My favorite Selmer Baritones

Ed

Ed

Founder
Staff member
Administrator
My top five favorite Selmer Baritones:

1. Selmer Super Action 80 Serie II Low A
2. Selmer Mark VI Low A
3. Selmer Super Action 80 Low B flat
4. Selmer Mark VI Low B flat
5. Selmer (Super) Balanced Action Low B flat (I've never played a low a)

Generally speaking Selmer has continued to refine their Bari's over the years. The Super Action 80 Serie II horns are really fine horns. Some people like their VI's better. I think they're all good. Some people will take issue with me liking the Low A's so much but it really comes down to practicality for me. I play music that sometimes requires a Low A so even though there are certain things I prefer about low B flat horns (such as the weight) I generally prefer Low A's.
 
Umm. Selmer Paris, I guess. I've played two: an S80 (low A) and a very, very minty Mark VI low Bb.

When I found the VI, in a shop in Tucson, I told my (now ex) wife to come back in about an hour. An hour later, I was still playing it -- and I didn't have any sheet music with me. Beautiful tone. Decent keywork. Nice intonation. I stopped playing it when the ex showed me a rather odd looking sax. After doing a double-take, I was playing with a Mark VI low A alto.

I'm told the SBA is BETTER. Paul Cohen did an article on this, some years ago, in the Saxophone Journal magazine. His university students preferred the SBA. Lighter tone and keywork, IIRC.

We can also talk about the half-dozen or so Mark VII baritones ....
 
About 10 years ago when I started shopping for a bari I tried the Series II. I liked it, but wasn't swayed by the need for a Low A. I must admit that the sound was a little "dull" compared to what I wanted. Then I had a chance to pick up a Low Bb VI at a decent price (in part because it was a relaq). This horn kicks some serious butt. I've played classical with it in a sax quintet with no problems, and it seriously shines in blues and jazz settings. I always get compliments on its tone. I have wondered if the relaq contributed to the sound that my horn has, or if it had no effect on the horn at all. (It was buffed, not chemically striped.) Whatever the case, I would not trade my VI for anything.

I've found that using the Low A extension that Paul Coats designed has easily filled the need for the occasional Low A in the charts that that I've come across.

When I started playing in an R&B band and needed a back-up bari, I did finally breakdown and get a Low A horn, but it was a B&S Medusa. What I like about it is that has the projection and edge to it that I want/need for playing in a a loud electric setting, despite the extra bell length. The sound of the Medusa surpases that of the Series II (IMHO) for the kind of music I use it in.
 
It sounds like the Serie III bari is going to be released this year. So maybe we'll have another entry on the list.
 
Helen said:
About 10 years ago when I started shopping for a bari I tried the Series II. I liked it, but wasn't swayed by the need for a Low A. I must admit that the sound was a little "dull" compared to what I wanted. Then I had a chance to pick up a Low Bb VI at a decent price (in part because it was a relaq). This horn kicks some serious butt. I've played classical with it in a sax quintet with no problems, and it seriously shines in blues and jazz settings. I always get compliments on its tone. I have wondered if the relaq contributed to the sound that my horn has, or if it had no effect on the horn at all. (It was buffed, not chemically striped.) Whatever the case, I would not trade my VI for anything.

I've found that using the Low A extension that Paul Coats designed has easily filled the need for the occasional Low A in the charts that that I've come across.

When I started playing in an R&B band and needed a back-up bari, I did finally breakdown and get a Low A horn, but it was a B&S Medusa. What I like about it is that has the projection and edge to it that I want/need for playing in a a loud electric setting, despite the extra bell length. The sound of the Medusa surpases that of the Series II (IMHO) for the kind of music I use it in.
Click to expand...
Yah. There are a lot of back-and-forth opinions on the low A and "stuffiness". My opinion is that it depends on the make and model, especially as some makes and models use a "straight" extension for the low A (such as the Conn 11M) and some horns have the low A integral to the design (such as the VI or SBA).

Considering there are now low A and low G basses, I wonder how the low Bb models will compare and if we'll see the low Bb vs. low G debate here :).

I played off a lot of transcriptions, so I really "needed" the low A, so A vs. Bb is kind of a moot argument for me. The VI was really, really nice, tho. So was the gold-plated (low Bb) Buescher True-Tone I tried. I just didn't like the keywork.

