euphonium recommendations for returning player

[blowhard]

Hello, I'm brand-new to this forum, and glad to have found it. I'm looking to purchase a euphonium, and would appreciate advice about what type might be best. I played euphonium in concert band during middle & high school. 25 years later, I'm now interested in starting to play again, on my own at home and hopefully with others in community bands, etc.

I'd like to find a quality instrument that plays well and sounds good -- probably used, since affordability is more important to me than brand new. The last school-issued euphonium I played in the mid-1990s was a silver 4-valve Willson – could’ve been a 2704. I liked it, though at the time I probably didn’t appreciate at how nice it was – but after reading a bit on forums like this, I do now.

I've also now become aware of the compensating design feature, which is interesting to learn about but has also served to complicate the, er, procurement process. I am uncertain which 'type' of euphonium I'd be best off with:

- a 3+1 compensating instrument;
- a 3-valve compensating instrument;
- a 4-valve non-compensating instrument; or,
- a 3-valve non-compensating instrument.

Curious about your opinions -- what would type would you be looking for if you were a soon-to-be-born-again euphonium player with modest performance aspirations but still a desire for a good-quality horn (maybe I'm still spoiled from having played that Willson a quarter century ago)? Thanks in advance for your thoughts!

[MN_TimTuba]

Welcome back to playing!
Where are you located? I'm pretty certain that fellow members here can direct you to a store where you could test-drive a variety of horns, and there's always the possibility that someone here lives near you and could offer you the chance to try their own personal instruments.
Good luck!
Tim

[acemorgan]

I switched from tuba to euphonium late in life, so I understand your quest for advice.

I bought a Wessex Dolce, 3 +1 compensating. I am very happy with it. There are some who say it is a good horn for someone without a lot of money. They say it would be better to buy a used higher-level euph with some mileage on it. But I am very happy with mine. I played a good tuba (Miraphone) for many years, and I have no complaints about my Wessex.

There is some argument that a compensating horn is stuffy, and that you get the "purest, most open" sound from non-compensating. It is noticeable in the lower range, where you are leaning on that +1 valve, but I don't notice it in or above the staff (speaking bass clef). And virtually all the pros use compensating horns. So there must be a value in that.

Good luck with your search, and may you have many happy years of playing.

[blowhard]

Welcome back to playing!
Where are you located? I'm pretty certain that fellow members here can direct you to a store where you could test-drive a variety of horns, and there's always the possibility that someone here lives near you and could offer you the chance to try their own personal instruments.
Good luck!
Tim

Thanks Tim. I'm located in La Crosse Wisconsin.

[Doc]

John Packer (JP) instruments are high quality and very affordable. The 274 model is a compensating euph that is NOT stuffy. It is well-built, sounds great, and is VERY affordable. There are several dealers, @bloke being the most prominent on this board.

[donn]

There is some argument that a compensating horn is stuffy, and that you get the "purest, most open" sound from non-compensating. It is noticeable in the lower range, where you are leaning on that +1 valve, but I don't notice it in or above the staff (speaking bass clef).

Great observation! As I understand it, the 4 valve compensating system has compensating loops only for the 4th valve, so that's just where you'd experience it. Elsewhere, it's no different than a non-compensating system, right?

[bloke]

If you think you might like a Besson-style instrument (various offerings are .571" bore [3-valve], .580" bore [most of the rest], .590" bore [pro model] - with playing characteristics mostly similar to Besson, and build quality virtually equal, YET with fractionally lower prices)...
> 3 valves
> 3 + 1 valves (non-compensating)
> 4 valves (in a row, non-compensating)
> 3+1 compensating
> 3+1 compensating/professional
> 3+1 compensating/professional with main slide trigger

(choices of lacquered-brass or silver-plated brass)

https://www.jpmusicalinstruments.com/ra ... euphoniums

...I would encourage you to peruse this line of euphoniums - from bottom to top, decide how simple or fancy your personal acquisition interests are, and ask me for my pricing. Many say that my prices are quite consumer-friendly.

For a 3-valve compensating, you're likely be looking only towards "used Besson".

[LeMark]

I have said many times, many places, that the Packer jp274 is one of the great bargains in the world. Last February I did a serious A/B test with mine against an Adam's, and it held up very favorably. If someone offered me either one for free, I would take the Adams, but for the difference in price, I'll take the Packer 10 out of 10 times

Talk to Bloke, he'll get you one for a good price

[Dubby]

The Packer is an excellent instrument, I can echo that. Same with the Wessex and Mack Brass euphoniums. They are a good bang for buck choice.

If you’re looking for a used horn, Bessons seem to appear with decent frequently. Full disclosure, I’m also selling a Willson 2900L here on the forum, and I’m not too far from La Crosse.

