Ref 54 vs Ref 36

[Tears June]

Versatile in saxophone world is mean flexible for me. Which good for different kind of music. To compare with Ref 36 & 54, which horn is more versatile in your opinion and why ?


:cry:

[woodwindmaster06]

I feel that the 54 is easier to blend your sound with other instruments, it doesn't stick out as much as the 36

[Dr G]

So are you saying that a saxophone section in a big band should have only Ref 54's?

How do you feel about mixing Conns and Selmers in the same band?

:borg:

[woodwindmaster06]

I don't have enough experience with Conns to know what they sound like ect.

[scale_master]

I think you should mix American, French, German and Japanese horns in the same proportion to get the most balanced sound. Not to forget: the mouthpieces should alternate randomly between metal and rubber :D

Sorry guys, but I couldn't resist.

[Dr G]

I don't have enough experience with Conns to know what they sound like ect.

I can tell you that two Selmers (Ref 36 and 54) sound much more similar than a Selmer and a Keilwerth, Cannonball, Buescher, Conn, or most any other non-French brand. Not to say that all French-made saxes sound the same but I certainly have not heard nor played that many saxophones made in other countries that sound similar.

Bottom line: What the heck were you saying in your remark about a Ref 36 not being able to blend in a section???

[Steve J.]

"blending" in a group setting has everything to do with balance. - "intonation" in a group setting has everything to do with balance. Good balance occurs with good musicianship. If one is ever "sticking out" annoyingly it needs to be improved by the player's musicianship. It has way less to do with brand or subtle tonal inherent characteristics between brand names or model numbers.

To try and answer the original question -
Flexible to me has to do with the ease and degree of changing sound characteristics. Changing sound has more and is more an element in jazz playing. Both refs are excellent in this respect. They are husky, full, lush with the 54 leaning toward gruff. The 54 has more focus so I feel the changing sound aspect is more pronounced and desirable. The 36 is equally lush but a more spread sound - other folks real cup of tea.
Versatility as far as changing genre's? Either horn can do it all...... it has to do more with player and mouthpiece change. That said, for pure classical playing the ref's may not be the ultimate choice. A Series II or III or even a Buescher may be more refined but then may not be the most colorful for jazz playing. BUT this stuff has way more to do with the player........ Brand name or model type is very very secondary in importance to this area. Mouthpiece and playing style would be of large importance. Owning a whole different horn and set up for jazz and a whole different horn & set up for classical is the way of many.

Bootman for instance takes this to another level with his stable of instruments. He approaches his performance preperation with thought of horn & set up choices based on each individual circumstance and each opportunity. I find this fascinating, valid, and admirable. He obviously is extremely sensitive to sound. A sure sign of a responsible musician.

Tears - your questions are frequent. My advice to you would be - Obtain a decent horn one at a time. Pick one whose attributes and tone inspire you to get all you can out of it. Practice and play it often. You will become quite intimate with and better at what you can acheive with it over time. When something else arouses curiousity or a different need sends you in a different direction go with it.

The real answers aren't in this forum. It can only help in pointing out some interesting directions. Unfortunately, one horn is not going to be the ultimate for every person in every situation.

[BobD]

"A Series II or III or even a Buescher may be more refined but then may not be the most colorful for jazz playing."


This confuses me. I know you are saying that it's the player more than the horn but are you also saying that the Series III is not as appropriate for jazz as it is for classical? I thought when Selmer came out with the III it was meant to be a jazz horn. Everyone seems to think it plays pretty in your face and brighter than the other Selmers. I thought classical playing required a darker sound?[/quote]

[singlereed]

For a section to blend, you need a good ear and sensitive playing. You should be able to blend on any decent horn. OK, you wouldn't show up at a classical quartet gig playing a Dukoff mouthpiece (probably) but it wouldn't matter too much what horn you played. I would say if you have pro horns in the ensemble (Ref ** or whatevers, Yamaha, Keilwerth, Yani, King, you name it) then you can tick the box that says 'decent gear'. Playing them is the important bit IMHO. You could do any gig with one of the Ref series horns, given the appropriate mouthpiece.

[FunkySax]

i like to stick out, that way I get all the chicks. Section work isn't always about sounding the same. Remember the word blend means to take 2 or more things and put them together. Balance the sounds in your section guys, and blend the different sounds together. Don't worry about what saxes your playing. Play in tune and together and it will sound good. As far as a horn being flexible? I think it's more in the mouthpeice and the reeds.

[blow]

I have played the series II, II, and reference 54, but haven't played a 36.

I played a III and a ref 54 for 1/2 day in the store. I had a predisposition to like the reference, and came to the store expecting the ref to paly like my old mk VI. It did, but not in the way I expected.

The reference 54 has a larger bell and bow than the II & III, so it is louder and darker than those other horns, but brighter than a VI.

It is also noticeably more resistant, even more so than a VI, which is a bad thing to me. If the II or III didn't exist, I'd be looking at a keilwerth at this point because of that. The ref did play nice fat subtones, but they came eaier on the III, and transitioned easier to full notes.

The difference between the II and III on tenor, is that the III uses mini-rib construction, so the dound is less deadened from the long ribs that are present on the II, making it brighter, but also making it really easy to hit all of the notes in rapid succession. Also, the left hand palm keys are more ergonomically correct for my hands on the III. I honestly have never played a horn with a quicker response in my life than the III, and I've played lots of horns. Also, on the III there's a "ring" to the sound, which you may or may not like, but I LIIIIKE!

The II is easier blowing and has a quicker response than the ref but not as quick nor as bright as the III.

Brightness can be adjusted by chamber or a different neck, or mp opening and reed strength, so it's not an issue for me. I'm trying to make my tenor sound like an darned french horn.

For my money, I'm going to get a III unless I play a 36 and get blown away. But I don't see the extra money for the reference 54.

I have played a II alto for about six years now, with no hassles whatsoever. I think this series (II and III) will go down as the second best all-time to the VI in years ahead.

[Steve J.]

Blow & others-

The ref 54 overly resistant issue is completely and wonderfully corrected with a more proper neck or a tweak of the original neck. It is my opinion that many 54 neck mouthpiece ends are too small. These neck openings have great variation from the factory. There was considerable exploration of this on the old forum and I greatly benefited from being involved in that discussion. I quite happily own two different new necks that not only eliminated the excess resistance but opened the sound up significantly. I recommend Randy Jones at Tenor Madness for real practical knowledge of the necks on all the new Selmers.

[blow]

Blow & others-

The ref 54 overly resistant issue is completely and wonderfully corrected with a more proper neck or a tweak of the original neck. It is my opinion that many 54 neck mouthpiece ends are too small. These neck openings have great variation from the factory. There was considerable exploration of this on the old forum and I greatly benefited from being involved in that discussion. I quite happily own two different new necks that not only eliminated the excess resistance but opened the sound up significantly. I recommend Randy Jones at Tenor Madness for real practical knowledge of the necks on all the new Selmers.

Thanks - I may travel on down to TM for a look-see. It's been suggested elsewhere already.

[woodwindmaster06]

Steve J. are the two necks you own both Reference 54, or is there a series III ect.

[Steve J.]

I have two necks purchased after my original ref 54 purchase. A Series III Copper that has had the octave vent drilled more open and an unaltered factory 54 neck that measured larger than the norm at the mouthpiece end. Both necks are a distinct improvement - mainly in resistance.

[uksaxman]

what did the drilling do for the sound?
Brian

[Steve J.]

Drilling did not change the sound as I remember. It was needed to make the 2nd octave respond quickly and it solidified the intonation.

[george_mcfly]

where do you get all the money to buy such cash drainer in the first place ?!?!?!

[Brian]

I've played the Steve J. Tenor Ref 54 and all that is said is true. It is NOT the resistant horn that it was. The Frankenstein set up that stemmed from arduous investigation and stumbling across the right combinations resulted in a ref 54 with incredible power and free blowing tendencies. Its like the best of the characteristics of the III, the 36, and the 54.

Its not for the faint of heart though. For someone to duplicate this set up, be prepared to spend about 5K, for the horn, the setup/overhaul the neck ... and travel expenses.

Its not the Holy Grail for everyone ... no one horn is, as has been discussed above ... but this is one fantastic set up.