You notice I just kinda offhandedly mentioned the S80. It's because it really didn't impress me. I liked my YBS-52 better. It was nice to realize that I have difficulties getting altissimo out of the entire range of Selmer Paris saxophones. Takes me awhile to get used to it, and then I can make it work.

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

Ed, I wonder if the S80 II is being released because of what was mentioned in a different thread -- that the Keilwerth SX90 is going to get some keywork tweaks.
 
Selmer Paris has been promising a Serie III bari for some time. My concern is that they're going to go brighter like the rest of the Serie III horns.

My main complaint about Low A bari's is that they're heavier than the B flat horns. I haven't noticed any stuffiness to either of the Low A horns that I own (a Yani 800 and a french Vito). The difference is where the tone seems to emanate from the horn but if you play against a wall or record the horn you will be able to quickly determine that it is a trick of the ears.
 
Heavier in tone? The weight, as in ounces, is negligible.

I posted an article about flute acoustics, awhile back, and the PhD bunch that posted it suggested that more tone holes can alter the sound/tone of the horn. While you might say that a flute isn't a sax, they tested this on both a modern cylindrical-bore flute and a classical conical-bore flute.

However, I've read things like bell diameter making a difference. It should, as the diameter of the bell should be influenced by the bore of the saxophone in question, otherwise we'd only have one make/model of sax :).

And the tone should emanate from the horn :p.
 
Physically heavier. There's a difference and it's more than a few ounces. It's also bulkier with the low A than a B flat.

The smartest thing I found to mitigate some of the weight is to use a Protec contoured case.
 
According to Keilwerth's website an SX-90R weighs 11lbs. That really isn't that much. However, Keilwerth doesn't have Bb horns listed on their website, so I can't even give you comparison data from them, but Google turns up an answer (of course). Conclusion: some low Bb horns are HEAVIER than low A horns and the low A doesn't seem to add more than about a pound or so. That's what I'd call a difference of a few ounces. :D
 
All I know is that I bang into more stuff with the low A. :emoji_smile:
 
I mentioned to you earlier that I have a head that remembers trivial websites. Some PhDs actually DID do a study regarding the larger the musical instrument, the more apt it was to collect dents. I don't have it bookmarked and I'm not really wanting to Google it, but I remember seeing it. I think they concentrated on tubas and Sousaphones.

=========

Once, when I was much younger, I missed the bus. I walked home about 5 miles with bari sax. Bundy. Still remember it well. Rather sturdy, heavy case.
 
pete said:
Some PhDs actually DID do a study regarding the larger the musical instrument, the more apt it was to collect dents.
Click to expand...

Now there's a study worthy of a PhD dissertation...Too bad it's been done before. Now I'll have to rethink my research project.... :emoji_smile:
 
Well, I did a long outline of how to experimentally test to prove if material and/or finish makes a difference in saxophone tone ....
 
My baritone is a mk6 with the low A key. I don't know anything about any stuffyness pertaining to the low A. I seem to realize a slightly deeper sound, and a little more body to the tone, but no stuffyness.
If you're playing baritone for a living, or looking to be very through in correctly rendering the music which is assigned to you to play, I believe that you need to have the low A.
A case in point.....a short while back, I was called to do a bari gig out west, which would require a long flight with a short connecting flight to the gig. So if I had to check my horn, that would mean 2 chances to lose it, or damage it. So I found out that I would be able to use a horn at the school where the performance was taking place. I took advantage of that offer. The horn turned out to be a very nice low Bb mk6. A great playing horn.
So when I got to the gig, I found out that the music would be half the Lionel Hampton book, and the other half would be Jeff Clayton's arrangements. Jeff was leading the Lionel Hampton band that night. Hamp's book had no low A's. Jeff's book was loaded with them. And it wasn't like the A's were arbitrarily thrown in for good measure. On a very soft, slooow ballad, you might have to start a line in the middle of the low register, then play quarter notes down which end on a whole note at the bottom of the horn, low A. So if you get to the bottom and take it up the octave, the line didn't do what the arranger intended for it to do. Jeff Hamilton is a bass player, so he writes some really nice low parts.
I know he wasn't happy about not hearing his low A's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom