Ref 36 compared with BA

clarnibass

clarnibass

Hi

Selmer claims the Reference 36 tenor is based on the Balanced Action model. I'm interested if anyone else tried this model and also the Balanced Action, what did you think about how they compare? How they are similar and how they are different.

I also asked this on SOTW and got mainly irelevant answers with advice for choosing one of those models, for someone who is interested in buying. So to clarify:

I'm not looking to buy one of these models, or a tenor sax, or any saxophone. The reason I'm asking is because a few days ago I tried a Ref 36 for the first time in a place I could really evaluate it (previously was in a loud exhibition). All I remembered was that it was supposedly based on the BA. I was then surprised by how it played and felt. I have my opinion about it, and how it comapres with the BA, and I will add a review on my website. But I'm also wondering what others think about this just from curiousity.

Thanks.
 
I owned a BA (28,xxx) for about 15 years. Nice sounding horn, although it did have some intonation issues. My recollection is that it sounded wonderful in the bottom octave, especially when playing softly. Middle octave was good, but from high C on up, it sounded kind of thin, and really couldn't be pushed too hard. Great horn for playing jazz combo work, but since I was mainly playing rock'n'roll, I wanted something different. I also had a bad Mark VI (re-lacquer, classic gurgle, wouldn't hold adjustment) and I went back and forth between the two depending on the gig and my mood at the time.

In my quest for a new horn, I tried a lot of different horns, including a Ref 36. It was a good horn, although badly set up. I liked the more modern keywork and intonation, and it did have that silky smooth BA sound. I couldn't make it whisper down low because of some leaks, which I'm sure were fixable. The upper register was better, but it just didn't have that "scream" I was looking for to play King Curtis or Clarence Clemons type of stuff. Right after that, I tried a Series III, and knew I had found my horn. It probably influenced my decision some that the III was very nicely set up, but the horn just had everything I was looking for.

The hardest thing about playing the new horn was to stop compensating for notes that I expected to be out of tune from playing the BA all those years.
 
Firstly, my Ref 36 came to me tweaked by Chuck Kessler. The horn could scream or whisper at either end of the keyed range (I rarely do atissimo) and especially at the low range. I had some of my favorite pro and semi-pro players try both my Ref 36 and Suzy's Ref 54 which was also tweaked by Chuck.

The first fellow thought that the Ref 36 playability, response and sound were remarkably like his Mark VI that he'd had since his Berkeley daze. He did not find anything to disabuse him from thinking the 54 was more like his Mark VI. He preferred the Ref 36.

The next player was a rock and roll player from the 50s and he could not see or hear the difference between the horns. He thought they were both excellent horns but way over-priced. His favorite horn in the 50s was a Buescher.

The best sax player at the National Community Band, and a Rascherite, was playing a vintage Conn. He had the best intonation of any player I've had the opportunity to play with. We traded horns and both of us hated each other's instrument. Neither of us had any desire to play the other's horn.

The last fellow I'm going to mention is a High School band director and sax player in his early 30s. He's the kind of guy that everyone wants to sound like and when he's in charge of a Big Band, he catches all the little things that we do wrong that are needed to sell a song. He plays a Yamaha 82Z tenor and a Series III alto sax.

He thought the Ref 36 was by far better than the Ref 54 and mainly because of the sound. It was interesting seeing him work the altissimo because the instrument was so different from the Yamaha. He'd had a BA in the past but didn't think either horn had the characterists of a BA. And he thought the intonation was significantly better on the new instruments. He preferred the Ref 36.

It would be nice to do a double blind test with some horns here. In addition to the BA, Mark VI, and Ref series horns, I'd add a Couf Superba, Yamaha 82Z, any Yanigasawi 99x(x) and insure that they were all tweaked so that the instrument would be as good as they can really be. Comparing horns in different states of prep and/or repair will generate statements like, "The Selmer Reference series quality control is sooo poor I can't believe they can get that kind of money for them." :emoji_rolling_eyes:

We should go see what Stephen Howard thinks of the BA and the Ref 36 tenors but alas he's only reviewed a Ref 54 alto sax. He has NO reviews of Selmer tenors. WTH?
 
Gandalfe said:
It would be nice to do a double blind test with some horns here. In addition to the BA, Mark VI, and Ref series horns, I'd add a Couf Superba, Yamaha 82Z, any Yanigasawi 99x(x) and insure that they were all tweaked so that the instrument would be as good as they can really be. Comparing horns in different states of prep and/or repair will generate statements like, "The Selmer Reference series quality control is sooo poor I can't believe they can get that kind of money for them." :emoji_rolling_eyes:
Click to expand...

That was the most frustrating thing about trying out horns seven years ago. I had to go to four different shops to try out a Ref 36, Series II and III, Keilwerth SX-90, Yamaha 82Z and Yamaha 875. Never did find a Ref 54 or any Yanagisawas. The Yamahas and the Series II and III were well set up, The Ref 36 and Keilwerth were not. Fortunately, the Series III made such an impression as to make the decision easy.

Nowadays, I can go to PM Woodwinds and try a whole slew of horns that are all meticulously set up.
 
The Reference 36 is constructed significantly differently than the BA and has considerably different keywork: you can just do a visual comparison and make that determination. Both could be a plus, however, but if you're looking for a horn that has exactly the same "look and feel" of the BA, this isn't the horn.

Tone/playing characteristics, I couldn't tell you. I would think that the Reference 36 has a tad better intonation. That seems to be the standard comment for modern pro horns vs. their vintage counterparts.

Here's another comment: I had someone ask me the other day what kind of resos were on the BA and my response was, "I don't know. I don't think I've ever seen a 100% original BA and I have no Selmer catalog/flyer from the 1930's that specifies which resos."

The Reference 36 looks like it has the standard Selmer nylon/plastic resonators. That could also make the Reference sound/project differently from how your BA might have been set up -- and it's also probable that your BA wasn't "stock". Of course, this does get into the discussion of how much resonators might affect the tone.

===========

Jim, I think SH might not have reviewed any Selmers because either a) everyone and his brother has already reviewed them or b) he might have a contract with Selmer and to say that even a Modele 22 is junk might me a bad idea (I dunno what brands his shop carries).
 
Thanks. When I tried the Reference 36 I definitely thought it had better intonation and also a lot more even tone and response accross the range. That's usually the most improvement with modern instruments so not so surprising.

But the tone and feel were very different from early Selmers including the BA. Although I would describe it as smooth and maybe soft (the tone itself, it was possible to play loud and with power too), it was basically a modern tone and feel. For example easy to notice the much shorter springs. If I didn't know, I would never guess it was supposed to be "inspired"(?) from an old Selmer model. It is more similar to the old Selmers than to the SA80SII and SIII models (especially the III) but still not very similar.

I didn't especially like the tone, but I thought it was an excellent saxophone and can understand why some players might like it a lot.

pete said:
Jim, I think SH might not have reviewed any Selmers because either a) everyone and his brother has already reviewed them or b) he might have a contract with Selmer and to say that even a Modele 22 is junk might me a bad idea (I dunno what brands his shop carries).
Click to expand...
I know Steve, so to clarify, he is a repairer but doesn't have a shop with instruments for sale at all. He only repairs. So he doesn't have a contact with Selmer.
 
Last edited:
I'm pretty sure that Selmer didn't use resonators when the BA horns were being manufactured. Back in the mid '90s, I purchased a mint BA alto that I still own. The horn had nearly zero lacquer wear, and came with the mint condition original case, very lightly used original mouthpiece, lig and cap, and other original accessories, case key in the little manilla envelope and original owner documentation. The pads, corks, and felts looked to be original, and when Bill Singer overhauled the horn, he verified the originality of the factory set up. The pads had no resonators, looked to be in nice condition, but after sixty some years of existence, they were too dried up to seal even a little bit. The corks and felts were beautiful to look at, but had to go bye bye along with the dried up pads. So I had Bill do a sympathetic overhaul, and the horn is still too nice for me to play everyday.

My horn is an alto, not a tenor, but I'll mention some of the things I've observed in comparing my BA to the Ref alto that I gig with, and also some references to the mk6 altos that I've played over the last 40 or so years.

Aside from the fact that they're both saxophones, nothing is the same about the BA and the Ref. Even the very early mk6 alto I own (58,xxx) is totally different to the BA. You sort of have to make the BA play. If it was a car, it would have a 3 speed column shift with manual steering and brakes. The BA series uses inline toneholes. This in itself affects the overall feel of the horn and changes the sound somewhat. The only keys on my BA which have screw adjustments are the F, E, and D keys on the right hand stack. The fork activation for the 1 and 1 Bb fingering and G# hold down has no screw adjustment, nor does the front high F. The wall thickness of the body seems to be greater than the mk6 and newer models, and the keywork dosen't seem to have quite the amount of leverage of the newer models. But the overall quality of the workmanship of the BA is totally off the hook (much better) compared to these new models of today. Hand craftmanship is evident in all aspects of construction. The metal work and the lacquer finish are just about artistic to these old eyes. And the engraving, with it's beautiful pictoral scene, is a work of art. The ref 54 seems to be made in high school metal shop in comparison. Don't get me wrong, the ref PLAYS like a dream and is a very well made horn by any standard, but I don't see the craftmanship in it that I see in the BA.

I believe that the BA was the first modern saxophone. Selmer was beginning to turn the corner from the old Adolph Sax, E Lefbre, and Charley Conn world of saxophone design, and was bringing it into the 20th century. I also believe that the last big step in the refinement of the BA (modern) concept was in the mk6. The horns have improved since the mk6, but it seems to me that todays horns (all brands) are still just refined mk6's, just as the mk6 was basically a refined and improved BA.

Julian
 
I believe that the BA was the first modern saxophone. Selmer was beginning to turn the corner from the old Adolph Sax, E Lefbre, and Charley Conn world of saxophone design, and was bringing it into the 20th century. I also believe that the last big step in the refinement of the BA (modern) concept was in the mk6. The horns have improved since the mk6, but it seems to me that todays horns (all brands) are still just refined mk6's, just as the mk6 was basically a refined and improved BA.
Click to expand...
I tend to agree. The major difference between the Mark VI (for instance) and the BA is the placement of that keywork. If, however, a BA is a "heavy" horn, one might actually argue that the Mark VII is more a refinement on the BA than the VI and the S80 was introduced to try to find that happy medium between Mark VII and Mark VI -- and, in my opinion, the early 1980's Selmer USA Omegas succeeded better than the original S80 Serie.

In any event, the BA was quite a radical design: there isn't really any horn that it looks like that was available at the same time and it started a design revolution. Hey, it'd be interesting to put all the horns from 1936 together and try to determine if the BA really borrowed anything. I think Buffet had some of that "balanced action" thing going ....

Although, you have to remember that the Selmer Super Series was still out there: the Radio Improved model was available until 1937 and the Jimmy Dorsey Model seems to have been available up until 1939.

It's nice to hear about the lack of resonators on the BA: I did mention that to my e-mailer, although I said that the nylon resos might also be a good "happy medium". In any even, the lack of resos would fit with the BA not needing any "built-in" amplification because the BA was "designed for" the recording studio.
 
I personally wouldn't compare a mk7 to a BA. To my experience, the mk7 is heavy with somewhat clunky action. The BA has a heavy body but a very negotiable mechanism. Selmer had to reestablish itself after the mk7 debacle.

My BA was repadded during the overhaul with the nylon tone boosters. My horn was fairly early in the model run, 23,4xx, so maybe they came up with the resonator thing later in the model run. Or maybe the waited until the SBA model to introduce resos, I never researched that. But I wanted some kind of resonator in the horn and now I'm glad I didn't go to a metal reso.

Julian
 
sideC said:
Selmer had to reestablish itself after the mk7 debacle.
Click to expand...
This is a general fallacy. Sorry :).

Selmer sold an awful lot of Mark 7s; appx. 174,000 over their 20 year run (yes, I'm not including the sopraninos, sopranos, baritones and basses which were still Mark VIs until 1982 or so. That's included in the next number) and 84,300 Mark 7s over a 5 year run. If the Mark 7s ran as long as the VI, that'd mean that 337,200 horns would have sold -- almost twice as many as the VI.

Some folks that are considerably older than I am and/or have advertisements from the 1970s also have confirmed that the 7 was as hyped and as desired as the VI is now, back in the day.

Now, you can argue that the main reason that Selmer switched to the S80 design was because people really, really wanted to go back to the VI style or it was because the Yamaha pro models were better and cheaper (or more VI-like and cheaper) than the 7. I really don't know which would be more accurate: I'd have to go and get some old Sax Journal and Sax Symposium mags and see what the wags said back then.
 
On the VIIs Selmer did do some shortcuts which they cleaned up later. For example, the left hand table keys were widely spaced, at which later they were much more closely spaced - just a matter of making the tabs under the key not as long and bending the keywork more closely together.

Most people did not like the finger layout. The extra wide table keys and wider spread RH made the feel "large" .... good for large hands in a sense.

I still have my alto and tenor mk VIIs. Alot of mods I've done on repairs are to eliminate spacing on the table keys.
 
Selmer had to regroup. They didn't commit enought to the mk7 to even produce a full line of instruments. I've never seen a mk7 soprano, bass saxophone, and I've only seen one mk7 baritone. Howard Johnson (used to be the bari player on the original Saturday Night Live band) owns that bari, and he told me that when he picked up his horn at the Selmer office in Paris, they were busy changing the logos on the unsold baris to super 80's to avoid the mk7 stigma. Howard said that Patrick Selmer and his employees at Paris were bailing from the 7 bigtime.

I remember the mk7 introduction very well. By 1977 or so most new stock of Selmer alto and tenor saxophones were mk7's. I tried a friends new alto, and it played ok, but the left hand little finger spatula was a hassle for me to get around on, as was the right hand D#/lowC plate little finger combo. I sat in sections with a few tenor players who were playing the new mk7 tenors, and the sound of these horns seemed unfocused and sort of thin upstairs. I also noticed that many of the early mk7 players I knew sold their horns and moved back to mk6's, up to super 80's, or on to another brand. I'm talking full time professional players here, so the weakness in a horn is a major issue, they affect the players rep and pockets. I never saw the love for the 7 among the top level pros that I work with that I see for the mk6, or the sba or even the serie horns or the refs.

One last point. I work daily in NYC where I see all kinds of horns in the hands of all kinds of players, many with big names and great playing ability. Except for Howards' bari, I honestly can't remember the last time I saw a player with a mk7 on any kind of gig. I know they're out there, but it's not the general horn of choice among the top pros. These people are very critical and discriminating when it comes down to how a saxophone performs, and the 7 seems to have fallen off the radar.

Julian
 
pete said:
The major difference between the Mark VI (for instance) and the BA is the placement of that keywork.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure. According to Selmer, the Mark VI was a change in bore compared with BA (SA being sort of a transitional model). BA being a bigger bore different from their past models, and VI back to a French bore. I believe them because that is pretty much how they felt to me when I compared them, with the VI having a more focused "mid" tone (some of them more than others, but all of them really had this character, even relatively bad ones).

FWIW the BA that I've tried (tenor only) had the plastic resonators. Mark VI I've tried with both plastic and metal resonators. By the way there were some mechanical changes during the VI for example some had headless pivot screws which I've never seen on any other Selmer model.

pete said:
If, however, a BA is a "heavy" horn, one might actually argue that the Mark VII is more a refinement on the BA than the VI and the S80 was introduced to try to find that happy medium between Mark VII and Mark VI.
Click to expand...
I agree with this for the keys, but not about the tone. IME the VII is sort of middle between SA80 and VI in tone. IMO the first SA80 is a problematic model, it just doesn't have especially good tone. In comparison with VI or even VII they always sounded worse to me, with a harsher tone. The SA80SII is an improvement IMO and really is very good.

sideC said:
I personally wouldn't compare a mk7 to a BA. To my experience, the mk7 is heavy with somewhat clunky action. The BA has a heavy body but a very negotiable mechanism. Selmer had to reestablish itself after the mk7 debacle.
Click to expand...
I agree with the first sentence, but not with the second. The Mark VII is not clunky when put in good condition. In many ways it is much better mechanically than the later models like SIII with their silly spring mechanisms.

I actually have a VII alto here now, and had a tenor not too long ago. I like the right pinky keys of the VII which have good lever. Re the famous left pinky keys, I don't think they are so terrible for the tenor (though still not as good as VI or current models), but definitely a problem on the alto. Not only they are big but they are so close to the bell. In addition moving from B to Bb by the usual method of curving your pinky is a problem. It will press the roller and activate C#, so this adjustment has to be really accurate in spite of the flexing of the metal which causes problems (i.e. the C# linkage arm has to be pressed lower when closed by B than its normal position when C# is closed, etc.).
 
Uncommon 7s:

* Low A Alto
* A Couple of Baritones

I've seen a couple 7 sopranos and sopraninos. I've not heard of or seen a 7 bass.

-------------

sideC, while I can accept that your acquaintance's recollection is that Selmer's employees were "bailing" on the 7 and/or were re-engraving Mark 7 baris as Super 80s, I find this difficult to believe. Again, the numbers of 7s produced indicate that the model was relatively successful. There just aren't enough 7 baritones (or 7s in other pitches) out there to make a "re-engraving" project logical, particularly as that would mean that you'd have S80 baritones with Mark 7 serial numbers. Additionally, the Mark 6 sopranino was produced until 1985, 4 years after the fairly successful S80 was introduced. How can that be accounted for?

I think it's just more likely that Selmer didn't bother with anything besides Mark 7 alto and tenors (and a smattering of other pitches) for the same reasons other companies either didn't make those pitches or used older models: there wasn't enough money to be made to justify changing the tooling.

I'm not trying to "defend" the 7: I think the couple I tried were decent enough, but not as good as a VI. I've also said that I vastly prefer the 1980's Selmer USA Omega to the S80. However, clarnibass, I do find the tone of the 7 rather heavy and the S80 is much, much brighter, even though the S80 is visually simular to the 7.
 
No Pete, I didn't say that Selmer was reengraving 7's to make them S80's. The only model insignia on the baritones at that time was the badge soldered onto the front of the neck over the neck socket. Howard Johnson, who is a very well known baritone saxophonist and a virtuoso tuba player, said that they were changing that insignia on the few horns they had in stock, (a simple unsoldering and resoldering job) and that the remaining horns that were being assembled on that day (that were supposed to be mk7's would be labeled as S80s. So there was no bell engraving to be changed.

Pete, I pretty much agree with you on Selmer laying low with the redesign of the soprano and the bass due to financial reasons.

The mk7 should have been a big hit, but Selmer dropped the ball. I was neck deep in saxophones back in the mid '70s, working with lots of well paid top notch saxophone players. Everybody that was buying new horns (and a lot of us were) were buying new Selmers. It seems that the other name brands were pretty much off the radar by the mid '70s. King was in the process of leaving Cleveland, or had already left. Conn was a shadow of it's former self. I don't remember anyone showing up with a new Martin during that era. The only other new horns I remember were the H Couf, and the Borgani soprano. Also a few Yani S6 sopranos. So it seems to me that, at least with the players who were playing for a living, Selmer had used the mk6 to wipe out the competition. So when the mk7 showed, they should have been able to do really, really well with it. But it just didn't take hold with the pros. Players were complaining about the stretch at the spatula. Then Yamaha introduced the model 62, and Selmer players defected in droves. And Selmer had gone from almost having a monopoly, to having to play catch up. Maybe the 62 was what the 7 should have been at that time.

And I'm not here to condemn the mk7's existence. My friend showed me a beautiful super mint condition very early mk7 alto that he had in his shop for a minor tune up. It had the mk6 engraving and the dark lacquer that was used on the late mk6's. Man it was a sight to behold! And I'm sure that there are some monster 7's around, playerwise. I'm just remembering what it was like at that very crucial point in Selmer saxophone history when it came time to replace the king, the mighty mk6. We thought that if the 6 was that great, the 7 was going to be a rocket ship to the moon. Unfortunately, we didn't get no rocket to the moon.

Julian
 
I think the Ref 36 is a very nice sounding modern horn. It has a bit more spread than the Ref 54 which I like. In terms of comparing it to a BA . . . The BA has less precise intonation and is less even across the range of the horn. I think that these flaws give the player something to dig in with and to work against. As a result, I think the BA has more personality but you have to be willing to work with it. The Ref 36 is like a lot of modern horns - less personality but easier to play for most players.
 
Ed Svoboda said:
I think the Ref 36 is a very nice sounding modern horn. It has a bit more spread than the Ref 54 which I like. In terms of comparing it to a BA . . . The BA has less precise intonation and is less even across the range of the horn. I think that these flaws give the player something to dig in with and to work against. As a result, I think the BA has more personality but you have to be willing to work with it. The Ref 36 is like a lot of modern horns - less personality but easier to play for most players.
Click to expand...

"Spread" and "personality." I don't know what those words mean in terms of playability and sound. That's okay, I don't understand a lot of the words we use to describe sound. Other than for "loud" and "quiet," there does seem to be some magic involved in coming up with terms to convey what something sounds like. Kind of like explaining the taste of strawberries to someone who has never eaten them.

"Talking about music is like dancing about architecture." (variously attributed.)

"Intonation" I understand. I do not understand how having to make physical adjustments to play in tune could make a horn sound better. Maybe it comes from the face you have to make to do it. :-x

Back almost on topic. I have a Ref 54 LE tenor. Earlier this year in the Sax Symposium's dealer room I played a Ref 36 tenor, which looks just like my 54. It felt exactly like the 54, but had a smoother, mellower tone (two more vague descriptions) that really captured my fancy. I wanted to buy it on the spot but did not, given my stable of too many tenors and the current economy.

GAS and GNP are related, it seems.
 
Al: I agree. But I don't play tenor (although I own one), so I've stayed out of this. Still read it, though.

I think the player is probably the least likely person to objectively assess a horn's tone. What I hear from my own horns is probably not what the guy or gal next to me hears, nor is it what the audience hears.

However, a player must be pleased with what he hears (and feels), even though it may not be the horn's true sound out front (or alongside). So, we still beat ourselves up over the tonal results.

I recently listened to an alto player on a cruise ship (non-musical cruise but they did have a nice combo to back the shows, etc.). He was playing what looked like a silver-plated MKVI alto with a Super Session mouthpiece. I never talked to him, but his sound, from my perspective was nothing like I got out of my altos (Ref 54 to an early '20's TT) using my SS-F mouthpiece.

My SS-F is strong yet spread (to my ears from behind the horn) and that's why I favor other set-ups (more focus to my ears). I 'spose a lot has to do with the player (THAT old problem again).

Lastly, I've often wondered about the differences between the Ref 36 and the Ref 54 tenors. I mean, maybe one or two very small differences may exist, but over all, they are both Selmer products and I think any playing differences may be because of the natural differences among all saxophones and not because one has a certain tone hole here and another has a certain tone hole there. I'm guessing someone's marketing degree may be the real difference. DAVE
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom