[rhysonsax]

There is another issue I am aware with a small number of necks for Buffet Crampon S1 altos.

British alto player John Harle got his tech to make a modification on his Buffet alto, so that the neck went at a slightly steeper angle. I think that several of Harle's pupils tried the same thing.

Bill Wrathall was the technician who did this work - he used to work at Michael White's shop in Ealing, London. He removed the tenon from the neck and then cut a small, angled slice from the neck tube before soldering the tenon back on. It obviously removes an amount of material from the neck and could change the tuning characteristics.

I have one of those modified Buffet alto necks (it came with a used Buffet S2 I bought) and, although the difference in angle is small, I find it feels strange and don't like it at all. It tunes OK for me on both my S2 and S1 Prestige altos.

More information in these two old threads:

John Harle, THE SAXOPHONE (2017)

A two-volume book by John Harle, entitled simply The Saxophone, either is about to be published or has just been published (reported dates differ). Although I have several classical CDs featuring Harle, and like some of his playing, I certainly don't consider myself a Harle superfan, but this...

www.saxontheweb.net

How to change bend in alto neck

Rhys

 

[clarnibass]

Hi Bob

As others said the difference between 440 and 442 is not as much as you describe, for the reason already explained by others. To give another example, the longer note on an alto, which would require the most change from 442 to 440, would still be under a 5mm difference. Then gradually less and less for shorter notes. For a short note, let's say 30cm in length, the difference is only about 1.3mm. If the sax was tuned to 442, then in theory you would need a neck about 1mm to 1.5mm longer for the short notes and almost 5mm longer for the longest notes. Even the longer different is in the range common to adjust the mouthpiece for things like tuning, weather, etc.

I suggest to check the length compared with Seasonjazz's photo and also check what turf3 described.
If it ends up being a problem with the neck that is just too short, it is possible to extend it.
If you need help with anything you can always bring it and I'll try to help.

 

[retrogrouch]

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?

This seems especially true of vintage, large bore horns. My 1950s King Zephyr Baritone has no weird tuning issues with a 1960s Brilhart or old Otto Link, but plays horribly sharp with modern a piece like a Vandoren B9. The same piece (VD B9) plays true on a modern low A baritone. Regarding S1 tenors, mine loves an old (but post 60s) Berg Larsen 105/1 and a 90s Brendan Tibbs 9L Large chamber silver piece but seems OK with anything I put on it (Jody Jazz HR, Giant, Otto Link STM, Selmer Soloist).

 

[LostConn]

Interestingly, here's what Buffet has to say on its website about the tuning of the company's current professional alto, the Senzo: "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)."

The Senzo does not come with multiple necks. This means that the horn as it stands is capable of being played in tune with itself over a 6 Hz range of tuning standards. Even if this range has been "extended" over what was available in the past, you'd expect that a difference of 2 Hz would have been easily accommodated.

 

[polemonium]

I think we all agree that the 440 to 442 Hz difference is small and not what's causing the OP's problem of horrible sharpness. If the OP would say what mouthpiece he is using and perhaps post a picture of the neck, people with Buffet experience might be able to say more.

I don't have any experience with Buffets. I'm sort of curious what is changed to make a horn with versions that are nominally tuned to 440 or 442. It's an 0.5% difference. In principle you could make a version of the entire instrument that is 0.5% shorter, but I doubt any maker puts together an entire second line of tooling. Saxophone intonation is both a compromise and fairly flexible anyway. I would guess that they might change the neck length and/or taper a little bit so that the sweet spot of the compromise is closer to 442 than 440. Maybe shift a few of the toneholes that are most sensitive to these changes (the palm keys) by a little.

 

[Topanga al]

I think we all agree that the 440 to 442 Hz difference is small and not what's causing the OP's problem of horrible sharpness. If the OP would say what mouthpiece he is using and perhaps post a picture of the neck, people with Buffet experience might be able to say more.

I don't have any experience with Buffets. I'm sort of curious what is changed to make a horn with versions that are nominally tuned to 440 or 442. It's an 0.5% difference. In principle you could make a version of the entire instrument that is 0.5% shorter, but I doubt any maker puts together an entire second line of tooling. Saxophone intonation is both a compromise and fairly flexible anyway. I would guess that they might change the neck length and/or taper a little bit so that the sweet spot of the compromise is closer to 442 than 440. Maybe shift a few of the toneholes that are most sensitive to these changes (the palm keys) by a little.

Perhaps having one of the SOTW mouthpirce makers make up an elongated mpc would be a more economical way to go than having an elongated neck made up if you can't find a 442 neck. Just a thought.

 

[ROARII]

Btw. Saxquest has a NOS S1 neck.

New Old Stock Buffet S1 or S3 Alto Saxophone Neck | Saxquest Saxophone Shop | Saxquest

www.saxquest.com

 

[turf3]

Buying stuff to correct a problem of which you don't know the root cause is an iffy proposition.

I'd suggest diagnosing the problem first, then deciding what to do about it.

 

[jthole]

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

But one big difference with saxophones; you can pull out clarinets at the middle joint.

That still doesn’t move individual tone holes, but makes it easier to find a compromise.

 

[pc1234]

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

This is partially correct - S1 altos made for the American market (tuned to 440) had an A at the end of the serial number. S1 altos with an E or with no letter at all at the end of the serial were tuned to 442 (i.e., "European").

 

[turf3]

This is partially correct - S1 altos made for the American market (tuned to 440) had an A at the end of the serial number. S1 altos with an E or with no letter at all at the end of the serial were tuned to 442 (i.e., "European").

Does anyone know whether the tone holes were actually repositioned, or did they just cut 3/8" off the end of the neck?

I know it sounds ridiculous, who the heck would do that?

Well, Haynes and Powell did that for decades, they just copied how old Louis Lots had been made to play (sort of) at A=440 from A=435, by cutting about 3/8" off the headjoint and calling it a day. Generations of young flute players who'd learned on old Armstrongs Gemeinhardts and Artleys (copied from Boehm & Mendler flutes made at A=440) had to re-learn the pitch tendencies of instruments that played wicked sharp up top and flat down below, when they got their first "good" instrument. Entire schools of French and American flute playing were built around the contortions of playing those flutes in tune. Meanwhile the English and Germans were saying "huh? Our flutes play just fine at A=440" and that was because the scales were actually designed for A=440. And Boehm put all the data you need, right there in his book; anyone with a modicum of math skills and some capability as a draftsman can reproduce his Schema for tone hole placement for any pitch desired.