Posted by Joe S. on April 22, 2001 at 21:02:39:
In Reply to: Re: Re: why compensating, really? posted by Klaus on April 22, 2001 at 11:39:46:
Not arguing the merits of any particular euphonium's bell, branches, and mouthpipe, Rich Matteson seemed to "get by OK" with a FIVE-valve 321 (the suggestion that I was going to make in my argument, which seems to already have been taken up by others). I won't argue that the new "6" series Yamahas don't sound better and play better in tune than 321's, but wouldn't the "6" series Yamahas do just as well with 4 "normal" valves and a rotor as they do with 4 clunky compensating pistons...and wouldn't Willson's?
I really believe that the manufacturers build their best efforts (bell/branches/mouthpipe) as compensating models strictly to satisfy buyers' expectations, and not really to make the best instrument possible (though, admittedly, there could NEVER be a "consensus" on the definition of this).
Joe "Usually, the best solution to a problem is not the most compens...uhhh...complicated one." S.