Advice needed - Buescher Soprano intonation
Noel Weston
I have on loan from a colleague (with the possibility of buying) a
Buescher soprano, s/n 197416, silver plated, marked "true tone" and "low
pitch". I believe the horn dates from the mid to late '20s.
It is in basically good shape - body, plating, keywork, pads springs,
etc. are all OK, although quite a few of the pads are not seating right
at the moment - I should be able to sort that easily enough.
However, on first playings it seems that the horn plays very flat in the
upper register. I have tried what has been suggested in these
newsgroups before regarding tuning the sax to overtones rather than
normal tones, and have found that when an overtone is in tune, the
"normal" fingering is slightly flat and the octave above that even
flatter.
So, to my questions :
1) is it me ? ( no intonation problems to speak of on any other of my
saxes)
2) Is there any chance that this will improve once I overhaul the sax ?
3) Can anyone suggest any mouthpieces that may help ? (the ones with it
are 2 Berg Larsen pieces - both marked "55 2M" but very different in
design, one of which is more in tune than the other)
4) Any ideas of the approximate value of the horn ?
I would dearly love to get hold of a soprano, and as I say this does
basically seem quite sound - but only if I can get the intonation
sorted.
Hoping y'all can help...
Noel Weston
"If I'm confused, does that mean I've been paying attention ?"
Paul Cohen
To properly evaluate the true intonation qualities of your Buescher, you
need to play it with an appropriate mouthpiece. An excavated chamber
mouthpiece, where the diameter of the chamber is greater than that of
the end of the neck is necessary. An Buescher, Conn, Caravan or other
older stock mouthpiece will be designed like this. You will need to
push the mouthpiece in on the neck quite far (which also makes the
instrument more responsive) and then the entire character of the horn
will take on new (and probably tunable) dimensions.
Paul Cohen
robert n. esterle
Noel Weston wrote:
>
> I have on loan from a colleague (with the possibility of buying) a
> Buescher soprano, s/n 197416, silver plated, marked "true tone" and "low
> pitch". I believe the horn dates from the mid to late '20s.
> 1) is it me ? ( no intonation problems to speak of on any other of my
> saxes)
> 2) Is there any chance that this will improve once I overhaul the sax ?
> 3) Can anyone suggest any mouthpieces that may help ? (the ones with it
> are 2 Berg Larsen pieces - both marked "55 2M" but very different in
> design, one of which is more in tune than the other)
> 4) Any ideas of the approximate value of the horn ?
Dear Noel,
I have played this particular soprano and if I'm not mistaken, based upon bore size or some other
factors this horn is tuned to A=444. Check this with a tuner. It seems that you have all of the
cards stacked against you for playing this horn in tune. The only thing that the overhaul will do is
help it to play better but equally flat. I'm a believer that Berg Larsen rubber mouthpieces without
considerable reworking do not play in tune and combined with a horn that is tuned to a lower
frequency it's going to be really tough. The only good thing about that horn is that it may look
cool ; ) If it were me I'd save my money and invest in a good horn eg. Keilwerth, Yamaha or
Selmer. And start out with a decent medium sized mouthpiece like a Selmer C*, D or even an E.
The Beechler mouthpieces also seem to be quite good for soprano.
Good Luck.
Bob Esterle
Robert N. Martin
Noel Weston wrote:
>
> I have on loan from a colleague (with the possibility of buying) a
> Buescher soprano, s/n 197416, silver plated, marked "true tone" and "low
> pitch". I believe the horn dates from the mid to late '20s.
>
> etc. are all OK, although quite a few of the pads are not seating right
> at the moment - I should be able to sort that easily enough.
>
> However, on first playings it seems that the horn plays very flat in the
> upper register. I have tried what has been suggested in these
> newsgroups before regarding tuning the sax to overtones rather than
> normal tones, and have found that when an overtone is in tune, the
> "normal" fingering is slightly flat and the octave above that even
> flatter.
>
> 1) is it me ? ( no intonation problems to speak of on any other of my
> saxes)
> 2) Is there any chance that this will improve once I overhaul the sax ?
> 3) Can anyone suggest any mouthpieces that may help ? (the ones with it
> are 2 Berg Larsen pieces - both marked "55 2M" but very different in
> design, one of which is more in tune than the other)
> 4) Any ideas of the approximate value of the horn ?
>
> basically seem quite sound - but only if I can get the intonation
> sorted.
>
> Hoping y'all can help...
>
> Noel Weston
> "If I'm confused, does that mean I've been paying attention ?"
several different mouthpieces on it and have found that a modern
Link 5* rubber seems to play with good intonation for me over the
entire range. I have also carefully adjusted the pad heights
when rebuilding the horn and this helped at the top end. The
high D and above are particularly sensitive to adjustment here.
