Saxophones Do different brands have their own tone? What makes a pro sax better?

[Stephen Howard]

I mean new design. Buffet S1, Keilwerth with wide bow. The Martin, King Super 20 .... are saxes with differnt voices. That goes for older saxes as well. The Schenkelaars tenor wide bow and Dolnet tenor on SH Woodwind are stecils. Yamaha 61 was/is close to a MkVI tonewise.

Technology has moved on, as has demand for a different soundscape. Even Selmer moved on. They had to.
As for the 61 I really wouldn't consider in any way like a MkVI tonally.

 

[turf3]

Back in the late 40's and 50's there were more saxes with differnt voices. The Mark VI reached the market and most saxophone producers gave up or made saxes that played in the style of MkVI. In the 60's/70's it was just King, Martin, Buffet and Keilwerth who produced saxes with thier own voices.

Also Conn (acoustic design dating to the 1930s), and the Buescher/Bundy were still with their acoustic design (some were the 400 design of 1945; some the Aristocrat of 1935; some based on True Tone of 1920). SML were still around into at least the late 60s.

 

[thomsax]

When MkVI reached the market in the mid 50's Conn/Buescher continued to make Conn 6M, 10M and 12M. Buescher continued to sell 400/Aristocrat but they were no freat to Mk VI. Just King and Martin who contined with the same ; more or less, design. Late SML saxes were also diffent to the model they won the gold medal: Ref D.

Keilwerth designed saxes that became had a differnt voice. They stenciled saxes for Couf as well.

I had contact with a guy who played YTS 61, He found the YTS 61 close to a five digit MkVi (tonewise).

 

[Pete Thomas]

, He found the YTS 61 close to a five digit MkVi (tonewise).

Ah but which five digit MkVI?

 

[lydian]

I had contact with a guy who played YTS 61, He found the YTS 61 close to a five digit MkVi (tonewise).

I've played a few YTS61s and a few MkVIs. I found no similarity in tone.

 

[turf3]

When MkVI reached the market in the mid 50's Conn/Buescher continued to make Conn 6M, 10M and 12M. Buescher continued to sell 400/Aristocrat but they were no freat to Mk VI. Just King and Martin who contined with the same ; more or less, design. Late SML saxes were also diffent to the model they won the gold medal: Ref D.

Keilwerth designed saxes that became had a differnt voice. They stenciled saxes for Couf as well.

I had contact with a guy who played YTS 61, He found the YTS 61 close to a five digit MkVi (tonewise).

In the late 50s/early 60s, King and Martin were niche products. The high volume names were still Buescher and Conn for US made horns, and of course Selmer in European made. Yamaha didn't become a meaningful player in the US market till the late 70s.

As I've written many times, it's my considered opinion that the commanding position of the Selmer Mark 6 was largely because it was the most recently released major new design on the market when rock and roll began its march to dominance and largely killed saxophone in popular music. Who knows what kind of paper studies and design concepts may have been floating around Conn and Buescher before the decisions were made to kill all pro horn development and focus on the student market? We know the last version 10M tenor sneaked out the door, with its minor keywork tweaks.

 

[Stephen Howard]

As I've written many times, it's my considered opinion that the commanding position of the Selmer Mark 6 was largely because it was the most recently released major new design on the market when rock and roll began its march to dominance and largely killed saxophone in popular music.

Also, it was a bloody good horn. A relatively simple design, which made it tough and reliable.

 

[Stephen Howard]

I had contact with a guy who played YTS 61, He found the YTS 61 close to a five digit MkVi (tonewise).

I'm not saying that he didn't - but statistically he's an outlier. You're more likely to get closer to a MkVI soundscape with one of the early Yanis.

 

[Stephen Howard]

Ah but which five digit MkVI?

It might be the one on my bench right now! It's a 95xxx. Unfortunately it's rather been through the mill of shoddy repairers - which is why it's still on my bench. I shall know for sure in a day or two - but if it plays like a YTS61 I'm gonna be bitterly disappointed. And so is the client.

 

[turf3]

Also, it was a bloody good horn. A relatively simple design, which made it tough and reliable.

Absolutely!

But had rock and roll not come along, would Conn, or Buescher, or King, or Martin, have come out in 1968 or 1970 with something even better? If their sales had continued to support an R&D department instead of cratering?

 

[Stephen Howard]

Absolutely!

But had rock and roll not come along, would Conn, or Buescher, or King, or Martin, have come out in 1968 or 1970 with something even better? If their sales had continued to support an R&D department instead of cratering?

