[mmichel]

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

Thank you.

Selmers are also 442. Stated by Selmer themselves many times.

That just confirms that the problems expressed by the OP couldn't possibly be due to the 442 tuning of his instrument, since Selmer and Yamaha players don't have any trouble tuning to A=440 (I've played both and had no trouble tuning either).

 

[LostConn]

Selmers are also 442. Stated by Selmer themselves many times. As are most professional flutes and clarinets currently produced.

I would not apply this reasoning to clarinets, since their tuning is determined primarily by barrel length and mouthpiece design, which are always variables. Many professional clarinets come with two barrels of different lengths, for example. And many top mouthpieces are available in both A440 and A442 versions. You can set the clarinet to practically any tuning standard you want just by manipulating these gear choices.

 

[SimonJazzSax]

I would not apply this reasoning to clarinets, since their tuning is determined primarily by barrel length and mouthpiece design, which are always variables. Many professional clarinets come with two barrels of different lengths, for example. And many top mouthpieces are available in both A440 and A442 versions. You can set the clarinet to practically any tuning standard you want just by manipulating these gear choices.

True. I know the 13 Series Vandoren pieces are 440 while others are 442. Almost all the clarinet players I know that are seriois symphony players use 66mm barrels on Bb. I am sure there are some that play other lengths.

I compared a BD4 13 Series to the 442 version just the other day and honestly tuned almost Identically on them. There were only a few notes (mostly throat A) and some other throat tones that were affected.

Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk

 

[adamk]

From what I've read Instruments that are still in existence from Mozart's time vary in pitch alot, but generally they are substantially lower than 440. Some up to a minor 3rd.

 

[ROARII]

to be honest it never made any sense to me why Buffet made a 440 and 442 horn at the same time. The S1 body is different from the SDA in the most simple fact t had offset tone holes.

When you were making only 1000 horns a year it seems like a huge expense to have two separate tooling and manufacturing process.


As a side note Buffet claims the Senzo is capable of b playing in ensembles tuning from 438-444. “ Intonation was a particular focus in the quest for perfection and Internal volumes were reviewed in order to provide an extended and enhanced range of tuned sound (438-444Hz).” See end of second paragraph.

Senzo - Buffet Crampon

Senzo announces the rebirth of Buffet Crampon’s professional saxophones. Senzo, which means ancestor in Japanese, combines Buffet Crampon’s tradition of musical excellence with a sensual and modern approach. Inspired by the legendary Super Dynaction and S1 models, this new saxophone retains the...

www.buffet-crampon.com

 

[buddy lee]

This is all so weird to me. If modern horn makers are producing 442 horns then why the “old high pitch horns are useless don’t buy them” stuff I’ve read here for over a decade. Are they tuned even higher?
And wow how low is my pitch center if I’m pushing all the way in on tenor lol

 

[LostConn]

This is all so weird to me. If modern horn makers are producing 442 horns then why the “old high pitch horns are useless don’t buy them” stuff I’ve read here for over a decade. Are they tuned even higher?

457.

 

[turf3]

I would not apply this reasoning to clarinets, since their tuning is determined primarily by barrel length and mouthpiece design, which are always variables. Many professional clarinets come with two barrels of different lengths, for example. And many top mouthpieces are available in both A440 and A442 versions. You can set the clarinet to practically any tuning standard you want just by manipulating these gear choices.

No you can't, not unless you can also move all the tone holes.

 

[turf3]

This is all so weird to me. If modern horn makers are producing 442 horns then why the “old high pitch horns are useless don’t buy them” stuff I’ve read here for over a decade. Are they tuned even higher?
And wow how low is my pitch center if I’m pushing all the way in on tenor lol

"High Pitch" instruments are tuned to A=456 or 457. This puts them just about a quarter step sharp to modern instruments. You can't pull out enough to make them play in tune. You could theoretically pull out enough to make one note play in tune (if the mouthpiece were long enough to mechanically stay in place) but all the short tube notes will be wicked flat and all the long tube notes will stil be wicked sharp. This is because a given increase in length constitutes a different proportion of the tube length for short notes than for long notes. As I've written many times before, it's like trying to tune a guitar by moving the bridge.