[Mary Ann]

I went through several before I got one that ended my search. My first one was a four valve noncomp King. It was hard to play in tune but was very free blowing. (Free blowing is not that big a deal for me because I am primarily a horn player, and adjusted to "stuffy" a long time ago. It's just a different way of blowing into a "stuffy" instrument."
Then I tried a four rotary valve Bariton (also Bb) because I do better ergonomically with rotors. It was horridly out of tune with itself, and once again I started looking.
Next I tried a Conn front valve trying for ergonomics, and ergonomically it was just awful.
Finally on "the bay" I bought a used Sterling Perantucci 3+1 compensator, and suddenly intonation was no longer an issue. Ergonomics still not wonderful, but I liked the way it played and "stuffiness" was not a factor. It had a major fixed bell crease but the valves felt new, and it was $2500. I took a chance and won out.
My quintet loved it (I was on the tbone part) and my search stopped there.
So....depending on your own facility in various things.....for intonation, any of the modern 3+1 comps would probably set you for life and would take a lot less effort to play in tune than non-comps. The compers, if you are picky about intonation like I am, are far and away the best bet. I was even playing brass band Eb tuba parts on my Sterling. "Stuffy" will be a short term problem if a problem at all.

[tokuno]

I stopped playing for about 20 years (closer to 25 on euph) - job, marriage, house, kids . . . - and I really struggled to get my 3+1 big-bore comp to play how my brain remembered it used to.
I bought a used, very affordable Yamaha 321 (4 across, non-comp, small shank), and it was perfect to ease myself back into playing shape, and more than adequate for the community band-level groups I joined. Other than my desire for a different timbre, there wasn't any reason to move off the 321, but I already had the other horn, and I preferred its bigger sound, so after a lot of working back into shape, I switched back, and sold the Yamaha - for more than I'd paid, incidentally. It was easy to flip - the Yamaha reputation seems to make folks more comfortable buying them sight unseen - and if I encountered the same situation again, I'd do it the same way again.

[ParLawGod]

The Yamaha 321 + Schilke 51D mouthpiece combo is fantastic! Affordable, great sound, plays well in tune, and would suit you well in a community band.

[WC8KCY]

I'll join the others who suggest a Yamaha 321.

I've sampled many mouthpieces over the years with my mid-'90s vintage 321S, and the larger Schilke mouthpieces just seem to really sing with the 321. While the 51D seems to be the default recommendation, it's worth trying the 51B, 52, 52D, and 53.

The Yamaha 51B is a superb choice for solo and high-register playing. I don't much care for the Yamaha 51D, which just doesn't have the depth of tone and precise slotting afforded by the Schilke 51D.

My personal setup is a custom-order Schilke 58 in tenor shank for general use, along with the Yamaha 51B for solo and high-range playing.

However...my custom 58 cost me $80 back in 1995, but now would cost a few hundred bucks! If I had to do it all over again, I'd simply have a large-shank receiver fitted to the 321, and enjoy the much broader range of large-mouthpiece possibilities compared to the stock tenor-shank configuration.

[tclements]

NO QUESTION, check out the Wessex. If you need more info, message me privately.

[iiipopes]

For community band, the 4-valve non-comp is usually a good value instrument, less expensive than a comp euph, and still has good tone and reasonable intonation. Assuming the particular horn has good intonation otherwise, for most community band literature, which doesn't go lower than bottom of the staff F, the only note that really needs help outside the general intonation tendencies of the instrument is 2nd line B nat, 2+4, is still a little sharp.

[Stauff]

If you’re considering the noncomp, yep321 style, it’s worth the time to try the Packer 174. Couple with a 51D, this horn easily keeps pace with the 321, but at half the cost (approx).

[LeMark]

I actually prefer the king 2280 to the Yamaha.

Larger bore, taller leadpipe, great intonation, shorter stroke valves

[tokuno]

I actually prefer the king 2280 to the Yamaha.

Larger bore, taller leadpipe, great intonation, shorter stroke valves

Agree, I like the Kings. The equivalent Jupiters that I've played (all of two of them, admittedly), were pretty good, too.
But for ubiquity on the used market, throw a rock - you'll hit a 321.

[bone-a-phone]

Good luck in your search. I too came back to playing after a break, and one of the instruments I got was a euphonium. I found the search and research a little overwhelming with all of the options, and you'll never know everything you need to know until after you buy something and live with it for a while.

I wound up with a Wessex Festivo (4v in front, compensating). The horn plays great, and I like the 4v in front for ergonomics, but the compensation is utterly useless. The range it's supposed to help with (below the staff) is unplayably stuffy. If I had it to do again, I'd probably get a used King 2280 for ~$1000 and be done with it. It has a different system for playing valve combinations using the 4th valve in tune.

If you never plan to play much below the staff, you can save a lot of money by getting a 3 valve. In fact, it might be best to just start with a nice used 3 valve until you spend some time back in the saddle, and have a better idea of what more advanced features you might want, and how you're going to use it.

Just be aware that the compensation is something that you'll pay extra for, but won't actually be able to use in a practical way.

[bloke]

There is a not-shiny/dull-lacquer-finish euphonium upstairs in storage.
If This is more interesting that any of the superb John Packer offerings, I can pull it down, evaluate, and price it.

I had forgotten about the Yamaha 321, but came across it recently, when I acquired some parts to convert an ancient 3+1 compensating Boosey (pre-Boosey & Hawkes) euphonium to modern pitch, and without having to make one of those horrid main slide extensions. When I carried those parts up there to place them in the case, I stumbled across the Yamaha.