Opinions on Series III Tenor, Reference 36 and Reference 56

[woodwindmaster06]

What are your opinions on the Series III Tenor Saxophone, the Reference 36, and Reference 56 Tenor Saxophones.

[Riff]

They're all excellent saxophones.
Do you have specific questions?

[Grumps]

Not too long ago I play-tested a III, a 36 and a 54, along with several VI's. For the record, I've been using a VII tenor for approximately 25 years. Hands down, each and every VI (from 75,xxx to 175,xxx) just felt better and blew stronger. You have to try one yourself and you'll know instantly. The III tenor suprised me though, as I had a bad experience play-testing about a half dozen III altos. I liked it better than my VII for fullness and character of tone and the keywork was a dream. The 54 played closer to the VI's, but I'm sorry..... I just can't take the fake antique look. I would seriously consider purchasing one if it looked like the 36, which is a beautiful horn. Perhaps it was just the 36 I tried, but I found the 36 to be resistant and one dimensional.

Now this is just my half day experience, and I'm sure I could adapt to any of these horns in the long run, but there you have my first impressions. Now what you have to do is sift through all the opinions and look for common themes, then give the horns a try yourself.

[Tears June]

Grumps

Can you tell more about your test between the Series III (tenor) & Ref 36 ? I'm interested in both, may pick up one of them.

What finish of the Series III you have tested - Clear Lacquered, Matte without engraved, Brush with engraved , Silver plated or Black Lacquered ?

How's the sound between Series III & Ref 36? Which is more bright & thick, rich & full?


:cry:

[Dr G]

Perhaps it was just the 36 I tried, but I found the 36 to be resistant and one dimensional.

Sorry to hear you had a less-than-great experience with that one. Sounds like it was leaky. :cry:

[Grumps]

I was at USA Horn, and although I did play the aforementioned tenors, my focus was really on altos that day. I at least made sure to try their Selmer tenors and one or two other brands. I used a Ponzol M2 with a Rico Royal 3 on all the horns. The III I played was the regular lacquer model without engraving (I think) and it didn't have any of the extra key clutter of some of the III altos I tried. I tried some outstanding VI's on hand that day and the III didn't let me down in terms of power and strength of tone. It didn't quite have that extra 'vibe' to it that you feel in your finger tips when you play a VI, but it had much more of an edge in tone than my M2 would get out of my VII. The III was expertly set up and notes glided off the keys. I did not get any of this from the 36. It felt stuffy and seemed to blow back at me through the mouthpiece. It didn't seem to want to handle all the air I was trying to put in it. Now this was one 36, and I've heard some great things about them, so it really isn't fair to condemn them on my word. I just didn't like that particular horn in comparison to the VI's, III and 54 I tried that day. Another thing that comes to mind when I think of the 36 and 54 models, is that they're sold as some kind of tribute to older and better horns. They are not those horns and this is definately a marketing ploy. They both probably borrow more from the III than the VI or BA and I think that's worth considering when balancing them against a III.

Try and get a play test yourself, or at least be able to return any horn you purchase sight unseen.

[BobD]

I had the same experience as Grumps. I have yet to play a Ref36 that I liked(I have played 3 at Rayburns and 3 at USAHorn). The series III's I've played have been good but do fall short on that "vibe" that Grumps mentioned. The Ref54 is quite nice and I think comes close to a VI with a bigger bottom end. I would be happy with my VI a III or a Ref54.

[Gordon (NZ)]

Standards, in some aspects of manufacture and mechanical design, are poor, in some cases with expensive consequences well into the future. Reliability is also afffected.

Note that I am not making negative comments about the tone or any other aspect of playing.

[Cameron Wigmore]

It seems to this cat that the ref 54 is gaining more favor. I have yet to check it out.....

[singlereed]

When I checked out the three, I played two or three examples of a III, a 36 and a 54 side by side, it just happened that one of the 54s was an outstanding horn. The two 36s were too badly adjusted to tell if they were any good, though the sound was promising, and one of the IIIs was an absolute dog - it was just 'dead' - the salesman told me it was bad, and it was! On that basis I bought the 54 having also played a load of ther makes at the same trial session. I kept it for a year or so and I was impressed with its positive and solid action, it certainly seemed well-engineered to me and gave no trouble. I subsequently got a 'closet' Mk VI from 1968 which is altogether a livelier and more characterful horn and I enjoy playing it much more than the Ref 54. Its palm keys are much more comfortable than the Ref, which always felt as if they were in the wrong place, and too close to the body, and in fact those notes were the weakest-sounding on my particular horn. Sound wise it was rich and gruff - like the honeyed sound of a seasoned actor's voice! I always hated the look and feel of the Ref 54 finish, BTW.

[Grumps]

Standards, in some aspects of manufacture and mechanical design, are poor, in some cases with expensive consequences well into the future. Reliability is also afffected.

Okay.... I'll bite. Gordon I know you have complaints in regard to the mechanics of modern day Selmer saxophones, but I've only read references to your criticism and not the criticism itself. In your opinion, when did Selmer lose their edge and what specific details can you point out to illustrate your point; especially in regard to issues of longevity.

[Gordon (NZ)]

I can speak only of new horns produced in Paris in about the last 10 years.

Some players don't meet SOME of these problems because SOME of the problems have been corrected by an outlet prior to sale. However certain of the problems will haunt the instrument for many years because correction would be a major job.

Grumps, I have listed these before and risk getting hate mail to do it again, but seeing the list is now lost for the present in the unavailable archives, and it is important to keep buyers informed, I suppose it bears repeating.

There have been some slow signs of improvement in some of these issues since the list was written.

Some of theses issues take much time to explain in depth, and mean little to anybody who is not pretty mechanically astute. That is possibly one of the reasons for the icy reception that some Selmer enthusiasts gave me in the past. I have elaborated in detail on some of the items, and these comments may be available someday in archives.

Briefly:
1. Needle springs that rust VERY readily.
2. Needle springs that are too short for their thickness, resulting in a 'sluggish' feel for those who are used to well-designed springs.
3. Tone problems (for 2nd octave A in S3 Alto) because of incorrect diameter octave tone hole (this reportedly acknowledged by Selmer)
4. Lacquer that burns before the solder melts, should soldering ever need to be done.
5. Soldering failing on post ribs more than should be expected from a top sax.
6. Plastic linkage tubes with great dollops of grease applied in an attempt to overcome the high friction inherent in the material. The high friction material is inappropriate anywhere that rubbing is involved, and that is exactly where it is used.
7. These linkage tubes fall off easily, especially after being hardened by the grease.
8. This linkage material also tends to swell(absorbing moisture?), jamming the side keys.
9. 'Acid bleed', making black patches on the lacquer near soldering, is all too common.
10. Inappropriate geometry between levers and the keys they operate, and the extra C# mechanism on series 3 alto, resulting in lots of rubbing and high friction - hence over strong springs required - see 2.
11. Persistance with aan over-small neck tightening screw that is very difficult for those with weaker fingers.
12. Inappropriate, thick, squishy, natural cork in stack key linkages which compresses with use, making adjustments unreliable.
13. Sticky surface treatment of pads, making them stick to tone holes.
14. Poor pad seating/ key alignment which needs to be corrected prior to sale. The severity of this problem tends to indicate irregular pad thickness &/or poor installation.
15. Very weak design/construction of Eb & Low C pivots easily bends and jams. (The pivot rod is cut in half and spring loaded.)
16. Metal resonators react with a chemical in the pad surface and rust (yes, they must be steel - to save a few cents!)around the edges, probably compromising pad life.
17. Felt on spatula linkages is poorly shaped - overflowing the edges - and poorly glued, so they readily fall off.
18. The felt is of a low quality by today's standards - fraying and compressing easily.
19. Unstable regulator screws on the soprano, and very close to the hinge, such that adjustment is extremely precarious, and unnecessarily unreliable.
20. The keywork of the soprano is designed (if you can call it that!) like a manipulative puzzle, so far too many keys need to be removed for minor work to be done, making servicing expensive.
21. Another writer has noted rough edges on tone holes. This encourages corrosion, hence sticking pads, and premature pad failure.

Notes:
a/. This list is not coming from an over-developed call for perfection, but rather compares Selmer with what some makers do well as a matter of course, for no extra expense, and even on student instruments.
b/. This list is pertinent only for recent models, and some points are specific to certain models.
c/. I could write a list for pro instruments by other makers but it would be much shorter and have few major items.
d/. I could also write a list of what Selmer does do well.
e/. I do not presume to comment on tone & intonation, which are clearly respected, and which are obviously the laurel on which Selmer's reputation rests.
f/. I fully accept that there may be players who do not notice certain these problems because of such factors as: Living in a particularly dry climate, a lot of work being done prior to sale, playing with an iron grip, having 'eyes' that do not see, having eyes that do not WANT to see, having insufficient mechanical nous to appreciate the repercussions on reliability and down-stream expense of the faults.

[Grumps]

Thanks Gordon. Things to keep in mind when looking for a new horn.

On a tangent, when I recently tried about a half dozen new alto III's, I found their intonation highly suspect; especially in the mid-range. I still wonder if it had anything to do with the G octave hole diameter or the recent fix authorized by Selmer (as the horns were recent imports).

