See:
http://www.yamaha.com/yamahavgn/CDA/Con ... 00,00.html
It's all in the features and specifications
What is different between Yamaha 642S Euph. and Yamaha 842?
-
Bob Mosso
- bugler
- Posts: 211
- Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 2:01 pm
- Location: southern California
- Contact:
-
Ryan_Beucke
- 3 valves
- Posts: 256
- Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2004 6:31 pm
- Location: Potsdam, NY
Re:
There definitly is a difference between the two horns. I have to run so I don't have time to get into it, I hope someone else can explain it better, but the leadpipe is different, the bell is different, and some of the tubing has some changes (in addition to the gold plating) that add up to a different playing and sounding horn.
-
Ryan_Beucke
- 3 valves
- Posts: 256
- Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2004 6:31 pm
- Location: Potsdam, NY
Re:
If there's one thing Yamaha is bad at, it's advertising their products.
I know from the specs it seems like the 842 just has gold trim and a higher price, but what I've experienced is that it is a different horn. The bell is thinner and the leadpipe is different, which anyone can tell you will change the sound and response of the horn. The valves as far as I know are the same, so the 642 does not have a longer throw than the 842. The 1st valve is also shortened, to help bring the middle C and other notes in tune. I think you should definitly play one and compare it though. I know a lot of people actually prefer the 642 to the 842, and that's their prefernce. Personally, if I had the money to spare, I would grab an 842 for myself, because I find that my tone is too thick on the 642. But that is my personal experience.
Basically anywhere you ask a question about how good a horn is, you're gonna get mixed answers. You really need to compare it to the 642 yourself and see if it is worth spending the extra money. If I knew what I know now when I bought my horn, I probably would've gotten the 842 because it would work better for me, however for many people, the 642 is the better horn. Just know that they aren't the same horn with extra gold plating.
I know from the specs it seems like the 842 just has gold trim and a higher price, but what I've experienced is that it is a different horn. The bell is thinner and the leadpipe is different, which anyone can tell you will change the sound and response of the horn. The valves as far as I know are the same, so the 642 does not have a longer throw than the 842. The 1st valve is also shortened, to help bring the middle C and other notes in tune. I think you should definitly play one and compare it though. I know a lot of people actually prefer the 642 to the 842, and that's their prefernce. Personally, if I had the money to spare, I would grab an 842 for myself, because I find that my tone is too thick on the 642. But that is my personal experience.
Basically anywhere you ask a question about how good a horn is, you're gonna get mixed answers. You really need to compare it to the 642 yourself and see if it is worth spending the extra money. If I knew what I know now when I bought my horn, I probably would've gotten the 842 because it would work better for me, however for many people, the 642 is the better horn. Just know that they aren't the same horn with extra gold plating.
-
Louis
- bugler
- Posts: 75
- Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2004 3:09 pm
- Location: Woodbridge, NJ USA
- Contact:
Re:
The 842 doesn't have a water key on the 1st valve slide. I'm not sure how that's an improvement... Also, the rest bar for the right hand is different - on the 842 it's attached more like the Willsons or modern Bessons (with a separate piece instead of being soldered directly to the tubing - the 642 employs the latter method on one end) - I think that makes the angle of the bar a little more comfortable for most players.
Personally, I think the playing differences are subtle. Both are wonderful, top-flight instruments.
Louis
Personally, I think the playing differences are subtle. Both are wonderful, top-flight instruments.
Louis
-
Louis
- bugler
- Posts: 75
- Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2004 3:09 pm
- Location: Woodbridge, NJ USA
- Contact:
Re:
If this is true (and their website says it is), shouldn't they change it on the 642 too? Or maybe they have...Ryan_Beucke wrote:The 1st valve [slide] is also shortened, to help bring the middle C and other notes in tune.
Louis
-
hydeuphonium
- bugler
- Posts: 42
- Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2004 12:30 am
- Location: Suisun City, CA
I played on a 642 for 4 years, and now I have played on a 842 for about 7 months.
the difference...
LIGHT YEARS!!
The response is MUCH better than the 642. The Low Range is not as stuffy as the 642. The thinner bell did the trick. It is overall, a much smoother sounding horn than the 642.
Whoever said that the gold trim is the only difference 1) hasn't played on a 642 and 842 long enough to tell the difference 2) hasn't read the yamaha websites spec's or 3) hasn't even held the 842 to tell that the leadpipe and holding pipe are different.
the difference...
LIGHT YEARS!!
The response is MUCH better than the 642. The Low Range is not as stuffy as the 642. The thinner bell did the trick. It is overall, a much smoother sounding horn than the 642.
Whoever said that the gold trim is the only difference 1) hasn't played on a 642 and 842 long enough to tell the difference 2) hasn't read the yamaha websites spec's or 3) hasn't even held the 842 to tell that the leadpipe and holding pipe are different.