Hahaha, that's pretty funny, but I'm sorry! I do have a Mark VI and a Keilwerth SX90R at my house right now, but no scale. Still, I remember another Mark VI I had (unlackered) and it was also about 3 kg.

 

I hope somebody will weigh their Mark VI, Olds Super, The Martin, Zephyr, Super 20, Top Hat & Cane, Chu, Yamaha Z, B&S, Codera .... etc etc etc.

My assumption is that--as a general rule-- the heavier horns use a thicker gauge of body/bell brass tubing. Does it matter? Maybe, but I dunno. So far, the Dolnet is at the top. What about Buffet Super Dyna-actions, Mark VIIs, Ref 54s, Couesnons, Pierrets ..... ?

 

Usually the heavier horns are the modern horns. The reason they are heavier is not extra thickness of brass but rather all the extr keywork, most of which is not needed. It is the same with altos and baritones too.

 

Hmmm, I was always told 'the heavier the sax, the better it is.' Thats why tenors aren't as good as baritones

 

I', sorry sax-appeal, but that's just BS! You can replace the keywork with concrete keywork and I'm sure the horn will be heavier, but it won't sound better. The quality of the sound is mostly in the tube. It's true that some horn's are a bit heavier, like the Keilwerth, but that's because the bell and the ''curve'' are bigger (more metal, more weight)

 

Baritones aren't better then tenors cos they are heavier each type is used for their own purpose.
Modern horns seem thinner due to better machinery to save metal(thinner topier sound then vintage)but are as heavy or heavier due to more seams and bracing to stop warp and bending,here is a list of just my tenors weights with neck(+ or - a couple of ounces due to balancing on my small scales)
1955 The martin 7lb 4oz
1928 buescher true tone 7lb 9oz
1977 selmer mk7 7lb 9oz
1930 martin typewriter(master) 7lb 4oz
1949 conn 10m 7lb 3oz
Its funny that the selmer and buescher are the same weight with the big bell 7 and small bell t/t, buescher is thicker metal but the 7 is braced more,buescher is dark and focussed and selmer brighter and toppier
The conn is the lightest but has a bigger all-round sound.
Dave

 

You guys are right, my assumptions were too simplistic, but this information is interesting to me anyway. It might directly reflect body brass gauge to some extent as long as you already know about the keywork/ribbing etc. of the horns involved. And of course, it is unadulterated info for anyone who prefers a lighter/heavier horn hanging off their neck.

Dave, thanks for posting those weights. I was sticking to decimal expression, but figured someone would bring in ounces! This thread may not last very long, but if more people post the weights of their horns, I'll try to convert everything into one list--eventually.

Interesting to see that your The Martin is only median weight; I'd've thought with those thick soldered toneholes, it would be at the top of the heap.

 

Hmmm, always wondered why my neck hurts. My Rampone & Cazzani R1 weighs in at 8lb 6oz (3.8 kg.) I am prepared, however. to put up with this as the sound is directly proprtional! :lol:

 

Forgot to mention that the horn is unbraced, otherwise it's anyone's guess what it would weigh

 

Forgot to mention that the horn is unbraced, otherwise it's anyone's guess what it would weigh

Do you mean it has had 'original equipment' removed?

 

Windmill. No, nothing has been added or removed. "Bracing" is a method whereby much of the keywork can be sub-assembled on plates which are then soldered to the body of the horn.
The R&C is handmade from scratch and the posts are individually soldered on where required-as indeed are most vintage horns. This eliminates the need for plates, &, consequently,the horn must be lighter than the more usual plated modern horn.
I cannot quite understand Bootman's statement claiming that modern horns have more keywork, as my vintage Buescher & Kings have at least two more keys, plus attendant linkage, with their trill keys.
As an appropriate point with reference to bracing plates I would have thought that the plates would act as dampers to the natural frequencies of the horn with a less resonant horn as a result. Maybe this could be a factor with respect to the more beefy sound of a vintage (& modern, unbraced) horn. Any ideas anyone?

 

CB, I understand you now. I usually refer to that kind of post bracing as "ribbed construction" or "ribbing."

Come to think of it, per the 'amount' of keywork on modern horns, I have a few here and they are typically more 'streamlined' than their vintage counterparts. The old Conns have a real mess of keywork attached. Still, my Yani doesn't have anything unusual, and its tubing seems thinner than say, the Keilwerth or Dolnet I own, but it weighs in the median range nonetheless. Maybe the bronze tubing makes it heavier?

Per bracing/ribbing and the resonance-damping issue, some will argue that ribbing makes for a 'stiffer' construction that contributes to resonance. Personally I suspect it's insignificant either way, compared to other factors.

 

Wind-mill. You are absolutely correct, I used the word "bracing " when I meant "ribbing". I have no excuse apart from brain fade on my part
With regard to the ribbing interfering with the natural resonance of the horn I would site a bell or a wine glass- strike them & they will ring out; put a finger on either & strike them & the result will be dulled. I maintain therefore that the ribbing will act similarly; ie. as a sound damper.The "stiffness" is less important than the consistency of the wall thickness.
Surely it follows that, to a large degree, the fulsome sound of the Vintage Saxophone is due, in no small measure, to the fact that they are not of ribbed construction. This could also, in concert with the huge bore and physical weight, account for the huge & vintage sound of the Rampone & Cazzani R1.
If this hypothesis is considered naive, then I feel sure that some Phd. of Acoustic Science will let me know!
Apologies for hi-jacking the subject of the original post, but I cannot help but notice that no-one, not even the Borgani enthusiasts, have claimed a higher weight than the R1 R&C. tenor. To date therefore the R1 must claim the title of World Heavyweight Champion, easily beating into submission the lightweights from France and Asia ...Regards...Bb

 

With regard to the ribbing interfering with the natural resonance of the horn I would site a bell or a wine glass- strike them & they will ring out; put a finger on either & strike them & the result will be dulled. I maintain therefore that the ribbing will act similarly; ie. as a sound damper.The "stiffness" is less important than the consistency of the wall thickness.

Captain,
You might want to peruse the threads in the "Saxophone Finish" section of the forum, as similar issues are debated there on a regular basis. Many would tell you that, unlike a bell or a wine glass, the sound from a sax is not produced by the vibration of the body of the sax. Rather, the vibrating reed sets up a vibrating column of air in the instrument, and it is those vibrations that you hear.

An effective demonstration is to blindfold a listener, and have a sax player sound some long tones. During the tones, have a third person periodically grasp bell or body of the sax firmly. Can the listener tell when this happens? Better yet, blindfold the player also, so he/she can't tell when the sax is being touched (although it could probably still be felt). I would bet that the listener will not be able to reliably tell when the sax is being touched.

I believe that ribbing is used primarily to make sax construction faster and more consistent. Of course, whenever there are differences of any sort between two instruments, people will wonder about the sonic effects, which the marketers will turn to their advantage.

 

My SX90R tenor weighs 7.5 lbs.

 

My Buescher Aristocrat 156 tenor is noticably lighter weight than my MK VI tenor. Also a King Super 20 I tried once (brass bell) was also lighter than the VI. I haven't weighed them on a scale, though.

 

I agree that the Selmers (since the SBA, I think) and other modern horns probably weigh more because of the ribbed construction...Keilwerths are the only modern horns (I think) that still do the individual post thing...it is more about ease of manufacture and disassembly than anything else (IMHO).

Now that I am curious, I may weigh the horns I have here tomorrow.

 

Cap'n Bb said: To date therefore the R1 must claim the title of World Heavyweight Champion...

It would appear so.

Hey Shmu, weigh your horns for us. I'm curious about the older Zephs/S20s.

 

Schmu...Along with Keilwerths, R&C R1 saxophones are of un-ribbed construction..indeed, this is part of my nomonation for Heavyweight Champion!...It would weigh considerably more than it's 8lb 6oz if it were ribbed. You are correct when you state that ribbing is employed to increase production rates with the ribbed sections made as sub-assemblies prior to gluing the whole thing together...gosh, my neck hurts, but it's worth it for the sound. ...regards...Bb

 

SML rev D weighs in at 3.4andhalf kilos and the best sound i have heard on a tenor. Whats that in lbs ?

 

Danz. At 0.35 kilos lighter than the Rampone & Cazzani, your S.ML. is currently the runner up to the title of World Heavyweight Champion .....Bb

 

And me with a stuffed neck, but hey thank god for spin straps. The SML is indeed heavy and NO high f# but ribbed post constuction and rolled tone holes and what a huge FAT and LOUD sound it has put my selmer to sleep.

 

Thread revived from the posting at http://www.saxontheweb.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=34977.

King Super 20 (all brass): 3.2kg (7lb according to http://www.manuelsweb.com/kg_lbs.htm)

 

I have been told that the relavtively lighter weight of the Super 20 is due to the light weight of the keys and that the bodies are similar to those of other horns.

 

Are we weighing the horn before the gig or after? From the 3rd set on, I swear mine gains a pound!