That, indeed, is the question.
Take the Hawkes XX Century, for example. The last British horn (Grafton notwithstanding). A really nice bit of kit - but they killed it stone dead....just before the big band era. Go figure.
Did they all perhaps see the competition and think "We can't beat that. Game over."? I struggle to believe that - especially as Conn 6Ms and 10Ms are almost as common as MkVIs on my workbench. Maybe they just lost their way. The Conn 26M was about as absurd as a horn gets (Leblanc notwithstanding, of course).

But...can you imagine a 21st century Martin? Oh, if only!

 

[lydian]

I'm not saying that he didn't - but statistically he's an outlier. You're more likely to get closer to a MkVI soundscape with one of the early Yanis.

Absolutely. That similarity is precisely why I chose to replace my VI with an early Yani after trying many, many horns. Not exactly the same, but very close. Much closer than any Yamaha.

 

[thomsax]

As I've written many times, it's my considered opinion that the commanding position of the Selmer Mark 6 was largely because it was the most recently released major new design on the market when rock and roll began its march to dominance and largely killed saxophone in popular music.

The MkVI a success because of global politic. With the Marschall Aid it was possible to import high quality saxes to USA to a low cost. The MkVI reached the market just in time. Conn and Buescher trough in towel and concentrate the production to make student saxes. USA was a high cost country after WWII.

Mk VI was a reliable saxophone. The tone and sound fit the music industry in a good way. The sax tech liked the mk VI because it was rather easy to work on. The musicians liked the mkVI becase it had a neautral voice. They could get more well paid, compared to be on the road, session gigs. They could use a MK VI to classic, jazz, blues, R&B, Rock, Pop, Schlager, commercials ..... . A mainsteam sax perfect with a commercial tone!!! All this to a low price.

In the early R&B the MkVi was not that frequently used. Ok, King Curtis and Red Prysock played Selmer saxes. But Big Jay Mc Neely, Willis Jackson, Paul Williams, Lois Jordan, ... were Conn men. Chuck Higgins, Joe Houston, Al Sears, Johnny Griffin .... were playing King saxes.. When "Rock & Roll" cme in mid 50's, Lee Allen was on Buescher, Jim Horn and Steve Douglas on King tenors .... .

 

[Ivan]

A Tale of Three Selmers that seem Related in Feel and in Sound...

I've recently acquired a 1970's Selmer baritone that gives me... a Selmer sound...

I have a 1980's Selmer alto bought from new; likewise a 1980's Selmer tenor. The ownership of both has bred a seeming familiarity with a Selmer sound. I now play a Yamaha alto for its accuracy (I detect no Selmerishness whatever), and I play a Sequoia tenor also for its own personality. But when I pick up my old Selmer tenor or alto, I hear a warmth of tone that links the two together

Also by contrast I have a Bauhaus Low A baritone which forges its own acoustic path. My Conn-Selmer sop is a well built little thing, but doesn't make me feel I'm playing a Selmer

Fast forward to last week, when I acquired my 1970's Selmer baritone... I had no particular expectation but as I explored the nuisances, I realised I could hear/feel... a Selmer sound

Perhaps it's nonsense, and three saxes don't make a summer... But I'm prepared to believe a brand can have a character of its own

 

[rhysonsax]

Fast forward to last week, when I acquired my 1970's Selmer baritone... I had no particular expectation but as I explored the nuisances, I realised I could hear/feel... a Selmer sound

I love the thought of exploring the nuisances of a saxophone - my wife thinks I do that all the time !

Rhys

 

[r. giuseppe]

Obviously mouthpieces change the perceived sound in a frequency range undeniable by sax players of all ages. With the horns it is more complex.

I used to feel that the differences in sound between can be tremendous. But the feedback from different horns can also be very different, and after years of discussions with musicians I accepted that the sound differences I hear are rather the result of different horns making me play differently, and differences can’t be really picked up by the audience - up to the point where I took this as a fact.

Now we recently had a discussion about sound comparisons in the German forum and about the idea that a real sound comparison should only consist of snippets of tone without any articulation (which caused fierce arguments).

I gave it a quick try: 3 times a D, same mouthpiece and reed (Philtone Sapphire .105, not so fresh Rigotti Gold 3), same recording running, same position, 30 seconds in between. The tone is not perfect, the reed is old and the whole setup was “cold started”.
But it is alway the same.

Horns are a silver plated Selmer Series III from 1998 and a Conn 10M from 1941 (original dark lacquer).

What do you think?

Edit: You can’t hear it. How can I upload an MP3?