Posted by Matt G on April 23, 2001 at 07:51:21:
In Reply to: Re: Re: Re: why compensating, really? posted by Joe S. on April 22, 2001 at 21:02:39:
Many moons ago while still in Florida, I had the pleasure of playing this horn and hearing it played by some good players including John Allred shortly after Mr. Matteson's untimely death. This horn is definitely better than a standard YEP-321S, however not a ton better. It played in tune extremely well and the fifth rotor wasn't really put on unless needed, but it didn't make much difference in the blow of the horn. I think that the "magic" of a YEP-321 is the same as the Conn 2J & 3J that Mr. Phillips loved. Basically, they have a good sound to the player good manageable intonation, but most importantly they record extremely well. I think that at times we neglect this character in choosing an instrument, but I know from experience that an old Conn sounds awesome on tape even compared to bigger horns. For players of their type this is far more important than what it sounds like to them in the hall and even the feel. Also, the compensating mechanism seems to rob some of the "sparkle" from the sound of the euphonium, many times making them seem a little lifeless and dull. I don't know if it is the extra weight or the extra bends, but personally I would use a 321 for solo stuff as a euph player and on old King with the four upright valves for ensemble as they seem to best bridge the sonic gap between the tubas and trombones and other members of the group. Plus I could own both of these for the same price as a nice new Willson, Hirsbrunner, Prestige, Sterling, and I think even the top line Yamaha's. However, I am very outdated in my thinking as I prefer the valves to have as little mass as possible, not have two runs through them whether it be a double or compensating horn.
Matt G