New Horns versus Old Horns or Vintage Horns

[Ed]

I hear players talk about how over new horns generally don't play as well as older horns. It's an interesting argument and one which I agree with when it comes to saxes. I generally buy vintage horns and have found a number of killer horns using my personal selection process.

I think over time a horn gets played in. A new Mark VI would feel a lot different than the Mark VI's that all of are used to playing these days. The reason for this is pretty simple. The springs have had a chance to weaken a bit with age and playing. Now a Mark VI feels a lot different in the way the keys snap than a Reference 54 but that's due to the fact that the springs on the Reference 54 are shorter than the VI. There's a lot of little details that go into copying a classic and Selmer missed this one.

So why is it that older horns seem more interesting than when they were new? I wish I could say. Some people say that it's due to the fact that the brass has had time to resonate at various frequencies. Some say that it's just because the pads and springs have had a chance to settle in to where they'll be. Some people contend that it's due to the thin layer of deposits that end up in your horn as you play.

My experience has been that great vintage horns remain great vintage horns after overhauls and a good cleaning. Maybe there's something to be said for the argument that the exposure to resonance makes a horn better. I have heard this very argument from bell makers but there's no scientific proof that this is the case.

There are some really excellent horns out right now that I think are going to be viewed as classic horns someday. These include the Yamaha 82z's and the Reference Series from Selmer.

I'm curious to hear what others have to say on this subject. I think that in the end picking a horn is a personal experience that is very subjective and frankly there's a little bit of a psychology involved with playing. If you think the horn is special it can sometimes take away an excuse to your playing which forces you to focus on the true shortcomings of your technique or tone.

 

[pete]

A new horn CAN be (not is) designed on a computer with very precise measurements and those measurements can offer the best tradeoffs between tone, intonation and playability. I've read more than one post about how new horns don't require as much embochure adjustment as vintage horns, etc. That's a good selling point.

However, I've also read an equal number of people saying that the newer horns don't "sound" as good as vintage horns. I'm noncommittal about this. I liked the sound on my Yamaha YBS-52 just fine. I also *know* that, to non-players, there's NO difference.

Remember, at least 80% of your sound is YOU. The other 20% is probably equally your mouthpiece (and reed) and your horn. I'd kinda rather have the 10% be something that's easier on me to play. And, seriously, it just needs to be a combination of "decent sax" and "decent mouthpiece".

Finally, I really think that the reason why a lot of folks went vintage is because of the rather drastic price differential. Hey, you can get a 1960 Keilwerth for $1000! That's really decent. However, now that you see some vintage prices approach and surpass that of some modern pro horns, I think you might hear a lot fewer people claiming "vintage is best".

 

[Steve]

And, seriously, it just needs to be a combination of "decent sax" and "decent mouthpiece".

and a decent player

 

[pete]

And, seriously, it just needs to be a combination of "decent sax" and "decent mouthpiece".

and a decent player

Actually, not necessarily .

If you've got the decent mouthpiece and decent instrument, even if you're a rank beginner, that's a good start. I'd much rather you spend the $1200 on a YAS-23, $100 on a Selmer C* AND $4700 on lessons from a good teacher than spend $6000 on a Reference 54.

If you work at it you can become that decent player.

 

[Dave Dolson]

I have both modern and vintage soprano and alto saxophones. I like 'em all. I'm leaning to my modern horns for the time being for their better intonation (not that my vintage horns have poor intonation, just that my modern horns don't make me work for it) and equal sound. Plus, the modern saxophones feel smoother and more lush to my touch than do my vintage horns.

A personal preference, for sure. CDAVE

 

[pete]

I'm leaning to my modern horns for the time being for their better intonation (not that my vintage horns have poor intonation, just that my modern horns don't make me work for it)

VINDICATION!

 

[MexicanDragon]

I have been recently wondering the same thing as the OP put up, his thoughts almost mirroring mine. I've been thinking about a Ref 54 after playing my teacher's AMAZING hand picked Hummingbird Collector's Edition last month. It MAY be good enough to break me of my Conn, if the $$$ works out.

