[supersonic]

An 1938 Conn 6m usually got a darker tonality then a 6m from 1959

is it the same with the Martin Com 3 altos. or does a 1945 Com 3 has the same tonality then a 1965 Com 3. ?

And compared to the Com 2. which one is darker

 

[Txsaxkat]

I think that is the case with the tenors. From what I heard from older techs is during and after WW II the only brass that was available to non war effort was recycled brass alot was from war shell casings. I was just chalked up the darker sounding horn to the brass they had at the time but not sure maybe someone else can expand on this some. I had a 65 the martin tenor and now have a 47 and the 47 is fatter. But resos make a difference also in my humble opinion but not all will agree which is understandable. Just food for thought. Now I got to get my hands on a alto for sure. My 47 tenor has put my SX90r in the closet for years now.

 

[theneighbordubh]

Was the brass the same? Were the people who physically built the horns different? Were they the same only decades older? Were the specs exactly the same, or slightly modified for efficiency, or to sound slightly different than before? Were they new tools? Were the same exact tools after decades of use? I would find it harder to believe the same model horn made 20 years ago would sound the same as one from 40 years ago, or one made today.

 

[JayeLID]

An 1938 Conn 6m usually got a darker tonality then a 6m from 1959

is it the same with the Martin Com 3 altos. or does a 1945 Com 3 has the same tonality then a 1965 Com 3. ?

And compared to the Com 2. which one is darker

I actually do not agree with your premise. The 6M body/bow/bellpiece/neck designs were exactly the same in the 30's and 60's, minus key finish, engraving, microtuner and RTH.
So they'd sound the same. Which, in my experiences with over 100 Artist model Conns, they do.

But....moving along to the Martin question.

I have refurbed dozens upon dozens of Comm III's...a '48 and an RMC are the same horn. Same goes for the Indianas (of those eras).
Some superficial cosmetic changes only.

Comm II is a different design than a III, so there is where you get some differences in tone, response, feel, etc...

Nobody has yet (remotely) proven/shown that different alloys of brass, fabricated into the exact same body design, produces a perceptible difference in tonality or performance.

Another one of those internet apocryphal tales. Usually accompanied by some BS about 'resonance'...which has also been discussed ad infinitum here and elsewhere.
Sure sounds nice on the surface, tho. But...saxes ain't violins.

If and when someone does a real experiment and proves it, let me know.

You wanna see a model which changed tonality/blowing response....look for one which had design specs which changed at some point (Super 20, for example, which went thru a neck tube change when King moved to Eastlake).

 

[bruce bailey]

I see no changes in the later ones. I actually think the ones from the 60s are better!

 

[turf3]

I think that is the case with the tenors. From what I heard from older techs is during and after WW II the only brass that was available to non war effort was recycled brass alot was from war shell casings. I was just chalked up the darker sounding horn to the brass they had at the time but not sure maybe someone else can expand on this some. I had a 65 the martin tenor and now have a 47 and the 47 is fatter. But resos make a difference also in my humble opinion but not all will agree which is understandable. Just food for thought. Now I got to get my hands on a alto for sure. My 47 tenor has put my SX90r in the closet for years now.

Ah yes, the old "shell casings" myth.

Saxophone manufacturers, now and then, buy sheet brass in the appropriate alloys from a metals distributor. The distributor buys rolls of sheet brass from rolling mills. Rolling mills may buy billets (the REAL meaning of the word "billet") from foundries, or they may have their own foundries.

Recycled metals are re-refined to be able to meet the specifications for whatever alloy they're being sold as.

You can't just take "some alloy" and make saxophone bodies out of it, because if you try it the significant drawing and forming operations will not work. I can guarantee you that once they got out of the Army, the manufacturing personnel at all saxophone manufacturers knew this perfectly well. There might have been spot shortages of certain alloys immediately after the war, but in such a case the manufacturers would have been scouring around to find the closest possible alloy as to formability.

You can't use discarded shell casings from a battlefield for sheet metal till you've re-refined the metal. It's all contaminated with products of combustion which cause brittleness, plus there's all kind of corrosion. Plus it's all been severely work hardened in the initial drawing process. So you've got to re-melt, doctor the molten scrap metal with new metals and other scrap alloys till you get something close enough to the alloy spec to be usable in forming and drawing. Then you cast it into billets. Then you roll it (frequently re-annealing) to the width and thickness (a standard thickness gauge) desired, coil it up, put it in the warehouse, and it waits till the distributor places an order.

The whole myth comes from the fact that the common drawing alloy C26000 is called "cartridge brass" in common use, because it's good for forming and deep drawing, operations that are used in making small arms cartridges and also in making saxophone bodies. But just because "cartridge brass" is good FOR cartridges doesn't mean it comes FROM cartridges.

 

[turf3]

As to guns (as opposed to rifles) I had the impression that shells larger than small-arms size were not brass, anyway, but steel - but I could be mistaken about that. I think the large guns of that time actually used a separate powder charge in bags, though breech loaded.

 

[paulwl]

I actually do not agree with your premise. The 6M body/bow/bellpiece/neck designs were exactly the same in the 30's and 60's, minus key finish, engraving, microtuner and RTH.
So they'd sound the same. Which, in my experiences with over 100 Artist model Conns, they do.

Here's the thing tho. If there were changes to the 6M body or neck, they were very slight, really in the way of tweeking. We will never know anyway at this point, as Conn's archives were burned when the company changed hands in 1970.

But do they play "the same"? That's not up to any one player to say - I don't care if they've played 100 or 100,000.

 

[Hornlip]

As to guns (as opposed to rifles) I had the impression that shells larger than small-arms size were not brass, anyway, but steel - but I could be mistaken about that. I think the large guns of that time actually used a separate powder charge in bags, though breech loaded.

Lighter artillery and guns of that period did use brass casings - rounds looks like giant rifle cartridges - but above a certain diameter the shell was loaded and then the powder charges. How big a diameter? Not sure but one version of that general story I heard was that Selmer's post-war horns were made from left-behind German shell casings, and not just any shell casings, but those from the dread 88 millimeter gun!! Which did use a brass casing. I'm thinking artillery above 100 mm or so starts using the separate charge.

I also heard a story that Selmer made its post war horns from the brass in ruined church bells from bombed out churches. . . .

 

[GCinCT]

There is a video you can find on YouTube, an interview with Jerome Selmer where he debunks the myth of the German shell casings.

 

[JayeLID]

There is a video you can find on YouTube, an interview with Jerome Selmer where he debunks the myth of the German shell casings.

That video should be bronzed.....

 

[turf3]

Lighter artillery and guns of that period did use brass casings - rounds looks like giant rifle cartridges - but above a certain diameter the shell was loaded and then the powder charges. How big a diameter? Not sure but one version of that general story I heard was that Selmer's post-war horns were made from left-behind German shell casings, and not just any shell casings, but those from the dread 88 millimeter gun!! Which did use a brass casing. I'm thinking artillery above 100 mm or so starts using the separate charge.

I also heard a story that Selmer made its post war horns from the brass in ruined church bells from bombed out churches. . . .

Because sure, the first thing Selmer did upon trying to re-start their business in war-ravaged France was to invest a few millions of dollars in a brass foundry and rolling mill - a foundry and rolling mill that were used only for a few magical years and have never been seen or documented by anyone.

 

[JayeLID]

Because sure, the first thing Selmer did upon trying to re-start their business in war-ravaged France was to invest a few millions of dollars in a brass foundry and rolling mill - a foundry and rolling mill that were used only for a few magical years and have never been seen or documented by anyone.

And.... they also had the ability to collect 'church bells' (which, BTW are B20 Bronze alloy - Copper 80%, Tin 20%) ....and melt 'em down... and somehow convert the Bronze alloy to a Brass alloy .....

....dang industrious, them French.....

 

[1saxman]

That went sour fast, on so many levels...

 

[turf3]

And.... they also had the ability to collect 'church bells' (which, BTW are B20 Bronze alloy - Copper 80%, Tin 20%) ....and melt 'em down... and somehow convert the Bronze alloy to a Brass alloy .....

....dang industrious, them French.....

Also remarkable how the members of the Selmer factory were able to do what generations of metallurgists haven't been able to: convert a low-elongation casting alloy to a high-elongation drawing/forming alloy.