Untitled Document
     
Advertisement Click to advertise with us!
     

Conn New Wonder Mini-Review

pete

Brassica Oleracea
Staff member
Administrator
I'm only going to be able to finish a part of this, tonight. And I threatened that I'd post it, so heeeere it is.

I owned:
* A very early 1920's (no pearl keys) stencil alto. Silver plate. White kid pads, but they all sealed. Someone gave it to me.
* A mid-1920's C melody stencil. Silver plate. C melody mouthpiece. White kid pads, but they all sealed. I believe I bought this for $50.
* A mid-1920's tenor. Bare brass. I had this horn *restored* by a really good tech. I believe I bought this for $300. Sounds about right. Overhaul was more than the horn.

I played, for a considerable amount of time:
* A mid-1920's baritone. Bare brass. In sad visual shape, but allegedly good pads. Hey, some of the keywork wasn't even original and a couple toneholes were corked to improve intonation.

I played, for a couple weeks:
* A late 1920's bass. Silver plate. Good pads, but I could grant that it may have been a little out of adjustment. However, it was a college horn and they did have techs there.

My mouthpieces were Raschers. The bass mouthpiece, which was broken, was actually slightly smaller than the Rascher bari 'piece, so I used the Rascher. However, I don't think the bass 'piece that was broken was original: no Conn logo. My reed of choice, on all pitches, was a 3.5 Vandoren.

So. Those are the horns and my setup.

They sucked.

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

More specifically, here are the problems I had:

* Intonation on all the instruments was very iffy. This ranged from mild (the C melody) to ridiculous (the bass). The bass was so bad, I used false fingerings for the majority of what I played: I couldn't adjust my embochure fast enough. (I have heard, in the past, that it's pretty darn common to use false fingerings on basses.) On all my horns, I had the Eb vent intact and it worked. However, I also tried disabling the vent to improve intonation and there was no real difference. Hey, I might need that fork Eb fingering some day, y'know.
* Tone was very diffuse on the tenor, bari and bass. Loud, yes. But diffuse. I felt that, when I played, the actual note traveled about 3" and all the rest was muddy noise. The alto ... sounded like an alto. I fairly liked the overall tone of the C melody, but, seriously, I didn't use it all that much. No real need. (I used it a couple times in church for extra color.)
* The keywork was not ergonomic. That's almost a given, on horns this old, but it also felt sluggish. The Bundy II alto I had was better. Even the G# cluster.
* Of course, you also have no articulated G# on any of these old horns. That's the design, not really the fault of the horn. Something to keep in mind if you're considering one, tho!
* Even with the overhauled tenor, I had to throw a (plastic) mouthpiece cap in the bell to stop the gurgleling on the bell keys.
* Very hard to control dynamic contrast on any of these horns. The volume was "loud" or "louder" -- if you wanted the horns to speak, that is.

Admittedly, I don't remember the horns being very resistant, but I remember some difficulties with anything above high G coming out clearly or easily -- on any of the horns. No problems with my other instruments I owned (Bundy alto, Keilwerth-made Bundy bari, etc.). I can search for another good point, too: they were built like tanks. While I take fairly good care of my horns, I had a lot of 'em and they get "use marks". I don't remember ever damaging any of these Conns -- dents, dings, bends or whatever. The alto had a bell that was "pre-dinged", before I got it, but no significant damage after that. I don't even remember that ugly bari having any dents.

So, after I got rid of my Conns, I hated all things Conn for years -- although I admitted some were quite pretty -- until I tried a 30M. THAT'S a good horn. I'd recommend staying away from the New Wonders and earlier. Heck, stay away from 1920's-era horns, period. There are newer horns that have better ergonomics, keywork, intonation and tone for the same cash or less -- like a Buffet Dynaction or a Keilwerth New King (or NK stencil). And I thought my Keilwerth Bundy bari was pretty rugged.

So, what happened to my tenor? I traded it in and cash to get a YBS-52. The C melody was donated to a charity.
 
Interesting read Pete, thanks for taking the time to post this. One thing did jump out at me in your review, and that was that you used Rascher mouthpieces on all of these models. Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the Raschers designed to work with the bore shape of the Bueschers? The reason I ask is because I've read other comments about New Wonders being very mouthpiece picky. In fact, the general consensus seems to be that modern rubber Meyers and metal Links seem to work best with these old horns. The original Conn Eagle Mouthpieces are supposed to be the best pieces for the job. Fortunatly, I had been playing on a metal Link for about a year before I bought my New Wonder alto so I never had any issues with mouthpieces. I have been paying attention to the setups of players who love the New Wonders, and they usually play on one of the above mentioned mouthpieces. I briefly experimented with a Selmer S80 C*, but the piece caused WILD INTONATION PROBLEMS and I could not get a full tone at soft volume. I quickly gave up the piece, but I'm not really a fan of the S80 mouthpiece anyway. I have had good results using a Yamaha 4C of all things.

