So which is really brighter - Serie II or III?

[gary]

I was under the impression that the Serie II was more specifically designed for classical music and the III more generic. My understanding was that the III is brighter than the II but last night I read a review by Miles Osland that said the opposite. Any comments?

[superbaguy]

I might be able let you know for sure what I think after this afternoon when I'm planning to try a series II alto. I've tried a series III alto and a couple of tenors, and I'll bet the III alto is brighter than the II alto based on what I've heard from recordings of people playing the II. As for the tenors, I don't know how the II sounds, but the III plays very nicely...definately one of the better new horns. Some would say that the finish (matte, silver, lacquer, black lacquer) factors into this. I'm undecided on that as all of the ones I've played were lacquer.

[jonathanbyrnes]

this is a difficult one to answer because everyone uses these terms (bright and dark) differently. I find the newer series 2 to be warmer and brighter. The series 3 is darker and more clinical in my mind.

[SaxdUp]

My experience is that the II is darker, however the difference is so slight that differences in lacquer type or setup would change this finding, not to mention the individual player...

[RickBusarow]

Well, Gary already knows that I find the Serie II to be considerably darker, but I just thought of something which might make sense and if so, would render most of our opinions more or less worthless.


It seems likely that at least a substantial amount of the time, when anyone gets to playtest various horns back to back they're going to be doing so in a music store, and playing on new instruments.
New instruments are rarely "set up." (and we're talking about Selmers here.)
A common problem on horns which haven't been set up is that they'll have pad leaks.
Of course, a leak hurts responsiveness.
Playing an unresponsive horn is like playing fundamental tones - you adapt your airstream, embouchure, voicebox, and whatnot to accentuate the fundamental tone (lowest pitch in the overtone series, or the note which is below the overtones, or however you'd like to look at it).
We can't purposefully accentuate the fundamental tone without similarly raising the "volume" on the lower partials.
A "dark" sound is typically thought of as a sound in which the lower partials are louder than the higher ones.
Accentuating the fundamental tone (in order to play on a leaky horn?) would then result in the player producing a darker sound than normal.
So, playtesting a horn which hasn't been "set up" yet may not be an adequate way to judge - among many other things - its place on the darkness/brightness spectrum.

Does that make sense?

[Martinman]

Well, Gary already knows that I find the Serie II to be considerably darker, but I just thought of something which might make sense and if so, would render most of our opinions more or less worthless.


It seems likely that at least a substantial amount of the time, when anyone gets to playtest various horns back to back they're going to be doing so in a music store, and playing on new instruments.
New instruments are rarely "set up." (and we're talking about Selmers here.)
A common problem on horns which haven't been set up is that they'll have pad leaks.
Of course, a leak hurts responsiveness.
Playing an unresponsive horn is like playing fundamental tones - you adapt your airstream, embouchure, voicebox, and whatnot to accentuate the fundamental tone (lowest pitch in the overtone series, or the note which is below the overtones, or however you'd like to look at it).
We can't purposefully accentuate the fundamental tone without similarly raising the "volume" on the lower partials.
A "dark" sound is typically thought of as a sound in which the lower partials are louder than the higher ones.
Accentuating the fundamental tone (in order to play on a leaky horn?) would then result in the player producing a darker sound than normal.
So, playtesting a horn which hasn't been "set up" yet may not be an adequate way to judge - among many other things - its place on the darkness/brightness spectrum.

Does that make sense?

Makes sense to me, very well explained. I was lucky enough to get my Ser. II fixed up (for free!) in the shop I bought it from, before I even took it home to try for the first time. It however, is a very bright horn; I can't imagine much more brightness. It almost seems to be a transitional model though, as it has some differences from my friend's older Ser. II, most notably a Ser III octave lever.

[Demolisher]

I feel that a serie II and serie III both setup, a serie II is darker. I feel that most would agree with me. Serie III is definitely faster responding, but also giving it that brighter sound.

[superbaguy]

My trial with the Series II today led me to believe it's darker than the III. I also had a quirky issue with everything being in tune except C# and I preferred the III's keywork, but I preferred the II's darker sound.

[AG]

the earlier Serie II's are darker than the later ones; the ones around N400XXX seem (at least to me) to be darker than the ones N600XXX & later. I think a lot of classical players might agree. I've only played one III alto, and I was reminded of a sweeter, smoother more like a Yamaha Custom sort of sound....nice, but not exactly for me; I didn't think it any brighter than a late II though. Selmers are not always consistent, best to try as many as you can. each horn will be somewhat different, and these generalities don't always apply to every horn. my later II alto is brighter than another guy's earlier one in a community band I play in and a good bit more so than my early Mark VII. some III's may be darker than others....find what works for you, get the horn with the sound that "moves" YOU & has the feel that's right for YOU.

[Mike F]

Gary,

Which Miles Osland review are you referring to? I think your talking about his review on the Selmer site of which he is the moderator.

My opinion is that his comments about the Serie III are somewhat open to interpretation. He says that the Serie III is richer and fuller than the Serie II. That doesn't necessarily mean darker! A horn can certainly be richer fuller AND brighter
than another (Ref 54 compared to just about anything!). He also says that to him a Serie II has an analog sound and a Serie III has a digital sound. I think the generally accepted interpretation of that analogy would be that the Serie III is cleaner and brighter sounding than the Serie II.

MHO is that the Serie III IS cleaner and brighter than the Serie II, but for me 'cleaner' is just more clinical and less interesting. I had two Serie II's but was unimpressed by the Serie III. However I did buy a Ref 54 - WOW!!

Hows that lovely old 'mint' Serie II that you acquired recently?

[gary]

Thanks for your thoughts, Mike. Yes, I'm referring to the comments on the Selmer web site.


He also says that to him a Serie II has an analog sound and a Serie III has a digital sound. I think the generally accepted interpretation of that analogy would be that the Serie III is cleaner and brighter sounding than the Serie II.
This is where I wasn't clear. It's my understanding that the analog vs digital thing was about as settled as the effects or non-effects of various finishes on a sax. But as long as the analogy is defined, I suppose I get the picture.



Hows that lovely old 'mint' Serie II that you acquired recently?Sold right out from under my nose. No need to elaborate. 8-)


...but if I find out it was a SOTWer, I've got a couple of Ukranian neighbors with illegal passports who are willing to travel.... :evil:

[The-A-Sax]

I bought my serie II 6 years ago. I tried about 10 different series II en 5 III.
The saxes I did not choose just sounded awfull. I also let my teacher play them. We put the III away immediatly and went on testing the II. Two remained that I thought sounded very well. One had easy playing low notes that sounded a little darker, the ohter had a very rich open and bright sound with a silvery edge to it. I choose the last. My tech, who repairs the saxes of the Dutch top players told me he had only seen, and heard, once a serie II like mine in his life. That was owned by a pro sax player that would never replace his sax by a MarkVI and he called his sax a canon.
During the years I have tried a lot of serie III and references, but I have never found one that could compeed in brightness with mine.

[dstack79]

Guess I'll chime in...

I've played several Serie II's (tenor)....not one of them impressed me. Maybe i got bad ones...maybe they were inproperly set-up. The low register was sluggish, not a pleasing response.

OTOH, I've played 2 Serie III's, both were fantastic. Struck me as relatively brightish.

Played one Ref 54...far and away the most amazing horn I've ever experienced. I'd describe it as drier and a bit darker than the serie III.

[gary]

The-A-Sax, who had that many to try out. Were you at Saxofoonwinkel or was it someplace else? Maybe a road trip is in my future.

[The-A-Sax]

The-A-Sax, who had that many to try out. Were you at Saxofoonwinkel or was it someplace else? Maybe a road trip is in my future.

Hello Gary,

No, it was not the saxofoonwinkel. It was Hakkert's at the time, in Rotterdam. The shop still exist but is different nowadays, I think. About two years ago they went broke, but they were famous for their large stock. When I bought my soprano there there were even more.

I think saxofoonwinkel is a nice shop, by hearsay, other shops worthwile to visit are Harry Bakker, in Muiderberg, Amsterdam Winds, in Amsterdam and Adam's, I beleive in Ittersweert.

You can search for their websites or I will post links tomorrow because now I'm off to bed.

Bye

[Mike F]

Gary,

Sorry you didn't get that Serie II.

But look on the bright side - take it as a sign that they're not for you and that you should buy a Ref 54!! Honestly, you won't be dissapointed! Try as many as possible though, cos like all Selmers.............

[gary]

s or I will post links tomorrow because now I'm off to bed.
No need to do that. I'll check them out. I can always use an excuse to make a trip to Amsterdam (it's just finding an excuse to leave that's the problem ;) ) Thanks for the info.


...you should buy a Ref 54!! Honestly, you won't be dissapointed!
Soon as I can sell my children into slavery. ;)

[SaxyAcoustician]

The series 3 is darker and more clinical in my mind.
...clinical? :?

[Razzy]

They're different kinds of horns. I don't like either of them, does that count:)

[gary]

They're different kinds of horns. I don't like either of them, does that count:)
Well, dude. You're playing a Mark VI alto, aren't you? We all know that's the Holy Grail! :D

[Razzy]

BINGO! I fart in your general direction(s).

[Michael Ward]

Is that a Haiku ?

[gary]

Is that a Haiku ?
A Haiku:

In your direction
I taunt you, pig, with pink farts
Cherry blossoms wilt


:D

[J.Max]

Here's my .02.

The Serie II is a darker horn, but it's also more resistent. If you like to work against that resistence, it's an excellent horn. In my experience, they tend to be kind of picky about mouthpieces...Selmer S-80s work well with them, Meyers work well with them, Vandoren V5s work well, but most others aren't as good. The intonation is always very good with them, and the ergos are excellent. It's worth mentioning that a lot of classical players play Serie IIs, and with good reason.

The Serie III is brighter, more free blowing, and less picky about mouthpieces. The intonation is also excellent. The sound also isn't as focused with a Serie III and it's less warm.

My advice: Get a Yamaha 875EX. Best of both worlds :D

[Michael Ward]

That's a thing of beauty Gary...

[The-A-Sax]

the earlier Serie II's are darker than the later ones; the ones around N400XXX seem (at least to me) to be darker than the ones N600XXX & later. I think a lot of classical players might agree. I've only played one III alto, and I was reminded of a sweeter, smoother more like a Yamaha Custom sort of sound....nice, but not exactly for me; I didn't think it any brighter than a late II though. Selmers are not always consistent, best to try as many as you can. each horn will be somewhat different, and these generalities don't always apply to every horn. my later II alto is brighter than another guy's earlier one in a community band I play in and a good bit more so than my early Mark VII. some III's may be darker than others....find what works for you, get the horn with the sound that "moves" YOU & has the feel that's right for YOU.

I think this is the best answer to the question. I don't know about the serial numbers but it is definitly true that every Selmer sax from one serie is different from the other. The differences between the saxes of the reference serie are that big that Selmer uses this to advertise with them. There should be always a reference that suits you. And Harry Bakker ( shop ) always keeps a big stock of them.
So, you just have to know what YOU want and search for it.
It is also my experience that a lot people use words like bright, dark, full and they mean all kinds of other aspects of sound.
I think, looking for the ultimate sound is a lifelong search and should be done without exclusion of any sax. Then the search is a lot of fun.

[rispoli]

I think I can offer a fair comparison of tenors here.

Yesterday I had a prospective local buyer of the Mark VI I have for sale coming to visit me. He had with him his serie II which is regularly serviced and setup in the same repair shop I use. Serial was in the early 500K range.
So basically we tested his serie II, my Mark VI and my Serie III. I played on a Tenny stm Link and he used a Lebayle jazz.
I think I can talk of fair comparison because we use the same repair shop and all the units we tested were serviced recently.

In order of brightness: 1. Serie II; 2. Serie III; 3. Mark VI
In order of loudness: 1. Mark VI; 2. Serie III; 3. Serie II; interestingly the VI can be pushed quite more than the others (I thought the III would).
Most free-blowing: 1. Serie III; 2. Mark VI; 3. Serie II
Ease of intonation: 1. Serie III; 2.Serie II; 3. Mark VI

Intrestingly enough we came to the same conclusions (except for intonation where he did equally well on the series II and III, but he's a much more experienced player than me).

I was quite surprised to find that I preferred the serie III in just everything vs. his II.
I also understood what is the resistance of the serie II mentioned by many players and a partial solution is found by switching neck with the III. I say partial because the bottom end was still harder to reach if blowing soft (same as the Mark VI).
My impression (and nothing more than that) is that it is not so likely that you'll like the serie II if you already play on a III.

No need to say that I rejected his proposal of 2000$ cash plus his serie II for my Mark VI....

[LoLa]

most folks would think I agree with AG because I am just a homer and he is such a sweetheart...but I agree with AG because I think he is right.

I never heard a SIII alto I wanted to own. All were too bright and all were brighter than anything I own(ed). SII altos with serial numbers under 500,000 tend (there's wiggle room) to play darker than SIIs of more recent vintage, mho after owning maybe half a dozen through the past few years.

Variables which would definitely affect the evaluation are the mouthpiece and neck. A used SII that has been tweaked is not going to sound like a new SII straight out of the box.

And the school of play, if one is a classical player, is going to affect the observations. French schoolians may find the SIII just right while the Rascherians might liken even the SII to a high pitched dog whistle...c'est la vie...

[AG]

it just all depends on the individual horn IMHO, but generally speaking & not taking all the variables into account III's tend to be brighter than II's....exceptions noted. again, MHO.

(thanks for the compliment, LoLa....now if I could just convince a few others, lol.)

[heath]

Series III in my experience do indeed play brighter and have a faster response then the series II. Most of this can be attributed to the neck design. Swap a series II neck with a series III and it makes for a much easier playing horn imo.

I wouldn't own a series II without using a series III neck on it.

In the short I'd skip both these horns and get a ref or a mark VI, it's a little more money, but you'll be happy in the long run.

[LoLa]

"In the short I'd skip both these horns and get a ref or a mark VI, it's a little more money, but you'll be happy in the long run." -- heath

unless of course one plays principally classical, in which case mho is, the Mark VIs will sit in closets. And the Refs sit in someone else's closets.

SIIs and Yamaha 875s have been the classical workhorses on alto, while the VIs and VIIs dominate the conversation.

[gary]

My final test-play and results can be found at: http://www.saxontheweb.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=420711#post420711 for anyone who's been following these threads.

[Martinman]

The intonation is always very good with them

Realy? the intonation on mine is not that great, and the intonation on my friend's is so bad that he is strongly considering buying a new sax. I only played a couple of Serie IIs (I realize now it was stupid, but I didn't know anything at the time), and he has played a bunch.

Would a different neck help with intonation?

[gary]

Realy? the intonation on mine is not that great, and the intonation on my friend's is so bad that he is strongly considering buying a new sax.
I've played four or five in the last two months and intonation on none of them was problematic. I normally play a Conn 6M with which I have to make tuning adjustments as I play so, perhaps since I'm accustomed to adjusting, I might have carried that over to the Serie IIs I tried. Don't know. But in any case, none of them had intonation problems that were obviously problematic. (Well, the C#s were a little low but I compensated.)

[DaveR]

I've played four or five in the last two months and intonation on none of them was problematic.

Just out of interest Gary, did you check these horns with a tuner whilst you were playing; or did you record them against synths? Having owned two Ser 2s and one Ser 3, I found them all very taxing as regards absolute intonation over the entire range. I find a Mk6 and a Ref 54 far easier to play in tune despite their rather 'squirrelly' scales.

The first Ser 2 I owned had an extra quarter-tone's (or so it seemed) difference between middle C# and middle E. And whilst that interval will always be wide, that horn was ridiculous!

[gary]

Just out of interest Gary, did you check these horns with a tuner whilst you were playing; or did you record them against synths?
With a tuner, Dave. But when I play with a tuner, I usually play intervals without looking at the tuner. Then I replay and look. I don't want to be enfluenced by the tuner, so I don't look first. And, since real-life playing circumstances are relative and you have to adjust a little at times, I tune to intervals, making my ear do the work. That would get to your question, perhaps, about playing along with a synth. Playing each tone, isolated and directly into the tuner, no, I did not do that.

And, of course, the proof in the pudding will be when I play with other musicians and groups.