... is now made in Taiwan

pete said:
Came across this, today: http://www.adolphesax.be/en/stap-naar-adolphe-sax/

The website's not exactly completely working and there aren't many pics; you have to really hunt for them.
Click to expand...

I'm looking forward to having a look at these, hopefully they will at the Musikmesse. There was some debate about this company on SOTW, whether it is honourable or not to use that name especially for an imported instrument, though it seems the owner does have plans for a totally "Made in Belgium" instrument.

You have to give them credit for thinking of reviving the trademark, whatever some people think it's great marketing. The Trademark must have been available for a while and I bet there are companies out there kicking themselves for not pickin it up.
 
Last edited:
Any living pipemaker using calling their products "Taylor, Coyne, Hutcheon, MacDougall, Glens, for ex.."
would be publicly tarred & feathered.
Even if using the same bore design it's sold as a "Living Maker/Vintage Maker" product. (Atherton/MacDougall, for ex). & It had better compare favorably to an existing original in all terms before adding the vintage maker's 'hyphen'.
The legality of it may be ironclad, but I think its underhanded & presumptive: especially if the new product turns out to be incomparable to the original. You saxos seem to view this differently?? :confused:; perhaps because your inst has enjoyed some degree of standardization since its creation??
A rim country relocate production ops to western Europe??? lol :)
 
I distinctly remember e-mailing an SML rep who told me that they'd never allow their name to be put on Chinese or Taiwanese instruments. Giving him some credit, that stance did last for a couple of years.

Buescher is a name that's used on a bunch of Taiwanese horns, as is Buffet. Selmer has the LaVoix and LaVie. Stencils have been around forever, too. I'd think that the majority a lot of folks understand that the name on the horn doesn't necessarily mean squat: you take a look at the name on the bell and see if there's another maker that makes horns just like what you've got. If you're interested in provenance, that is. If you're not, you play-test the thing to determine good or bad.

FWIW, while I think that the horns produced by Adolphe-Edouard Sax after the death of his father were really nice looking, I don't necessarily think that they were the best horns on the market at that time (1890s - 1928). I think they were competitive and I'm sure that the "Adolphe Sax" name stenciled on the bell did have some cachet -- the Sax family made a bunch of high quality instruments over the last 100 years , after all.

So, the name on the horn or where it's produced means nothing to me. I do, however, hope that the horn is going to be something other than another student-quality Taiwanese clone that looks more-or-less identical to everything else that's out there.
 
pete said:
They're now selling. 2100 Euros for the alto, 2240 for the tenor.
Click to expand...

I met Karel, the founder of the new Adolphe Sax & Cie and I believe he is very genuine. Currently he is importing as we know, but has strong plans to build horns in Belgium.

I think he will do it to. A small beginning, but he is starting with a product close to the hearts of many saxophone players:

saxbeer.jpg
 
Belgians are very serious about beer, so I am convinced that the beer will be of a good quality.

Now abouth the saxophone. I have seen one, (didn't play it) construction is ok.
I have not measured the bore, but if it is comparable to the original it should also be comparable to the Buescher with the true tone logo and the Carl Fischer saxophones.
Different from the Adolphe Sax original it has more and bigger tone toneholes and a ribbed construction.
Also the presence of reflectors is different from the original, but not from the Buescher.

The bore size is one of the most important choises in saxophone construction.
On one side we find Selmer, a lot of Selmer clones, Martin and Couturier and on the other side we find Keilwerth and R&C.
There is not much inbetween, so this design is an interesting compromis.

The ribbed construction and the toneholes will make it darker in sound than the original, which is counteracted by the reflectors and probably the thinner wall size.
I think that it is more comparable with the Buescher, but with a better aplicatuur and slightly darker sound due to the ribbed construction.
Next time I will try it, but as I like wide bore instruments, I will probably stay with my Hohner president.
 
Last edited:
3tenor said:
I have not measured the bore, but if it is comparable to the original it should also be comparable to the Buescher with the true tone logo and the Carl Fischer saxophones.
Different from the Adolphe Sax original it has more and bigger tone toneholes and a ribbed construction.
Also the presence of reflectors is different from the original, but not from the Buescher.
Click to expand...
Bueschers with the True Tone logo were available for 60ish years until Selmer bought them. It was a trademark.

Some people have said that the Buescher True Tone saxophones had a "parabolic bore" -- mind you, a saxophone with a parabolic bore is something a lot of folks more schooled than me think doesn't exist -- that was similar to A. Sax's original design. The people that do think that there is a parabolic bore think that it was discontinued either when the first Buescher Aristocrat came out or when the "Big B"-engraved Aristocrat was discontinued.

FA Buescher did create the first American-made saxophone, but that was for CG Conn and before Buescher had his own company. The "first American saxophone" did look an awful lot like an A. Sax instrument.

Carl Fischer did not make saxophones. They were an importer for a bunch of different makes and models, most notably Evette-Schaeffer Buffet-Crampon et cie. I've never heard that they exported instruments from North America, but I assume that's possible. Unfortunately, this makes it impossible for me to know what horn stamped "Carl Fischer" is one that you think is like an original A. Sax instrument.

The bore size is one of the most important choises in saxophone construction.
On one side we find Selmer, a lot of Selmer clones, Martin and Couturier and on the other side we find Keilwerth and R&C.
There is not much inbetween, so this design is an interesting compromis.
Click to expand...
Regarding the bore comment, the idea behind the saxophone is that you have to have a conical bore in a particular proportion or you'll have something that doesn't sound like a sax or sound sax-like, but be horribly out of tune. As a matter of fact, people use this "proportion argument" to say that Benedikt Eppelsheim's Tubaxes aren't really saxophones.

There are a couple thousand different makes and models of saxophone. Limiting all saxophones to "Selmer, Selmer clones, Martin, Couturier, on one side, and Keilwerth and R&C on the other" is an extreme oversimplification. Hey, the saxophone was patented in 1846 and Selmer didn't sell their first saxophone until 1922.

Martin and either EA Couturier or the French Couturier company (note: two completely different companies) haven't produced saxophones in 50 years or more. The French-made Couturier horns I've seen predate the "big name" Selmers by a bunch of years and EA Couturier is more Holton-like -- or, if you prefer, Conn-like. Having played more than a few Martin models, I can conclusively say that they don't play anything like a Selmer Mark VI, unless you have some other "Martin" in mind. Keilwerth horns play a lot like vintage Conns, but have better intonation. Rampone and Cazzani is just ... different. Feel-wise, the R&C is much more Selmer.

The ribbed construction and the toneholes will make it darker in sound than the original, which is counteracted by the reflectors and probably the thinner wall size. I think that it is more comparable with the Buescher, but with a better aplicatuur and slightly darker sound due to the ribbed construction.
Click to expand...
There have been no scientific studies that indicate the wall thickness on a saxophone has any affect on tone. You've just repackaged the arguments about, "Horns plated/lacquered/enameled with this material are brighter/darker/edgier ...."

I need to know your definition of "ribbed construction" to make a pithy comment.

I'm not quite sure how you're saying that toneholes have an impact on tone. Intonation, definitely, or if you've got toneholes that aren't level and/or leaking soldered-on toneholes, definitely. I don't even think that Keilwerth argues that their tone-hole-rings impact tone, anymore. Remember: rolled tone holes were originally introduced to prolong pad life.

In any event, you're comparing an almost 100% hand-made instrument, the A. Sax horns, to the new Adolphe Sax instruments that were designed with a computer and are at least 40% machine-made. They're both saxophone-shaped and sound like saxophones. That's about it.

Next time I will try it, but as I like wide bore instruments, I will probably stay with my Hohner president.
Click to expand...
... The Hohner President, of course, was made by Keilwerth. Max, not Julius. The overall look of this horn is very HN White, particularly the King Zephyrs. They also look practically identical to horns made by Werner Roth (or, if you prefer, vice-versa).

It's a bit more fair to compare a Hohner President to the new Adolphe Sax instruments. At least you have all the chromatic/trill/"helper" keywork, the same keyed range and an automatic octave key. Well, depending on how old your President is, we might have to argue about soldered tone holes vs. drawn.
 
When I compared the taper of the bore of 11 tenor saxophones by calculating the ratio of the measured diameters of two defined points, I found this distribution.
My 1927 Couturier had the smallest taper and on the other end I found my 1956 Hohner president.
Two extreme groups with only a Buescher inbetween.

It was a shock for me to realise that in this distribution the Couturier was the nearest to the Selmer.
I agree a Couturier does not sound like a Selmer mark vi, so there are other things beside bore.

Carl Fischers intention was to make saxophones with a bore comparable to Adolphe Sax.
I have not measured any of his saxophones so I do not know if he succeeded.

As the claim of Karel was about the bore it seems logical to compare his saxophone to a saxophone with a comparable taper.
And the Buescher is the nearest point in my distribution. The Hohner is way of.
 
Last edited:
Ribs do not change the sound one whit, nor does wall thickness within the normal range employed in making saxes. Bore geometry deviations of fractions of a millimeter, especially in the top part of the horn, can change playing and sound characteristics markedly. As can different edge radii of tone holes. It is best not to go jumping to conclusions and presenting them as facts.
 
3tenor said:
Carl Fischers intention was to make saxophones with a bore comparable to Adolphe Sax.
Click to expand...
I've said this twice, now: Carl Fischer did not make saxophones.

Yes, I sort of unloaded on you yesterday because there was just so much wrong with your post and I didn't want any beginner to come in here and think (for example) Couturier=Selmer. The point that kymarto makes and the one I tried to make yesterday is that your "facts" aren't. You need to do some checking and cross referencing before you continue posting about saxophone design.
 
A fact is that you have read more than I wrote.
Kymarto is more to the point.
I will edit de distracting remarks when possible to concentrate on the instrument.
 
Last edited:
FYI, The staff of the Woodwindforum are the only ones who may edit the content of a thread 3tenor.
 
kymarto said:
Ribs do not change the sound one whit,
Click to expand...

Actually, that is not correct. Ribs can most definitely change the sound of the horn, and is why Selmer dropped its traditional full solid rib construction when they designed the Series III baritone, and opted for a "mini-rib" design instead. Dave Kessler describes Selmer's reasoning on his weblog like this:

[T]he concept of this horn was to create a low A bari that vibrated and responds like a low Bb bell bari. This is a tricky feat to accomplish as part of the problem is that the extra weight created by the longer bell of the low A bari severely hinders vibration. Many players want the low Bb bell response but NEED a low A key these days. So in order to accomplish this, Selmer decided to lighten the horns overall weight. This was done in several ways...

Another change done to decrease weight is the ribbing construction....

With the Series III alto, tenor and soprano, Selmer opted for a “mini-rib” design. In stead of doing a full solid rib in any spot of the horn, they do several smaller ribs. I refer to this as a “split rib” myself since they are still doing a ribbed construction of sorts, they are just splitting up a rib instead of making a singular rib smaller.

This split rib is from the rib holding the posts of the left hand stack of the horn. This I believe makes a big change in the vibrational response of the saxophone. This design concept doesn't work on all horns but rather depends on the bore. From our experience playing the Series III in January 2008, this split rib construction is a good idea on the Series III bari.
Click to expand...
 
Helen said:
Actually, that is not correct. Ribs can most definitely change the sound of the horn, and is why Selmer dropped its traditional full solid rib construction when they designed the Series III baritone, and opted for a "mini-rib" design instead.
Click to expand...
I think the key point in Dave Kessler's comment is "vibration." If the saxophone was a stringed instrument, I'd 100% agree with body vibration = tone quality. This is because the body of (say) a violin is the thing that amplifies the sound produced from the vibration of the strings. The kind of amplifier you're using is definitely, positively going to make a difference in your tone. However, the saxophone isn't an amplifier to any great extent. This, again, gets off into the discussion of, "I stripped the lacquer off of my 1955 Selmer Mark VI because it makes the horn vibrate more, thus giving me a better sound." Or, if you prefer, the video from Rampone & Cazzani I mention elsewhere where a tech taps different saxophones made of different metals to hear what sound they make and concludes that's why some metals are better than others for building a sax -- even though he has to agree that a copper body that goes *thunk* when tapped isn't bad for making saxophones.

Elsewhere on this forum I mention that Yamaha seriously puts forward the idea that gold-plated keywork on their clarinets seriously impacts the tone quality of their horns. There's also the semi-mythic patent from Cannonball that states that if you put a stone at certain points on the sax, that will greatly impact the tone. (At the very least, Cannonball makes a better argument, includes test data and has a patent.)

There have been some semi-scientific studies regarding the flute where the overall weight seems to affect tone (again, I have it posted here, somewhere). However, a sax isn't a flute.

Finally, note that Dave doesn't say anything about tone. He's only talking about "vibrational response" and trying to change the overall weight of the horn -- which actually should be minimal, if all you're doing is making the ribs a bit shorter.

===============

Helen and I are both baritone saxophone players, although I've retired from playing awhile ago. However, when I was on my quest to buy the right bari for me, I had the option of a Yamaha YBS-52 and a YBS-62. One of the rather few differences between the two was that the 62 had a one-piece bell, rather than two. There was a perceptible difference from the playing perspective: the 52 was harder to control for the bell notes. The tone, however, was roughly equal -- as it should be, as the 52 and 62 had the identical bore design.

Note that a lot of the "low A is stuffy" comments on the baritone are from people who either haven't played low A horns to any great extent (or, for that matter, baritones, period) or have played horns with a cylindrical bell extension to get to that low A (OK, Jim, we can mention low G, too). I can easily say that I was extremely fond of a Mark VI low Bb bari I've played, but I was still able to get the low Bb to sound equally as full on my YBS-52.
 
pete said:
Note that a lot of the "low A is stuffy" comments on the baritone are from people who either haven't played low A horns to any great extent (or, for that matter, baritones, period) or have played horns with a cylindrical bell extension to get to that low A (OK, Jim, we can mention low G, too). I can easily say that I was extremely fond of a Mark VI low Bb bari I've played, but I was still able to get the low Bb to sound equally as full on my YBS-52.
Click to expand...
That low G didn't speak well on the instrument Helen and I examined.
 
The attached study has put to rest the myth that wall vibrations have any influence on the sound wave.
 

Attachments

  • Influence of Wall Vibrations on a Reed Instrument.pdf
    543.6 KB · Views: 363
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom