Yamaha YTS-32 vs. YTS-62
Caius Haas
I've been searching the web for the actual differences (apart price and
target group) between the Yamaha models YTS-32 and YTS-62, to no avail. Can
anyone help me out there?
Any information would be greatly appreciated.
Best regards
Caius
Stephen Howard
wrote:
The 32 is Yamaha's mid-range horn ( after the 275 student model
)...the 62 being the pro ( before the Custom range ).
The 62 has a broader tone, and slightly slicker keywork.
It's worth comparing the two - you might find that the action on the
32 is comfortable enough, and the tone has a bit more edge.
Many decent player are quite happy with the student models.
Regards,
--
Stephen Howard - Woodwind repairs & period restorations
www.shwoodwind.co.uk
Emails to: showard{who is at}shwoodwind{dot}co{dot}uk
Ryota
original name of 62 was "Pro model".
62 was a fag ship model of Yamaha before they started produce Custom.
Many professional Jazz players loves 62 rather than Custom.
You may also try 82Z.
It's a new model of 62, designed for Jazz players.
"Stephen Howard" <sees...@email.uk> wrote in message
news:7rdds05ogdph2h3a9...@4ax.com...
Anders Carlsson
> 62 was a fag ship model of Yamaha
^^^
*cough*
Anyway, isn't the 32 series outphased in favour of the 475 series?
At least in the "old days" here in Sweden, the "food chain " was
23 - 32 - 62, while today it seems to be 275 - 475 - 62 (or 675
in the case of soprano).
--
Anders Carlsson
Caius Haas
Actually, I own a 32. Haven't played it for ten years and now a friend of
mine uses it (to her great satisfaction) as her student's horn. I was just
wondering about the 62's edge.
Still, for those having no experience with the Yamaha 32, I may say this is
a flexible horn, soundwise. A good all-rounder, I guess. Might be even more
so with the 62, if I interpret Stephen correctly.
I've never been conscious about hardware issues, but as I plan to take up
playing again and as the tone I've always been in for is of Dexter Gordon
(60's) stature, I will look for a vintage american horn (Dexter played a
10M/Dukoff Hollywood setup during these years). Of course, it's mostly the
player who makes the tone, but this might help quite a bit anyway...
In the meantime, thanks again for your help!
Merry Christmas to everyone, best regards
Caius
PS: Stephen, your website is GREAT, not merely in content, but in design and
expression as well. I've spent hours reading and watching, learning a lot;
not to mention the funny workshop stories :-)
There are quite a few good sax sites out there offering lots of valuable
information, but being rather poorly designed. Ths is not a reproach, of
course - a fine saxophone expert is not expected to be a good webdesigner,
too. Still, a website's usability is an important and often underrated
asset.
Stephen Howard
wrote:
>... for your hints!
>
>Actually, I own a 32. Haven't played it for ten years and now a friend of
>mine uses it (to her great satisfaction) as her student's horn. I was just
>wondering about the 62's edge.
>Still, for those having no experience with the Yamaha 32, I may say this is
>a flexible horn, soundwise. A good all-rounder, I guess. Might be even more
>so with the 62, if I interpret Stephen correctly.
I would consider that a fair comment - but then it does rather depend
on what you want and need. I find the 62 alto superb in this respect,
but find the student tenor ( 21/23/25/275 ) to be more exciting, for
me, than the 62.
>
>I've never been conscious about hardware issues, but as I plan to take up
>playing again and as the tone I've always been in for is of Dexter Gordon
>(60's) stature, I will look for a vintage american horn (Dexter played a
>10M/Dukoff Hollywood setup during these years). Of course, it's mostly the
>player who makes the tone, but this might help quite a bit anyway...
It'll certainly be easier to achieve that rich tone with the right
sort of horn. You could possibly do it with a modern horn, and the
right mouthpiece, but you might end up having to pay the price at the
mouthpiece in terms of playability.
That being said, there are modern horns and there are modern horns -
Keilwerth, Borgani and Yanagisawa all make modern horns that owe a lot
to the vintage tone.
>
>In the meantime, thanks again for your help!
>
>Merry Christmas to everyone, best regards
Back atcha!
>
>Caius
>
>PS: Stephen, your website is GREAT, not merely in content, but in design and
>expression as well. I've spent hours reading and watching, learning a lot;
>not to mention the funny workshop stories :-)
>There are quite a few good sax sites out there offering lots of valuable
>information, but being rather poorly designed. Ths is not a reproach, of
>course - a fine saxophone expert is not expected to be a good webdesigner,
>too. Still, a website's usability is an important and often underrated
>asset.
>
Thanks for the compliments, much appreciated.
I can't really claim that the site is 'designed' as such - I just kept
it simple because that was all I knew how to do!
