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!
 
#2 ·
I had the chance to test them.

There was indeed a noticeable difference .... I liked my sound better without the "Lefreque" :mrgreen:

I'm always quite skeptical about such ascecoires, and that might perhaps have influenced my opinion.

Just my 2cts as an amateur player of course.
 
#40 ·
I have set of these also. Sold to me by a very enthousiastic shop owner
when I walked in fo a pack of patches. And I must admitt there is a noticable difference
in tone. I tried them on and off over and over again playing against the wall.
However I also noticed that not every mouthpiece I have responds equally to it.
On some mouthpieces it doesn't do anything, while on others there is an obvious change audible.
That said I am not sure if it is both as audible to the player and to the listener as I tried to record
some comparisons and the differences were still there but very little.
Also not sure if there was an increase in emotions. She was a very nice sales lady though... got
to go back soon for some new patches again:mrgreen:
Anyway, from experiences I dare to declare right here on this forum the Lefreque thingies do affect the tone (a little) under the right circumstances.
Unfortunatly I am not converted yet.
 
#5 ·
#7 ·
As usual, a query is reduced to a joke...

At any rate, Jaz, I can see the idea behind it. Linking the separate parts of the instrument, to increase sympathetic vibrations carried over between mouthpiece and neck. Thinking about it, the cork barrier between the mouthpiece and neck would serve to deaden vibrations, just as putting cork anywhere else would. Whether this device makes a big difference or not, I can't say, as I have not tried it. Still, as I said, I can see the idea behind it. It's similar to the trend of having the bow of the instrument soldered to the body tube. I might be interested to try it sometime, thought regardless of effect I feel the design would make for difficult setup, and also could post a problem for making intonation adjustments... So, I can't offer an informed review, but only some informed thought. :)

Steve P
 
#8 ·
As usual, a query is reduced to a joke...

At any rate, Jaz, I can see the idea behind it. Linking the separate parts of the instrument, to increase sympathetic vibrations carried over between mouthpiece and neck. Thinking about it, the cork barrier between the mouthpiece and neck would serve to deaden vibrations, just as putting cork anywhere else would. Whether this device makes a big difference or not, I can't say, as I have not tried it. Still, as I said, I can see the idea behind it. It's similar to the trend of having the bow of the instrument soldered to the body tube. I might be interested to try it sometime, thought regardless of effect I feel the design would make for difficult setup, and also could post a problem for making intonation adjustments... So, I can't offer an informed review, but only some informed thought. :)

Steve P
The "sympathetic vibrations" of a woodwind instrument are inaudible. It's the vibrating column of air that makes the sound. As such, they don't solder the bow to the body to increase sympathetic vibrations. They do it to keep air from leaking out. Not that any of this matters. There are enough people who believe in "sympathetic vibrations" despite what the science says to keep these things alive and marketing for some time. Cannonball is doing it now with their "Stone Series" horns. SG did it before them with "nodal weights" on replacement necks. Don't waste your money.
 
#10 ·
Awesome! This "Dutch Original Sound Solution" just bumped the Saxgourmet Neck Enhancer off my Top 5 Worthless Products List:

1) P-lig (http://forum.saxontheweb.net/showth...-to-pimp-your-sound&highlight=pimp+your+sound)

2) Swing Chips (http://www.b-air.jp/en/products/swing-chip)

3) Nano Liquid (http://www.b-air.jp/en/products/nano-liquid)

4) LefreQue (http://www.lefreque.com/home)

5) Cryogenic Treatment (http://www.saxgourmet.com/cryogenic.htm)

The LefreQue just made it to Number 4. Maybe I should expand this to a Top 10 List. Neck Enhancers, nodal weights, and resonance stones are just too good to be left out.

By the way, I nominate this thread title for Best Thread Title of the Year. Well done!
 
#11 ·
Thats and incredible list. I love what they did to the swing chips "NC processed (computer controlled carving) and CYRO treated (Extreme Chilling Treatment).". And the Nano Liquid "Sound enhancement oil “Nano Liquid” is made from dispersion processed carbon particles melted into oil." . Its cutting edge b&*())sh*((t !
 
