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!
 
#71 ·
I gotta tell you, if you are having a dull day, you need to reread this entire thread because it is a hoot. It had me LMAO by the 2nd page. However, as Milandro mentioned in a previous post, if the concept actually works you can just strap an equivalent piece of metal on your sax to get the same effect. For instance you could take a sterling silver tea spoon or small butter knife and strap it across the tenon gap with duct tape and test it for yourself without wasting money on the LaFreaky version.
 
#76 ·
This guy shows how to get more emotion in your playing and it doesn't involve pimping the sax with metal doodads, just plain old technique.

 
#77 ·
Folks, try it before hanging it, don't blabber on and convict a new invention you know absolutely nothing about, lefreque works for nearly everybody with an open mind and open ears. If you can't hear or feel any difference after extensive trials it could very well be that you are true amateurs in the bad sense in that you can't play properly yourselves in which case you shouldn't be judging anything anyway.
" blind tests " have already been done with beginner students, 8-9-10 year olds who couldn't even play tones properly yet but with lefreque on their instrument were able to start tones immediately, with much reduced effort and more ease.
And these kids did not know what it was all about and did not have any preconceived ideas about lefreque.
 
#78 ·
If you can't hear or feel any difference after extensive trials it could very well be that you are true amateurs in the bad sense in that you can't play properly yourselves in which case you shouldn't be judging anything anyway.
LOL! Now that's a helluva marketing angle! You LefreQue people are good! Would the same logic apply to Swing Chips and Nano Liquid, too?

But wait . . . I thought you said it did work for little kids who "couldn't even play tones properly." Now I'm confused. More emotion. The LefreQue strikes again!
 
#81 ·
On the other hand, if we consider the converse of your statement in post #77, any amateur who tries one of these and doesn't hear a difference in his playing will have the true amateur nature of his ability confirmed. Perhaps for some amateurs that would be a demoralizing realization, in which case they most likely won't want to buy one of these so they can maintain the illusion of being better than they really are. If on the other hand they are amateurs who already know that their playing sucks, there isn't much incentive to buy one of these either. Why would someone pay $40 or $50 to find out what they already know for free?

Man, you've got one hell of an enticing sales pitch there, don't you?
 
#83 ·
Well I said that because I think they need to put it to a real test with a Pro like you who everyone on here knows. I was hoping you would throw the guantlet down Pete, but I couldn't speak for you since if you find there to be no difference it will prove for all the world to know that you are really just "a bad amateur who can't play properly". :TGNCHK::TGNCHK::mrgreen:[rolleyes]:lol:
 
#84 ·
It won't mean so much if I don't find a difference. In my ligature tests I found no difference yet other people did (e.g. Buck Laughlin) I accept that some people hear things that others don't. I always approach these kinds of tests with an open mind and let the soundfiles speak for themselves, though I would still say in this case I'm dubious about the increase in emotion, but we'll see. If they dare take up the challenge.
 
#85 ·
True. And didn't Dave Valdez prove that you can get a bigger more resonant sound simply from using a big brass hook on the end of your neck strap instead of a wimpy plastic one? So it must have something to do with the resonant nature of brass when attached to a sax. In which case, forget the LeFreque. If you really want to have that big ballsy testosterone-filled sound, strap a pair of these on your horn and instantly become "Da Man".

 
#86 ·
Nothings proven with that. I have many reservations about the methodology. I have the paper, but haven't the time right now to review it.
 
#87 ·
Pete, If you are often working in London you will definitely know Jeffery Wilson.
Please call him and ask him if and how it works.
And if you are really interested in how lefreQue works you can come over to the test we are planning with a whole wind orchestra somewhere the first week of May.
I will send you the date and place when its known.
I am also willing to come over when I am in the UK to hear you play and let you test the lefreQue.
And about the emotion. When you put emotion into your playing there will be more left over of it for the audience with lefreQue than without lefreQue.
But I believe some forum members only know one emotion. Laugh at there own bad jokes. I hope you are more serious.
 
#89 ·
#88 ·
I promise that stuffing peanut butter in your shorts will make your playing more robust.
Shame on you if you do not try it.
If you try it and it doesn't work, you must be nuts.

Wait a minute.

I could have sworn there was a joke in there somewhere.
There is a joke in there somewhere ...
I screwed up the punchline.
No, I think I screwed up the setup and the punchline is OK.
Aww, to 6ell with it.
 
#90 ·
Well, that is what we used to do, many years ago, with a simple bended metal strip and two rubber bands :mrgreen:

It was the time when I also experimented with modeling wax to "improve" the sound of my mouthpiece :bluewink:

In my memory, the metal strip did make a difference, but to be honest, I really don't know how much of that was placebo effect.
Besides, at that time, I loved tinkering with such things :bluewink:
 
#92 ·
The thing is Hans, that despite the rather innocent fun and games which you are subject to, you come to the forum (and I commend you to have done that!) saying that you have found something that others doubt. Therefore, in my view the burden of proof is always on those who claim they have discovered anything and, in order for any new discovery or theory, you need to provide some evidence that can be considered objective in order for others to replicate your experiments and findings.

This is , in essence, the scientific method that I trust you are familiar with but I quote this link all the same for you to refer to

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

There you read among other things: "........ Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses via predictions which can be derived from them. These steps must be repeatable, to guard against mistake or confusion in any particular experimenter. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many independently derived hypotheses together in a coherent, supportive structure. Theories, in turn, may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.

Scientific inquiry is generally intended to be as objective as possible, to reduce biased interpretations of results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, giving them the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established........"

Which means that you cannot expect to say: " I've tried it and other illustrious players tried it and believe in it therefore it must be true...."

The marketing Gobbledygook is what it is! I wouldn't necessarily hold you responsible to the " more sound, more emotion, more colour, more enjoyment " thing........those are things that advertising people say in order to sell things...........you are not the only one doing that, if we would scrutinise the ads of most things advertised in the world ( of music or not) we would find things that are of the same questionable and inexplicable nature (What is SEAT auto emotion for crying out loud?).

You have to understand that there is a long history of people claiming they have found the ultimate " gizmo" to play better and you are another one in a long list.

Some place semi-precious stones in places carefully and secretly chosen, some put weights, some mass-load ligatures, some put resonance gizmos, some others place magnets on the horn or on the keys(!?), some have sound enhancers in the neck of a saxophone, some sell crown for flutes with different coloured stones to give a different colour to the sound or say they use a metal hook to improve resonance......assuming that there is any audible resonance to improve!

There was also a guy who sought to semi choke his saxophone neck to strangle his sound into a better one and believed in it. I think that the skeptics (I certainly am one) might be forgiven a certain amount of sarcasm.........we have seen a lot and unabashed nonsense masked as matter of fact-common sense!

All of this people say they hear differences of some sort due to their gizmo , some find other (sometimes famous) people to hear it too, NOBODY ever came up with a scientifically meaningful test proving that their implement does anything, let alone working at doing what they say it should do!
You have a great chance. Be the first one to do so! Get in touch with some scientifically relevant researchers who are interested in acoustic studies (TNO Delft ? UNSW in Australia?) and produce some scientifically acceptable study otherwise you are putting yourself in the doubtful position of someone selling some snake oil even if some players are prepared to back you up.

(come to think of it there should be also things working AGAINST a good vibration production, how come nobody mentions any of those?)
 
#98 ·
(come to think of it there should be also things working AGAINST a good vibration production, how come nobody mentions any of those?)
If some body/neck additions enhance the sound (whatever that means) then there also should be body/neck additions that detract from the sound (whatever that means).

I'm not talking about anything that alters the airflow or inside dimensions, just outside additions to anywhere on the body or neck.

All I have seen are claims that the particular persons body/neck addition is fantastic.

I would like to see someone say, don't attach that lump of brass near the bow because it sucks all the higher overtones out.
This is exactly the point I made in the quote in your post above..........they only even find positive things and no negative ones.

The best and easiest test to disprove body tube vibration meaning in sound production was thought and described by Stephen Howard.

Play your instrument letting it just hang from your neck without touching any of the keys, then play the same note,, holding your body in the same position, touching the keys but not closing any key.

This should dramatically change the sound because your hands should absorb the body tube vibration, shouldn't it.

I couldn't detect any meaningful difference.

Try this for comparison. Move your reed 0,5 mm or even much less to one side or up or down, does this dramatically affect the sound? It does.

Think of your unlimited possibility to alter the sound by altering your embouchure , try lip out and lip in approach, just to see macroscopic differences.

Listen to Don Menza playing with different tones


if he does that consciously anybody can do it indadvertedly and change the sound of his saxophone but be convinced that variation comes from a gizmo.
 
#97 ·
(come to think of it there should be also things working AGAINST a good vibration production, how come nobody mentions any of those?)
If some body/neck additions enhance the sound (whatever that means) then there also should be body/neck additions that detract from the sound (whatever that means).

I'm not talking about anything that alters the airflow or inside dimensions, just outside additions to anywhere on the body or neck.

All I have seen are claims that the particular persons body/neck addition is fantastic.

I would like to see someone say, don't attach that lump of brass near the bow because it sucks all the higher overtones out.
 
#101 ·
Hi,
i had the opportunity to test two of these lefreques. I did it for some woodwindshops who wanted to know my oppinion as a professional player and whether they should start selling it or not. Both times i really was completely unimpressed. What a fumbling to get it on the neck and mouthpiece, very hard to handle. And what did it do to the sound? Not much i have to say, no big difference, completely unnecessary. The listeners in the shop also couldn't hear any difference. There was a test in a german woodwindmagazine called "Sonic" and the player/writer also didn't liked it on the Saxophone.
Reminds me of other famous products and procesdures: P-ligging, Klangbogen etc.

