Sax on the Web Forum banner

What the LefreQue?

152K views 597 replies 79 participants last post by  Angel Sampedro del Río 
#1 ·
Sorry about the pun...I couldn't resist!

However, I am obsessed with any accessory that might improve my tone, technique, or artistry with the saxophone. I saw this website and was simultaneously intrigued and amused:

http://www.lefreque.com/home

Has anyone here tried this item? Can you please provide an informed review?

Thanks!
 
#540 ·
the walls vibrate passively and with incredibly small energy compared to the energy of the reed or air column.

But the most important fact is that you hold the saxophone in you hands and have it in your mouth.

EVEN if these vibration would contribute to the sound (and they are infinitesimal) they would be absorbed but the contact with severla parts of the body.

Unlike a percussion instrument (where the instrument itself produces the sound vibration) the saxophone and any other wind instrument vibrates passively, and so does a room where you play, (the room doesn’t sound does it?) but when you want to stop a cymbal “ playing” you touch it with your hands.

However hit a cymbal or a triangle or a drum with a stick and you will hear its sound freely vibrating. What is the sound of a saxophone? Thud! ...and then you hold it in your hands and between your lips. What you feel are the vibrations ABSORBED by your hands.
 
#543 ·
the inventor of this contraption promised, when he introduced it, to have it tested by some important university.

Delft University would certainly qualify.
https://www.tudelft.nl/en/faculty-of-applied-sciences/about-faculty/departments/imphys/
We are still waiting for a probatory test.

Nothing even remotely scientifically meaningful has been provided, to date.

The various" tests" with players affected by their bias are not scientifically serious.
 
#545 ·
Wow, I hesitate to reply to this because of all that has been said before, but I actually own a LeFreque for my flute and use it profitably. Whether or not it's scientific, my experience has been that it makes my instrument louder, the C# less sharp, and makes the low notes easier. One day (and maybe it was just an off day) I was struggling with the C# "out-ness" and the low notes, thinking how bad I was and wondering why, and then realized I had forgotten to put it on. I play in a flute quartet with 3 other women, and we all own one. Two of the group feel that it does nothing for their flutes. They have the same model flute, by the way, a very fine model. The fourth woman has a phenomenally wonderful flute costing a small fortune. Both she and myself, with my humble solid silver, non-open-hole Gemeinhardt, think the LeFreque makes a positive difference. I have a recording studio, and the wave pattern with the Le Freque is higher, so it is either higher frequency or louder in volume.

For sax, I tried the experiment of using copper tubing squashed flat with a rubber band binding it to the instrument, but it doesn't seem to help saxophone in my case.
 
#546 ·
Just wondering, what model is the flute that costs "a small fortune?"
 
#552 ·
Miking Considerations: Placement

The sound of a saxophone is fairly well distributed between the finger holes and the bell. The bell at the end of the saxophone produces only a part of the sound. Any open hole on the instrument also produces sound. As a result, the saxophone radiates sound in a much wider pattern than brass, for example, and a common technique is to position microphones to pick up sound from the holes and the bell.

DEAN GIAVARAS That's the crux of miking a saxophone well: recognizing and acknowledging the fact that the sound is a column of air that moves through the horn from the mouthpiece to the end of the bell. For any notes where all the keys aren't closed (high notes especially), much of the sound comes from lowest or last open sound holes on the body of the horn. That's just a fact. So shoving a microphone straight down the bell of the horn isn't always the best way to do it.

ADAM HILL Imagine a triangle, where the top of the horn and the bottom of the horn and the mic and make an equilateral triangle. You get a nice, balance of the reed and the low-end from the bell, all in one go. The distance of the mic is dependent on the size of the horn: the larger the horn, the farther away it's going to be to create the equilateral triangle.

http://blog.shure.com/choosing-a-saxophone-microphone/
 
#556 ·
if there was any chance that the use of this fantasy implement could even remotely be corroborated by any scientific research, by now, we would have it.

All we have is people saying how much better their instrument play.

This is ONLY marketing, not science.

ANY phenomenon in the physical world has to has a theory that makes scientific sense even before it is proven THIS and other implements claim effect but have no theoretical base to explain itself.

