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!
 
#270 ·
Dead Horses by the Rollings Stoned

Listening without hearing is easy to do
The enhanced sounds I hear, you don't believe are true
Unbelieving fools, you doubt what I know
That the Lefreque really works just like I say so.
Dead horses couldn't make me not say
Dead, dead horses, Oh, how good it does play
With much more tone & much better flow,
Better intonation, I can't let it go.
No objective data or double blind tests
Could make me feel that the emotion is less.
Dead horses couldn't make me not say
Dead, dead horses, Oh, how good it does play
I know what you tell me is a sin and a lie
I have my enhanced tone, which you cannot deny.
My faith in this forum has taken a dive
Your sax tone is dull and dead, mine is totally alive.
Dead horses couldn't make me not say
Dead, dead horses, how good my Lefreque does play.
Dead horses cannot take that truth away,
Dead, dead horses, you'll know it some day.

Lyrics adapted by M.R.
 
#272 ·
I have tinnitus, and so I hear clearly many things that others don't hear.
 
#276 ·
the vibrations of the saxophone don’t produce sound, so even IF the instrument vibrates more ( and that has to be, and could be rather simply, verified and measured) under your teeth and fingers, none of this mechanical stimulation that one feels (IF one feels it) translates in sound.

Anyway, it is possible, with a little ingenuity, to fit a dampening device to a saxophone ( like a damper that one normally uses on a Bow), if a system which supposedly adds vibration (such as LeFreque) adds to the sound, a system which absorbs vibration should detract to the sound.

In reality this is a complex form of the same experiment proposed many times before.

play the sax hanging from your neck, now play the same note not closing any keys but holding the saxophone. If any thing, dampening of the vibrations happens.
Of course it is impossible to make this a blind experiment.


A Bow damper is a device which would absorb some of the passive vibrating energy. It is possible to make an experiment with this and see how much of the perceived difference is expectation and how much is reality.
 
#277 ·
I've seen quite a few players use this thing on both saxophone and clarinet. If they think they sound better with it they will most likely play a better performance. Who cares if it's placebo or not, and ultimately, most players don't care about the science. They just want to sound their best and if the LefreQue helps them that's great.
 
#278 ·
and that's alright, if one would sell this as what it is, a lucky charm, many people buy one in many types of medals, talismans, amulets they believe it changes their life and maybe, for them, it really does that.

Unfortunately the claims made by the LeFreque are not the same as for of a ORDINARY lucky charm but they are more like a magnetic bracelet or the famous copper bangle, and invariable their sellers use pseudo-scientific claims which calls for scientific proof.

If on the other hand they would sell this as a decorative (there is no account for good taste) talisman there would be, indeed nothing wrong. There is a new client for any talisman out there born every minute.

take a look at this ad, it too says bogus things about the science of a magnetic bracelet, completely ridiculous.

None of it can be proved and because it has to do with health, forbidden in most civilized countries.



These flute crowns GEMS claim each to have a different sound, they are nice looking and very popular but don't work other than as charms, which is exactly what they are
 
#279 ·
There have been and still are a large number of athletes in a number of different sports who have individual routines that they say give them better performance or at least prevent bad luck. Lucky shirts which they don't change during a tournament (phew), lucky sock (which must work from the build up of toe jam inside them after several games), lucky bats, balls, sweatbands, etc. etc. Most tennis players have precise routines they follow to perform better....Rafa Nadal is an extreme example....but these really are mental concentration routines which prevent being distracted by the emotions.....etc.etc. If they think that wearing the same sweaty stinky shirt for an entire tourney makes them play better than whether it does or not goes beyond reality into the realm of voodoo. From the standpoint of physics and acoustic science putting a LeFreque on your sax is nothing more than the equivalent of getting a Mojo from Madam Rou down in New Orleans and strapping ti to the neck tenon of your sax. Hell, maybe that is why Dr. John was so successful. He had Gris-Gris hanging all over him when he first came on the scene in the 60's and was an instant success because of it. There's your proof right there.

BTW, if you have a one piece soprano how the lufruck could a Le Freak even be used? Does it mean that those of us who play vintage sopranos are doomed to having poor tone, more resistance, and less emotion in the output of our horns?

I challenge Sfhansen to get together with Pete Thomas and do the double-blind tests of the Lefreque that he did back a couple of years ago and tell which horn had the thing on it and which not. The results were that nobody listening could hear a difference that corresponded to the use of the thing even close to a statistically meaningful degree. Most people can't hear the difference between one mouthpiece and another so how the hell are they going to hear anything different when a piece of brass is attached to the sax with some nylon straps?

And if it works, why buy the LeFreak? Just go to home depot and get a piece of brass plate, bend a curve in it and attach it to your sax and get the same thing but DIY. And those nylon ties??? Wouldn't they dampen the sound? I would think that if this were scientifically real, you'd want to use brass wire to wrap the thing on with to enhance the "transmission of vibrations" across the break in the tenon. Of course since the neck tenon and the body tenon are in contact metal to metal already due to being clamped tight, how is there a break in "the transmission of vibrations" through the metal of the sax?

