[AltoNoob]

You're a terrible musician .

Sounds disgusting doesn't it........

 

[Grumps]

A little context goes a long way:

Latest email in my inbox..... | Sax on the Web Forum

 

[SuperAction80]

According to measurements by M. Postma, the Buescher TT alto is pretty much the same bore profile as Selmer and modern Japanese instruments.

- M. Postma :::: saxophones, mouthpieces & acoustics

sax.mpostma.nl

Sorry, you did provide a link. I wasn't able to see it on Windows, but can on Android. I'll have to take a look at my browser settings over there to see what's going on. Anyways, here's the section in question. There you have it, it is actually smaller. Well, smaller than a late production 1973 horn at the very least.

 

[Bottle Opener]

Well, the TrueTone is shown having slightly less conicity than some of the more modern examples, meaning the conical bore expands at a smaller angle. I dunno if that makes it large or small bore. On the graph comparing all the instruments to the "average conicity" the TrueTone appears pretty close to a Selmer Mark 6 and subsequent examples. Of course, pretty close does not mean identical or tell you the layout of the toneholes etc.

 

[Bottle Opener]

Actually I think I have this around the wrong way - a smaller number equates to a greater conicity on M. Postma's system. This is why I stick to playing saxes instead of making them.

 

[Grumps]

On the graph comparing all the instruments to the "average conicity" the TrueTone appears pretty close to a Selmer Mark 6 and subsequent examples.

Pretty close. I can attest to that. I recall one time a buddy of mine brought over his Mark VI alto. Not sure of the year, but boy could it sing. You could whisper a nice, soft, long, low B. Music to my ears. I was almost afraid to pick up my True Tone to compare. But I braved through it and found yeah, it was pretty close. That VI sure sang... and it was pretty close to my True Tone. But alas, no cigar.

 

[AltoNoob]

A little context goes a long way:

Latest email in my inbox..... | Sax on the Web Forum

I got the sarcasm so don't get me wrong. Your playing is sweet, but no, I hadn't read that thread.
* What a clown *
No doubt he's a Facebook legend.......

 

[SuperAction80]

I thought the neck options for True Tone altos didn't arrive until the New Aristocrat, Buescher's last split bell design. But if anyone has a late run True Tone alto with an original neck that has anything on it other than a single digit 1, I'd be all ears.

I have an Aristocrat 01 neck on mine, and yeah, I got lucky. Prior to that, my horn had the common quirk of playing sharp up top. For more on that, here's an old thread on the topic:

Buescher 1 01: Neck Trial w/ TT | Sax on the Web Forum

Grumps, maybe I missed it, but did you notice any difference between the locations and sizes of the octave pip and tone holes between your two necks? That would explain intonation discrepancies.

Regarding what neck came with which horn, I'm kinda flying in the dark. The True Tone altos I've come across had both 1 and 01 necks in a pattern based upon a possible pattern that I can't discern. Maybe they were after market or mismatched options, maybe not. Buescher was a bit more enigmatic than Conn when it came to their marketing and saxophone lines. Heh, that even boils down to the annunciation of their name. I've seen, and believe in Matt Stohrer's proof that it is pronounced "Bisher". However, trying to get the saxophone community to say it is like pulling teeth, so I'm just as comfortable calling them "BUUUSHERs". I'm developing a love of them though. Of every American saxophone manufacturer I've come across, their tolerances seem to be the most ahead of their time. I'm not trying to take anything away from Conn, King, and Martin, but Buescher is still something uniquely special. There are those who disagree, but I think that Buescher had the best saxophone key work of the mid 20's. Kings always had those heavier key cups up until the company dissolved, Conn...was attempting to do something (not hating, just saying that they had unconventional ergonomics), Martin was like Conn on steroids until eh, The Committee III? Those are my personal ergonomic preferences peaking through. Buescher seemed like they were the most balanced, even when comparing them to the Selmers of the time. Only my opinion, but I think there's a reason why Selmer bought them out before running them into the ground. These saxes were nuanced and made well. That's a blanket statement covering the True Tone up until the last post buyout Bundy I.

 

[pontius]

Grumps, maybe I missed it, but did you notice any difference between the locations and sizes of the octave pip and tone holes between your two necks? That would explain intonation discrepancies.

Regarding what neck came with which horn, I'm kinda flying in the dark. The True Tone altos I've come across had both 1 and 01 necks in a pattern based upon a possible pattern that I can't discern. Maybe they were after market or mismatched options, maybe not. Buescher was a bit more enigmatic than Conn when it came to their marketing and saxophone lines. Heh, that even boils down to the annunciation of their name. I've seen, and believe in Matt Stohrer's proof that it is pronounced "Bisher". However, trying to get the saxophone community to say it is like pulling teeth, so I'm just as comfortable calling them "BUUUSHERs". I'm developing a love of them though. Of every American saxophone manufacturer I've come across, their tolerances seem to be the most ahead of their time. I'm not trying to take anything away from Conn, King, and Martin, but Buescher is still something uniquely special. There are those who disagree, but I think that Buescher had the best saxophone key work of the mid 20's. Kings always had those heavier key cups up until the company dissolved, Conn...was attempting to do something (not hating, just saying that they had unconventional ergonomics), Martin was like Conn on steroids until eh, The Committee III? Those are my personal ergonomic preferences peaking through. Buescher seemed like they were the most balanced, even when comparing them to the Selmers of the time. Only my opinion, but I think there's a reason why Selmer bought them out before running them into the ground. These saxes were nuanced and made well. That's a blanket statement covering the True Tone up until the last post buyout Bundy I.

I will go along with that.

 

[Grumps]

Grumps, maybe I missed it, but did you notice any difference between the locations and sizes of the octave pip and tone holes between your two necks? That would explain intonation discrepancies.

I don't recall if I ever looked at that, but I can check later today as I still have the original neck. I doubt they're placed differently, as I'd always understood the tuning differences are in the neck taper. That's why techs like Mark Aaronson retaper Buescher 1 necks to make them either 01 or 3 compatible. He doesn't move octave pips.

Way back when, there was a 1 neck fix that involved putting a bit of plastic tubing in the neck to reduce the inner diameter near the cork end. I tried doing this and it did alleviate the sharpness above A2, however it made F3 too flat for comfort. Interesting enough, when I got the 01 neck, it most certainly cleared up the said sharpness, but only made the F3 slightly flatter.

 

[Hornlip]

I don't recall if I ever looked at that, but I can check later today as I still have the original neck. I doubt they're placed differently, as I'd always understood the tuning differences are in the neck taper. That's why techs like Mark Aaronson retaper Buescher 1 necks to make them either 01 or 3 compatible. He doesn't move octave pips.

Way back when, there was a 1 neck fix that involved putting a bit of plastic tubing in the neck to reduce the inner diameter near the cork end. I tried doing this and it did alleviate the sharpness above A2, however it made F3 too flat for comfort. Interesting enough, when I got the 01 neck, it most certainly cleared up the said sharpness, but only made the F3 slightly flatter.

I agree, I think it’s supposed to be mostly a taper difference among the necks.

Incidentally there’s not just the “1” neck you’ll see on later TT horns, there’s also necks stamped with an asterisk, *. I have no idea if that was different from the “1” necks or not.

 

[Grumps]

Yes, forgive me. The asterisk necks showed up near the very end of the TT run. I believe a single sort of asterisk or two of them. Consensus has the single ones akin to the 1 necks, but Mark Aaronson has found the taper to be a bit different for ones with two asterisks and dubs them 2 necks. His services include retapering either a 1, * or ** necks into 01 or 3 necks; the later two being preferred.

Forgive me for no photograph, but I took a look at my 1 neck and my 01 neck side by side and they are pretty much exactly the same size with the octave pip at the same spot for both. .

 

[ArtDeco]

Not quite a true tone but I have an Aristocrat that was overhauled by Gayle mid 2022 and the sound is anything but "compact".

 

[ToreH]

I don't recall if I ever looked at that, but I can check later today as I still have the original neck. I doubt they're placed differently, as I'd always understood the tuning differences are in the neck taper. That's why techs like Mark Aaronson retaper Buescher 1 necks to make them either 01 or 3 compatible. He doesn't move octave pips.

Way back when, there was a 1 neck fix that involved putting a bit of plastic tubing in the neck to reduce the inner diameter near the cork end. I tried doing this and it did alleviate the sharpness above A2, however it made F3 too flat for comfort. Interesting enough, when I got the 01 neck, it most certainly cleared up the said sharpness, but only made the F3 slightly flatter.

Hi Grumps. Yes... way back. The silicon rubber insert was my fix, but more as a demonstration of the effect of taper on the tuning, not a final fix. The real difference between the TT 1 neck and the Aristo 01 neck is in the taper of the first 5cm. The 1 has a cone, the 01 a cylinder. This is the part of the neck where the first nodes of the high notes are and the volume at the node influence the pitch. A final fix is to taper the first 5 cm of the 1 internally to a cylinder like the 01. This can be done with a epoxy putty, which was my final fix - and it works fine.

 

[John_Dikeman]

These horns have an amazing tone with so much character. I've played a Series 1 Aristo for years. There's also no problem with projection. However, I do feel the sound is somewhat "compact", or just very centered, compared to other horns, like a Conn for instance. I'm actually looking to eventually sell mine or trade for a Conn for this reason. I don't play alto much, so it's not a priority....

 

[Hornlip]

These horns have an amazing tone with so much character. I've played a Series 1 Aristo for years. There's also no problem with projection. However, I do feel the sound is somewhat "compact", or just very centered, compared to other horns, like a Conn for instance. I'm actually looking to eventually sell mine or trade for a Conn for this reason. I don't play alto much, so it's not a priority....

I think “focused” might be the word. Series I Aristocrat tenors, for instance, have plenty of projection, but you (or at least I) get the impression you can point it where you want the sound to go. Don’t know what the audience actually hears!!