#13 ·
I had a smart *ss remark, but I completely forgot it after reading everyone else's.

PT Barnum is often credited with saying "A fool and his money are soon parted". Best I can do at the moment.
 
#14 ·
Much thanks to everyone who responded.

I'm also rather dubious about the "advantages" of using the LefreQue. However, special thanks to Klarisa since he seems to be the only one with actual experience with this item, and to Steve P who sensed my genuine curiosity and interest in the Lefreque---despite my tongue-in-cheek title!

In all seriousness, it's too bad there isn't a scientifically-valid way to confirm--or disprove--all the claims out there by vendors. Of course science can't evaluate "beauty" in tone; but it should be able to measure definable qualities in sound, by which objective comparisons can be made.

...I think...
 
#33 ·
it is really very easy to devise a test for an added implement such as le freque or the schucht gizmo , you are using the same saxophone and not a different one (as you would to prove or disprove influence of the metal) or at a different and far apart time (as you would with a lacquered unlacquered test on the same horn) and you can have someone mounting it so that both the player and the audience are blinded

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_experiment

anyone with sufficient money and wanting to prove something (first of all to themselves) could and should do this
 
#17 ·
I know its creator, Hans Kuijt, and I have seen and heard him playing with the " le freq" , I even know the previous version which he developed together with Ton Kooiman.

Hans Kuijt is a great player and educator and always very busy in promoting himself and his initiatives.

I am convinced that Hans truly believes in this thing. I am not convinced at all it does anything either in this present form or the previous incarnation (which was a piece of metal incorporated in the cork to , supposedly, aid the mouthpiece vibration being transferred to the horn)

Here what I already wrote before about it

............Anyway, not so long ago, a friend of mine Hans Kuijt ( a great player and educator no question about that!) invented an new gizmo, " le freque" which supposedly should help communicating the vibration trough the parts of a saxophone or other wind instruments which supposedly reduce the vibrations.
http://www.lefreque.com/

Anyway upon demonstration and at a 1 meter distance I couldn't hear any difference in the playing while he was demonstrating the influence of the " le freque" . Obviously I believe that Hans is honest about it and truly believes that the gizmo works. I couldn't hear it.
.
Whatever vibrations are in the wall of any saxophone these are of a minimal amplitude in relation to the vibration of the air column, besides the whole body of the saxophone has holes and cork and felt everywhere which would dampen and diffuse wall vibration to a level that no piece of ay metal could conduce even if the saxophone would be designed to work like a bell (which obviously isn't).

Of course one can, even in all honesty, believe this is the next best thing after bread and butter but before any commercial enterprise is started it would have been better to put this through SERIOUS triple blind scientific trials because, as it is, anybody can fool himself with the equivalent of the P-ligging (search button please!).

Another such fantasy device is the sound expander by Schucht

http://www.schuchtsaxtechnology.com/Produkte/Sound_EXpander/sound_expander.html

which should be the ideal companion to " le freque" by carrying the vibration of the upper and medium part of the saxophone to the bell..........another useless piece of expensive kit to do something that at best (but I doubt) is measurable in minute energy transfer and no influence on the sound whatsoever.

There are all sorts of these fantasies in the world of saxophone (and flutes!) banking of the insecurity and gullibility of people who have more money than judgement, all of these present " common sense " explanations based on intuition but no science, as I often say intuition is what makes us say that the sun sets while the horizon goes up, it is just not the way to face these things.
 
#22 ·
yeah I tried that lefreque and posted my non effect on a dutch saxforum.
A lot of people said they did notice some things when playing with the lefreque but listening to recordings they dont sound different. So maybe its the placebo effect that works for people, they want to believe they sound better they feel more self confident etc...
 
#23 ·
the only way to judge this and any other controversial implement is by a scientific blind test , in no other way one can be sure that knowing that the object is there is not influencing you hearing something or playing differently because you know that the object is there.While this is very difficult within the diatribe saxophone material and finish because of the impossibility to know that two saxophones of different materials would be the same or the impossibility to strip a saxophone and and make the comparison to the unstripped saxophone one after another. It should be relatively easy to test in a triple blind experiment the same horn with or without the implements in question. The fact that none of these people claiming any such effect supposedly due to these implements, go past having a go at playing with and without the item in question shows that they are not taking themselves seriously and are willing to let themselves be fooled by expectations.
 
