[TraneWorld]

I know these are two completely different but, which one do you prefer and why?

Thanks and best,

 

[datsaxman]

Yanagisawa.

 

[mascio]

i have played both. The Yanagisawa was a higher quality instrument.

 

[KeithL]

I'd agree that by most objective measures (fit & finish, overall build quality, initial setup, resale value, etc.) the Yani comes out on top. However, I own a 67R because I prefer the sound which is darker and less focused. The Mauriat, for me, plays almost like a small tenor which I like. I play 60% tenor, 40% bari and spend very little time playing alto these days so when I do pick it up I feel more at home with it.

 

[Saxaholic]

Very different horns. Build quality wise, the Yanagisawa will almost always come out on top. With the Mauriats, you really need to watch the rolled tone holes...they are often not fully rounded and aren't level.

Sound wise, the 67R will be more spread and slightly warmer and the Yani more focused and richer.

I would pick the Yani A901 every time.

- Saxaholic

 

[soybean]

The 67R would be a good alto if you already had another alto. I've often thought about getting one for the tone and velvety low notes. But, you gotta do the Yani for your main horn. I had one and loved it. In my book, the 901 is better than the WO1.

 

[ahhlou]

I own a 67R gold lacquer. It plays and sounds great, nothing to complain about but then again, I am a beginner/intermediate player.

Having said that, if I had the money, I would have bought a Yani...

 

[marc]

I played both. Yani all the way.

 

[LateNiteSax]

On tenor P. Mauriat pro level
On Alto Yanagisawa.