Ergonomics are very different from any modern horn. I took to the New Wonder's right away. It seems very straight forward and fast to my fingers. Yes, I even love that left hand pinky cluster, but I've always felt that the Selmer style feels a little mushy. The Conn is simple and it works. It is possible for a tech to solder on a metal tab in order to make an articulated G# cluster. I've left the Eb trill key open as it hasn't caused any intonation problems, and I occasionally use the trill fingering on fast passages. I've been using this New Wonder for so long that modern ergonomics on an alto feels funny to me. Of course any horn begins to feel natural within a couple hours of playing it.

My horn has always had a gurgling low B. I've solved this issue for the most part by placing a small oval piece of metal at the bottom of the bow, which is held in place with epoxy. I can get the low B at pp if I use tenor reeds. I have used this horn in classical settings, but there are definatly other horns I would rather use for this genre. Being that I rarely do any classical work these days, this horn works great for my needs. It is also the heaviest alto I've ever played, and has extremely thick plating.

I have to agree with you that players should avoid buying an 80+ year old horn. There are a lot of things that have changed in saxophone production, and these horns may have some serious mechanical issues. If you are going to buy one, make sure that you have one in your hands to examine it. Pictures can not tell you how worn the action may be. I did buy my horn sight unseen off of eBay, and I did get an exceptional horn in great shape. This was luck, and I could have easily ended up with a dog of a horn.
 
SuperAction80 said:
Interesting read Pete, thanks for taking the time to post this. One thing did jump out at me in your review, and that was that you used Rascher mouthpieces on all of these models. Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the Raschers designed to work with the bore shape of the Bueschers? The reason I ask is because I've read other comments about New Wonders being very mouthpiece picky. In fact, the general consensus seems to be that modern rubber Meyers and metal Links seem to work best with these old horns.

The original Conn Eagle Mouthpieces are supposed to be the best pieces for the job.
The statement I generally hear about really old instruments is, "Use a large chambered mouthpiece". You can't get a larger chamber than the Rascher :).

The Rascher was designed, from what I've read, based on A. Sax's original drawings. Sax never actually wrote down any measurements or design requirements for a mouthpiece, just a picture and a description of "large chamber". There is also great resemblance between the Rascher and vintage Buescher mouthpieces: Rascher used to play Bueschers -- specifically a gold-plated New Aristocrat (s/n 267xxx, according to Gayle Fredenburgh at http://www.vintagesax.com).

From Wikipedia: {the} "Sigurd Rasch?r brand" mouthpiece ... was simply a virtual duplication of the mouthpieces that had been readily available from American saxophone manufacturers Buescher and Conn in the 1920s. The Rasch?r mouthpiece is still manufactured today.

The original Conn, Buescher and Martin (it's the left one in this pic) mouthpieces look very simular (and simular to the Rascher) -- probably because Buescher and Martin worked for Conn. (However, my opinion is that the Martin mouthpiece is a bit easier to control than the Rascher.)

So, the point is that you're possibly right, but that also would then mean "don't buy a New Wonder unless you have an original mouthpiece" which is a rather high requirement.

I have been paying attention to the setups of players who love the New Wonders, and they usually play on one of the above mentioned mouthpieces. I briefly experimented with a Selmer S80 C*, but the piece caused WILD INTONATION PROBLEMS and I could not get a full tone at soft volume. I quickly gave up the piece, but I'm not really a fan of the S80 mouthpiece anyway.
Again, small-chambered mouthpieces are not appropriate for vintage instruments, so the results you had are about on-par with what I'd expect.

Ergonomics are very different from any modern horn. I took to the New Wonder's right away. It seems very straight forward and fast to my fingers. Yes, I even love that left hand pinky cluster, but I've always felt that the Selmer style feels a little mushy. The Conn is simple and it works. It is possible for a tech to solder on a metal tab in order to make an articulated G# cluster. I've left the Eb trill key open as it hasn't caused any intonation problems, and I occasionally use the trill fingering on fast passages. I've been using this New Wonder for so long that modern ergonomics on an alto feels funny to me. Of course any horn begins to feel natural within a couple hours of playing it.
Ergonomics are a bit a matter of personal taste, but I've used this argument: if the ergonomics of the older horns were so superior, how come 99% of the saxophones on the market today use a variation of the Selmer Balanced Action style?

