Yamaha 641 euphonium

elimia · Post by **elimia** » Wed Jan 26, 2005 6:32 pm

I'm considering picking one up. How does this sucker play? And are there any major differences between it and the 642 (which I can't afford used).

Thanks!

pg · Post by pg » Wed Jan 26, 2005 9:11 pm

One man's junk is another man's treasure. I wonder if I bought LV's?

I know several people that play them and have played them - including myself - and like them very much (the 641s, that is), me included. No one has been as vocal in the past about his love for the 641 as Klaus. You have to buy these used so they're not always available but I think they're probably the best compensating horn for the money out there. That's pretty much why I bought mine and I'm happy. But, you might be like LV and hate it. Any chance you can try one?

--paul;

elimia · Post by **elimia** » Wed Jan 26, 2005 10:01 pm

Yes, in fact I plan a trip to the shop this weekend to give it a blow. I play on a Weril now and the only reason I might be interested in this horn would be a quality horn with a 3 + 1 arrangement, compensating a bonus. In my experience with the other 3 + 1 euphs in a "budget" price range, they all seem to have intonation problems. I hope this is different.

Yamahas have a good reputation. The 321s I've played have been real solid horns.

Rick F · Post by **Rick F** » Thu Jan 27, 2005 11:57 pm

I play a 641 and love it too. No complaints. The intonation is very good... not perfect but very good. I can lip the couple of trouble notes up or down. The bell on the 641 is 11" vs the 12" bell of the 642. The handle on the 641 is straight across rather than a slight curve. The curve design might be a bit more comfortable.

Good luck finding one if that's what you want.

Chuck(G) · Post by **Chuck(G)** » Fri Jan 28, 2005 2:01 am

I'm not sure, but I think Klaus has mentioned fitting a 641 with a 642 leadpipe as a possible improvement.

Either that, or I've been hallucinatiing again.

Chuck(G) · Post by **Chuck(G)** » Fri Jan 28, 2005 3:51 am

bloke, excerpted wrote:I continue to wonder about somethin'...(sorry! )...

Why?

Why the preferred arrangement for euph is 3+1, rather than 4 front-action on the right hand, leaving the left hand free to fiddle with slides and scratch and hold one's beer and such...

pg · Post by pg » Fri Jan 28, 2005 7:44 am

bloke wrote:"Yes, I know that they best-sounding instruments are built with all of that compensating cr*p mounted on them, but: Why?"

Because they sell (and there's more money to be made with that cr*p). I'm sure if Brian Bowman and Steven Mead (and now all the new wonders) were playing a non-comper, they'd start flying off the shelves.

For my sake, I prefer the larger bore and, when I was looking for a used horn, that meant a compensating horn. Plus now I do get to play those low C's - and I do play them but only (usually) when I'm covering a low part in church or playing with a trombone group that doesn't have a bass trombone. Hmm

Otherwise, I'm in the baritone range as you noted.

--paul;

Matt G · Post by **Matt G** » Fri Jan 28, 2005 9:26 am

Chuck(G) wrote:
bloke, excerpted wrote:I continue to wonder about somethin'...(sorry! )...

Why?
Why the preferred arrangement for euph is 3+1, rather than 4 front-action on the right hand, leaving the left hand free to fiddle with slides and scratch and hold one's beer and such...

Yes, exactly.

This might help bring another player into the game other than Willson with the uber-expensive 2975 4V Front Action compensator.

The amount of slide manipulation on a Euph would be roughly half of what is required on a tuba, and would be easy to do on a instrument such as this:

elimia · Post by **elimia** » Fri Jan 28, 2005 6:42 pm

I actually do play the low C on some solo pieces I'm working with right now. While I enjoy the 4th valve for the range, it really is the larger bore I like as Paul mentioned too.

As for the 3+1 arrangement, it's just what I prefer. I don't have the uber-pinky, nor as an amateur that's pretty busy have a lot of time have the desire to develop it.

Nothing wrong with my Weril other than a desire to upgrade to a quality 3+1. Good advice about replacing the 641 leadpipe with one from a 642. Should I buy one, I'll keep that in mind.

Rick F · Post by **Rick F** » Sat Jan 29, 2005 12:32 am

Chuck(G) wrote:I'm not sure, but I think Klaus has mentioned fitting a 641 with a 642 leadpipe as a possible improvement.

Either that, or I've been hallucinatiing again.

Hmmm? I remember a discussion about replacing a Yamaha's 321 leadpipe with the leadpipe from a 642, but not on a 641. I thought the LP of both the 641 and 642 were almost identical? I could be wrong though. I know that the LP on the 842 is different... different angle to the player.

Chuck(G) · Post by **Chuck(G)** » Sat Jan 29, 2005 1:18 am

Rick F wrote:Hmmm? I remember a discussion about replacing a Yamaha's 321 leadpipe with the leadpipe from a 642, but not on a 641. I thought the LP of both the 641 and 642 were almost identical? I could be wrong though. I know that the LP on the 842 is different... different angle to the player.

Nope, I've been hallucinating.

I checked with Klaus and he says it's indeed the 642-321 swap.

Mea maxima culpa.

Rick F · Post by **Rick F** » Sat Jan 29, 2005 12:17 pm

No problem Chuck. Thanks for checking with Klaus though since "elimia" was thinking about swapping it out.

elimia · Post by **elimia** » Sun Jan 30, 2005 11:43 am

Thanks for everyone's input. I played the horn yesterday and was pretty disappointed. Even with slides pulled out, man, the horn played SO sharp. I brought my tuner with me and it definitely wasn't pretty. The Weril I play might not be fancy, but it has fabulous intontation. That goes a long way.

Not an indictment of all 641s, just this particular one. FWIW, it had a great sound, rich low register.