This is not quantum physics, this is acoustics, none of of the principles governing acoustics are not fully understood but even if it were the care a theory upon which basing the so called observed phenomenon should be formulated.

Which is it?
 
#557 ·
"ANY phenomenon in the physical world has to has a theory that makes scientific sense even before it is proven THIS and other implements claim effect but have no theoretical base to explain itself."

This is an overstatement.

Franklin proved that lightning was electrical generations before there was any theory about electrons to explain the process.

Similarly, the phenomenon of gravity was worked out by Galileo and Newton (for the most part) and yet we STILL do not have a theory of quantum gravity necessary to explain the measurements taken. Newton had no explanation for the mechanism.

Establishing the existence of a phenomenon on a scientific basis by observation is NOT the same as working out a theory, and the two are not rigidly connected.

If a double blind repeated study model showed that a marshmallow stuck to your shoe opened up middle D for every saxophone, then that would be the end of it: sufficient evidence and facts = a provisional conclusion that should be accepted until better facts and evidence come along. It would be up to the theorists to work out HOW that crazy thing worked ---- we would already know that it DID work.

We have post #105 and solid work by our leading sax pal Pete Thomas here:
https://tamingthesaxophone.com/saxophone-sound-enhancing-products

This seems like a pretty good observational basis for concluding what this lefreque critter does and does not do.

If the gizmo worked, then it would be just too bad that current science had no theory that encompassed it. Somebody would be getting a thesis paper out ...

There is no reason to weaken a perfectly good argument by overstatement.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that scientific theoretical advancements are quite often driven by unexplained reliable observations.

I am no scientist, and have no authority cited for my assertions other than historical.
 
#559 ·
Franklin proved that lightning was electrical generations before there was any theory about electrons to explain the process.

Similarly, the phenomenon of gravity was worked out by Galileo and Newton (for the most part) and yet we STILL do not have a theory of quantum gravity necessary to explain the measurements taken. Newton had no explanation for the mechanism.

Establishing the existence of a phenomenon on a scientific basis by observation is NOT the same as working out a theory...
Well sure, these statements are true (although I think there is some gravitational theory based on quantum mechanics beyond Newton's theory--& beyond my understanding--, but his theory stands up within certain parameters), and there are many observable phenomena that have yet to be fully explained. However, in the scientific world, when a given effect is observed, hypotheses are put forward and tested. Eventually, if enough conclusive evidence is gathered, then one of those hypotheses may be proven true. If not, the search continues. And in fact even when an hypothesis is proven or brought up to the level of a theory, there are always more questions and problems to solve in 'fine tuning' the theory.

The difference here (with the Lefreque) is that there is NO observable phenomenon to explain, aside from the placebo effect. Until a double blind test shows beyond doubt that placing a piece of metal on the outside of a saxophone produces a noticeable change in the tone or sound of the instrument, there is no phenomenon on which to base an hypothesis. Beyond that, along the lines of what milandro is saying (I think), there's nothing in the world of acoustics to form any sort of reasonable hypothesis on why or how such a device could affect the sound; this lies in the realm of 'extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence.'

But we've already been down this road earlier in this thread. I'm just rehashing it here. The importance of the scientific method, critical thinking, and dealing with factual data far exceeds the importance of this particular device. I think we're seeing just how important given the state of affairs even now, in the 21st century. Unfortunately, many people are still living in the superstitious 'dark ages.'
 
#558 ·
see it as you wish

in my opinion there are several sources that mention theories (or at least hypothesis which is the first step in formulating a theory http://www.oakton.edu/user/4/billtong/eas100/scientificmethod.htm ) by said scientists elaborated for all said phenomena but this becomes a not particularly useful discussion and I am not going to engage in it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_gravitational_theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_theory_of_electricity

But I am closing this parenthesis here and now. I am not going to go there again and reopen it or respond. If we have different ideas let's keep it that way and never the twain shall meet.

Moving on.

I want to hear from anyone which principle governs LeFreque and why (hypothesis to form a theory http://www.oakton.edu/user/4/billtong/eas100/scientificmethod.htm) . Talking of vibrations of the walls being responsible for increase in volume and improved intonation is not a theory, is gibberish.