By the way, I understand the Sidney Bechet played a similar
soprano. You should be encouraged that there are some people
who could play woderfully on these old Bueschers.
Paul Lindemeyer
robert n. esterle wrote:
>
> Noel Weston wrote:
> >
> > I have on loan from a colleague (with the possibility of buying) a
> > Buescher soprano, s/n 197416, silver plated, marked "true tone" and "low pitch".
> I have played this particular soprano and if I'm not mistaken, based upon bore size or some other
> factors this horn is tuned to A=444.
That can't be right. "Low Pitch," in use in this country since the early
1900s, was and is A-440. Paul Cohen, among others on the ng, has
confirmed that.
> It seems that you have all of the cards stacked against you for playing this horn in tune.
> The only thing that the overhaul will do is help it to play better but equally flat.
First, A-444 wouldn't be flat from A-440. It would be sharp. (But as I
pointed out above, 1920s saxes aren't built to A-444 anyway.)
> I'm a believer that Berg Larsen rubber mouthpieces without considerable reworking do not play in tune
This is such a subjective matter. There are so many other factors to
take into account: the instrument, the setup, the player's technique,
etc. If rubber Bergs wouldn't play without reworking, they would be
lousy mouthpieces, and people wouldn't be playing them in such great
numbers.
> The only good thing about that horn is that it may look cool ; )
(snip)
> If it were me I'd save my money and invest in a good horn eg. Keilwerth, Yamaha or Selmer.
By a good horn, Bob, you seem to mean a modern horn. This again is
subjective. Despite the growing popularity (and investment value!) of
vintage saxes, there is still a sizable segment of the music community
that regard them -- unfairly -- as junk.
As you may know if you've been looking in awhile, I play 1920s/30s Conn
saxes, including a 1927 straight soprano. This horn was *the* most
responsive, the purest in tone, and, yes, the most reliably in-tune
soprano for me and the way I play.
It must be admitted that a lot of progress has been made in musical
instrument manufacture over the years. But we musicians are all too
different to impose an objective standard on what's the best horn for
everybody. There isn't one. There never will be.
To Noel, I say: try as many sopranos as you need to find the one that's
best *for you*, and don't feel bad about playing an old one if that's
the best.
Yes, the saxophone is the most technical of wind instruments (not
counting wind-synths and controllers). But let's look at it as an
instrument for making music, not as a piece of technology.
--
Paul Lindemeyer (pau...@gannett.infi.net)
_______________________________________________________
CELEBRATING THE SAXOPHONE: An Illustrated History
At your local bookseller from William Morrow & Co.
Michael Panoff
Paul Lindemeyer (pau...@gannett.infi.net) wrote:
: Yes, the saxophone is the most technical of wind instruments (not
: counting wind-synths and controllers). But let's look at it as an
: instrument for making music, not as a piece of technology.
: --
: Paul Lindemeyer (pau...@gannett.infi.net)
: _______________________________________________________
Why would you say the "saxophone is the most technical of wind
instruments"?? What's your reasoning behind that statement??
If you are talking about technique, I would have to strongly
disagree. Or are you talking about the mechanical functionality
of the beast??
Mike Panoff
m...@lib.purdue.edu
Matthew A. Beito
Michael Panoff (m...@lib.purdue.edu) wrote:
: Paul Lindemeyer (pau...@gannett.infi.net) wrote:
: : Yes, the saxophone is the most technical of wind instruments (not
: : counting wind-synths and controllers). But let's look at it as an
: : instrument for making music, not as a piece of technology.
: instruments"?? What's your reasoning behind that statement??
: If you are talking about technique, I would have to strongly
: disagree. Or are you talking about the mechanical functionality
: of the beast??
I beleive that he is saying this because the sax is cone shaped. That
means that it changes volume pretty drastically as it moves farther down,
which complicates matters.
That brings up the mouthpiece problem because not every mouthpiece has the
same volume, which will alter the volume of the column of air moving
through the saxophone. This alone can be really annoying.
That fact combined with the fact that there are so many pads to get in the
correct position and screws and springs, plus
Oh yeah, and not to mention the fact that not every reed isn't the same so
that brings that problem into the equation. Each reed type has a
different cut to it, which can take a player YEARS to figure out what kind
of cut they prefer.
Plus the material the sax is made out of makes a big difference because
each metal has a different sound when it vibrates (It's been a while since
physics, but I beleive an objects natural frequency is called it's resonant
frequency.)
and I could continue, but I have a program due soon and I need to get it
done...
