I really liked the response! Tim and I then went to a quiet room so I could really test and get a feel for it with more detail. I got to play-test one for the first time at the Midwest clinic about 3 years ago I believe. I know this is going to sound like I'm marketing Besson being an artist for them, but I really do love the 1065 that we have. However, you will have issues once he progresses. The Yamaha 321's are good intermediate horns with few real intonation issues in the middle of the horn, which is where MOST high school players will be. This is why it's labelled as a "Professional" horn but not many players actually play it. Having spent a fair amount of time playing Yamahas, Bessons, and everything in between, it has an entirely different feel and the timbre isn't right. Honestly, having tried the 2280 several times, it's a weird horn. After Yamaha moved their production of these horns out of China, guess who hired the builders?īut spec per spec, the Besson is the better horn between the two. They also have many of the same sub manufacturers for parts so when I say identical, I am not exaggerating. If you're looking at the YEP321, I'd say to skip it and get the Eastman version, it should be less, made out of identical components, excellent quality. The intonation will not be as good as the Yamaha, but you'll get a better tone out of it and good mouthpiece selection with the large shank. They still are made very durable albeit not as heavily armoured as they were in the English manufacture. The Yamaha is a decent horn but I would find the Besson valves more reliable. I'd lean more towards the Besson honestly.
Yamaha 321s euphonium pro#
Anybody else? (Make sure your son gets a long test-blow with an electronic tuner close at hand.)īut maybe the best option of all would be to expend a bit of patience and a bit more money and find a good USED pro horn. But maybe this problem was uniquely mine. Not just on selected partials, but across the scale, as if the horn were built to play at a higher concert pitch such as one finds in some european lands. The smaller bore of the Yam should be no issue to a strong player Dave Werden recalled elsewhere on this forum that he heard a symphonic work with Euph solo performed by one of the big-5 orchestras impressed with the eupher's big sound, he went to talk to that player, and found he had been playing a Yam 321.īut I should report here that I had a devil of a time with my 321 playing sharp. (I did so for years, but I also have simian arms (34" shirtsleeve).) By so doing, he will become conditioned to the 3+1 feel. If your son has a good reach, he can play the 4th valve with the left hand by reaching across the instrument. The Yam 321 might be the more dependable choice. So I'm having a blast playing again!Īny help and opinions on what to purchase would be appreciated! I'm getting back into playing in our local community band at Louisiana College, along with my son. I am a euphonium player myself, but haven't played regularly in many years. have a negative impact on his developement? I know the build quality and consistency will be there with Yamaha, and the intonation is decent.
which will allow my son to get used to playing that style horn.Īs far as the Yamaha 321S goes, would the smaller bore and 4 inline valve config. Is the 2011' Besson 1065 a decent horn? Is the build qaulity and manufacturing consistent? How is the intonation? Does it have a large shank mouthpiece receiver? I do like the fact that it does have the 3+1 config. The Besson 1065 (3+1) is available for around $2000 as well as the Yamaha 321S for around the same price. I'm trying to decide on whether or not to purchase a pro level horn now that will take him through college and beyond perhaps, or buy a more intermediate level horn now and a pro level horn later.Īssuming we go the intermediate level horn route, which horn would be the best option? He is very good for his age and level of experience, and also very excited and passionate about music. I'm looking to purchase a euphonium for my son who is in high school.
0 kommentar(er)