This is the point here, other discussions are other discussions and do not pertain to this one.

Let's stick to LeFreque's. Please.
 
#561 ·
I could not agree more about sticking to the LeFreque instead of talking about pure theory.

Furthermore, I have a concrete suggestion to move this forward that has nothing to do with theory.

I assume that the problem here might be that the LeFreque supporters do not think that Pete is sufficiently objective.

Post #105 tells the whole story, and I cannot see any reasonable way to disagree. However, let us give these LeFreque supporters that. Let us also suppose that they know nothing about saxophone acoustic theory, or perhaps are so advanced that they could only explain by math that is way over our heads.

What could be done to convince us?

Then it came to me:
Forget about any theory. Just have the gizmo tested in a double blind setup at a major university. That way the performance of the item could be objectively measured and no one would have to explain how it works, they could just present proof that it DID work!

What is more, perhaps it could be suggested that a place known for such studies be picked, like, say UNSW in Australia? Wait, I got a better idea! Maybe we could pick a place close to the manufacturer, like NTO Delft.

[Oh, rats. Foiled again. Someone much wiser than me beat me to the punch and suggested exactly this earlier in this thread. See posts ## 23, 67, 92, and 543. Well, at least we all seem agree that a double blind would establish efficacy of this LeFreque device.]

I think Pete Thomas did the heavy lifting, and that is that.
 
#560 ·
In the NL we have an Anti-Quackery league https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vereniging_tegen_de_Kwakzalverij (internationally you have the Quackwatch https://www.quackwatch.org or Skeptic https://www.skeptic.com).

Those organizations seek to eradicate superstitious behavior and profiteering from the medical world where selling anything that hasn't a proven effect is illegal in most countries in the world.

Any product making any seemigly " scientific" claim should be compelled anywhere to provide evidence.

The reality is that this is only true of the medical science (and even there companies are fined every year to have made such claims improperly).

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/16/b...&gwh=F14FCABB82E519A19FDC316185A219BA&gwt=pay

http://uk.businessinsider.com/false-advertising-scandals-2016-3?international=true&r=UK&IR=T

If companies are held accountable for these claims (read the links please) why can't we require any company selling a piece of metal for this much money to provide the evidence that they are NOT providing?

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/media-resources/truth-advertising

When consumers see or hear an advertisement, whether it's on the Internet, radio or television, or anywhere else, federal law says that ad must be truthful, not misleading, and, when appropriate, backed by scientific evidence. The Federal Trade Commission enforces these truth-in-advertising laws, and it applies the same standards no matter where an ad appears - in newspapers and magazines, online, in the mail, or on billboards or buses. The FTC looks especially closely at advertising claims that can affect consumers' health or their pocketbooks - claims about food, over-the-counter drugs, dietary supplements, alcohol, and tobacco and on conduct related to high-tech products and the Internet. The FTC also monitors and writes reports about ad industry practices regarding the marketing of alcohol and tobacco.

When the FTC finds a case of fraud perpetrated on consumers, the agency files actions in federal district court for immediate and permanent orders to stop scams; prevent fraudsters from perpetrating scams in the future; freeze their assets; and get compensation for victims.

IF there is any beef show it and show it well with the appropriate science to back it up, or otherwise just say " LeFreque looks nice on your flute for the man and woman of distinction" and nobody would bat an eyelid
 
#565 ·
OK, I have now done some more scientific blind audio tests. This time, not the lefreque, but one of its main competitors, the Soundsnake.

Listen to the audio comparisons on this page, which were carried out under much more rigourous conditions than my previous double blind lefreque tests:

https://tamingthesaxophone.com/sound-snake

Granted, the difference is extremely subtle, but those with good enough ears may detect a little extra je ne sais quois in the tone and emotional expressivity. I can honestly vouch for the fact that while trying to play the exact same phrase again, and without knowing whether the gizmo was attached, I am finally a convert to these sound enhancing products. But don't take my word for it, as usual.
 
#568 ·
Thanks for the awesome demonstration Pete. Yes, I think I detected a slight difference in those two clips! You've provided incontestable proof...

Hey click, the reason I mentioned 'our current' society is two-fold. One of the reasons I can't really bring up here due to a totally understandable rule against getting into politics/religion and other non-sax related inflammatory topics. But the other is that I'm amazed that here in the 21st century, after HUGE gains in scientific knowledge over the past century (actually the past few centuries), we are still dealing with so much of an assault on reason, rational thinking, a major blurring of the line between fact and fiction, and an explosion of anti-intellectual, anti-scientific 'thought.' But you're right; it's nothing new, just surprising to me how prevalent it is. I can only assume it's due to ignorance and a lack of good education. One current problem is the ease with which any crazy nonsense can spread due to social media. The positive side of the internet era is the ready availability of good information, but that's not so useful to those who can't tell the difference btw valid information and nonsense.
 
#570 ·
They say in comedy timing is everything. Kudos to Pete Thomas for patiently waiting for 29 pages before springing his "Soundsnake" satirical comedy on those of us still reading this thread. Perhaps he could be "knighted" by the SOTW staff similar to other outstanding members of the U.K.
 
#572 ·
I'm not sure I heard a difference in Pete's 2 sound samples. If you heard a difference, I think it's because you want to hear a difference.
 
#578 ·
Didn't read all the posts.
Went to my tech today (Bruce Belo) where he worked on my alto, tenor and C flute.
He mentioned the LefreQue it and asked if I had heard of it.
I said that there are a lot of comments on SOTW about it.
Asked if I had tried it, I said no.
So I did a AB test on my alto.
A small tone change when bridged between neck and mpc but not between reed and neck.
Lower notes had a little bit better response.
I have a Buescher 140 which is very similar to A. Sax's original tube which I believe was tuned to 435 when low Bb is played.
That Bb is quite flat compared to all notes above as measured on a tuner.
When he put the Lefreque on the pitch came up quite a bit.
Supposedly the added harmonics from the applied device combined with the normally heard ones created an overall higher pitch, what do you think?
I tried it several times.
 
#586 ·
Not my cup of tea. While he';s obviously skilled it is not pleasing to my Western ears. My comment about the effect of the medallions attached to his horn was tongue in cheek since we were back on the LeFreqQue thread. Not meant to be dismissive of the man';s skills. It was meant to be ironic.

I can’t stand rap/hip hop and I can almost tolerate country. His music just doesn’t float my boat to borrow a phrase.
 
#587 ·
Just checked out a couple of his Youtube clips and I think his music is pretty cool. It's Indian music, so may not be familiar to 'Western ears.' But I like Indian music, so maybe that's why I can appreciate what he does.

As to the various amulets hanging from his horn, they are cosmetic (or 'cosmic'?) and I'd bet anything that he doesn't ascribe his sound to any effect from them, unless they add a bit of a jingle like a wind chime, which would get lost in the mix for the most part. Nor from the jewelry hanging on him. But it all adds to the VISUAL effect. Nice!

If the LaFreak was marketed as a nice bit of jewelry simply designed to add some sparkle to your horn, I'd have no issue with that.
 
#589 ·
Just checked out a couple of his Youtube clips and I think his music is pretty cool. It's Indian music, so may not be familiar to 'Western ears.' But I like Indian music, so maybe that's why I can appreciate what he does.
His stuff is excellent, and is another example of the great versatility of the saxophone. It sounds like it might have been invented to play Carnatic music.

Also, Gopalnath shows that if you play the alto while sitting cross-legged on the floor, you don't need a neck strap. This precedent could come in handy for the rest of us.
 
#591 ·
Notably he used ( certainly in the past ) old HP instruments. He then went to a LP instrument but appears to have reverted to HP.

Shirish Malhotra SOTW member has in the past procured HP instruments to Indian saxophone players. Of course they cannot be tenors because they need being played while sitting down.
 
#593 ·
View attachment 256790

Yesterday I watched a 2017 concert of Timothy McAllister as soloist for the John Adams work "City Noir" on the Berliner Philarmoniker digital concert website. It was interesting to see him using a Lefreque sound bridge on his Selmer Alto.
Yes, but what's the ligature?
 
Top