I know she (Doc... the teacher) has a KILLER MK VI she's been playing for 40 some odd years and finally broke down and got a new horn. I've played them both, and they're both amazing. Interestingly... her KILLER VI is now a backup horn.

I've read a lot about people picking the tone of a good VI over a 54, but also realize coming from interests in other facets of the audio industry (its expensive being an audiophile... visit http://www.head-fi.org or http://www.headcase.org if you are interested in doing it the "cheap" way, with headphones instead of speakers), and also an interest in high quality firearms (I have only one pistol, but its worth about as much as my 6M-VIII), that mechanical parts/machines in general oft times require, or at least BENEFIT from a "break-in" period. Headphones, for example, oft times need 200-300 hours of burn-in (or break-in) for the drivers to stablize and start to sound like they're going to sound 100 hours from now or 1000 hours from now, but not necessarily what they sound like fresh out of the box. There are varying degrees of effect in this instance, and varying opinions on how much it actually happens and how much is placebo, but I personally believe it does change a little over time, and have thought the same of horns.

The bit about the spring tension, about the changing/wearing in of pads over time. What about the cats who were around in the 50s and 60s buying these horns up new. Do you think they sounded JUST LIKE Ref 54s do now? I think its possible that its closer than the 40 year old (broken in) horn vs the brand new (but properly adjusted) horn comparisons.

What if the 1970s Mk VIs start to come around in 20 years to sound like the 1950s VIs do now?

I sometimes wonder what my 1945 6M-VIII would sound like brand new vs 63 years later. That's a long time. Pad materials change, engineering/technology advances (for better or worse)... just lots of questions on my mind, and these are a few of them.

**BRENT**

 

[pete]

I sometimes wonder what my 1945 6M-VIII would sound like brand new vs 63 years later. That's a long time. Pad materials change, engineering/technology advances (for better or worse)... just lots of questions on my mind, and these are a few of them.

Now that's an interesting question.

I think the answer is, "Yes, a vintage horn could be set up to better than new." And because of the reasons you mention.

While I assume some of the repair techniques are essentially the same today as they were 63 years ago, I hear techs talking about rubber alternatives, heat-shrink materials, etc. Those definitely weren't available 63 years ago.

Hey, what if you set up a 63-year-old horn with Resoblades? What if that Conn had Selmer-style keywork? What if they had designed the Conn Standard with help from a computer and used more precise measurements? How much better could the horn be?

Also, I believe there are people that would say a Reference 54 is either better or worse than a Mark VI. I don't think there are folks that are saying they're "exactly like".

"Reference" is a new Selmer Paris concept which combines acoustic or ergonomic characteristics of several famous previous Selmer Paris models with the qualities of today's top design and manufacture.

Each model has a specific tone colour: the "Reference 36" features a rich, open tone, in the tradition of "Balanced Action" first released in 1936. The more centered "Reference 54" incorporates the famous "Mark VI" design, which came out in 1954.

Note the "in the tradition of" and "incorporates" language. Selmer's not saying that these horns are copies. They're saying that they're better.

"Sound" is horribly subjective. Again, I think people would say that a saxophone sounds like a saxophone. I bet that only players could really tell -- from playing -- which horn's a Mark VI and which is a Reference 54.

A few years back, on SOTW, someone posted a website that asked if you could tell the difference between a student horn and a Mark VI from a sound bite. I could, very easily: the student horn sounded much brighter and some of the notes kinda cracked. Now, do the same with a Reference 54 and a Mark VI, I probably couldn't tell you.

 

[MexicanDragon]

Now that's an interesting question.

I think the answer is, "Yes, a vintage horn could be set up to better than new." And because of the reasons you mention.

While I assume some of the repair techniques are essentially the same today as they were 63 years ago, I hear techs talking about rubber alternatives, heat-shrink materials, etc. Those definitely weren't available 63 years ago.

Hey, what if you set up a 63-year-old horn with Resoblades? What if that Conn had Selmer-style keywork? What if they had designed the Conn Standard with help from a computer and used more precise measurements? How much better could the horn be?

Also, I believe there are people that would say a Reference 54 is either better or worse than a Mark VI. I don't think there are folks that are saying they're "exactly like".

The Resoblade is interesting. I didn't find a whole lot of info on it, nor did I find larger pics of the system, but what if you threw that system on an SX-90R (with level tone holes, of course!). I think if Conn had Selmer style keywork there would have been people who's minds would be blown these days. Personally, the Conn keyboard fits me quite well, with the one complaint I have being the RH side keys being placed too high up on the horn for my tastes... 1/2-3/4" and I'd probably be a bit faster than I am now, with the same number of hours put in on those keys. I think my hands may be quite a bit larger than the average sax player (people playing Mk VIIs excluded, and comparable), but for most, the Conn sound with "modern" keywork... its nice just to sit back and think about that for a second...

I think someone needs to find a closet VI (I ALMOST snagged one for 2500$ from the original owner back in 96 (I was 15), but I take it I was too annoying of a 15 y/o (aren't they/we all?) and lost touch with the seller) that has an hour by hour play log from day one. Take that horn and store it in a vacuum to try to keep it as much in its current state as possible, then take a Ref 54 and play it hour for hour with the VI and let it age in a similar manner as the VI. When they reach the same total age, take 'em out and play 'em side by side, maybe have a few weekend warriors, a few amatuers, and a few pros blow 'em to get a solid idea of sound (recorded, of course) and their thoughts on the feel of the two horns. Also take a gambit of metallurgical measurements (as many as can be taken), note the pad wear (assuming the base VI had original pads, but in this hypothetical case, it'd be all original with the warranty card in the case). At this point, you'd want to take and completely overhaul each horn using NOS parts for the VI, and (at that point) NOS (New Old Stock) for the Ref 54 (someone keep some fresh TODAY!... two sets, actually). Repeat the play tests (same players). At this point, tear down the horns again and switch out all the springs/corks/pads/resos that were used on the VI on the 54, and vice versa... repeat all tests. At THIS point, I think it may be possible to get some interesting data on the VI vs. 54.

Also, wasn't the 54 alto based of a 7x,xxx VI alto? I figure getting either that specific alto or the "closet case" in the 7x,xxx range would be aappropriate.

Speaking of the 54, I'm almost surprised someone hasn't started calling it the LIV. Roman numerals are used for all the other Selmers (XXXVI being the other exception). Just another thought.

**BRENT**

 

[Ed]

I've seen a couple of closet VI tenors over the years. The problem with most of them is that pads do degrade over time even if they're just sitting in a closet.

 

[pete]

The Mark VI was called as such because it was the sixth pro series Selmer produced:

* Modele 22
* Modele 26 Series (26, 28 and New Largebore)
* Super Series
* Balanced Action
* Super (Balanced) Action
* Mark VI

Remember, the Super Action 80 is a "Serie" (not "Series") and there have been three: the S80, the Serie II and the Serie III, plus a few variations, like the Harmonic models.

And note that Selmer made the little change on "Super (Balanced) Action" so as not to confuse you with the Super Action 80.

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

I don't think the Resoblades are in production anymore (Mr. Kodera, if you're still out there, please correct me). There was a B&S model sax that had the full set and that was an intriguing alternative for folks. Not popular, I guess, but intriguing.

---------

Referencing metallurgy, I'm not a chemist and don't play one on TV, but I really don't think that havening a lump of brass sit around for even 100 years is going to change it much. Unless you've submerged it in water, in which case you're going to end up with a pile of rust. I feel the same way about other "treatments" that can be done to brass.

I can say that lacquer changes color with age and that the solder for soldered tone holes degrades -- and, obviously, pads, etc. will also degrade. However, some folks have found vintage horns in original packing -- and some even in unfinished condition, such as the gold-plated Conn sopranino that Matt Stohrer once posted on SOTW. Hey, it's brand spankin' new.