#24 ·
I would love to see a player with ALL these 'enhancements' on their horn...
P-lig wound beneath a LeFreque (next to the neck enhancer of course) then maybe a thick coat of nano oil slicked around the bell. A mistletoe sprinkling of Swingchips and then the lower stack steaming with cryogenic frost!

Yeah, I would pay to see that! :D
 
#27 ·
as I said, I am not, because I know him, doubting the intellectual honesty of Hans Kuijt, he is genuinely convinced that this thing works, but I just don't think that all this people placing such claims ( some others to a various degree of intellectual honesty) have put too much critical research in the game and just went out to seek a way to realise what they think must be the answer to the "problem " and that is that vibrations of the woodwind body are terribly dampened and need being propagated somehow.

Le freque and the schucht gizmo are certainly within this realm others might not be and some are definitely a ridiculous thing (the P-ligging) altogether.
 
#28 ·
I na way, if someone really truly believes in their product, the fact that it's efficacy (is that the right word?) cannot be scientifically proven only becomes relevant when the advertising becomes misleading.

A typical advertisers' response when accused of false claims is that it's very obviously an exaggeration or tongue in cheek. last night I saw an ad with a shot of someone apparently enjoying a pint of carlsberg. I almost wrote in to complain to the Advertising Standards Authority.

At least with this one, I doubt people would be mislead as the claims (e.g "more emotion") are so ridiculous, you would need to be more than few sandwiches short of a picnic to fall for it.
 
#49 ·
At least with this one, I doubt people would be misled as the claims (e.g "more emotion") are so ridiculous, you would need to be more than few sandwiches short of a picnic to fall for it.
One would think so. However, unfortunately there are more than enough people out there "a few sandwichs short of a picnic" to fall for this scam and many other even more obvious scams. PT Barnum had it right.
 
#29 ·
Has anyone checked the prices on these LefreQues? They run anywhere from 40 to 200 euros, depending on what materials you choose. I think you could just make your own with an old fishing spoon and a couple of small zip ties. In fact, these LefreQues look an awful lot like a Luhr-Jensen Krocodile lure. So I guess the good news is that if the LefreQue doesn't improve your sound, at least you can slap a treble hook on it and go catch yourself a nice trout for dinner . . .
 
#52 ·
Well, it was scientifically proven by Ted Williams many years ago (I saw it on the fishing channel) that fish are very sensitive to sound and as a result are highly emotional creatures. Why do you think Paul Horn was always playing by the water's edge? Clearly a device that creates more emotion is going to lure them much more than it does saxplayers, who are an emotionless lot, so the LeFreak guy needs to put a new spin on this and market it to fisherman. Now there's a group of guys who really will buy anything touted to work, no matter how far fetched.

N.B., I only wish I had had one of these this summer instead of those useless big green rubber worms I was using.

Well, cryo-treatment of the horn is old fashioned, how about cryo-treating the player? :mrgreen:
When they finally defrost Walt Disney we'll get to see how much his sax playing has improved.

By the way, how about strapping a magnet to the neck of a sax to "alter the molecular structure of the air flowing through"? :mrgreen:
You should patent that idea because it sounds like a surefire winner that you can then sell to Mr. Larson E. Whipsnade down in New Orleans. It's right up his back alley practice.
 
#31 ·
In all seriousness, it's too bad there isn't a scientifically-valid way to confirm--or disprove--all the claims out there by vendors. Of course science can't evaluate "beauty" in tone; but it should be able to measure definable qualities in sound, by which objective comparisons can be made.
Actually I think there are several past discussions refering to scientific data on this site, which are frequently ignored. The add on items mentioned above prey on our tendency to look outside ourselves for a solution rather than focusing on the hard work part of improving our playing. If you look at the claims objectively they are pretty laughable voodoo science, whether the originator/inventor believes in it or not.
 
Top