I have heard it said re: the 50's saxes, the Selmer Mark 6s [have a  couple] 
and their earlier models, and the Leblancs , I have a beautiful  Model 100 
alto sax, [and there were other makers then] that the brass  composition and body 
formation methods [hammering, etc] are what makes them  so good [tonality 
etc], that the laters cannot match !!  There  are several sax/brass books 
available, I have a few copied pages from one, which  may shed some light here, but 
the ?myth? still persists. Yes, many formulations  and likely impurities ?of 
consequence? can muddy the waters a bit more. Will  lurk here and read more 
hopefully.  Don

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, dberger19@... wrote:
>
> I have heard it said re: the 50's saxes, the Selmer Mark 6s [have a
 couple] 
> and their earlier models, and the Leblancs , I have a beautiful 
Model 100 
> alto sax, [and there were other makers then] that the brass 
composition and body 
> formation methods [hammering, etc] are what makes them  so good
[tonality 
> etc], that the laters cannot match !!  There  are several sax/brass
books 
> available, I have a few copied pages from one, which  may shed some
light here, but 
> the ?myth? still persists. Yes, many formulations  and likely
impurities ?of 
> consequence? can muddy the waters a bit more. Will  lurk here and
read more 
> hopefully.  Don

>I hope I am not wandering to far off topic here?
I accept that mouthpiece material has less effect on tone than design
characteristics and player input.
In my experience this does not apply to saxophone material.
I once owned a Grafton acrylic alto which was dead compared to a brass
one.
I had to change my steel Larsen 100/00SMS which Berg had custom made 
for me, to a low baffle bronse Lawton, just to tame the high frequency
response, when changing from a cheap tenor to a Selmer MKVI.
The experiment with a sax made out of concrete, gave a saxophone sound
 apparently, but I bet it would have been rich in harmonics if it had
been made from top quality brass.    Eddie

Wanna bet that these myths are perpetrated by people trying to sell 50s saxes for a premium? It's all bullshit. The only thing that really matters is the bore geometry. Certainly brass composition plays a large part in the sound of pipe organ reeds; a maker told me that it is impossible to duplicate the sound of old pipe organs because there is no way to get modern brass with so many impurities...But this is because the reed is doing the vibrating, coupling to the air column inside the pipe; in a sax it is the cane reed that sets the air column to vibrating, and the metal body is only there to define and delimit the air column - the minor vibrations of the body are on the order of 10000x smaller than those of the air column and are insignificant to the final sound.

Toby

dberger19@... wrote:                                     I have heard it said re: the 50's saxes, the Selmer Mark 6s [have a  couple] and their earlier models, and the Leblancs , I have a beautiful  Model 100 alto sax, [and there were other makers then] that the brass  composition and body formation methods [hammering, etc] are what makes them  so good [tonality etc], that the laters cannot match !!  There  are several sax/brass books available, I have a few copied pages from one, which  may shed some light here, but the ?myth? still persists. Yes, many formulations  and likely impurities ?of consequence? can muddy the waters a bit more. Will  lurk here and read more hopefully.  Don
 
     
                       
 

As far as my understanding..........those 50's Mark VI's (I have one 78******* S.R.) have a "bell bronze" content that gives them that killer sound. The other reason they sound so great, they were started in France, and then finished in NewYork...this allowed the honr time to settle and relax....less stress equals a free blowing horn....any questions
   
  joe

Edward McLean <ewmclean@...> wrote:
          --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, dberger19@... wrote:
>
> I have heard it said re: the 50's saxes, the Selmer Mark 6s [have a
couple] 
> and their earlier models, and the Leblancs , I have a beautiful 
Model 100 
> alto sax, [and there were other makers then] that the brass 
composition and body 
> formation methods [hammering, etc] are what makes them so good
[tonality 
> etc], that the laters cannot match !! There are several sax/brass
books 
> available, I have a few copied pages from one, which may shed some
light here, but 
> the ?myth? still persists. Yes, many formulations and likely
impurities ?of 
> consequence? can muddy the waters a bit more. Will lurk here and
read more 
> hopefully. Don

>I hope I am not wandering to far off topic here?
I accept that mouthpiece material has less effect on tone than design
characteristics and player input.
In my experience this does not apply to saxophone material.
I once owned a Grafton acrylic alto which was dead compared to a brass
one.
I had to change my steel Larsen 100/00SMS which Berg had custom made 
for me, to a low baffle bronse Lawton, just to tame the high frequency
response, when changing from a cheap tenor to a Selmer MKVI.
The experiment with a sax made out of concrete, gave a saxophone sound
apparently, but I bet it would have been rich in harmonics if it had
been made from top quality brass. Eddie



         

 		
---------------------------------
Share your photos with the people who matter at Yahoo! Canada Photos

Well well...how polite bullsit???????????I have owned many horns and have been gigging and recording for over 20 years.....i understand that this is a "discussion" forum...look up decorum in a dictionary BTW i wouldnt sell my VI anyway!
   