----------

The argument about putting a Reference 54 into stasis and then opening it when Selmer comes out with the Reference Reference 54 or whatever is not really testable, as there aren't any stasis field generators. It's better to just find a decent horn. If you can find one of those, "I bought it new in 1954, put it in hermetically-sealed storage containers and then never played it" that's great, but very unlikely.

I have heard of some auto dealers doing something like that with some "classic" makes -- I believe one reference was a dealer that bought a Corvette every year since 1964 or something and just garaged the cars -- but that's rare. MOST people would consider a car something to drive, not something just to store and look at every now and then. Same goes with saxophones.

----------

Oh. I've waxed prosaic about the "best" Mark VIs and I think it a totally unwinnable argument, just like "which is better, Mac or PC". Additionally, the Ref. 54 is just "inspired by" the VI, it's not a copy. Could Selmer have made measurements from a 71xxx VI? Sure, but if they had to make measurements, wouldn't they just open the drawer that has all the plans? Hey, they produced the VI for 20-odd years, they probably have the plans around, if not the actual tooling .

 

[SuperAction80]

For me personally, picking up a vintage horn was based upon price. I picked my Conn New Wonder alto up on eBay for $458. That was almost 6 years ago now...wow. I had never played a vintage horn before and knew nothing about them. Some quick research through saxpics.com and some questions to the seller, and I knew that the horn was for me. For less than $500 pound for pound I could not find a better a better alto, vintage or modern. Paying $4k+ is insane for a modern horn (and some vintage). Yes a Reference 54 costs more than my NW, but I know for a fact that it isn't 8x the horn. So price is definatly a driving factor as to why some players prefer vintage. There is a certain elegant look to vintage horns. Engravings, bell braces, the keywork itself looks very unique and in some cases is very streamlined. For the most part, modern horns have a machined look to them.

As far as how each horn plays...well that's controlled by the mouthpiece and the player. There are good and bad horns of every make and model. Evaluate each saxophone on a horn by horn basis. You may be surprised as to what your prefered horn is.

 

[MexicanDragon]

The Mark VI was called as such because it was the sixth pro series Selmer produced...

Remember, the Super Action 80 is a "Serie" (not "Series") and there have been three: the S80, the Serie II and the Serie III, plus a few variations, like the Harmonic models.

And note that Selmer made the little change on "Super (Balanced) Action" so as not to confuse you with the Super Action 80.

I knew about the VI being the 6th, I think I was just running on very little sleep that night. The SA80 "Serie", however, I don't believe I was aware of. I was alwas under the impression it was "Series." Thanks for the clarification.

I don't think the Resoblades are in production anymore (Mr. Kodera, if you're still out there, please correct me). There was a B&S model sax that had the full set and that was an intriguing alternative for folks. Not popular, I guess, but intriguing.

I noticed while doing some research someone with a screename of "First name" Codera replied, seemed like it was actually the guy. This was on SOTW, btw. Maybe check this thread http://forum.saxontheweb.net/showthread.php?t=60029 ... post 8. He's not registering with "e-mail problem", so you may could get in touch with him. Last activity on SOTW seems to have been last July, however.

Referencing metallurgy, I'm not a chemist and don't play one on TV, but I really don't think that havening a lump of brass sit around for even 100 years is going to change it much. Unless you've submerged it in water, in which case you're going to end up with a pile of rust. I feel the same way about other "treatments" that can be done to brass.

I can say that lacquer changes color with age and that the solder for soldered tone holes degrades -- and, obviously, pads, etc. will also degrade. However, some folks have found vintage horns in original packing -- and some even in unfinished condition, such as the gold-plated Conn sopranino that Matt Stohrer once posted on SOTW. Hey, it's brand spankin' new.

----------

The argument about putting a Reference 54 into stasis and then opening it when Selmer comes out with the Reference Reference 54 or whatever is not really testable, as there aren't any stasis field generators. It's better to just find a decent horn. If you can find one of those, "I bought it new in 1954, put it in hermetically-sealed storage containers and then never played it" that's great, but very unlikely.

I have heard of some auto dealers doing something like that with some "classic" makes -- I believe one reference was a dealer that bought a Corvette every year since 1964 or something and just garaged the cars -- but that's rare. MOST people would consider a car something to drive, not something just to store and look at every now and then. Same goes with saxophones.

Sigh. Well, maybe one day we'll have all the proper time travel equipment available and can travel back and purchase a new VI, hop back in and pick up a new 54, take a flight to see Randy Jones at whichever point in time he's at the top of his game, and can do it that way. Who knows what the future will hold... (but I didn't expect any of what I said to be TRULY possible anyways... would just be a possible scenario to try to compare two horns 40-50 years apart).

Oh. I've waxed prosaic about the "best" Mark VIs and I think it a totally unwinnable argument, just like "which is better, Mac or PC". Additionally, the Ref. 54 is just "inspired by" the VI, it's not a copy. Could Selmer have made measurements from a 71xxx VI? Sure, but if they had to make measurements, wouldn't they just open the drawer that has all the plans? Hey, they produced the VI for 20-odd years, they probably have the plans around, if not the actual tooling .

On this subject, I've recently heard that Buffet made a prototype copper horn back in the day (not sure which year). The person regaling this story to me mentioned that it was as close to as Mk VI as the person had ever played (that wasn't a Mk VI). The Buffet rep said something along the lines of "Funny you say that, since we actually bought the plans for the VI from Selmer... and we'll NEVER sell them back!"

Just what I've heard...

**BRENT**

 

[Ed]

I believe Pete did a little research on the Copper Prestige horns from Buffet. Never seen on myself.

 

[MexicanDragon]

I believe Pete did a little research on the Copper Prestige horns from Buffet. Never seen on myself.

Maybe he can enlighten us... thanks Ed. The person who told me about that horn actually demoed it for a while... seems to have been very good horn, but it was told to me it was really heavy compared to other horns out there. I'll try to get some more stories to relate on this matter (or at least more details) soon.

**BRENT**

 

[pete]

I've heard a zillion variations of the "Selmer sold the plans/tooling on the VI to ..." story. If I had to make an opinion of which manufacturer Selmer "sold" to, based on those stories, I'd say "Yanagisawa", based on the look of many Yani models. However, considering all the interesting variations on that story, I'd think that Selmer didn't sell anyone anything.

My Buffet S3 page is at http://www.saxpics.com/buffet/SSeries.htm (the standard disclaimer: I no longer own the website, so please don't complain to me if something's broken). Considering the design of the S3 Prestige, you can make an argument that it's "Selmer-like", but I think this is more because Buffet really is an alternative to Selmer horns -- and they're both French.

Buffet also had a horn, for awhile, called an "Expression". That was a rebadged Keilwerth SX90. (Easy to tell: it had the adjustable altissimo keys.)

Wolf Kodera -- and yes, I think I have the spelling right; I seem to remember him saying that he adopted the "C" for his website to make it easier for Amrikuns to pronounce/spell, or some such -- was a member on SOTW for quite awhile. Lots of great knowledge. If he's had health issues, that'd be a good reason why I haven't seen him around.

 

[Ed]

The bore could be like the Mark VI but the keywork looks different. Again, I've never seen on in person so I can't say more than that.

 

[pete]

I assume you're referring to the Yanis, Ed.

I played this absolutely horrendous Yani-made Vito for awhile in one of my high schools. It looked 98% like a Mark VI. Differences: bell to body "loop" was bigger and the neck receiver to body brace was smaller.

Seriously. That was it.

I'm not saying this is any kind of "proof", mind you, but it was the closest looking horn to a VI I've ever seen. Too bad it was junk.

 

[Ed]

Pete,

Sounds like the 8xx. Was this after 1980? If not it could have been the A-6. You might have had a bad one as I've been impressed by the 8xx horns.

 

[pete]

When I played it? 1980's. It was probably a LOT older than that.

Oh. I've also played three of these. They all looked the same -- and all were in equivalent shape.

I've played Mark VIs that look like they've been run over by a tank and they play OK. These didn't.

Looking at your alto pics, I'd say probably B6 or B800. You don't have many bari pics.