Now back on topic. Did you find any of these problems on the Reference horns as of yet, or just the II's and III's?

[Tears June]

Gordon

My new concern is comparing with Ref 36 and Series III, does Ref 36 really has much better intonation ?
How's the Ref 36 intontaion compare with YTS-875 or Yana horn? As understand both Yamaha & Yana horn is excellent in it even many player consider their sound is lack of character (Yamaha, not Yana).

I've tried at least 6 or 7 Mark VI (included alto, tenor & soprano), even some of it has very good sound, but all of them has poor intonation, at least 50% to 60% semi-tone flat.

:cry:

[Gordon (NZ)]

..... Did you find any of these problems on the Reference horns as of yet, or just the II's and III's?

The references do not actually have some of the items listed, but from memory, about 10 that I saw a year or 2 ago had their fair share of problems too.

[Gordon (NZ)]

I leave it to the playing experts to comment on intonation.

Some people find intonation problems on saxes that others find excellent. I wonder if it is because they have made subconscious adjustments in how they play in order to accommodate idiosyncrasies on the horn they are USED to, and then apply the same adjustments to another horn that did not need the adjustments.

[Grumps]

I don't know about subconscious playing, but I've come close to unconscious playing.

[singlereed]

The intonation on the Reference horns and III are all very good. You are talking about arguably the best professional horns available today, intonation is not an issue with these horns. You always have the inherent compromises, and all this is affected by adjustment, player, and mouthpiece/reed - but I wouldn't say the intonation of a Ref 36 is better or worse than the III - or, for that matter, a Yamaha, Yanagisawa or Keilwerth.

[Gordon (NZ)]

Now there's a sensible statement.

[Grumps]

The intonation on the Reference horns and III are all very good. You are talking about arguably the best professional horns available today, intonation is not an issue with these horns.

It was an issue with the half dozen recently imported III altos I tried; or at least according to my chromatic tuner. The needle looked like a ping pong game and I did not get this poor a result from the dozen or so non-III altos I tried that day of various brands both new and old. I am not the only one to report such findings on recently imported III altos. It could be a fluke, yes, but I continue to wonder what recent adjustments Selmer made to these horns and to the diameter of octave tone holes and whether or not their solution is effecting intonation. So far, I've read only dogmatic assertions regarding the marvelous intonation of the III's. I am not satisfied with same and feel this issue may need further exploration.

[singlereed]

OK, I haven't played a new Serie III since I bought mine new last May, I stand corrected.

[Dr G]

Some people find intonation problems on saxes that others find excellent. I wonder if it is because they have made subconscious adjustments in how they play in order to accommodate idiosyncrasies on the horn they are USED to, and then apply the same adjustments to another horn that did not need the adjustments.

That was exactly what happened to me when I got my Serie III tenor several years ago. I had been playing a Balanced Action exclusively for the previous 15 years or so and could nail any pitch on that horn (some with more work than others). When I first picked up the III, my intonation was all over the place. Then I sat down with a tuner for a few hours and figured out what I was doing to the horn. My transition to the Ref 36 was not so difficult - seamless, in fact.

[Teddy]

Almost all intonation problems on my Ser 3 Tenor were set up problems.Gordon you are absolutly right about the weak corks.Another problem wich USA horn was nice enough to tell me about was that for a while they were shipped with a magnetic device in the horn wich was very strong and sometimes pulled pads right out.On mine it compressed the corks so badly that I removed them and re-corked the six major ones.after fine tuning with a digital tuner and picking up a silver neck the horn is great.lt does have that vibe felling and the only malor diff I can feel is the very high notes are a little thinner than a six.You have to play them differently.As far as 54's go the tone is very different than a Ser3.Smoother and rich sounding as compared to brighter and stronger for the 3,High notes on the 54 are "less" than a six also to my ears.

[Saxhound]

I had the same experience as Dr G when I got my silver Series 3 tenor last year. I was so used to adjusting to the idiosyncracies of my BA that my tuning was all over the place. Likewise, a couple weeks of long tones with a tuner cleared things up. My tone is much more consistant now from note to note because I am not compensating. I also moved down a half strength in reeds because I wasn't trying so hard to bring up all the flat notes. Overall, a very positive improvement.

[RadioImp]

I was up at my local shop taking my alto in, and they had a Ref 56 Tenor in the brushed finish (don't know the proper name for it)
As someone who doesn't like mark VI's (have fingering problems, broke my left pinkie) I found it to be incredible.
I usually play a 1931 Super Sax just for reference.
Tested on a Metal Otto Link 7* and some random reed, good tone, fast keyowrk and great response for full range.
I wanted it! fortunately for my bank balance, i can't afford it, btu just though I'd add my views to this topic.

[kennyj]

During a recent break on a road tour, I decided to rest my preconcieved notions on the Selmer corporation of late, and give a real test to the reference horns.

As a little background, I was a contented Selmer fellow for most of my life. I would try other horns, as a matter of curiosity, but was always reassured by my Selmers. Then the day arrived when I found my now-true-love. This 10M from 1939 just blew my socks off, so to speak. Well, I refused to accept the possibility of a future without my Selmer, so I had my MkVI overhauled, silver-resos, fitted with a sterling neck, and indeed, it was a fabulous horn, just not as fabulous as the 10M, so I de-Selmered.

That out of the way, I arrainged to test drive quite a few 54 and 36 ref. horns. I found the 54s quite consistant, very nimble, and in tune. I favored the 36s, however, in their more robust tone and better feel. But then I pulled out the 10M, and ended the test when the Selmer rep said "WOW."

My biggest problem with the 54s is that they look like a cheap brass lamp from some lousey no-tell motel. What an ugly ugly instrument. But ugly can be ok, I guess. Several of my friends now sport 54s, and they are quite happy people!
ii-V-I
kenny j

[woodwindmaster06]

I love the finish of the 54 it grows on you over time, all the changes, from dark to the bronze, and absolutly you can not see finger prints which is a very good thing.

[Mike W]

I just tried a ref 54 tenor today (brushed finish). It played well--actually quite well. I didn't notice any great resistance--just a tad more than my Super20, but easily manageable with no extra effort. The tone was nice but too civilized for me--sort of like my super20 with several wads of rags stuffed into the bell, but still less edgy. I had difficulty getting enough edge and I tried it with a Dukoff D (0.107") and an Alexander superial reed. For me, the ref 54 would blend very well for section playing, but just doesn't have the presence (cutting ability and edgy tone) of my super 20, although with time and practice it could probably get there for me.
I also tried a Selmer TS100. Nice playing horn, easy blowing, bright tone with some guts (same setup), but an odd key layout compared to what I am used to--not bad though. I remember reading where Harrell said Boots Randolph was playing a TS100 as of late. It sure has that kind of sound. The ref 54 did not.
My wife thought that none of the saxes I played today (I also played a Yamaha 52--nice horn) had as good a tone as my King super20 and I have to agree. I guess different horns (and different tones) for different folks. I was a bit disappointed in the ref 54's sound (for me anyway). Of course, had my wife been willing, I would not have minded buying the ref 54 and playing it for a few years to see what I could eventually make it do.

[Rev. D]

The Super 20 comparison is an interesting one. I have a Super 20 and a Reference 36, and actually find them to be pretty close sound-wise, i.e. huge. Like Dr. G, I must have been one of the lucky ones who got a good 36, though I haven't had the neck measured yet to see if that's the story. To further the comparison, the 36 has only slightly better intonation than the Super 20 (both very good), and its keywork is easier, of course. The Super 20 weighs considerably less so I can go a lot longer without resting when I play it. It also seems to be more responsive to different mouthpieces. If I had to choose, I'd probably take the Super 20 also, but both are amazing horns, and I wouldn't give up either lightly.

[jodurazo]

I just got through a week with a Keilwerth SX90R, a Reference 36 and a Reference 54.

Of these I picked the 54.

The Keilwerth actually produced tone just a bit easier and especially easier on the low notes. The sound was good.

But the Ref. 54 seemed to have more midtones in it (which I like) and a range of tone quality based on how loud I played. Soft gave me really smooth sound. Hard gave me really brassy sound. On the other hand the Keilwerth seemed to have about the same tone no matter what volume I played.

And there was a sound quality on the 54 that I can only describe subjectively as "more mature". It felt like an adult horn where the Keilwerth felt like it was just before full adulthood.

The Ref. 36 had a pretty decent sound but unfortunately its G# key had some friction problems to where it wouldn't CLOSE correctly sometimes, so it was difficult to analyze. It also had a really hard to push high D key. This might have been a good contender but even in perfect playing condition I would have picked the 54 over it.

Also, I love the matte look of the 54. I think it is classier looking than the standard shiny gold. It has understated elegance, and personality without gaudiness. And it's plain different from what you usually see.

[MB-913]

I tried a Ref 54, 2 bad & one good.
I think if Selmer put engraving on it, definitely more people will like it and sales must be better.

Anybody knows if Selmer have any plan to do this?

[Dr G]

If the bad one had been engraved, would you have bought it? :wink: