Sax on the Web Forum banner
21 - 40 of 42 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,130 Posts
It sounds like the same mouthpiece on both your recordings. The 10M sounds more mellow; the Mk VI is edgier.

This comparison interests me, because I too have a Selmer Mk. VI (1967) and a 10M (two 10Ms actually, 1937 & 1949) and I've tried making comparisons between them for myself. The differences I noted in your recordings reflect the differences I noted in my own comparisons.

The only problem with the comparison is that the material is not the same on both; the basic tune might be the same, but the improvisation is different from one horn to the other, which might affect the listener's reaction to the test. Maybe you could try playing the same straight melody from sheet music on both horns ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,519 Posts
Discussion Starter · #22 ·
I hear ya Mike T.

I’ve done comparisons like that before, and I see the merit in them.

On this one I wanted the let the horn take me where it led with the hope it would reflect the tone and character/soul of the sound. Although I tried to keep it a similar construct (I started with a F Maj 7, and ended there in both clips) the 10M came out more bluesy, and the VI has touches of all the classical lit I’ve learned.

It’s interesting....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
134 Posts
Both sound like you, but I definitely hear a difference between the horns. (I disagree with the folks who think a horn doesn’t matter and it’s all the player.)

You sound great, by the way! Thanks for sharing the comparison!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,442 Posts
Thanks for the kind words everyone.

The interesting thing to me as the player is how each instrument leads me to play a certain way due to the intrinsic qualities of each example.

The tone, response, key layout, how each takes air, etc all lead me to certain feelings and ideas....which leads to a certain kind of expression.

I still sound like me of course, but I can hear the bluesy and soulful 10M moaning an old spiritual at me, while the VI has a crispness and sparkle that makes me buzz with hope and optimism. You can go anywhere on either horn, but they each come from a different place....and lead to one.
A great observation. I can easily see how the different characteristics of the two horns can influence your playing style. Of course, that takes a pretty good knowledge of the two horn's differences, to get to that point, I should think?
I guess my own 10M's tone has finally weened me away from the more "in your face" tone of my King Cleveland, because I definitely prefer your 10M track, though both are very well done.
 

·
Distinguished SOTW Member, Forum Contributor 2014
Joined
·
2,635 Posts
Okay, it's official. I could not tell the difference. Don't ever listen to me about anything to do with sound comparisons. I flipped back and forth between the two without looking at the descriptions and wouldn't have been able to distinguish between them if my life depended on it. More important, I would not have been able to sound like either one of them. Not even close. It really doesn't matter if they sound different until I get to that playing level (which isn't likely). If I did somehow get to that playing level, I'd be thrilled to sound like either one. I wouldn't care which. I need to go practice.

Mark
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,519 Posts
Discussion Starter · #26 ·
The recording honestly reflects what I hear live. The main difference (to me) is the focused crispness of the VI vs the more diffuse/dry sound of the 10M.
 

·
SOTW Columnist, Distinguished SOTW Member
Joined
·
23,477 Posts
Both sounded great. But I definitely preferred the VI. It had more edge and a more 'robust' sound to my ear. It could very well be how you played them. Compared to the VI, it sounded like you were holding back just a bit on the Conn. Also, it's interesting that you describe the Conn as more 'bluesy' sounding. I heard it just the opposite. The VI seemed more bluesy, with a bit more bite.

But it's all so subjective, of course. Really nice playing, by the way.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
47 Posts
First of all, I have a really discerning ear and usually hear stuff others can't. It is hard for me to tell the difference between these 2 clips.

The Selmer is slightly brighter to me. That just shows it's mostly the player, not the horn.

I have found BIG differences between horns EX mark VI vs Vintage Buescher.
 

·
SOTW Columnist, Distinguished SOTW Member
Joined
·
23,477 Posts
Very strange because in many of these comparison clips, whether it be mpcs or horns, they often sound exactly the same to me, while others are commenting on all the differences they hear. Then, in this case, I can definitely hear a difference and at least some others don't. Just goes to show.......something, not sure what.

I will say the playing is equally good (very good) on both horns, but I hear a difference, subtle as it may be.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,519 Posts
Discussion Starter · #32 ·
I hear a significant difference related to the front of the note and, to a surprisingly lesser degree, the buzz of the VI vs the dry (less present overtones) Conn. The VI is also more focused to my ear.

I’ll tell ya what though. It’s about 10 times less work to get that tone on the VI than to get the Conn tone. I feel like I can make the VI body tube bulge if I throw enough air in there, but the Conn just laughs at me and asks for more.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,519 Posts
Discussion Starter · #34 ·
Also, it's interesting that you describe the Conn as more 'bluesy' sounding. I heard it just the opposite. The VI seemed more bluesy, with a bit more bite..
I hear ya on the tone, I was referring to what the horns “made” me play.

Really appreciate the comments and discussion. It’s so interesting how we can all perceive the same thing in different ways. I wonder if blue really is blue???
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
400 Posts
Not to sound cynical but after playing a VI Viking and Super 20 I basically sound the same on all of them with little nuances. The King vibrates more and the Selmer projects more and the Viking is a little of both. Now the cynical part after playing as a pro for over 40 years it doesn't matter how you sound because the idiot sound man either buries you in the mix or worse yet they don't even know how to mix a sax or know what one is supposed to sound like. They are the worst for the business in my humble opinion
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
725 Posts
I listened to the 10M first and then the MVI. as soon as I heard the MVI I thought "Aha! that's the horn he is used to!" You sounded more comfortable and confident with the VI. That's not to say the 10M was bad, in fact is was really good as well. But the 10M seemed more like a first date with a partner you really dig, there's great chemistry but are getting know each other.

Terrific playing on both and really fun to compare the two. The VI was obviously a bit brighter!edgier. Could be intrinsic to the horns or your reaction to the horn for sure.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
672 Posts
I enjoyed both tracks but I also dug the MkVI track a little more.
Maybe you're used to the MkVI more but another reason could be that the Potter mpc just fits better with Selmers than with Conns or at least better with your Selmer than with your Conn. Could be that different mouthpiece physics would liberate much more of the Conn's own sound than you're current piece.

(The philosophy behind that claim is the faith that every single horn has its own area/fields of resonance where it sounds best or comes to life soundwise and that the mpc is an important factor of amplifying and emphasizing these distinct areas. All this based on the ability of a developed player in control of his embouchure and inner cavities to not get in the way of the amplification or resonance.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,149 Posts
They are so close that it seems silly for me to even try to hear a difference. I think my expectation bias overrides any subtle differences that might be there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,519 Posts
Discussion Starter · #39 ·
:)

At the time of the recording I had the 10M for about 10 months and the VI for 2 days. The VI had a pulled down neck when I recorded (currently being fixed and silver plated at Tenor Madness)

I think there may be something to the mouthpiece fit argument...

Thanks for the comments!!!!
 

·
Forum Contributor 2014-2017
Joined
·
1,000 Posts
Wow blue boy! I really like your sound. On both horns. To me they're almost indistinguishable and if we weren't told there are two different saxophones I'd never suspect or detect a difference. But since we're allowed to split hairs, I lean towards the 10M which sounds ever so slightly sweeter, rounder (complex) and more sophisticated. On the other hand, that might change the next time I listen. Thanks for posting.
 
21 - 40 of 42 Posts
Top