The marketing concept to rate us as amateurs and people that don't know what they are talking about (without knowing us) reminds me of our nice friend James D.
It also is always a good idea to say something like that to people who advise big Woodwindshops what they should take in stock. I love that kind of marketing, it shows what is really important to these people. Thanks.
 
#103 ·
Hi,
It also is always a good idea to say something like that to people who advise big Woodwindshops what they should take in stock. I love that kind of marketing, it shows what is really important to these people. Thanks.
I have also done some consultancy for various retailers advising on stock, as well as having a popular review site. The fact that they don't seem willing to send me one for review speaks volumes.

I don't know know if the member known as allwood is associated with the company. He/she certainly speaks as if there is a connection (apart from the very rude comments about people here which is as insulting as it is unprofessional).

e.g.: http://forum.saxontheweb.net/showth...the-LefreQue&p=1816493&viewfull=1#post1816493

If they are indeed affiliated with the company, more potential customers would be put off by that kind of post than they would by the sceptical, cynical or humorous comments.

OTOH, perhaps it's a disgruntled ex-employee trying to damage the company's reputation.
 
#105 · (Edited)
Re: What the LefreQue? Blindfold Test

I tried a lefreque today, and made some recordings. There are 11 sound clips, see if you can tell which ones are the lefreque. I was blindfolded while recording and handed the saxophone for each take with or without the lefreque. The weight of the lefreque was insignificant compared to the weight of the tenor, so I think this is very close to a scientific test, see what you think.

The audio files (1st test) are on this page:

http://tamingthesaxophone.com/saxophone-lefreque.html
 
#107 ·
I already PMed my impressions so as not to pre-bias those who read this before listening. LOL. I did not read Koen88's opinion before listening and writing down my own totally blind and scientific impressions.
 
#108 · (Edited)
jazz is all made a good point (via PM) that it would be better if I offered 11 different individual sound files rather than one long one that you have to listen to sequentially. It would make it easier to compare.

I will work on that and upload them later.

lefreque audio comparison blindfold test 1
 
#109 ·
As always, thanks for doing these comparison tests Pete. But I think this one was largely a waste of time. I mean, 11 takes? Anyway, because I have a hard time hearing differences in ligs and strap hooks, I'm probably not the best person to judge. I'd be interested in the opinions of those with very discriminating ears. Meanwhile, for my money I can't hear a damn bit of difference. I won't be investing in a LeFreque.
 
#110 · (Edited)
As always, thanks for doing these comparison tests Pete. But I think this one was largely a waste of time. I mean, 11 takes?
It makes sense to do quite a few takes if I just did two, they could be different without any change in equipment, more takes means a pattern should emerge if the lefreque is doing its job.

The biggest time is in the setting up to record (and video) so I might as well do a whole bunch of takes anyway.

If there is a discernible and valid difference due to the lefreque it will be more than the difference between two takes anyway, and the people who can hear it should be be able to pinpoint exactly which takes out of the eleven, and there being more takes means any natural error margins should be reduced. I think.

lefreque audio comparison blindfold test 1
 
#113 ·
I'm up for the LefreQue Challenge, but what attributes should we be focusing in on? The LefreQue website says, "The LefreQue solution offers the following benefits: more sound, more emotion, more colour, more enjoyment." Should we be listening for all four of these things in your clips? Or are we judging this more holistically? Also, can you tell us in advance how many of the 11 clips were LefreQued?
 
#115 · (Edited)
I'm up for the LefreQue Challenge, but what attributes should we be focusing in on? The LefreQue website says, "The LefreQue solution offers the following benefits: more sound, more emotion, more colour, more enjoyment." Should we be listening for all four of these things in your clips?
I don't know. I didn't try to put any emotion into any takes.

Or are we judging this more holistically? Also, can you tell us in advance how many of the 11 clips were LefreQued?
I thought it best not to say how many takes are with the lefreque, I think it makes the experiment more scientific. If you hear a difference, you will know.

But I can say there is no trickery, i.e. I didn't do them all with the lefreque or or all without. When I publish the results there will be a video, you will see me blindfolded being handed the saxophone for each take with or without the lefreque.

lefreque audio comparison blindfold test 1
 
#117 ·
Sure. On some takes, Pete might be feeling more enjoyment for a different reason (other than the presence of the LefreQue). Also, he tried to keep emotion out of his test playing, so I don't know if that would neutralize the purported natural emotion-enhancing qualities of the LefreQue system. But if I'm evaluating it more holistically, all advertised benefits would be taken into account at once. It might be more accurate that way.

Anyway, I listened to the clips, and they all sounded LefreQuing awesome! I have PM'd my guesses to Pete.
 
Top