Saxophones How much difference does the sax make to your sound?

Jeanette

Organizress
Cafe Moderator
Café Supporter
27,835
Cheshire UK
Level
Eternal Beginner
. Once you get over a certain quality threshold (which all the above do) the main impact on sound is the player, then the mouthpiece/reed combination, and lastly the sax.

Jon I hope you don,'t mind me using your comments to start this discussion. I am very much a beginner and have seen this quoted before by many players. I fully accept that a good player will sound good on any sax. When I bought my 62 sop there was a definite something else in my tone that I didn't achieve on the Trevor James. I have just spent the afternoon with @aldevis and had a blow on the Sequoia K91 and there was a discernible difference in tone using same mouthpiece reed and lig...

It just makes me wonder if the sax can impact on the sound as much as the mouthpiece or reed?

For anyone wondering the K9 to my ears was a fuller richer tone........

Jx
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Sue
Good idea Jeanette.

The sax undeniably does make a difference to the sound, I'm just certain it doesn't make as much difference as the player or the mouthpiece/reed combo. I've been playing for a long time (about 35 years) and I tend to sound, well, like me. I've been playing alto quite a lot recently and I currently have a rather excessive number of them. I've been playing my Yanagisawa A6, Yamaha YAS 21, Buescher True Tone and a cheapo Chinese horn lately. On all of them I sound like me. The Buescher has a slightly smoother tone, which can be pushed into a surprisingly loud thick tone with effort. The Yam and Yani sound quite similar, brighter, with a bit more depth to the Yani. The Chinese modern sax is brighter, but it still sounds and plays just fine. The difference in all is small, when playing with my normal Yanagisawa 7 metal mouthpiece. If I change that for my other alto piece, a Brian Powell modified Oleg Maestro high baffle screamer, there is a big change in sound on all these saxes, much brighter and more penetrating. Makes the vintage Buescher into a modern rocker (which is nice....). However, they still all have my basic sound.

If someone is starting out, I think they should forget agonising over which sax will suit them best, as most modern saxes from reputable makers are good. The really important thing is to just learn to play the beast, playing at least a bit every day, if possible. If someone has the wherewithal to indulge themselves in trying a number of saxes, then there's nothing wrong with that at all, and it is undoubtedly fun indulging in a new purchase. The thing is, though, however much fun it is, it won't make a ha'porth of difference to how well someone plays (assuming their current sax exceeds a minimum quality threshold). The only thing which will do that is practice.

So why do I have so many saxes? Well, partly because I buy and sell all the time, as it funds my pastime. I also spent a large part of my playing career skint, and for the first twenty five years of playing I had two saxes, the tenor my parents bought me when I was 15 and a sop I bought which was mis-priced in Pro Brass in Kentish Town in 1985. Now I'm not skint and I indulge myself a bit. There is also a definite tactile joy in a superbly made sax like my T992, as well, and I guess if I gigged a lot it might be more long term reliable that (say) a Trevor James or Jupiter. Doesn't help me play any better though.
 
If someone is starting out, I think they should forget agonising over which sax will suit them best, as most modern saxes from reputable makers are good.
Definitely.
It could be concluded from reading some of the threads here that particular saxes are suited to particular genres of music. It's rubbish really. All saxes can play all genres (with a special dispensation for some old C melodies which are no good for anything).
 
I remember in my mid teens a (fairly wealthy) close relative offered me the chance to buy a pro sax. I was playing a TJ alto at the time (had been playing couple of 2/3 by then). Travelled up to Howarths all excited and played a few horns but came away with my TJ - I really couldn't understand all the hype over these very expensive horns. With more playing experience (and skill) I could start to feel the subtle differences in sound/feel between horns but even now only a few horns make a positively discernible difference in sound to me (RAW and Keilwerth spring to mind recently). I played my Yam 275 against its 62 brother a few years ago and, yes, there was more maturity to the sound of the 62, but there was very little in it.

I do think the player adjusts as well. For example, when I came back to playing recently I got myself a Jupiter 567. Didn't take too long to get my chops back and was getting a good sound from it. On Thursday I played several pro horns in the shop for a few hours and ended up loving the RAW. Went back to the Jupiter and it sounded, well, crap tbh - sounded thin, felt clunky and hard to reach the bell notes, struggled with altissimo etc. Have ordered the RAW but have been playing my Jupiter for the past few days and have got that sound and feel back. Bit weird really! lol
 
I reckon about 10-15% from the sax. This from back to back comparisons of a few saxes. And there are videos of similar exercises on Youtube. But that makes a big differect in how you perceive and feel about the sax.

Saxdon's point is an interesting one. I noticed something similar with mouthpieces. But it's clear from a mouthpiece swap that there is a difference, but we tend to compensate back to our own sound. Or as close as we can get within the limits of the kit.
 
If someone is starting out, I think they should forget agonising over which sax will suit them best, as most modern saxes from reputable makers are good. The really important thing is to just learn to play the beast, playing at least a bit every day, if possible.

I like this advice 🙂 good for the pocket as well as a relief for a beginner 🙂

I have seen this video on youtube a dude comparing a chinese make (150pound sax) with a very good one which I cant remember the name now something to do with 1970s, and the difference to be very honest I didn`t actually understand.
If I did not see how they looked I probably cant tell but then again what do I know I dont even play the sax yet 😀
But from my experience with building guitars and playing I can say that this applies there as well you can buy a guitar that costs more than your car but nobody will actually realise it unless you tell them it costs that much ( assuming that the people who listen to you are not all guitar enthusiasts)
So my conclusion is that unless you are playing for other sax players nobody will know the difference 🙂
 
There is another important element to add to the mix, and that is how the saxophone "feels" to the player when he/she plays a note. Some saxes are very "free blowing" and some offer differing degrees of "resistance". Add to this the fact that the player's perception of the sound is different from the sound heard by the listener 3 feet in front of the bell. Anyone who has recorded themselves is aware of this fact.

As a student of woodwind acoustics, I find this subject fascinating. There seems to be a general consensus among the most skilled players that the very best saxophones allow you to push farther in terms of tone and dynamics than lesser makes and models that grow in intensity and loudness up to a point and then stop. I'm beginning to understand that this has to do with the "harmonicity" of the saxophone as a factor of its design and interior geometry. In an instrument with good "harmonicity" the overtones are closer to whole number multiples of the fundamentals throughout its range. This allows the saxophone to disperse more of its input energy from the player because it is more efficient from an acoustical standpoint.
 
I've tried very few saxes compared to some folks on here. A few in shops and a few at meets. There is a definite difference when playing different horns with the same set up. It's as if they want to go a certain way. I suppose a great horn is one that will go wherever you want to take it. We're all going different places so it's very personal.
 
One other variable (amongst others) is that as a day one beginner you wouldn't notice any difference playing, or attempting to play, ANY sax. At 3 months this probably still holds true. At two years I can now discern some differences between horns (hence my GAS gets worse, and more demanding!) and I guess at 20 years playing the very fine nuances would be apparent. At this stage, add in the player's individual sound and you can understand why Steve Howard loves the TJ Raw alto and Pete doesn't.
 
I like this advice 🙂 good for the pocket as well as a relief for a beginner 🙂

I have seen this video on youtube a dude comparing a chinese make (150pound sax) with a very good one which I cant remember the name now something to do with 1970s, and the difference to be very honest I didn`t actually understand.
If I did not see how they looked I probably cant tell but then again what do I know I dont even play the sax yet 😀
But from my experience with building guitars and playing I can say that this applies there as well you can buy a guitar that costs more than your car but nobody will actually realise it unless you tell them it costs that much ( assuming that the people who listen to you are not all guitar enthusiasts)
So my conclusion is that unless you are playing for other sax players nobody will know the difference 🙂

TBH even if you are playing for other sax players they may not notice!
When I swapped my John Packer 044 Bari for my Yamaha 62 Bari, the leader of our sax ensemble didn't notice for a couple of weeks. She did eventually ask whether I and the other Bari player had been practicing together as we "sounded good together tonight"
The Yamaha is definitely more in tune across the whole range and the keys/ pads are much less noisy/clunky than the John Packer.
 
There are several factors that I find make a difference.......the keys on the Martin Master are all pearl so that makes me concentrate more on finger placement, the weight of the horns vary so I end up moving the sax more, the key movement is slicker on some saxes which enables me to be a little quicker with certain notes and also, but not least, the mood I am in!
 
Last edited:
We sit in our houses playing alone obsessing about subtle nuances that tickle our auditory nerve in that particular room, and then the first time you get out there and play with others you find the blokes sitting either side of you have more effect on your sound than sax ,reeds, mouthpiece, experience, talent or lack of it and nerves combined.

Playing in tune and being musically inventive and creative and playing sympathetically to band, venue and piece will have the greatest impact on any audience.

The worst tone ever sounds lovely when combined with other instruments and harmonies emerge. Not everybody is going to be a soloist and you can't buy it.
 
The sax undeniably does make a difference to the sound, I'm just certain it doesn't make as much difference as the player or the mouthpiece/reed combo. I've been playing for a long time (about 35 years) and I tend to sound, well, like me. I've been playing alto quite a lot recently and I currently have a rather excessive number of them. I've been playing my Yanagisawa A6, Yamaha YAS 21, Buescher True Tone and a cheapo Chinese horn lately. On all of them I sound like me. The Buescher has a slightly smoother tone, which can be pushed into a surprisingly loud thick tone with effort. The Yam and Yani sound quite similar, brighter, with a bit more depth to the Yani. The Chinese modern sax is brighter, but it still sounds and plays just fine. The difference in all is small, when playing with my normal Yanagisawa 7 metal mouthpiece. If I change that for my other alto piece, a Brian Powell modified Oleg Maestro high baffle screamer, there is a big change in sound on all these saxes, much brighter and more penetrating. Makes the vintage Buescher into a modern rocker (which is nice....). However, they still all have my basic sound.

Thanks Jon, I agree the player has the most influence on sound but mouthpiece reed v sax still wondering if they may not be more equal 🙂 You say the difference in all the saxes is small with the Yani mpiece and big difference with the Oleg. So the change in mouthpiece makes a difference to the sound which I can appreciate but is the difference between the saxes with the Oleg noticeable or negligible?

I must admit my tutor is of the opinion that even if you change mouthpieces eventually you end up sounding like you as you adjust to the perceived sound in your head. That said when he played my TJ and then his 62 with same mouthpiece reed the 62 had a sweeter tone and just a little something else :confused:

As a student of woodwind acoustics, I find this subject fascinating. There seems to be a general consensus among the most skilled players that the very best saxophones allow you to push farther in terms of tone and dynamics than lesser makes and models that grow in intensity and loudness up to a point and then stop. I'm beginning to understand that this has to do with the "harmonicity" of the saxophone as a factor of its design and interior geometry. In an instrument with good "harmonicity" the overtones are closer to whole number multiples of the fundamentals throughout its range. This allows the saxophone to disperse more of its input energy from the player because it is more efficient from an acoustical standpoint.

So possibly at the higher end there is a difference which is why we continue to try different saxes. I can fully appreciate that a "better sax" will be slicker and easier to play assuming the ergonomics suit you.

I also agree with the above that as a beginner you will not notice or appreciate the differences in different saxes sounds only the fit in your hands but if we agree that there is a difference in sound then may be we should encourage beginners to buy the best they can from the start or at last give the sax itself equal standing with mouthpiece and reed?

Just mulling over not entirely convinced by my arguments but was interested in hearing opinions, thanks all.

And yes nothing will improve your sound better than practice and a good teacher 🙂

Jx
 
There is another important element to add to the mix, and that is how the saxophone "feels" to the player when he/she plays a note.

In Jeanette's case I think this is what made the main difference.
The K91 is a very consistent across the range instrument. It has been developed for that, with the classical player in mind. Also is 20 years more modern than Jeanette's 62. Generally speaking, a warmer sound.
Interestingly, she did not like my unlacquered model. An instrument more free blowing with a jazzy attitude.

As a true gentleman, since J's 62 is marvellous (seriously), not only I discouraged her to insist with the Sequoia, but I even didn't propose a straight swap (with current Euro rates, it would have been a bargain for both)
 
she did not like my unlacquered model. An instrument more free blowing with a jazzy attitude.

Not quite, see my post here I played the unlaquered last time and was impressed. It isn't pretty to look at granted but the ergonomics were good and I liked the sound. The K91 was much prettier though but felt strange under the fingers to start with, didn't take long to adjust but I much preferred the tone.

Jx
 
Last edited:

Similar threads... or are they? Maybe not but they could be worth reading anyway 😀

Members' Blogs

Trending content

Forum statistics

Topics
29,564
Messages
512,472
Members
8,729
Latest member
Richgroup
Back
Top Bottom