Re: Yamaha Custom


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ TubeNet BBS ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Scott F. on July 11, 2002 at 11:49:41:

In Reply to: Yamaha Custom posted by Eupher on July 11, 2002 at 09:24:05:

I did an extensive test of the 842S (Custom) and the 642S a couple of months ago. I had posted my findings, but see below for a repost. Overall, I couldn't find an overwhelming reason to justify the extra $$$ for the custom. However as an amateur you should probably take this analysis with a grain of salt. I chatted with Adam Frey a couple of months ago and he told me he would have never left his Hirsbrunner for the 642 but he loves the 842. 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 ergonomics 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. 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 slightly better, but since I switched to the 51D the difference was less than expected. The 642 responded very nicely, but not as quick as the 842. Bottom Line: Slight Edge, 842.

Intonation: Since the 842 leadpipe is 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). The people who listened to me were amazed as well.





Follow Ups: