Worldwidesax.com: 3 French Saxes

[pete]

http://worldwidesax.com/French set_mkvi_vs_SDA_VS_SML.mp3

This is a little sound file I came across. It's a gent playing a Selmer Mark VI, Buffet SuperDynaction, and SML (not sure which model, probably the Gold Medal "I" Sarge has for sale). All played with a Brilhardt Tonalin mouthpiece.

Now, while I know that saxophones "like" certain mouthpieces better and people like certain horns better, it's sometimes interesting to hear one compared to another.

I'll cast my vote and write my impressions in a bit.

 

[Gandalfe]

Observations:

1. Is the SDA louder than the other two?
2. All instruments sound excellent. I'm hard pressed to tell a difference between the three.
3. I wonder why Sarge didn't play the instruments? He's a killer player. (Maybe Chad is the sound guy?)

 

[Helen]

The VI sound here does nothing for me. It's about as boring as watching paint dry. If my VI sounded that way, I'd take it to the shop and get it tweaked. (Or probably just change mouthpieces.)

The SML sounded rather Kazoo-like in the mid-range, so out of that particular sound-sample, my preference was the SDA.

I agree Jim, the volume went up part way through the recording, right after the Mark VI actually. Maybe Chad moved closer to the mic. It kinda' throws things off a bit, because it makes the VI sound quieter than it really is, in relation to the other horns.

I find this to be a rather unfair sampling of the horns' potential, since I don't think that this mouthpiece/reed combo worked for all of them. Also, the reed seemed to not be a friend of the SML. Or perhaps it was dying during that last recording.

 

[steen]

..and I agree with Helen. Also, his (I am assuming Chad is male) timing left something to wish for. Furthermore, if these comparisons are to make sense, the player has play as close as possible the same notes and licks on all three horns and cover the range of the instruments. As it sounds, the SDA wins hands down, but all the concerns addressed above seem very valid to me.

 

[Helen]

(I am assuming Chad is male)

Yes, Chad is a guy. He is Sarge's (Steve Stransky, the owner of World Wide Sax) assistant. He works with Sarge in the shop, and does quite a bit of work on the horns. He had a hand in the rebuilding of the Zephyr I just bought from Sarge last fall, and also, I think he did some of the work on my 10M that I had rebuilt in '09.

 

[pete]

My opinion is that the horns ranked:

1. SML
2. SDA
3. Mark VI

FWIW, I did own a Dynaction alto, the forerunner of the SDA.

The VI had a rather "spread" sound in comparison to the other two -- which is the argument I've had about the Conn Artist or Connqueror vs. French-made saxophones. I thought the SDA was a bit more focused, but the SML was both focused and full, even accounting for the mic placement.

Now, I can't say anything about the intonation, primarily because there weren't enough long tones for me to say much about it. Someone else might have another opinion.

Again, it's just an interesting exercise. I can say that I could make my Dynaction sound pretty much like a VI, because I've had both and could compare the two. The major advantage of the VI over the Dynaction was the keywork. The second advantage was a tad better intonation. I've not played an SML, so I don't know if I'd like it better.

 

[clarnibass]

It's hard to make this comparison mainly because the last one is distorted for some reason, I'm not sure if it's something with the recording or because of the sax or setup. Also the playing is problematic.

From what is possible I can give my impression. The Mark VI seems best at giving a neutral impression of the player's tone, letting him be free to really be himself. So with a very good player maybe that would be the best one. Not really possible to say for sure though. The Buffet has the most decent tone on this recording. The SML is hard to judge because of the distortion, it does sound like it gives a bit more buzz which might work beter with the player's natural very mellow flat tone, but it could be just the recording or whatever it was.

Seperately, I can say that I've seen overhauls by more than a few known repairers (i.e. known on forums at least), including Americans. I've seen one overhaul from WorldWideSax and it was good.

 

[Helen]

I went to the World Wide Sax website, and listened to some of the other comparisons that Sarge has posted--including one that he is playing the saxophones on. I can't comment on Chad's playing ability, since I haven't personally heard him, but I have heard Steve play in person when I was there. The playing samples that are on the WWS website, are not at all representative of Steve's true playing ability. (He has a link to his previous recordings from the 70s if you don't believe me.) This made me think back to when I tried 5 Zephyrs at WWS for the first time.

Because Sarge's inventory is so large, and he does so many jobs for customers, the WWS stock is the last to get restored. Many times these horns will not get rebuilt until they are sold. The 5 Zephs I tried were all in an unrestored state--a fact that Sarge had warned me about. However, I'm a strong enough player to be able to play through a lot of leaks and regulation problems. However, there are somethings that of course just didn't sound right when I play-tested the Zephs, because they had been restored yet. However, I could hear the particular core sound of each horn.

I'm now wondering if some of the horns that Sarge and Chad played in these side by side samples, were still in their unrestored states. If so, this would explain a lot--including what we're hearing in these 3 French saxophones.

And regarding the quality of workmanship that goes into WWS restorations, it is really the best I've personally ever seen. True, I'm not a tech. I have however been a vintage sax owner & player for over 20 years. Sarge's work is meticulous & authentic. I've tried many techs over the years, and have never had a rebuild done by anyone, that has been of a higher quality. When my Hammerschmidt Klingsor tenor goes for its restoration later this spring, I wouldn't trust it to anyone else.

 

[MartinMods]

I think the finer differences would be more apparent had they used a large diaphragm condenser mike with a nice preamp to make the recordings. What I hear, as much as the sound of any of the saxophones, is the sound of the microphone, which imparts it's own, very limiting, sonic color on everything.

Aside from that, the Mk6 demonstrates to me, (though not as obvious, for the above mentioned reason) why it was/is so successful as the practically exclusive recorded voice of the saxophone in our popular music, since it's introduction in 1954. It has the solid, tight tonal core, which is even, though very responsive within it's narrower frequency ban, throughout it's entire range. Regardless of how it sounds next to the louder Buffet or SML, live in a room, the tight tonal core makes it sound richer and more focused on any recording medium, when mixed with other instruments. Live performance criteria and recording criteria are two entirely different sets of parameters.

The Buffet SDA is a great horn. It is more responsive with a wider sonic pallet, but seems as if it could easily get out of control.

The SML sounds brighter and shallower to me than the other two.