with the workmanship, parts non-availability, or politics of Chinese instruments. If the engraving on the bells of some instruments can be believed, there are some European instruments that are no better, and occasionally are very bad.

There is now an American manufacturer that is making first-rate euphoniums, in southern California. From the least-expensive 3-valve student instrument to the top-of-the-line 3+1 compensating instrument, they all have hand-fitted monel pistons, a large receiver, a 12" bell diameter (unless you order the optional 11" bell), and very fine machining and workmanship. They are available as 3-top-pistons, 4-top-pistons, 3+1 non-compensating and 3+1 automatic compensating. I personally bought a 3+1 compensating with the Sovereign-style 11" bell and .580/.610" dual-bore, but the 3+1 non-compensating euphonium with the .570/.593" dual-bore remains the best-selling euphonium in my shop. It costs half of what the compensating model does, feels more open and responsive in the lower range than the 4-in-line model, is much lighter than the compensating model, and has very good intonation. It basically has all notes except the very low B-natural available with reasonable fingerings. For avid amateurs and tuba-euphonium doublers, it seems to me to be a great solution to affordability and quality.

By the way, I have played a very, very fine 4+1 rotary large-bore euphonium, and it is called the Rudolf Meinl kaiser bariton. The intonation and response is great, the free-blowing quality is just unreal, and it is not even close to affordable for most people.

bloke wrote:It ain't gonna happen (unless it does), but I believe the 4+1 (or even 4+2) system is superior to the 3+1 system.

Yes, more valves are involved, but the three main valves (used most often) are lighter weight and (as a 3+1 system is really a "double" system, rather than an "in-line" system) the 4+1 and 4+2 systems offer the greatly increased potential for a more free-blowing low range. After all, the only goal of those super-long pistons and all of that backlashing of tubing on a 3+1 "compensating" system is "improved and increased low range".

The only 4+1 euphoniums that currently exist have little to do with any of the "compensating" models, but I believe if there were an "apples-to-apples" instrument (same bugle/bell/mouthpipe as one of the best 3+1 "compensating" instruments) the 4+1 version would end up being a superior blow...

bloke "and front-action/easier-to-hold-and-play/cradle-under-the-left-arm (assuming 4+1) as well"

What about a 3+2 saxhorn? They are still used in France.

http://www.courtois-paris.com/en/index. ... /cuivres/1

Here is a picture

http://www.ng-musique.com/08-saxhorns/5 ... gente.html

The bore is pretty close to that Miraphone 5050.

PMeuph wrote:Nobody REALLY* needs a compensating euphonium in any situations(amateur or pro)... How many pieces in the euph repertoire use a low B natural... (I can't think of any, and a non-comp could use 1-2-3-4 with the first slide pulled out to get it if they really wanted to)

The compensating system just helps out with tuning... And the distribution of pistons between 2 hands (3+1) makes it ergonmically easier to play and hold.

In the version of "From the Shores of the Mighty Pacific" I use, there are several low C's and B's. In "snitching" bassoon music, one encounters them with some regularity. Cello music will call for Db's and C's fairly often. In band music, I've encountered only a few low C's and don't remember any low B's.

There are enough Eb's and D's in solo and band literature and they tend to be really dicey on a non-comp horn; therefore, I'm not interested in a non-comp.

normrowe wrote:

PMeuph wrote:Nobody REALLY* needs a compensating euphonium

The compensating system just helps out with tuning...

In the version of "From the Shores of the Mighty Pacific" I use, there are several low C's and B's. In "snitching" bassoon music, one encounters them with some regularity. Cello music will call for Db's and C's fairly often. In band music, I've encountered only a few low C's and don't remember any low B's.

There are enough Eb's and D's in solo and band literature and they tend to be really dicey on a non-comp horn; therefore, I'm not interested in a non-comp.

I've tried to highlight certain points you made in your argument.

The crux of my original argument was that the compensating horn exists more for the sake of convenience rather than out if necessity.

I think this is what this whole thread boils down to. Should the OP get a horn, that is built by a more reliable company, that will be adequate for most situations (the 321) or a horn that has features that are there to facilitate playing, but that is made by a less reliable company?

YMMV

bloke wrote:' interesting to read the various responses, which tend to vary according the the axe they are grinding.

When I play my Besson, people sure think I'm grinding my axe. I paid $400 for it, worked on it some, had a couple of things fixed by a pro, and then grafted a Yamaha 321 bottom bow on it (a perfect fit). I've played worse euphoniums that cost three times as much. Hell, I've played worse euphoniums that cost 15 times as much.

Rick "who'd almost always rather have something old and good and ugly than something new and shiny and mediocre" Denney

PMeuph wrote:

Tom Coffey wrote: Nobody REALLY* needs a compensating euphonium in any situations(amateur or pro)... How many pieces in the euph repertoire use a low B natural... (I can't think of any, and a non-comp could use 1-2-3-4 with the first slide pulled out to get it if they really wanted to)

Play much of the repertoire?

Off the top of my head, Exultaté (Sam Hazo) has a low B natural (at FF, no less), and Loud Sunsets (George Lam) has several low B naturals, not to mention the low Bs in the ever-popular C# minor wind band transcription of Debussy's La Cathedrale Engloutie. And I suspect if I cared to take the time to think about it, I could come up with several pieces in the solo rep that have low B naturals and a few others in the ensemble rep as well.