Keep an eye on it in the coming few weeks - quite a few new articles
are due to go live ( at last! ).
Cheers,
Marco
<sees...@email.uk> wrote:
<snip>
but find the student tenor ( 21/23/25/275 ) to be more exciting, for
me, than the 62.
what's more exiting about it?
- Marco
Caius Haas
> It'll certainly be easier to achieve that rich tone with the right
> sort of horn. You could possibly do it with a modern horn, and the
> right mouthpiece, but you might end up having to pay the price at the
> mouthpiece in terms of playability.
I'm not sure if I understand this correctly, please excuse my ignorance. Do
you mean that, for the sake of achieving the desired tone, I might have to
compromise, for instance, response or intonation otherwise possible with a
given mouthpiece?
To add a concrete question (don't want to take too much of your time,
however): have you any experience with RPC mouthpieces? From what I have
read, I understand that Ron Coelho is successful in evaluating a players
needs and meetig them with a custom MP.
> That being said, there are modern horns and there are modern horns -
> Keilwerth, Borgani and Yanagisawa all make modern horns that owe a lot
> to the vintage tone.
Very useful hint! I wouldn't consider a Keilwerth, however, because of the
"warped tonholes" issue... The Borgani company is very sympathetic to me -
typically Italian: able to make true works of art, but newer without flaws
in manufacturing - be it a weak door handle in a supercar, or a single mount
pount for the bell-key compound pillar in a saxophone :-)
The Yanagisawa is - personal experience reserved - the most convincing of
these three. I'm impressed with the innovative and determined stance of this
company, and very curious about these "bronze" instruments. Definitely
something to try out!
However, your review of an older Conn 10M won't get off my back until I'll
have had the chance to play one myself. Taking your statement "a vintage
horn that combines the best of the golden age of American horns with the
slickness of today's CNC made instruments" at face value, what else could I
want? Well, maybe a Martin "The Martin", for its Art-Déco looks and
(allegedly?) a bit better ergonomics/intonation.
What's more, these horns seem to be available at fair prices.
>> PS: Stephen, your website is GREAT, not merely in content, but in
>> design and expression as well. I've spent hours reading and
>> watching, learning a lot; not to mention the funny workshop stories
>> :-)
>> There are quite a few good sax sites out there offering lots of
>> valuable information, but being rather poorly designed. Ths is not a
>> reproach, of course - a fine saxophone expert is not expected to be
>> a good webdesigner, too. Still, a website's usability is an
>> important and often underrated asset.
>>
> Thanks for the compliments, much appreciated.
> I can't really claim that the site is 'designed' as such - I just kept
> it simple because that was all I knew how to do!
"Keeping it simple" is - in my opinion - the most important factor in good
(Web-)Design!
> Keep an eye on it in the coming few weeks - quite a few new articles
> are due to go live ( at last! ).
Looking forward to them!
Cheers,
Caius
Stephen Howard
It's got much more clarity and edge, and the response is more
immediate.
The price you pay for that comes out of the richness that you get from
the 62 - but as I don't need that it suits me fine.
Interestingly, the later Martin Handcrafts seem to be able to do both
- but at the expense of a less than modern action.
Regards,
Stephen Howard
wrote:
>Stephen Howard wrote:
>
>> It'll certainly be easier to achieve that rich tone with the right
>> sort of horn. You could possibly do it with a modern horn, and the
>> right mouthpiece, but you might end up having to pay the price at the
>> mouthpiece in terms of playability.
>
>I'm not sure if I understand this correctly, please excuse my ignorance. Do
>you mean that, for the sake of achieving the desired tone, I might have to
>compromise, for instance, response or intonation otherwise possible with a
>given mouthpiece?
Yes, although intonation isn't likely to be too much of a problem on a
modern horn whatever mouthpiece you put on it.
>To add a concrete question (don't want to take too much of your time,
>however): have you any experience with RPC mouthpieces? From what I have
>read, I understand that Ron Coelho is successful in evaluating a players
>needs and meetig them with a custom MP.
Haven't tried them personally - but several player I know, and whose
playing I respect, say very complimentary things about these pieces,
and Ron himself.
Ed Pillinger is another craftsman who's making a name for himself
among those who know.
>
>> That being said, there are modern horns and there are modern horns -
>> Keilwerth, Borgani and Yanagisawa all make modern horns that owe a lot
>> to the vintage tone.
>
>Very useful hint! I wouldn't consider a Keilwerth, however, because of the
>"warped tonholes" issue... The Borgani company is very sympathetic to me -
>typically Italian: able to make true works of art, but newer without flaws
>in manufacturing - be it a weak door handle in a supercar, or a single mount
>pount for the bell-key compound pillar in a saxophone :-)
That's the Italians for ya!
