[Robenco15]

I'm pretty sure from my other post that the YAS-62 is good for classical playing but I just wanted to make sure. My teacher and you guys also recommended it to me and for the price it's doing pretty good.

It's between the 62, 82z, and the 875EX, but the store I would be going to doesn't have the EX. I would probably have to ask them to order it and even then I don't know if they can, or if I would like it.

For 1870 dollars should I definitely go for the 62 or for 500-600 more dollars is the 82z really worth the time to check it out and seriously consider it. I've heard the 82z talked about in the context of jazz more than classical too.

This is just what's going through my head right now and I wanted to put it out on here and hear your ideas and thoughts. I kinda want to look into the 875EX, but it's like 800 more dollars than the 62. Is that worth it?

Thanks!

 

[bbbouklas]

go to some shops try them out and find out for yourself..
I personally prefer the 62 over the others. All of them are great..

 

[HUTMO]

Yts 62

I purchased a used Silverplated YTS 62 with the G1 neck and I am totally enjoying it. It just feels right to me.

You can save even more and get a better sax by purchasing a used 62, and then sending it out to a top line technician to set it up.

You will have a top notch sax that will play better than a new sax that you will get from some shop. Oh they may set it up for you but it will not be "set up" if you know what I mean.

All three are great horns... you cannot go wrong.

Best of luck
HUTMO

 

[Demolisher]

go selmer

 

[Demolisher]

lol im kidding but no one can tell you what to pick, you gotta try them out for yourself. Dont rush to buy them either or just buy one because its more pricey,etc.

 

[vivace1]

With 2000 bucks at stake, I'd take your time and find a way to try them all out. I just tried an 82z last weekend and am looking to selling my mark VI for one of those puppies. I would say that they are all great pro-horns, just with different aesthetics. If you can, bring an assistant and seriously blindfold yourself as your buddy hands you different horns. Don't let the price tags tell you which horn is better.

 

[BYOB]

Try all three, and also try the G1 neck on the 62.

See how you like them.

 

[j44breaker]

While we've just vaguely mentioned necks here...:toothy8:

I've got an 1990s ('95?) YAS-62. From my understanding, the new G1 necks have a longer neck tenon than the stock necks from my 62 in 1995. If I put the new G1 neck on my 1995 YAS-62, the longer tenon would make the neck protrude above the opening/body.

If I got my repair tech to shorten/shave down the tenon, would the neck work just fine? What changes can I expect with the new G1 neck?

 

[RobD]

Last week I had the opportunity to play the 62, 47 and EX Tenors out of the box at WWBW. I am a current owner of a really nice 62 (old one, out of production now) alto

heres what i found

47 - no special neck, several troublesome intonation problems, Low Bb wouldn't speak without jumping overtone (usually not an issue for me on any horn including tenor and bari)

62 - good sound, nice feel, etc all the good things to expect from a yamaha, intonation issues middle B was horribly flat. probably a quarter tone flat when I tuned the F# slightly sharp. the upper octave B was fine in tune. Lower register was pretty flat unfortunately (I'm use to my 62 having a sharp middle register which i voice down, much easier to do then bringing up a low note) Had an even sound through out the horn, just wish that B wasn't so flat. The low notes probably would be fixed with putting a mute in, I've heard a lot of people speak highly of these, its not necessary for my current horn though

EX played great, good even sound all around, flexible for various styles, Still a flat low end, but not as bad as the 62 or 47. The middle B was much better in tune, I don't know why they got it right on the Ex but not the 62, who knows, I wish I tried a Z, but I was busy trying a jupiter and a yangisawa (that ended up not being in stock)

IMO the investment in a Custom level Yamaha is necessary if you wish to play most of your notes in tune without much trouble. The G series necks do make a very notable different for the horn, the 47 really lacked a lot as i wasn't suprised, though I remember back in the day the 52 models were just like the 62s (when they were good) except for the ingraving, sometimes better. I played a 52 bari this summer that was very killer, i would almost say better than the 62 bari I played a couple summers ago at blue lake.

I would say best thing to do is go to a store that will let you try lots of horns, bring a tuner, a friend and a recorder. and some music that you are comfortable playing and really have fun while you're at it

 

[sambeaux]

While we've just vaguely mentioned necks here...:toothy8:

I've got an 1990s ('95?) YAS-62. From my understanding, the new G1 necks have a longer neck tenon than the stock necks from my 62 in 1995. If I put the new G1 neck on my 1995 YAS-62, the longer tenon would make the neck protrude above the opening/body.

If I got my repair tech to shorten/shave down the tenon, would the neck work just fine? What changes can I expect with the new G1 neck?

I just got a G1 for my 1990's 62. There is not a problem with the fit of the neck nor is there any intonation problem. The only problem is that the arm that pushes up the octave key is shorter on the old 62's than any of the new horns. Kind of confusing without pics, but look at your horn when you take the neck off - the octave key arm comes about even with the neck receiver ring. On the new ones, the arm protrudes an extra inch up. THerefore, you have to either do some serious bending of the neck's octave key mechanism or you have to get someone to solder or something similar to lengthen the arm that extra inch.

My review:
While I do love the G1/G2/G3 on my 875 tenor, on my 62 alto the G1 didn't seem quite right. The original 62 neck seemed to give a much more focused and sweeter sound. I know, until I bend the key down, it won't be fully functional, but as it was, I could play up to a middle G (above that is where the neck octave key would engage). The G1 certainly wasn't bad and I would advise giving it a try if you get the chance, but I just think it takes away some of that "sweet pop" that makes the 62 the 62....

(sorry to get off-topic on this thread!)

 

[SaxyAcoustician]

To answer your question, NO, it's not worth the price difference. Go with the 62. It's the best horn Yamaha ever produced.

 

[Wallace]

To answer your question, NO, it's not worth the price difference. Go with the 62. It's the best horn Yamaha ever produced.

I respectfully disagree. While the 62 is a fantastic instrument, the 875EX is definitely worth the money. They have very different sound qualities, I find the sound 875EX more in line with my classical sound concept. The majority of Yamaha artists on the classical side of the house seem to agree. If Sugawa, Murphy, Rousseau, or Luloff thought the 62 was the finest produced, I have no doubt they would be playing it.

 

[ianhart]

In my blind test, it was hard to tell a difference between the three models, as well as numerous other brands, but I wanted to get a horn that would fit me as close to perfectly as possible. To me, that was the 82Z, although I didnt know it at the time. By blind test, I mean no blindfold, but I did my best to not look at the horn and see what it was while playing it. I had no clue what I was playing when I chose the horns, and had my teacher, dad, and sales clerk (great guy who didn't push any one sax on me, emphasized that I had to make my choice, just advised me against the Cannonballs in the store, as they were apparently hard to repair. PLayed them anyways, didn't like them) write down which horn I was playing, in what order. Then I chose the top five, played them again, and chose my favorite out of those.

I was curious about the worst horn that I tried, so asked about my least favorite, and was told it was a silver plated 875EX, but they then added that I had played another silver plated EX and had included that one in my top five, so it must have been a lemon. The clerk took it to the tech, had it adjusted, and came back with it about twenty minutes later and asked me to try it out. Played much better, just not as well as my favorite one. Maybe it took a jolt in shipping, who knows.

What I am trying to get at here is that they are all good in their own way. I liked the 62 for it's even response and tone, but could not handle the plastic "pearls", my fingers kept sliding off of them, the reason that there was not a single 62 in my final five. The EX was great, but didn't have the sound that I was looking for. The Z, on the other hand, had even response, a great sound, and was pretty much completely in tune from top to bottom. To me, it was worth the price difference between the 62 and the 82Z.

Don't make a concession that you feel you can live with now, but might regret later. And, if you try out a horn that you like somewhere, buy it from there, not someplace else. Boost the local economy in that area, as they were kind enough to allow you to use their time to contemplate a purchase.

 

[ianhart]

That being said, they are ALL definitely what I would call a "professional" instrument. Wanted to add that.

 

[sycc]

I thought the 82z was alot warmer sounding than the 62 a least in tenors.

 

[cymru97]

When shopping for an alto the 62 was at the upper end of my budget so I didn't both to try out the 82z or EX so I can't compare them. I did, however, try every 62 (over 10) WWBW had and noticed a vast difference amongst them. I highly recommend playing multiple examples of each horn as you will occasionally run into a clunker. The first horn I chose was good, but I wasn't quite comfortable with it so I took it back to play against more 62's the following weekend and sure enough found the right one the second time around. It really is a great horn and very much in tune, actually more horn than I need really...

 

[SaxyAcoustician]

I respectfully disagree. While the 62 is a fantastic instrument, the 875EX is definitely worth the money. They have very different sound qualities, I find the sound 875EX more in line with my classical sound concept. The majority of Yamaha artists on the classical side of the house seem to agree. If Sugawa, Murphy, Rousseau, or Luloff thought the 62 was the finest produced, I have no doubt they would be playing it.

lol~

It's good to see you base your opinion on opinions of others.

If you know anything about economics you'd know that profit margins are fattest with top-of-the-line goods. Yamaha wouldn't allow their endorsers to play anything but their "best" horns.

Also, psychologically speaking, it's human nature to want to be associated with the "best". People are insecure. lol~ Funny/sad but true.

 

[Dr G]

I thought the 82z was a lot warmer sounding than the 62 a least in tenors.

Do you mean "less thin sounding"?

Disclaimer: I have seldom been fond of the sound of a Yamaha tenor. :|

 

[Dannel]

Ladies and Gentlemen here we have a text-book example of how not to act on a public forum. I'll make sure to copy that down to show future members how to prevent from looking like an egotistical jerk. Bravo

There should be a new agreement added for when you sign up for an SOTW account: "I agree to leave my ego outside of this community"

 

[hakukani]

Then again, I remember when Dr. Rousseau played a Leblanc...