For any given design pitch, a woodwind instrument will have a correct set of tone hole placements. Change the sounding length of the instrument by pulling out or pushing in, and you distort the positions of all the tone holes from the correct location of the new target pitch. In theory you would need an entire new instrument with new tone hole positions for each new target pitch, but because woodwind pitch is flexible, in practice the player can compensate pretty well up to 3-4 Hz either way. Cutting off the neck or adding on to it does NOT re-tune the instrument. All it does is to allow you to mechanically shove a mouthpiece further on or pull it further out. The further you change the sounding length from the design value, the more out of tune the instrument will get.

The other thing that playing an instrument at a sounding length significantly different than the design value can do, is to introduce weird non-intuitive anomalies in tuning. I've written many times about my experience with a Conn 12M baritone. For the first 20 years I had this horn I played it with a Vandoren mouthpiece with a small round chamber. I had to pull way way out (I added an extension to the mouthpiece to make it mechanically secure); and the bell key notes were sharp. I didn't notice flat palm key notes because the key heights were up to the sky. There was also a weird tuning anomaly in that middle E and F were super sharp. Now despite all that, I adapted to the horn and played well in tune in many ensembles. There was always a problem with squeaking in the high notes when pushing hard, though, and altissimo was not available.

However, when I changed to a Meyer mouthpiece, with a larger chamber, I had to push in a lot (I think the distance to the tip of the mouthpiece decreased by 3/4" or so). I expected that the bell keys would come into line, and they did. I expected the palm keys would get sharp and need their pad heights lowered to something consistent with pad heights on the rest of the horn, and this transpired too. What I did NOT expect was that the weird super-sharp middle E and F would suddenly slot right into tune. I also did NOT expect that the squeaking on high notes when playing loud would suddenly disappear. And I did NOT expect that suddenly the whole altissimo range was available to me, using the same old fingerings I'd been using on alto for decades (with one exception which we won't get into here, because it depends on details of mechanism design).

What this experience did for me was to cement with actual experience what I knew from theory already: that for a given instrument there is a particular set of tone hole positions that are correct for the design pitch and design sounding length and for the mouthpiece design that's been chosen as the "standard" mouthpiece for that instrument. The further you deviate from these design values, the harder you'll have to work to play in tune.

 

[Bobbytra]

This discussion has been enlightening and confusing at the same time. Assuming that most the responses are correct - that switching the existing neck for a longer one would not solve the intonation problem, does anyone know what type of mouthpiece (open-chamber/closed-chamber) was used by Buffet in 1971 when it was making my SDA/S1 transitional alto?

 

[turf3]

Well, it's not certain that nothing can be done.

Assuming that the neck is in fact intended for that horn, it might have been cut down, or even made incorrectly. If you could temporarily extend the mouthpiece to the point that you could get a medium length note (say, 1st octave G) to play in tune, IF then you would find all the other notes are well in tune, it would tell you that the problem is a mechanical problem of the neck's length, and it can be easily fixed. On the other hand, if you do this and all the short notes are way flat and the long tube notes are somewhat sharp, it would tell you the horn was designed for a different pitch.

When doing this, I'd set a tuner at 440, then repeat the exercise with the tuner set at 442.

You can also put the mouthpiece on the neck and slide it back and forth till all the notes are in tune with each other, then determine what pitch is the A. If as I suspect you cannot find a point on the cork where all the notes are in tune with each other (irregardless of the absolute pitch standard), then it'll be that the neck's too short. On the other hand, if you find that the horn is very well in tune WITH ITSELF at a mechanically sound position on the cork, but the tuner has to be set at A = 460 or something, then you've got a real oddball.

Thing is, there are VERY FEW saxophones that truly play "out of tune". I very much doubt you've somehow ended up with one.

