Sax on the Web Forum banner

1 - 20 of 32 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
276 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Hi all - haven't posted anything for a while, but a bit of time off arose, so here's a comparison of a New Wonder II with a 10M. Mouthpiece: Link STM early babbitt era. For what it's worth, I think the 10M is a better example of that model than the New Wonder if of it's kind - if that makes sense!
Comments welcome/appreciated.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
470 Posts
Tim, you sound great on both horns! Very pleasant to listen to. I love old Conns.

It's not easy to tell the horns apart - I wonder if I could pick them out if I were listening blindly. Having said that, for what it's worth the 30's horn has a fuller sound to my ears, with more core; the 40's horn has a more open sound.

Just to be picky, are you sure you can call a 30's Conn a New Wonder II? (Of course you can call it whatever you want to!) That gets into the transitional years - are transitionals still considered NWII's?

You inspired me to pull my old Conn out of the closet - haven't played it in a while! (Been playing my "New Conn" - Borgani Jubilee!)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,073 Posts
Both sound great. To me the NWII sounds like it has a little more edge, cleaner and more crisp. The 10m is maybe a little more smokey, meaty and more nasal. I'd have a hard time picking one over the other if I had to choose.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
276 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Ah yes, I think you're right... in that my mistake is to call my New Wonder II a '30s Conn' when in fact it's a 20s one! (or possibly 1930 at the v latest) S/NM186xxx
Cheers for picking me up on it.

I've never played a Brogan - I'd be interested to try, but having tried most tenors I'm quite stuck on Conns now :)
Thanks for the reply.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
276 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Both sound great. To me the NWII sounds like it has a little more edge, cleaner and more crisp. The 10m is maybe a little more smokey, meaty and more nasal. I'd have a hard time picking one over the other if I had to choose.
Sure - I find the 10M much much easier to keep in tune, for what it's worth. Also, I don't think I had the best reed on at the time - it had already done 2 gigs, and perhaps didn't give the fullest sound it could.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,125 Posts
Nice playing, Tim. Your NWII has a 10M tone, but your 10M has a NWII tone. Strange…
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
957 Posts
Very nice playing. I would agree that there are differences but they are subtle. I think the NWII sounds a little bigger and a little brighter. I listened a few times and once I got into what you were playing I really did not notice the horn, they both sounded great.

Do you have any issues with low not instability, particularly low D? I find my 10M is much harder to keep from warbling on low D versus the NWII. For me, the NWII is pretty stable on the low end. I find tuning to be similar on both but I need to be way out on these horns near the end of the neck to keep them from being too sharp. I like the key work on the 10M better, it is much easier to get around on.
 

·
Distinguished SOTW Member, Forum Contributor 2012
Joined
·
7,216 Posts
Nice playing indeed,Tim.
I prefer the 10m, but both sound good.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,559 Posts
Nice comparison and very enjoyable playing indeed.
I am leaning towards the NW for its fuller and warm tone. It kills on ballads.
 

·
Distinguished SOTW Member, Forum Contributor 2016
Joined
·
18,648 Posts
Interesting commentary, because I hear the 10M as the brighter and edgier horn, the Chu being more sanguine, mellower and smoother.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
276 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
Very nice playing. I would agree that there are differences but they are subtle. I think the NWII sounds a little bigger and a little brighter. I listened a few times and once I got into what you were playing I really did not notice the horn, they both sounded great.

Do you have any issues with low not instability, particularly low D? I find my 10M is much harder to keep from warbling on low D versus the NWII. For me, the NWII is pretty stable on the low end. I find tuning to be similar on both but I need to be way out on these horns near the end of the neck to keep them from being too sharp. I like the key work on the 10M better, it is much easier to get around on.
I guess for the most part it's an individual horn thing. I think my 10M is a better 10M than my NWII is a NWII (I still haven't found an appropriately concise way of saying that!) so I'm biased that way. I've never found any instability at all with my 10M, no... so this may just be that your NW is a better example... who knows!
I agree with the tuning thing - you certainly need to play a particular way on vintage Conns, I've found... but my 10M is easier to control than the NWII.

In the light of most of the comments, I don't think it's a very helpful comparison video, really...! They sound too similar... although maybe that just means that if you find a good NW or a good 10M you're in a good place!

FYI I gig/record on the 10M; the NW is my backup.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
276 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
Interesting commentary, because I hear the 10M as the brighter and edgier horn, the Chu being more sanguine, mellower and smoother.
I certainly feel I can do more with the 10M and when it's pushed it does get more edge than the NW, yes.
I'm a horn player on a budget — I just can't afford high end vintage selmers etc (I've tried a few but not over a sustained period) BUT I would take an awful lot of persuading to part with the 10M :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,073 Posts
I certainly feel I can do more with the 10M and when it's pushed it does get more edge than the NW, yes.
I'm a horn player on a budget — I just can't afford high end vintage selmers etc (I've tried a few but not over a sustained period) BUT I would take an awful lot of persuading to part with the 10M :)
Hey Tim, how would you compare the Conns with the Bueschers that you have tried. I remember seeing one of your youtube videos where you play an aristocrat. From the ones that I have played, the Bueschers seem to have more of a "Selmer-esque" sort of core and focus as apposed to the big husky Conn sound. I keep both of mine for their distinctly different flavors.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
276 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
Yes I agree with how you summarise it... although i still think the Buescher's are 'big' as well... but certainly in a more focussed way (brilliant isn't it - all these weirdly operating metaphors for tone!)
When I finally arrived at Conns, I felt I'd 'found' the sound and respond etc I was looking for. I really liked my aristocrat (especially for recording - it records very well indeed) but in the end had to part if my second horn was going to be a Conn, which I wanted so that I had a consistent sound from the backup horn I was playing.
Once I got hold of my 10M, the Buescher hardly got a look in I'm afraid... though I agree they're fabulous horns and I'd recommend them to anyone. Again, it comes down to £ I'm afraid... I'd have kept the Buescher if I could!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
276 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
Hey Tim, how would you compare the Conns with the Bueschers that you have tried. I remember seeing one of your youtube videos where you play an aristocrat. From the ones that I have played, the Bueschers seem to have more of a "Selmer-esque" sort of core and focus as apposed to the big husky Conn sound. I keep both of mine for their distinctly different flavors.
Yes I agree with how you summarise it... although i still think the Buescher's are 'big' as well... but certainly in a more focussed way (brilliant isn't it - all these weirdly operating metaphors for tone!)
When I finally arrived at Conns, I felt I'd 'found' the sound and respond etc I was looking for. I really liked my aristocrat (especially for recording - it records very well indeed) but in the end had to part if my second horn was going to be a Conn, which I wanted so that I had a consistent sound from the backup horn I was playing.
Once I got hold of my 10M, the Buescher hardly got a look in I'm afraid... though I agree they're fabulous horns and I'd recommend them to anyone. Again, it comes down to £ I'm afraid... I'd have kept the Buescher if I could!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,559 Posts
It is funny that we are somehow in the same position and on the same route.
Next to my Conns I have tried several types of interesting tenor saxes however never a MVI. I did own
a few Kohlert saxes that were supposed to be considered as a poor mans' Selmer, a Beaugnier stencil
and Buescher Super 400 (indeed a huge and fantastic sound). All very nice horns however I kept going back to the damn Conns.
Unfortunatly my finances could not justify to keep them all so regretfully I had to part with them again at some point.
But the Conns are still here in the stable. As far as I am concerned to stay.
 

·
Distinguished SOTW Member.
Joined
·
4,732 Posts
Conns, Bueschers.. they'll ALL work is what I've found .

I've had 10Ms 30Ms NWI and IIs . 400 TH&C Big Bs played 156s . SBA's VI's and more

I think what you put into it is what counts the most . The instruments are different in some ways, sure .
But it's more about what you can play and how you can sound.. tone and ideas, musicality, etc etc .
 
1 - 20 of 32 Posts
Top