I think you can forgive them such oversights, considering the end
result.
As for the Keilwerths, they do a series that's the same as the SX90R
but without the tone hole rings. It's a much safer bet.
>The Yanagisawa is - personal experience reserved - the most convincing of
>these three. I'm impressed with the innovative and determined stance of this
>company, and very curious about these "bronze" instruments. Definitely
>something to try out!
I liked the bronze one, I liked the solid silver one too. Pricey - but
you get a good deal for your money.
>
>However, your review of an older Conn 10M won't get off my back until I'll
>have had the chance to play one myself. Taking your statement "a vintage
>horn that combines the best of the golden age of American horns with the
>slickness of today's CNC made instruments" at face value, what else could I
>want? Well, maybe a Martin "The Martin", for its Art-Déco looks and
>(allegedly?) a bit better ergonomics/intonation.
>What's more, these horns seem to be available at fair prices.
What can I say? You really should try them, if only to ease your
curiosity. Sod's law dictates that the moment you shell out thousands
on a brand new horn, someone will hand you a vintage beauty that blows
you away.
>
>>> PS: Stephen, your website is GREAT, not merely in content, but in
>>> design and expression as well. I've spent hours reading and
>>> watching, learning a lot; not to mention the funny workshop stories
>>> :-)
>>> There are quite a few good sax sites out there offering lots of
>>> valuable information, but being rather poorly designed. Ths is not a
>>> reproach, of course - a fine saxophone expert is not expected to be
>>> a good webdesigner, too. Still, a website's usability is an
>>> important and often underrated asset.
>>>
>> Thanks for the compliments, much appreciated.
>> I can't really claim that the site is 'designed' as such - I just kept
>> it simple because that was all I knew how to do!
>
>"Keeping it simple" is - in my opinion - the most important factor in good
>(Web-)Design!
>
>> Keep an eye on it in the coming few weeks - quite a few new articles
>> are due to go live ( at last! ).
>
>Looking forward to them!
Look out for yet another bad Keilwerth...and this time with a whole
new problem!
Caius Haas
> That's the Italians for ya!
> I think you can forgive them such oversights, considering the end result.
True, although this can be quite an effort for a perfectionist Swiss ;-)
> As for the Keilwerths, they do a series that's the same as the SX90R
> but without the tone hole rings. It's a much safer bet.
Those who play them seem to be very satisfied. But there's something that I
find very interesting about the "Borgs": they don't go for the dark tone by
using a big bore, but by using a lot more copper. This might be a good
solution, as a smaller bore should have its advantages, too.
<snip>
> What can I say? You really should try them, if only to ease your
> curiosity. Sod's law dictates that the moment you shell out thousands
> on a brand new horn, someone will hand you a vintage beauty that blows
> you away.
Fortunately sod's law applies to sod's law as well :-)
BTW, a music shop in Zurich sells a Selmer VI tenor, lacquered, little
played, s/n 174'805, for 3'150.- Swiss Francs (less than 1'450 GBP). Should
you be interested, I can check if it's still available (seems unlikely at
that price) and point you to the shop or get it for you. Unlike me, you
would be able to put it in shape - there might be something wrong with it.
As far as I know, there are terrible VI's around.
BTW 2: Here's a little quiz (just ignore me if this is too silly): what
tenor dou you first think of listening to this:
http://www.unixperience.ch/tmp/what.mp3 ? It' not me playing (though it's
somewhat near my Yami tone, but much cleaner); I pinched this clip from the
web; you might even know it...
Cheers
Caius
Caius Haas
...
> that I find very interesting about the "Borgs": they don't go for the
...
Err, I meant the Yanagisawas!
Stephen Howard
wrote:
>Stephen Howard wrote:
>
>> That's the Italians for ya!
>> I think you can forgive them such oversights, considering the end result.
>
>True, although this can be quite an effort for a perfectionist Swiss ;-)
>> As for the Keilwerths, they do a series that's the same as the SX90R
>> but without the tone hole rings. It's a much safer bet.
>
>Those who play them seem to be very satisfied. But there's something that I
>find very interesting about the "Borgs": they don't go for the dark tone by
>using a big bore, but by using a lot more copper. This might be a good
>solution, as a smaller bore should have its advantages, too.
Noted your correction - but even so, I really don't believe that it's
the copper that's responsible for the tone, it'll be down to the
design of the horn.
>
><snip>
>
>> What can I say? You really should try them, if only to ease your
>> curiosity. Sod's law dictates that the moment you shell out thousands
>> on a brand new horn, someone will hand you a vintage beauty that blows
>> you away.
>
>Fortunately sod's law applies to sod's law as well :-)
Unfortunately, he doesn't play sax ( plays banjo, I think! )
>
>BTW, a music shop in Zurich sells a Selmer VI tenor, lacquered, little
>played, s/n 174'805, for 3'150.- Swiss Francs (less than 1'450 GBP). Should
>you be interested, I can check if it's still available (seems unlikely at
>that price) and point you to the shop or get it for you. Unlike me, you
>would be able to put it in shape - there might be something wrong with it.
>As far as I know, there are terrible VI's around.
>
>BTW 2: Here's a little quiz (just ignore me if this is too silly): what
>tenor dou you first think of listening to this:
>http://www.unixperience.ch/tmp/what.mp3 ? It' not me playing (though it's
>somewhat near my Yami tone, but much cleaner); I pinched this clip from the
>web; you might even know it...
>
Haven't got the foggiest - but then by the time it's been recorded on
gawd knows what, compressed to buggery, then played back on my cheapo
speakers, I'm lucky if I can tell it's a tenor at all!
I doubt I could even do it if the player was right behind me!
But, if I had to plump for a horn I'd say.... Conn 10M...and if that's
wrong then I'd say the player ought to go find one ;)
Regards,
Caius Haas
> Noted your correction - but even so, I really don't believe that it's
> the copper that's responsible for the tone, it'll be down to the
> design of the horn.
I see!
>> BTW 2: Here's a little quiz (just ignore me if this is too silly):
>> what tenor dou you first think of listening to this:
>> http://www.unixperience.ch/tmp/what.mp3 ? It' not me playing (though
>> it's somewhat near my Yami tone, but much cleaner); I pinched this
>> clip from the web; you might even know it...
>>
> Haven't got the foggiest - but then by the time it's been recorded on
> gawd knows what, compressed to buggery, then played back on my cheapo
> speakers, I'm lucky if I can tell it's a tenor at all!
> I doubt I could even do it if the player was right behind me!
>
> But, if I had to plump for a horn I'd say.... Conn 10M...and if that's
> wrong then I'd say the player ought to go find one ;)
Why, the clip sounds astonishingly good on my tinny Notebook speakers, but
anyway... this was just a playful way of trying to talk you into reviewing a
Rampone & Cazzari "R1 Jazz" Tenor :-)
Your guess - though you suggest taking it with more than just one grain of
salt - hit the spot of my expectation right away!
For the record: the clip is from R&S's pompeous Flash website, and the
player is Max Negri.
Merry Christmas, and thank you for quite some enlightenment in a
rediscovered subject!
Caius
Stephen Howard
wrote:
>Stephen Howard wrote:
>
>> Noted your correction - but even so, I really don't believe that it's
>> the copper that's responsible for the tone, it'll be down to the
>> design of the horn.
>
>I see!
>
>>> BTW 2: Here's a little quiz (just ignore me if this is too silly):
>>> what tenor dou you first think of listening to this:
>>> http://www.unixperience.ch/tmp/what.mp3 ? It' not me playing (though
>>> it's somewhat near my Yami tone, but much cleaner); I pinched this
>>> clip from the web; you might even know it...
>>>
>> Haven't got the foggiest - but then by the time it's been recorded on
>> gawd knows what, compressed to buggery, then played back on my cheapo
>> speakers, I'm lucky if I can tell it's a tenor at all!
>> I doubt I could even do it if the player was right behind me!
>>
>> But, if I had to plump for a horn I'd say.... Conn 10M...and if that's
>> wrong then I'd say the player ought to go find one ;)
>
>Why, the clip sounds astonishingly good on my tinny Notebook speakers, but
>anyway... this was just a playful way of trying to talk you into reviewing a
>Rampone & Cazzari "R1 Jazz" Tenor :-)
I'd love to - and I will, as soon as I see one!
The thing I'm most interested in is the stark shift in quality. For
many years, at least in the UK, Rampone and Cazzani were a euphemism
for, well, crappy horns, to be frank. Then one day they suddenly shot
skywards in price.]
Obviously they'd have to be good, else we'd have all noticed by now -
so if anyone out there has one...you know where I am :)
>Your guess - though you suggest taking it with more than just one grain of
>salt - hit the spot of my expectation right away!
I'm glad it turned out to be an esoteric make! I think what made me go
for the Conn was the warmth of the low notes coupled with the punch of
the top notes. Aren't too many horns that get the balance just right,
and if R&C have done it then all credit to them.
>For the record: the clip is from R&S's pompeous Flash website, and the
>player is Max Negri.
>
>Merry Christmas, and thank you for quite some enlightenment in a
>rediscovered subject!
>
Merry Doo-dah to you too, and thanks for the info.
Cheers,
--
Stephen Howard - Woodwind repairs & period restorations