[bobsax]

Hi Milandro

Given the physical
similarities between the EX and SX models I'd welcome your view as to why the SX is considered to be so superior to the EX. Are they very different in terms of tone and quality. I've never played an SX. I have an EX III from 2003 approx that I was very happy with until I stumbled on a New King from 1957 and had it overhauled.

Apologies if the question is off topic.

I'll just chime in that back in 1998, I went into my local horn dealer about every week. I played most of the top horns of the day and the Kielwerth had the biggest sound by far. Not at all warm like a Selmer but really big without being too bright like the Yanigasawa. I remember thinking "Why isn't the EX the same"? It looked very similar but it just didn't have the big sound. I don't know why? I was using a metal v16 #9 mouthpiece that could really push a horn. Perhaps somebody with a different setup wouldn't notice.?

INMO The horn is not for everybody. If you want a warm Selmer sound I wouldn't get a Kielwerth.
bobsax

 

[bobsax]

The EX is a model which never has had much luck as the SX, the differences are frankly speaking minute but people are prone to repeat things that they have heard and often don't question these stings.

Athought it can be argued the German manufacturing is superior to the Czech manufacture , to me, All German made or assembled Keilwerth were always great performers. The Amati made have bad press which is sometimes deserved and sometimes is not.

There is a great significance in those ordinals after the model name though.

A separate issue are the KHS made Keilwerth.

The ROC made saxophones ( nothing to do with the the mouthpieces and straps brand made in the UK) were not made with Keiwerthg parts, they are just KHS, Jupiter, Horns. That was a simple case of selling a cheap student saxophones.

KHS is, after Yamaha one of the largest companies in the entire world of music, a true giant.

Hmm
well all I can say is there was a huge difference in 1998 between the pro Kielwerth and the next one down. I don't really pay attention to SX or EX ,ST whatever.

Like I said if your playing style does not or didn't depend on volume and a big/loud sound , you might not notice the difference .
PS this is just for the tenor

 

[bobsax]

well one has to pay attention because ST is a Student model, the EX ( extra?) was better than that and the SX was the top

Well maybe it was the student model then.

So what are the differences in the EX and the SX?
As I recall there were physical differences in the two horns I played.
The lesser horn had different (bouncier) action and did not have the special G# key

 

[bobsax]

I'll just chime in that back in 1998, I went into my local horn dealer about every week. I played most of the top horns of the day and the Kielwerth had the biggest sound by far. Not at all warm like a Selmer but really big without being too bright like the Yanigasawa. I remember thinking "Why isn't the EX the same"? It looked very similar but it just didn't have the big sound. I don't know why? I was using a metal v16 #9 mouthpiece that could really push a horn. Perhaps somebody with a different setup wouldn't notice.?

INMO The horn is not for everybody. If you want a warm Selmer sound I wouldn't get a Kielwerth.
bobsax

Reposting my comments of over 10 years ago.
Somebody mentioned they thought the differences were minor Between the SX 90R and the other models.
Not all players are going to notice the differences.

If your lifetime quest isn’t having a huge sound then you may not notice the power of the top of the line Kielwerth and if you’re not into technical virtuosity you might not notice the superior ergonomics.

fyi I am speaking tenor here but I would think the alto would be the same?