You probably would have been better off starting your own thread...because your questions are good and appropriate of a new conversation.
Hmmm Im relatively newbie... maybe I'll cut and past this into a new one. I feel guilty starting a new thread sort of... but maybe that is the way to go. Glad its not a stupid questions!..thanks
That's a really old one....first off, my question would be....is it a Conn 'stencil', or was it made when Pan Am still existed as it's own company ? Yeah, CG (the second CG, not Conn but Greenleaf) owned both companies, but PanAm had it's own separate facility initially, and (presumably) its own tooling. Sorta like when the Indiana Band Instrument company or the Cleveland Band Instrument company existed as their won entities prior to being bought up by Martin and HN White. Saxpics states PanAms were always Conn stencils...this is inaccurate, however (but not atypical of Saxpics' somewhat extrapolative stabs at history).
Thanks for that perspective. You sound like a Conn-man... ;- 0....hmmmm Well, its right around a 1930 horn based on what I can tell and look at. Doesn't that automatically make it a stencil i.e., right within the range of the Conn stencil period? with no "confounding variables" in the estimation such as what you've described?
Next...can there be such a thing as too wide a spread to the low end ??? Isn't that what folks dig vintage horns for ?
Oh yeah,,,too much of a good thing? definitely. Ive heard the description of sound :"falling apart:" when pushed etc. It seems to be along those lines.
In answer to your question...sure, a change in setup can probably alter that particular dynamic. Beyond that, I cannot offer much advice. But certainly a change in mouthpiece can either narrow or widen, subdue or punch, the low overtones and spread of any sax....
thats my thought at least initially... Its a medium chamber with a opened up throat transition to the chamber. nice in some ways of course. (btw, I have a '46 alto Lady Conn with RTH etc. that plays beautifully..but its been perfected with work by a local guru....the tenor hasnt been overhauled in a looong time.
Three: "real 10m" ? Here's the thing...folks will often sell a Pan Am or 16M claiming it is a 'poor man's 10M" or some such malarkey like that. I have seen so many auctions where someone references a 10M in order to talk up their sale....it has become commonplace. Sorta what folks do when comparing a Cleve to an S20...or a Committee to an Indiana.
That's funny.. Ihave a '56 Indiana. But overall Id agree with your sentiment.. that's why Im asking all of this. Funny but lots of people say the body tube of Martins is largely unchanged for decades, often by real afficiandos, not just yakkers.
But (stating the obvious)...the specs of a 10M body tube, bow, bellpiece and neck are NOT the same as PanAm/16M...so, of course...the sound will not be the same. A 10M doesn't sound like a PanAm...nor does a Chu or Tranny. Different body specs, different sound. If mfr's second-line horns sounded like their top shelfers....everyone would have 16M's and it wouldn't be a very wise marketing decision by the company, really...would it ?
Ahh.. maybe I mistated.. I meant to compare to the PA's contemporary in the Conn marque.. which would be the 16M, no? In that case I restate my question... to ask viz. the 16M (which is the older version of the 10m, correct?)
BUT...there IS definitely a classic Conn tonal attribute which ALL old Conns possess...mainly a very big, dark, and wide tone particularly in the bottom end, yet the darkness does not overshadow all else (as in, say, a Keilwerth). A 16M/PanAm has it....it's not quite as sweet sounding as a 10M, it is a narrower sound and not quite as dark....but comparably speaking to other mfr's...it is still a pure Conn sound.
Yea-- I think Im getting the 10m/16m/PA thing here.. And yep I do recall playing a Keilwerth years ago and thinking its a bruiser and dark etc.
But one cannot say (with a straight face) that the sound of a PanAm = 90% 10M. Or anything like that. There are definite similarities, though.
Right, I guess Id have to restate the proposal......all things equal (which is a big contingency) PA= 90% of a 16M ( or 74.8% of a 10M?).. But seriously, numbers aside, I wonder where there real differences lie.. apples to apples old PA to 16M of its day. Im probably going to see the local Conn guru who is a great player and posts. He's a huge advocate of 10Ms (Les)
But they are still sweet sounding old horns. Very much so that "big ol' american Tenor sound" which one cannot find anymore in contemporary horns.
I'd love it if you posted a few pics....