 

[turf3]

I will say that I have a suspicion your neck might not be correct for the horn and here's why -

There are many altos with high F# key. Those copied from Selmer typically have the high F# just below the neck receiver. However, I believe (and it's been a long time) that the Buffet altos have to have a notch in the neck tenon to clear the high F# tone hole. If I am remembering this correctly it would imply that the Buffet neck receiver is lower down the tube than the Selmer-style. That would imply that the Buffet neck is longer (distance from the joint to the end, not necessarily the horizontal length). Now if the neck got substituted by a different make's neck, it seems that the neck would be too short. Another way in which the problem would NOT be "that the horn plays sharp by design". Or it could even be from a different generation of Buffet.

Certainly horns get dropped on the neck and something has to be done. Wouldn't be too hard to imagine someone slapping an older-model Buffet neck, or even transferring the neck key and its mounting, to a non-Buffet neck. We're talking about a 40+ year old horn, right?

 

[hakukani]

This discussion has been enlightening and confusing at the same time. Assuming that most the responses are correct - that switching the existing neck for a longer one would not solve the intonation problem, does anyone know what type of mouthpiece (open-chamber/closed-chamber) was used by Buffet in 1971 when it was making my SDA/S1 transitional alto?

I went to school with three players that had 'new' buffets from the early 70s. They had no problems playing in tune, all using both selmer C*, and later at least one switched to a Rousseau 4R.

 

[Carl H2O]

Hi,

I have an S1 alto that is said to be tuned to a=442, serial 25xxx. If I tune it to it 442 it pretty much in tune all the way up in the altissimo. What I have found out is that the horn is a little picky when it comes to mpc:s. A perfect match for me is the Yany AC 150, for jazz an Aizen Jazz master works, not as good as the Yany, though. The great John Harle seems to be playing one and he is definitely in tune. Whether he tunes it to a=442 I do not know.

 

[Carl H2O]

My S1alto has no letters in front of, or after the serial but the three last digits of the serial are carved/scratched inside the neck

 

[Seasonjazz]

Buffet Crampon SDAs and later altos have usually very good intonation. My SDA alto sn.227xx (with S1 style left and right hand pinky keys, no high F#) is no exception, it is hard to play out of tune. I think there is a great chance that OP´s alto neck is not original.

For a comparison, I measured the length of the neck using a metal wire (see the photo). The straightened wire was 19,5 cm in length. If OP´s alto neck is markedly shorter that could explain the intonation problem.

 

[rhysonsax]

Buffet Crampon SDAs and later altos have usually very good intonation. My SDA alto sn.227xx (with S1 style left and right hand pinky keys, no high F#) is no exception, it is hard to play out of tune. I think there is a great chance that OP´s alto neck is not original.

For a comparison, I measured the length of the neck using a metal wire (see the photo). The straightened wire was 19,5 cm in length. If OP´s alto neck is markedly shorter that could explain the intonation problem.

Interesting. Does that neck have a cut-out in the tenon as mentioned by @turf3 above ?

Rhys

 

[Seasonjazz]

There is no cut-out in the neck tenon, and no F# tone hole either in the body. To my understanding the cut-out came later and only to horns with high F#. I have also seen other "Super Dynaction" engraved horns from that "transitional" period with no high F# with a no cut-out neck, so mine is not unique.

Markus

 

[turf3]

Yeah, the cutout is only there for high F#. The reason I mentioned it is that Selmers and others with high F# do NOT have the cutout, indicating that their receiver is higher up the body, thus shorter neck. If you put a Selmer neck on a Buffet, then, it could just be too darn short. And it may be (but I know very little, really, about the various generations of Buffet saxes) that older Buffets had the receiver in a more Selmer-like place, thus shorter necks, thus even swapping in an older Buffet neck COULD POSSIBLY cause a too-short condition.

Again, this is speculation, but I'm trying to come up with hypotheses why a Buffet saxophone, typically regarded as having good intonation, and not that old (1971) would be consistently playing way sharp for multiple people.

 

[turf3]

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.

OK, so it's pretty certain whatever's going on it's not an A442 vs.A440 issue. But I don't see that you've mentioned what kind of mouthpiece you've used for these trials, nor if you've tried different ones. I would certainly expect a mouthpiece of conventional design (Link, Meyer, Brilhart Ebolin, Selmer S-80 or Soloist) to play well in tune on a 1971 Buffet alto.