Saxophones Direct comparison of Grafton acrylic alto with Buescher 400 alto (video)

[Pete Thomas]

For those who haven't seen this, on the same tune I swap between a plastic Grafton alto and a Buescher 400:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uecbPgDNU4g


There is also a transcription:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uksz5lhVYS0

 

[Vetinari]

To me the change over between saxes appeared seamless.

 

[rhysonsax]

Very similar tones. I understand that the body tube bore of the Grafton was supposed to have been based on a Buescher - but where did I hear or read that ?

Rhys

 

[thomsax]

I think the 400 have more overtones, more power in the low and mid register. Grafton has a more "direct" and focused tone. Punchy in the upper register. I have just played a Grafton once (not playable from bottom to top) and I think it had some Martin Comm feeling. Very low chimneys on the Grafton. So are the chimneys on a Committee as well. Fast key action?

 

[Ivan]

For completeness... Same mouthpiece and reed?

 

[Pete Thomas]

Very similar tones. I understand that the body tube bore of the Grafton was supposed to have been based on a Buescher - but where did I hear or read that ?

For completeness... Same mouthpiece and reed?

Oh yes.

 

[rhysonsax]

I thought the information about Grafton and Buescher bores was perhaps in the article by Wally Horwood on Hector Sommaruga and his Grafton saxophones - this was published in the December 1985 issue of the British Clarinet and Saxophone Society magazine. That article doesn't mention the bore design but it does say about Hector "Returning to Paris in 1927, he continued to gain experience with French and American saxophones and recalls an opinion that Buescher was the best alto and Conn the best tenor at that time."

The other thought is that I might have been told it by repair technician Martin Block, whom I visited once, possibly just after I bought my Grafton + Grafton bits. Martin was a former pupil of Hector Sommaruga and a major source for Wally Horwood's Grafton article..

Rhys

 

[rhysonsax]

I think the 400 have more overtones, more power in the low and mid register. Grafton has a more "direct" and focused tone. Punchy in the upper register. I have just played a Grafton once (not playable from bottom to top) and I think it had some Martin Comm feeling. Very low chimneys on the Grafton. So are the chimneys on a Committee as well. Fast key action?

Perhaps the "low chimneys" are a result of the fat body wall ?

Rhys

 

[Woodpad]

Perhaps the "low chimneys" are a result of the fat body wall ?

The molding process for the Grafton body favors low chimneys. The squishy pads and the difference between the diameters of pad and tone hole, determine the minimum chimney height.
The squishiness of the pads and the increasing fragility of the body make the Grafton one of the rare saxophones that do not reward gorilla grip.
It is not often you hear a well maintained Grafton. It requires a special type of tech.
I know only two techs who have done four of them with good results.

 

[Pete Thomas]

The squishiness of the pads and the increasing fragility of the body make the Grafton one of the rare saxophones that do not reward gorilla grip.

I had the pads replaced on mine by @Stephen Howard as the squishiness is not nice. I don't think he enjoyed that work (although it was his idea in the first place).

But is much nicer to play now.

Very low chimneys on the Grafton.

Perhaps the "low chimneys" are a result of the fat body wall ?

The chimneys look to be about the same as on the Buescher. Yes the fat body makes the chimneys look shallower from the outside of course, but the distance from top edge of chimney to internal box appears to be the same.

 

[Pete Effamy]

This has interest from a "could I drop in sax B if sax A fails without having to re-record the whole track" viewpoint. For me, anyway.

Are they alike (enough)?

Not sure. The "base-tone" is similar, but when pushed the Grafton has a point and slight aggressiveness that I think might be hard to get the Buescher to (with the current setup).

It's a real-world experiment more than a "shoot-out" type of experiment in that you play a musical solo rather than playing the same thing in the same way on both horns. Often, you get to a point in the solo that is natural to "give it one son", and this is usually on the Grafton, rather than the Buescher - maybe that was intended as you know the nature of the instruments?

The whole recording chain is a factor in them sounding as they do though, and my feeling is that it has brought them (artificially) closer together than otherwise, so:

Mouthpiece, reed, mic, preamp - to my ears they all lead to a less-detailed sound and more of a warm, valvey sound - again bringing the two closer together.

In the studio, this is a good thing! Interchangeable horns, mics etc can be an occasional godsend when there's no workaround to a drop-in.

In scientific terms, it's a flawed question - but, that might not have been your intention anyway (being scientific)..

Nice solo.

 

[JayeNM]

Differences are there but really quite subtle, I mean if one was just listening to the track, they wouldn't necessarily thing "wow something changed there, no ?).

Great comparison. IMHO Buescher is a tad darker and smoother, a bit wider in spread...but it's not dramatic at all...