  A properly suited mouthpiece will make all of the difference...no arguments here!  But dont limit your thinking...it makes you appear "small minded" not a great attribute for a "creative musician" if in fact you are.
   
  Ciao
   
  joe
   
  

kymarto123@... wrote:
          Wanna bet that these myths are perpetrated by people trying to sell 50s saxes for a premium? It's all bullshit. The only thing that really matters is the bore geometry. Certainly brass composition plays a large part in the sound of pipe organ reeds; a maker told me that it is impossible to duplicate the sound of old pipe organs because there is no way to get modern brass with so many impurities...But this is because the reed is doing the vibrating, coupling to the air column inside the pipe; in a sax it is the cane reed that sets the air column to vibrating, and the metal body is only there to define and delimit the air column - the minor vibrations of the body are on the order of 10000x smaller than those of the air column and are insignificant to the final sound.

Toby

dberger19@... wrote:        I have heard it said re: the 50's saxes, the Selmer Mark 6s [have a couple] and their earlier models, and the Leblancs , I have a beautiful Model 100 alto sax, [and there were other makers then] that the brass composition and body formation methods [hammering, etc] are what makes them so good [tonality etc], that the laters cannot match !!  There are several sax/brass books available, I have a few copied pages from one, which may shed some light here, but the ?myth? still persists. Yes, many formulations and likely impurities ?of consequence? can muddy the waters a bit more. Will lurk here and read more hopefully.  Don



  
  

         

 		
---------------------------------
Share your photos with the people who matter at Yahoo! Canada Photos

I agree the material makes no difference -- I believe what gives the 
vintage horns most of their character is the tuning centers for each 
note.  In later horns they placed the tone holes and adjusted bore 
geometry for a more "perfect" tuning, but that took away the voice 
those horns had.  For instance, an old Balanced Action has certain 
notes that are tuned much differently than modern horns.  Hearing the 
players from the 50's and 60's (and earlier) is what forms a lot of 
opinions on what is a great sax sound, with their intonation 
tendencies.  Those differences are pretty much subliminal, so people 
tend to think it's the material that's doing it, when it's the 
different designs and craftsmen that were making the horns. My 2 
cents anyway.... Thanks, Ken
- - -
Ken Barry   saxscape@...
Saxscape Mouthpieces 
http://www.saxscape.com

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
>
> Wanna bet that these myths are perpetrated by people trying to sell 
50s saxes for a premium? It's all bullshit. The only thing that 
really matters is the bore geometry. Certainly brass composition 
plays a large part in the sound of pipe organ reeds; a maker told me 
that it is impossible to duplicate the sound of old pipe organs 
because there is no way to get modern brass with so many 
impurities...But this is because the reed is doing the vibrating, 
coupling to the air column inside the pipe; in a sax it is the cane 
reed that sets the air column to vibrating, and the metal body is 
only there to define and delimit the air column - the minor 
vibrations of the body are on the order of 10000x smaller than those 
of the air column and are insignificant to the final sound.
> 
> Toby
> 
> dberger19@... wrote:                                     I have 
heard it said re: the 50's saxes, the Selmer Mark 6s [have a  couple] 
and their earlier models, and the Leblancs , I have a beautiful  
Model 100 alto sax, [and there were other makers then] that the 
brass  composition and body formation methods [hammering, etc] are 
what makes them  so good [tonality etc], that the laters cannot match
 !!  There  are several sax/brass books available, I have a few 
copied pages from one, which  may shed some light here, but the
 ?myth? still persists. Yes, many formulations  and likely impurities
 ?of consequence? can muddy the waters a bit more. Will  lurk here 
and read more hopefully.  Don
>

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "Kenneth Barry" <tenorsaxx@...> 
wrote:
>
> I agree the material makes no difference -- I believe what gives the 
> vintage horns most of their character is the tuning centers for each 
> note. 

Possibly tone hole diameters too.  

Does anyone know if the Selmer Reference Saxes try to match bore and 
tone hole designs of their vintage relatives?

It is my understanding that the Reference 36 and 54 were made to match 
the original bore of the Balanced Actions (36) and Mark VI's (54) with 
more modern keywork.  The idea being to capture the vintage sound 
without the vintage technical problems.

Personally, I've found the sound of the reference 54 altos to be a 
little dead - quite contrary to my mark vi alto which is very live.  
Who knows?

Wil Swindler
www.wilswindler.com
www.chamberjazzensemble.com
www.singlereedconsultants.com

You wrote:
 Does anyone know if the Selmer Reference Saxes try to match bore and 
  tone hole designs of their vintage relatives?
 ________________________________________
 
 From Selmer they said YES, an italian musician living and working in Paris told me that Reverence sizes as MKVI family
 
 ... so the result is quiet poor !!! They make another sax without personality as the SA-80 !!! 
 
 Gian
 
 Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com 

Absolutely you've right... but tenor is the same, totally opposite of a live sound... My SML is 10 times more resonant. Any american vintage top level as Martin Conn Bue King is more live then new Selmer. They really get a flop!
 