BTB, people always ask about hand size: I'm 6'1" and have been since I was, oh, 13 -- before I started playing the sax. My hand spans an octave and 1/3 on a piano. I just checked.

I grant you that ergonomics aren't that much of an issue, then -- I'm not trying to compare the New Wonder to a Super 80 Serie III, for instance -- but still, the keywork seemed ... ponderous. And I don't think that was just the ergonomics, but possibly the design.

My horn has always had a gurgling low B. I've solved this issue for the most part by placing a small oval piece of metal at the bottom of the bow, which is held in place with epoxy. I can get the low B at pp if I use tenor reeds. I have used this horn in classical settings, but there are definatly other horns I would rather use for this genre. Being that I rarely do any classical work these days, this horn works great for my needs. It is also the heaviest alto I've ever played, and has extremely thick plating.

I have to agree with you that players should avoid buying an 80+ year old horn. There are a lot of things that have changed in saxophone production, and these horns may have some serious mechanical issues. If you are going to buy one, make sure that you have one in your hands to examine it. Pictures can not tell you how worn the action may be. I did buy my horn sight unseen off of eBay, and I did get an exceptional horn in great shape. This was luck, and I could have easily ended up with a dog of a horn.
VINDICATION.

Seriously, I'm not going to make the sweeping pronouncement that the horns from the 1920's or whatever are junk. For instance, I think the Evette-Schaeffer (Buffet) curved soprano I owned had a very sweet sound and looked beautiful -- and that was in unrestored condition (and needed a LOT of work). However, I can say that there were definitely other horns, such as the E&S, that were a lot better than the Conn and I didn't have good experiences with them.

I'm also just essaying my opinions, of course.

I made mention in another thread that I couldn't do an effective review with, "They suck". I had to give a bit more info. A lot of other folks had come down on me for not liking Conns, in the past, and they said I must have had "bad horns". I had quite a large number of bad horns, then, and I should get my money back from that tech :).
 
The Conn Eagle, Buescher large chamber, and Martin large chamber pieces are pretty similar. It wouldn't surprise me if they were all derived from the same general design or even the same molds. I have on hand the three examples in alto.
 
Dude! If you had said, "Bari", I might be sending you another check.

EDIT: do you happen to have an HN White King? That'd also be interesting for this discussion.
 
No, I can't say that you've played on bad Conns Pete. As you've stated, it's simply personal preference. It would also be idiotic for you to play a horn that you didn't like just to please us Conn lovers. From your posts and webwork, it's obvious that you've forgotten more about the saxophone than what most of us will ever know. What surprises me is just how different the opinions of two saxophonists can be. That's part of the beauty of being a musician. It would get kind of boring if everyone played the same horn and had the same tonal concept.

Thank you for the info on the Rascher mouthpieces, I plan on looking into them just to try something a little different than what I'm used to. Now here's something that blew my mind. I am also 6'1", and I just checked my hand span. In fact, I also reach an octave and a third on the piano. As I said before, I love the New Wonder ergos.

It was funny that you did mention the Selmer Serie III. In fact I did have an opportunity to compare one to my New Wonder. A buddy of mine owns the III and uses a Meyer 5, and we spent about an hour comparing our setups and play testing the horns with each mouthpiece. My piece is a Link STM 6*. The ergos on both horns are complete polar opposites, no shock there. My buddy did say that he prefered the stack keys on the Conn, and the pinky cluster wouldn't take him that long to get used to. His hands are considerably smaller than ours. I prefered the palm keys on the III, but I've always felt like the stack keys are TOO comfortable on these horns. I also think that Selmer took a wrong turn with the concept of "ergonomic pinky keys" that have been on all of their horns in varying degrees since the Mark VII. I prefer the flatter keys that the VI and vintage American horns have. It's a small personal preferece, but I just think that I can manuver a little faster with older style keywork. As far as overall playability was concerned, we were both convinced that we could play either horn with either mouthpiece interchangably. In fact the two of us did play in a horn section, and we occasionally swapped horns just for fun.

Interesting discussion regarding these old horns though. It's nice reading opinions with supporting facts and evidence. Oh, and I did briefly play on an Evette Tenor back in highschool. I'm guessing it was made in the 40's, and it was a very nice horn to say the least.
 
Pete,

I had a Conn Steelay large chamber bari piece but Jim now owns it. I've done some large chamber bass sax conversions and that was the first one I did. I think I've got one of the modern Babbitt pickle barrel pieces on hand. Let me know if you are interested and I'll look around for it.

I don't have any of the older King pieces. There was a time when I could pick up all the large chamber pieces I wanted for next to nothing. Those days are gone now. :(
 
Back
Top Bottom