[Bobbytra]

Hi. In 2019 I purchased a Buffet Alto (SN 23674) made in 1971. When I took it out to play, it was incredibly sharp with my normal mouthpiece placed almost all the way on the cork. I had to pull out the mouthpiece until there was no more neck left to get it somewhat in tune, but it still played sharp. My tech took a look at it and had the same problem. I resigned myself to having bought a lemon. The perils of buying online, I supposed.

Recently, I came across an article that mentioned that in the early 70s (at least) Buffet made two types of altos: one tuned to A=440 (the standard for most horns) and one tuned to A=442 (useful in some orchestras, I was told). Clearly, I ended up with one of Buffet's 442 horns.

Does anyone know of any fixes to get the horn playing at A=440? One idea that came to me was a custom neck that is longer than the standard alto neck. Would that work? Is there any one out there that makes such a neck?

Any idea are welcome. The horn has a great sound and great mechanics. It would be a shame to make it into a lamp. Thanks.

 

[buddy lee]

I saw an S1 tenor listing recently that included 2 necks- one was 440 and one was 442 so maybe it would require a neck swap?

 

[JayeLID]

Interesting, and it absolutely does not read 442 anywhere on neck or body ?

And you are certain the neck is original to the horn ?

I am not sure it is quite as easy as just gettng a longer neck; although it'd be interesting to measure up the body of yours vs. teh body of another one and see if the specs are identical or not. IF they are, then actually an aftermarket neck might do the trick.

It'd be a matter of having your tech measure maybe a dozen points along the neck and body tube of yours, then finding someone else to do the same (or if your tech or you can dig up another one locally, just have the tech do both). Caliper measurements.

Quick question for you....when you pull out MP as far as possible, is the discrepancy off of being in tune pretty uniform up and down the registers ? Or is it all over the place (i.e. F1 is 20 cents sharp while F3 is 25 cents off....? ...or is F3 40 cents off ?

IF it is the former, then a longer neck might work....(?)

 

[LostConn]

Hi. In 2019 I purchased a Buffet Alto (SN 23674) made in 1971. When I took it out to play, it was incredibly sharp with my normal mouthpiece placed almost all the way on the cork. I had to pull out the mouthpiece until there was no more neck left to get it somewhat in tune, but it still played sharp. My tech took a look at it and had the same problem. I resigned myself to having bought a lemon. The perils of buying online, I supposed.

Recently, I came across an article that mentioned that in the early 70s (at least) Buffet made two types of altos: one tuned to A=440 (the standard for most horns) and one tuned to A=442 (useful in some orchestras, I was told). Clearly, I ended up with one of Buffet's 442 horns.

I am not sure that being tuned to A=442, by itself, would result in a horn's seeming "incredibly sharp." For example,on the A440 scale, A# is 466.16 Hz. This means that one cent of sharpness from A in the direction of A# is 0.2616 Hz. Thus, A442 is just 7.6 cents sharp compared to A440. Not ideal, but typically within the range of adjustment for most sax players, no? Some people might even consider that to be pretty well in-tune!

 

[mmichel]

Thus, A442 is just 7.6 cents sharp compared to A440. Not ideal, but typically within the range of adjustment for most sax players, no? Some people might even consider that to be pretty well in-tune!

This.

Note, however, that your math is off slightly. In particular, you can convert frequency ratio to cents as 1200*log2(freqA/freqB), which in this case would be about 7.85 cents. But the overall point stands: A=440 to A=442 is a pretty small difference, well within the range of normal mouthpiece/embouchure adjustment.

 

[polemonium]

Yes, 442 Hz to 440 Hz is about 8 cents, which is pretty small. Another way of looking at it is that 442 / 440 = 1.0045, so the difference in frequency and thus wavelength is 0.45 percent. The acoustic length of a note in the middle of the alto sax is about 60 - 80 cm. For concert A 440 (written F#), the acoustic length should be 78 cm (wavelength = sound speed/frequency). To increase this by 0.45 percent, we shorten the length by 0.45 percent. 0.45 percent of 78 cm is 3.5 millimeters. This is well within the range that you can adjust on the cork for different players, different mouthpieces, etc.

The problem must be elsewhere, maybe it's the mouthpiece is not a good match to the horn. Have you tried tuning the sax to itself by tuning high B or C to the overtone of low B or C?

 

[LostConn]

Note, however, that your math is off slightly. In particular, you can convert frequency ratio to cents as 1200*log2(freqA/freqB), which in this case would be about 7.85 cents.

Are cents nonlinear? I was assuming an equal-tempered division of the semitone into 100 units. (This means that an individual cent would be bigger or smaller, in terms of frequency, depending on the interval in question, since the frequency differential between semitones varies.)

 

[mmichel]

Are cents nonlinear? I was assuming an equal-tempered division of the semitone into 100 units. (This means that an individual cent would be bigger or smaller, in terms of frequency, depending on the interval in question, since the frequency differential between semitones varies.)

Yes. Cents (like the equal-tempering system itself) have a spacing that is "equal" in logarithmic units, not linear frequencies.

This is actually true of any tuning system (not just equal-temperament) because octaves themselves, and the within-octave interval relationships, are all logarithmic.

 

[chilehed]

I've noticed that mouthpieces with smaller bores give me more intonation issues on my SDA and S1 tenors. Perhaps that tendency extends to other people and altos?

 

[Bobbytra]

Thanks for all your responses. I have a number of things to check. Regarding the difference between 440 and 442 being well within the reasonable scope of embourhure and placement corrections, if I was the only one who was having the problem I would agree but a number of experienced (more than me) players have tested the horn and had the same problem. Nevertheless, I will revisit it. Do any of you who suggested that the mouthpiece I'm using might not be a good fit for the horn have any recommendations as to which mouthpiece or size of mouthpiece might work better? I also intend to contact Buffet and see if they have any insight or produce an A440 neck.

 

[buddy lee]

They definitely make a neck

 

[mmichel]

Thanks for all your responses. I have a number of things to check. Regarding the difference between 440 and 442 being well within the reasonable scope of embourhure and placement corrections, if I was the only one who was having the problem I would agree but a number of experienced (more than me) players have tested the horn and had the same problem. Nevertheless, I will revisit it. Do any of you who suggested that the mouthpiece I'm using might not be a good fit for the horn have any recommendations as to which mouthpiece or size of mouthpiece might work better? I also intend to contact Buffet and see if they have any insight or produce an A440 neck.

I think you might have missed our point. We're not saying that there isn't a problem with your horn or neck. Rather what we're saying is that, if there is a problem with your horn/neck, it's not due to the 440/442 distinction. And you might find that getting a different "440" neck won't make any meaningful difference.

 

[JayeLID]

I find it really odd that multiple players yield the same results. I am still wondering if the neck is the original one to the horn at all (?)

In which case, acquiring a proper Buffet neck certainly would correct things....but as an S1 is long gone out of production, that might not be too easy....

Only other 'usual' thing I can think of is that the keyheights are significantly too open....

 

[Enthusiast65]

The 442 Altos had a serial # prefaced (or was it suffixed?) by an E

 

[Cjames]

My main alto is an early 70's SDA, and I play it with a large chambered Morgan Excalibur. It's a wonderful horn, and plays in tune very nicely.

 

[ROARII]

Yamahas are 442. Yanagisawa are a well I believe.

The alto bodies allegedly have a A for America and E for Europe after the serial. Same for necks. They have two numbers and a letter

Tenors do not seem to have the code. Neither do SDA With a transitions SDA the question is when did they start making it.

With my tenor it is flat on the top end when it brine to 440.

 

[mmichel]

Yamahas are 442. Yanagisawa are a well I believe.

Do you have any reliable documentation of this (e.g., from the manufacturer, from a controlled test by a third party), or is it just a rumor?

 

[SephirothTNH]

Yamahas are 442.

I was coming to say the same thing. As far as I know this is true. And certainly people don’t have issues tuning Yamahas in modern groups.
Maybe that’s just hearsay though?

I do know that one of my college band directors back in the day did tune the band to a=442.It’s been to long so I don’t quite remember his reasoning but 440 vs 442 should be a manageable change.

Not trying to say op doesn’t have a problem just that it shouldn’t be due to the instrument being designed for a=440 or 442.

Did they possibly still make high pitched instruments at this time? That would be unmanageable.

 

[ROARII]

Do you have any reliable documentation of this (e.g., from the manufacturer, from a controlled test by a third party), or is it just a rumor?

Eugene Rousseau who was the lead designer of the 62 states so at around the 730 mark of this video.

 

[SimonJazzSax]

Selmers are also 442. Stated by Selmer themselves many times. As are most professional flutes and clarinets currently produced. Percussion instruments are now 444hz most of the time. My guess is that they assume the horns will be slightly sharp and they're compensating

Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk