Posted by Scott F. on April 06, 2003 at 15:44:29:
In Reply to: 642s? 842s? what the big difference? posted by Bob on April 06, 2003 at 09:25:05:
I did an extensive test of the 842S (Custom) and the 642S very recently. I had posted my findings last year for a similar test, and see below for a repost. The 842s are not as consistent as the 642s since they are handmade (I'm told the 600 series are machine made). Unlike the survey I took last year (listed below), this most recent 842S had the darkest sweetest tone I've ever come across. I chatted with Adam Frey last year he told me he would have never left his Hirsbrunner for the 642 but he loves the 842. I've also chatted with a fellow lister who bought an 842, sold it, and now has the 642. Bottom line: Try them both and YOU decide what is best for YOU.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I decided to run by Chuck Levin's Washington Music Center to do a long test and get a price quote from them. They had one 842 and several 642S in stock. So, I embarked on a VERY LONG test of those horns with my Willson 2900s. I went into this test slightly favoring the 842 in spite of the gold trim.
Tonal Differences - Almost no difference. Both were quite dark and warm. The 842 may have had a more singing quality whereas the 642 may have had a more cello like quality. THESE WERE VERY SUBTLE DIFFERENCES. At first I could tell no difference whatsoever but I recruited several in the store, including a professional trombonist to listen to me. Most said there was no difference. Those who found a difference prefered the 642 in a Bach Cello Suite excerpt and the 842 in the Bach/Gonoud Ave Maria. Bottom Line: EVEN
Ergonomics - I went into this test heavily favoring the 842 for this aspect since I had tried them both at the Army conference. Boy was I in for an eye opening experience. In contrast to the conference, I performed this comparison seated rather than standing. Although the ergonomic design for the hand piece was definitely better in the 842 for valve action, the positioning of the leadpipe/receiver was far superior (for me) in the 642. Simply put, the receiver is much higher on the bell on the 642. The 842 has a positioning comparable to the Willson. I had to use the same foam support that I use for the Willson while playing the 842 seated. This is logical, since Glenn Call (who is about 6'4" like myself) had a major role in the design of the 642, and Hokazono designed the 842 (and who used to play Willson). Bottom Line: EVEN
Response: The 842 responded better. The 642 responded very nicely, but not as quick as the 842. Bottom Line: Slight Edge, 842.
Intonation: Since the 842 leadpipe is ALSO shorter than the 642, I played noticeably sharper on the 842. I was nearly all the way out on the main tuning slide. As far as the cut first valve slide...this is a toss up in my judgement...the shorter slide does correct the middle C-concert but it makes the Eb concert (above and below middle C) noticeably sharp. Yes, I was able to reach an acceptable compromise with EITHER system. Still, I resented the fact that I had to pull out my main tuning slide all the way out to bring down the pitch for the 842. Bottom Line: Slight Edge, 642.
It should be noted that both Yamahas put the poor pitiful Willson (2900S) to shame (this horn is a dog, I've played much better Willsons at the conference). The people who listened to me were amazed as well.