 Gian
 

 
Wil Swindler <wjswindler@...> wrote:                                  It is my understanding that the Reference 36 and 54 were made to match 
 the original bore of the Balanced Actions (36) and Mark VI's (54) with 
 more modern keywork.  The idea being to capture the vintage sound 
 without the vintage technical problems.
 
 Personally, I've found the sound of the reference 54 altos to be a 
 little dead - quite contrary to my mark vi alto which is very live.  
 Who knows?
 
 Wil Swindler
 www.wilswindler.com
 www.chamberjazzensemble.com
 www.singlereedconsultants.com
 
 
     
                       


The vintage saxophone webpage is here!
  www.bebopitalia.com
 Need a vintage sax in perfect condition?
 Need a flute or a windwood? Need a mouthpiece?
 Need an hard to find model? Just order to us!
 WE ARE HERE TO SERVE YOU AT NICE PRICE
 Specialized on SML and vintage sax
 

 Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com 

I think this is quite true. Comparing my old Conn soprano to a modern Yani is quite telling. The Conn is like a car that oversteers, you have to do a lot of work to keep the tuning right--small embouchure changes seem to lead to big intonational variations. Not so the Yani, it understeers. As you say, it has much more solid intonational "centers". Most modern sops have a "hump" near the top of the bore--an area of wider flare--which helps accomplish this. And yet in terms of response and tone quality (IMO) the Conn wins hands down. These things are not unrelated.

Bore designs are always compromises between various factors. I learned this from making shakuhachi flutes, as I've mentioned before, where the bores are handmade and changeable. It's true that there are fairly strict limits to what constitutes a decent bore--get outside of those specs and things really fall apart--but within the critical range there are countless variations that work well, and what you sacrifice for what is a matter or taste.

For instance, a wider bore generally gives a better low end at the expense of response and clarity at the top end. There's no real way around this; it's just a fact that a bigger bore tends to give precedence to the lower harmonics and fundamental. So every manufacturer has to try to strike a balance, and this often is predicated on the "fashion" at a given time. 

This was very clear, for instance, in oboe design. In the early part of the 20th C the ideal oboe sound was light and airy--the "French" sound, and to some extent this was also true of the flute sound. As the century progressed the fashion swung towards the darker and more powerful "German" sound, and oboe bores were completely redesigned as a direct result of that preference. Modern flutes have various headjoint modifications, such as more radically undercutting of the embouchure chimney, which result in a more powerful, clear tone, but without the lyrical airy quality which makes early flutes such as the Louis Lot so prized. 

Speaking of tuning and character: there is an interesting and relevant story about the bassoon. It is really the most primitive of woodwinds, with all kinds of compromises (such as small finger holes cut on a bias) which result in wildly varying tonal and response characteristics for different notes. A number of improved designs (and they really were improved) have been forwarded, but all have failed, because they don't sound like bassoons anymore...or at least what people have come to know as bassoons.

Toby

Kenneth Barry <tenorsaxx@...> wrote:                                  I agree the material makes no difference -- I believe what gives the 
 vintage horns most of their character is the tuning centers for each 
 note.  In later horns they placed the tone holes and adjusted bore 
 geometry for a more "perfect" tuning, but that took away the voice 
 those horns had.  For instance, an old Balanced Action has certain 
 notes that are tuned much differently than modern horns.  Hearing the 
 players from the 50's and 60's (and earlier) is what forms a lot of 
 opinions on what is a great sax sound, with their intonation 
 tendencies.  Those differences are pretty much subliminal, so people 
 tend to think it's the material that's doing it, when it's the 
 different designs and craftsmen that were making the horns. My 2 
 cents anyway.... Thanks, Ken
 - - -
 Ken Barry   saxscape@...
 Saxscape Mouthpieces 
 http://www.saxscape.com
 
 --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
 >
 > Wanna bet that these myths are perpetrated by people trying to sell 
 50s saxes for a premium? It's all bullshit. The only thing that 
 really matters is the bore geometry. Certainly brass composition 
 plays a large part in the sound of pipe organ reeds; a maker told me 
 that it is impossible to duplicate the sound of old pipe organs 
 because there is no way to get modern brass with so many 
 impurities...But this is because the reed is doing the vibrating, 
 coupling to the air column inside the pipe; in a sax it is the cane 
 reed that sets the air column to vibrating, and the metal body is 
 only there to define and delimit the air column - the minor 
 vibrations of the body are on the order of 10000x smaller than those 
 of the air column and are insignificant to the final sound.
 > 
 > Toby
 > 
 > dberger19@... wrote:                                     I have 
 heard it said re: the 50's saxes, the Selmer Mark 6s [have a  couple] 
 and their earlier models, and the Leblancs , I have a beautiful  
 Model 100 alto sax, [and there were other makers then] that the 
 brass  composition and body formation methods [hammering, etc] are 
 what makes them  so good [tonality etc], that the laters cannot match
  !!  There  are several sax/brass books available, I have a few 
 copied pages from one, which  may shed some light here, but the
  ?myth? still persists. Yes, many formulations  and likely impurities
  ?of consequence? can muddy the waters a bit more. Will  lurk here 
 and read more hopefully.  Don
 >