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------- Matthew A. Beito ----------------------
---------------------- mab...@mtu.edu ----------------------
---------------------- http://www.csl.mtu.edu/~mabeito ----------------------
-------- Computer Science Major At Michigan Technological Univerity ---------
----------------- Member of MTU's Jazz Lab Band and Pep Band ----------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Groover
Two points which haven't been mentioned in this thread, but
have surfaced in this newsgroup many times:
1) the internal volume of the mouthpiece is a key part of the tuning
relationships.
2) I've been told that Buescher used a different mouthpiece design from
anyone else, and designed their horns to match.
Regarding point 2): I think the Buescher mouthpieces had larger chamber
volume? I've also been told that the Buescher design is closer to A.Sax's
design. I'm not a Buescher maven myself, but maybe someone more
knowledgeable can confirm or correct this?
(Are Paul Cohen or Jack Silver reading this?)
If this is correct, it does imply that you want to use a mouthpiece with
a large chamber volume, and an old Berg is probably the worst possible
choice! If you don't have a Buescher mouthpiece, try anything else you
can get your hands on; you might even try getting a cheap mouthpiece and
removing some material. (For example, a Selmer S80 has straight
sidewalls below the opening, and a sharp transition into the chamber; I
would be tempted to ease that transition, if I could find something
cheap enough to play around with.) Be careful though,
because with soprano mouthpieces small changes will have big effects!
(Please note that I'm NOT sure if this analysis is consistent with what
you say about flattened top end, so don't make any drastic decisions
based on my comments.)
Regarding point 1): The complete acoustical resonator includes
mouthpiece, reed, and player: you don't just control the system, you're
part of it. If you model the acoustic reactances, I think the mouthpiece
volume shows up as a capacitive contribution. (Anybody here
interested in working out this model in more detail? The best
background reference I know of is Benade, but there really isn't too
much engineering literature on wind instrument acoustics.)
Robert Groover gro...@netcom.com (PGP key on request)
Member ECS, AVS, ACM, OSA, Sen.Mem.IEEE, Reg'd Patent Atty
"All men by nature desire knowledge."
Noel Weston <no...@nweston.demon.co.uk> writes: ...
>However, on first playings it seems that the horn plays very flat in the
>upper register.
Paul Cohen
Robert Groover wrote:
>
> Two points which haven't been mentioned in this thread, but
> have surfaced in this newsgroup many times:
> 1) the internal volume of the mouthpiece is a key part of the tuning
> relationships.
> 2) I've been told that Buescher used a different mouthpiece design from
> anyone else, and designed their horns to match.
>
nature of the design. Most mouthpieces have approximately the same
chamber volume (otherwise they would not tune at all). The small
chamber mouthpieces are longer, to allow for the same overall volume.
But there is a significant difference when the diameter of the chamber
is larger than the diameter of the neck (an excavated chamber
mouthpiece). This creates an added resistance (which also serves as an
acoustical damper or filter, taking out some of the higher partials)
which is factored into the bore design and tone hole placement of the
older instruments. This excavated chamber is part of Adolphe Sax's
design. He understood that the tube of the saxophone was so
acoustically efficient - far beyond the other woodwinds - that he had to
incorporate into its design an element that would allow the saxophone to
relate to the instruments as a woodwind, and not a hybrid brasswind
sound. This was brilliantly solved with the mouthpiece design which
creates an added resistance, taming the tube to parameters that of its
woodwind kin.
We need to respect this design operative when we choose mouthpieces for
the older instruments. We need not sound like Adolphe Sax intended his
saxophones to sound, but there are many modern designs that respect the
integrity of the instrument and provide the contemporary qualities that
we seek.
I might further add that the pitch discrimination is largly a moot
point when the instrument is played at consistently loud dynamics. The
wonderful flexibility of the saxophone allows for tremendous pitch
adjustment/fluctuation, as long as the air speed of the player is fast,
as is the case in loud playing. The tuning issue becomes critical at
dynamic levels below forte, and where tonal nuance is a factor in the
playing.
Buescher's mouthpieces are not that much different than the others from
the 1920s, but they do hold to a more traditional design regarding side
rails and baffle. Some other companies, such as Martin, had even more
resistant mouthpieces (lower baffle, bigger chamber) which might be
considered extreme even for the 1920s. (but they do play with enviable
smoothness). And yes, of course the Buescher horns were designed to be
played with the Buesher mouthpieces, as Conns were designed to be played
with Conn mouthpieces, etc.
Paul Cohen
robert n. esterle
Paul Lindemeyer wrote:
>
> robert n. esterle wrote:
> > I have played this particular soprano and if I'm not mistaken, based upon bore size or some other
> > factors this horn is tuned to A=444.
>
> That can't be right. "Low Pitch," in use in this country since the early
> 1900s, was and is A-440. Paul Cohen, among others on the ng, has
> confirmed that.
I stand corrected on the tuning. For some reason I had 2 different teachers say that low pitch
meant below A=440 perhaps 436. In my posting I went the wrong direction, certainly 444 would
be sharper. I realize that tuning standards were different pre 1900 but
please enlighten me, what exact year do you think this horn was produced and why would it be
marked "Low Pitch" and play so terribly flat(below 440)?
> > I'm a believer that Berg Larsen rubber mouthpieces without considerable reworking do not play in tune
>
> This is such a subjective matter. There are so many other factors to
> take into account: the instrument, the setup, the player's technique,
> etc. If rubber Bergs wouldn't play without reworking, they would be
> lousy mouthpieces, and people wouldn't be playing them in such great
> numbers.
How many people do you know that actually play Bergs on soprano who sound good and play
well in tune?
> > If it were me I'd save my money and invest in a good horn eg. Keilwerth, Yamaha or Selmer.
>
> By a good horn, Bob, you seem to mean a modern horn. This again is
> subjective. Despite the growing popularity (and investment value!) of
> vintage saxes, there is still a sizable segment of the music community
> that regard them -- unfairly -- as junk.
> As you may know if you've been looking in awhile, I play 1920s/30s Conn
> saxes, including a 1927 straight soprano. This horn was *the* most
> responsive, the purest in tone, and, yes, the most reliably in-tune
> soprano for me and the way I play.
> It must be admitted that a lot of progress has been made in musical
> instrument manufacture over the years. But we musicians are all too
> different to impose an objective standard on what's the best horn for
> everybody. There isn't one. There never will be.
Yes, I do mean a more modern, consistent horn. In my humble experiences, finding a soprano
of the vintage that you're refering to that plays consistently in all registers and in tune seems to
be more the exception than the rule. If you've had success on a particular horn from a particualr
era more power to you. Perhaps you've had a greater selection to choose from and/or have
taken a bit of time in finding *the* most responsive horn. By no means am I going to tell
someone that there is only one brand or only one era of instruments (or mouthpieces) to
choose from, that most certainly was not my point. However, if I could possibly save someone
who is not a collector and who perhaps has limited funds the aggravation of fooling around with
inconsistent, out of tune instruments I most certainly will and that was my goal in my initial
posting. I was just giving Noel a point of reference.
>
> To Noel, I say: try as many sopranos as you need to find the one that's
> best *for you*, and don't feel bad about playing an old one if that's
> the best.
I whole-heartedly agree. But stop for a minute and let's look at the horns that the greatest
players have been using in the past 40 years and what they are using today. Not to say our
decisions should be purely based on what other people are playing but to use their choice of
instrument as a point of reference once again.
>
> Yes, the saxophone is the most technical of wind instruments (not
> counting wind-synths and controllers). But let's look at it as an
> instrument for making music, not as a piece of technology.
At what point did I view the choice of an in tune soprano saxophone as merely a piece of
technology and not as an instrument for making music? Pretty obtuse comment don't you
think? My goal was not to engage anyone in a pissing contest and if your ego was bruised by my
not endorsing older horns then I'm terribly sorry. But I will say, you missed the point.
Musically Yours,
Bob Esterle
DSiegel560
Paul L,
What mouthpiece are you using on your 27 straight Conn? Does your horn
have a "badge" outline around the serial number?
David
Paul Cohen
robert n. esterle wrote:
>
> Paul Lindemeyer wrote:
> >
> > robert n. esterle wrote:
> > > I have played this particular soprano and if I'm not mistaken, based upon bore size or some other
> > > factors this horn is tuned to A=444.
> >
> > That can't be right. "Low Pitch," in use in this country since the early
> > 1900s, was and is A-440. Paul Cohen, among others on the ng, has
> > confirmed that.
> Dear Paul L.,
> I stand corrected on the tuning. For some reason I had 2 different teachers say that low pitch
> meant below A=440 perhaps 436. In my posting I went the wrong direction, certainly 444 would
> be sharper. I realize that tuning standards were different pre 1900 but
> please enlighten me, what exact year do you think this horn was produced and why would it be
> marked "Low Pitch" and play so terribly flat(below 440)?
>
mouthpiece or 2) Inexperience with playing the soprano.
When these two issues are solved, then consistent tuning on the vintage
instruments mostly involves regulation of the horn, although some
instruments of the time are definately easier to work with than others
(just like contemporary instruments).
Paul Cohen
Paul Lindemeyer
robert n. esterle wrote:
> I realize that tuning standards were different pre 1900 but
> please enlighten me, what exact year do you think this horn was produced > and why would it be marked "Low Pitch" and play so terribly flat (below > 440)?
I honestly don't know, Bob. But there are obviously more variables
involved than just the horn. BTW, Buescher #197xxx would come from c.
1925-'26.
> > > I'm a believer that Berg Larsen rubber mouthpieces without considerable reworking do not play in tune (...)
[snip]
> How many people do you know that actually play Bergs on soprano who sound good and play well in tune?
None, personally. Nor do I know any who play Bergs on soprano who sound
*out* of tune. Bergs work well on other saxes, and I've heard no general
consensus that the soprano pieces are any less good.
> > By a good horn, Bob, you seem to mean a modern horn. This again is
> > subjective.
[snip]
> Yes, I do mean a more modern, consistent horn. In my humble
> experiences, finding a soprano of the vintage that you're refering to
> that plays consistently in all registers and in tune seems to
> be more the exception than the rule.
Absolutely. The same thing could be said for sopranos made
today. Only a few brands will be of real musical quality. Such is the
nature of the beast.
That said, Conn and Buescher sopranos from the mid-to-late '20s (you
rarely see them any later) seem to be outstandingly good horns from the
standards of any era and better priced than the pro alternatives of
today. Classical players use them, admittedly only those of certain
schools, but these players obviously don't find them inconsistent or out
of tune.
If Noel were playing some no-name stencil sax he picked up in a flea
market, I'd say yes, it might be the horn. But Bueschers are good. They
were certainly good enough for Sidney Bechet -- he never played anything
else.
> > To Noel, I say: try as many sopranos as you need to find the one
> > that's best *for you*, and don't feel bad about playing an old one if
> > that's the best.
> I whole-heartedly agree. But stop for a minute and let's look at the
> horns that the greatest players have been using in the past 40 years and
> what they are using today. Not to say our decisions should be purely
> based on what other people are playing but to use their choice of
> instrument as a point of reference once again.
Valid enough. But if you expand the time frame even a little -- from
1957 back to, say, 1937 -- you see much less uniformity in the brands
the top players favored. One can argue that the later styles and the
later teaching are better developed and more progressive, but I think
one falls into the same trap as before.
> > Yes, the saxophone is the most technical of wind instruments (not
> > counting wind-synths and controllers). But let's look at it as an
> > instrument for making music, not as a piece of technology.
>
> At what point did I view the choice of an in tune soprano saxophone as
> merely a piece of technology and not as an instrument for making music?
I'll admit I read between the lines on that one. I've heard too many
people reject all older instruments out-of-hand because "they are better
made today" -- as if they were cars, or refrigerators, or computers.
At least one company, UMI, actually uses this philosophy in their
advertising, which I find obnoxious (though understandable -- they do
have to promote the sale of new product).
People rarely think this way about instruments with more handwork in
their makeup, such as pianos, or guitars, or violins. Nobody would say
that a new violin is automatically better than one 100 years old --
they'd be laughed at.
Let me try to wrap up here by acknowledging that the soprano saxophone
is a difficult and demanding instrument. Playing any soprano well takes
a high degree of sensitivity and control, things that will be that much
easier to acquire if you have a good instrument. But a good instrument
may not be what we think.
I apologize for any misunderstandings I may have caused in this
discussion. It's a subject close to my heart, and that can be a
difficult thing. We should all talk less and play more, anyway...right?
--
Paul Lindemeyer (pau...@gannett.infi.net)
_______________________________________________________
CELEBRATING THE SAXOPHONE: An Illustrated History
Conrad Flowers
I know you guys are discussing the intonation of the Buescher but I
wondered if you would compare the Soprano Buescher to the Soprano
Martin of the same era at least I think it is of the same era ser#
17418.
Thanks
Conrad
Paul Lindemeyer
I used to play a Lyon & Healy straight sop which was mostly if not
entirely Martin-built (it had the Martin beveled toneholes).
I found it somewhat lacking in response and tuning compared to the Conn
I play now. The extreme upper and lower registers in particular gave me
problems.
Not long ago I tried a gold-plated Martin brand name sop. Beautiful mint
horn, more responsive than my L&H, but didn't play it long enough to
discover much about intonation.
As for Buescher sops, I've again only played them in stores but I was
impressed. The straight Buescher definitely had that "crispy" edge you
hear in Bechet's playing. The curved did not, but was very responsive.
As always -- your mileage may vary!