This is all assuming that the vibrations of the sax body have anything to do with the sound emanating from the sax, which as Milandro and many others have explained again and again, they do not. That is why I posted the dead horse pictures above. If this was the 13th Century these same people would be the ones claiming that hanging garlic on your door post would ward off the Black Plague. And they'd end up just as dead as anyone else, or not, but not because of the garlic's "powers" but because of germ science which people back then knew nothing about, just like the people who claim "powers" for this sax amulet totally ignore the physical laws of acoustics.
 
#287 ·
Well that mouthpiece to neck one has already been discussed at length and shown to be totally snake oil. The mpc is plastic or hard rubber of a thickness that keeps it from vibrating at all. In fact there are no vibrations in the mpc, they are in the reed which moves back and forth from your blowing past it and sets up the sound waves that create the sound, so if anything the lefreak at that point should go from the butt of the reed to the neck not the exterior of the body of the mpc which can't possibly be transmitting anything. The bore of the mpc is pressed against the neck cork to avoid air escaping and it is the air that moves and creates the sound not the neck or the mpc. If that were the case then metal mpcs would better better than HR or plastic no matter what and we would hear a difference between them without the need of a LeFreque to create it. But everyone knows that you can't tell whether someone is playing a metal, rubber, plastic, glass or wood mouthpiece from the sound, any more than you can tell if they are playing a brass sax, a Grafton plastic sax, or a Vibrato plastic sax. You could make a sax out of heavy cardboard, or ceramic China, and as long as the tone holes and pads were where they should be, it would sound just like a sax, because it is the moving column of air inside the cone of the instrument, and not the body of the instrument, that creates the sound.

But you try to tell that to some people and it's like they have cement in their ears. These are the same nay-sayers that have placed Voo-Doo above Reason all throughout human history. You can prove to them that the world is round a million times over and they still will tell you it's flat because they know it is so and "see" it that way.
 
#281 ·
Individual Saxophones would tend to vibrate in different ways anyway.

I don't know why some would want more vibrations as there are enough already and I have to use a mouthpiece patch.

Resistance (or more correctly Impedance) of a Saxophone (and Sax/Mouthpiece combo) has nothing to do with the body vibrations (and therefore nothing to do with that LeFreQue thing), it is about the pressure and airflow http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/jw/z.html and the interior design dimensions dominate and that's why blowing through a garden hose is harder than blowing through a larger tube.

Psychoacoustics is a real thing and everyone can be affected by it.

Does your Sax sound exactly the same all the time?, well, all my instruments (various guitars and Saxes) seem to sound a bit different to me at different times and places.

These LeFreQue things are like those fuel extender things, just total BS, but they can have a perception effect just by being used.
 
#282 ·
temperature and humidity have way more influence on the propagation of sound than any of these so called devices could possibly have

http://www.sfu.ca/sonic-studio/handbook/Sound_Propagation.html

But then science doesn't matter........it is all in the mind! (Don't WATCH it it is unrelated video...or is it unrelated? )

" when there is absence of thoughts your VIBRATION actually rises" .....absence of thoughts , I think she shouldn't worry of any presence of any of those!:faceinpalm::faceinpalm::faceinpalm::faceinpalm:

 
#284 ·
One of reasons why I chose to 'reopen' this thread is that I find it amazing that most of the words, 15 pages are said by members that can't hear the subject this thread is about, the lefreQue.

If they don't hear it, then what are they talking about?
Psychoacoustics http://www.music.miami.edu/programs/mue/research/mescobar/thesis/web/Psychoacoustics.htm

If someone has a large Salami hanging off their Sax neck, then that Salami's existence in that place might alter the perception of the sound, even though the sound has not really altered.
 
#285 ·
yes, a lot of people write books about people who hear things. Few people who hear things, like voices, write books (there are some though) about what they hear.

Some people hear voices that aren't there, some people hear sounds that aren't there. The first condition can be dangerous or not, but nobody sells the voices that people hear and tells then that they will hear them because of some pseudo science. If you sell something, anything, because of a supposed scientific effect you have to prove the science behind that. One of the scientific requirements is that it needs to be verified by others, especially others who are critical about an experiment.

the teapot in the sky, some say it's there, proving is not there is way more difficult than saying it is there even if you can't see it is there.

 
#293 ·
I would think that 5 channel surround sound would be better, especially since when playing the sax you really don't hear yourself very well from behind the horn. But clearly it isn't hearing that counts, it's "feeling" the vibes and knowing mentally that you are getting more tone and more emotion because of the piece of glorified scrap metal stuck on your horn with nylon electrical cable holders. Very high tech set-up if you ask me, and fully worth the hefty price tag it carries. LOL
 
#294 ·
Wonder if there's a double effect on a lefreQue

In this forum you can observe the effect of lefreQue

1. It attracts some people that are able to hear and appriciate the difference
2. The perculiar effect It attracts more people which can't hear it, with a need to write on and on about self deceptive people are that are able to hear the difference

Well if the inventor of lefreque is a le freak, I would find his product interesting. I can't understand what he's on about when he is talking to Pete

But sorry folks, I don't give a s!!!! If you can hear or not, it is just strange that something you hear so clearly, can't be heard by others. I don't have any need to prove it to anybody. Even though you could prove that a saxophone don't. I don't play on a principal basis. Would you play lefreque if it could be it could proved that it has an audible effect, would it make you hear it.
 
#296 ·
In the end it doesn't matter if audiences hear the difference. Or not. If the player hears it, or feels it, he/she will play better, even if they discard the thing at a later stage. That's all that counts. Proving it does or doesn't work scientifically is besides the (or my) point.
 
#299 ·
This is a good pragmatic position I share.
But I am still curious about the physic os psychoacoustic reasons.
I must state that I preferred my saxes without lefreque, but the difference was quite noticeable and (to me) unexpected.
The main difference I felt was across the break C#D. A feel a classical musician would probably like. Not me.
About vibrations... I am not so sure that a complex standing wave in a brass tube, and a standing wave in a vibrating brass tube produce the same harmonic spectrum, but the is a lot of (expensive) research to do before my allegation could make any sense.
 
#298 ·
Yes, and if sticking his hand in the crack of his *** while getting ready to serve or receive helps Rafa Nadal believe he'll win games, matches and tournament, or if it is just an unconscious tic because his shorts ride up his crack, then I guess who is to say it doesn't actually help. Of course he also loses, sometimes, so who is to say it wasn't due to the hand in the crack. Fact is just because he does it and wins, doesn't mean that Andy Murray or Jorkervich will win if they adopt that practice before each serve or receipt of return. Same with the LeFreque. So enjoy it to your heart's content....I'm sure it's clever creator is enjoying you money.
 
#303 ·
I actually was directing that at the current staunch Lefreque advocat on the thread, not you.
 
#304 ·
Perception of sound is not really a constant.

Andy Johns talking about getting the final mix as right as possible for various environments.

-----------------

Do you have any listening tricks?

Andy Johns: Obviously the idea is to make it work on all systems. You listen on the big speakers, the NS10’s, out in the car, plus your own speakers, then you go home and listen again. This is a lot of work but it’s the only way to go.

The thing is that I don’t care how close you think you’ve got it that night, you take it home and play it back in the morning and every time there are two or three things that you must fix. It’s never happened to me where I’ve come home and said, “That’s it.” You hear it at home and you jump back down to the studio and sure enough, you hear what you hadn’t noticed before on all the systems there. Every system you listen on, the more information you get.
 
#305 ·
The perception point is a valid proposition but opens the door to all sorts of things like the neck and lyre screw by Ishimori or the immortal P.Ligging or the metal hook to your strap or the superstition about one finish over another or the infamous cryogenics.

The argument used is that despite the inaudibility in an experiment of the influence of the attribute in question the player hears it or thinks he hears it, therefore is positively influenced and therefore he plays better.

Nobody thinks of implementing a world saxophone police going around and checking that you don't use any of these or whatever else you want to use in the belief that it improves your performance. The point is an entire other.

The maker of an implement sold or not ( the P ligging or the metal hook costed nothing or were already part of something bought by the player for another purpose), his friends (!) or his fans come here to a discussion forum to discuss the merits of a certain thing, but then the moment they are questioned about showing the beef, all they can say is, it works for me therefore it is so. I can feel it, I can hear it. You can't, it is your problem.

They come here or elsewhere with pseudoscientific claims looking for validation in a discussion, but then refuse the same science that they claim is at the base of their magic amulet. Which is, if you ask me the same as throwing the stone and hiding the hand!

Claims are made, often of a pseudoscientific nature ( it improves vibration transmission, it changes the crystalline structure.........) and then they say well, we can't prove it in a controlled experiment, but we don't need to, it works for me, so, deal with it! Which equals to the teapot proposition.

I sayn the teapot is there, I can see it, although we cannot prove it is there it is there nonetheless. The teapot (or rather its representative on Earth, the amulet) has changed my playing, therefore it exists.

If they would sell it as a magic amulet I would have nothing to say about it! It is the false pretense of science that is my problem with these things. One cannot be and stay believable first claiming Science to support the use of an object and then, when science cannot be proved, say science doesn't matter because this is art and the artist doesn't deal with science! So why claiming science in the first place?

I know of countless people, in the arts or not, who follow all sorts of magic rituals and trust many amulets to do this that or the other for them.

Despite my pretended rationalism I have these things too, it is human. I have studied plenty of Anthropology, Ethnology, Sociology and History of Religions in my young years at Uni and my academic world was full of rituals and amulets.

There is something called Apotropaic magic which as been present with mankind since time immemorial. It is the belief that with a formula or an object one can ward off bad things and improve the world around oneself. This seems to be a deep need of the humans to get solace, trust and courage through the use of some object or the performing of a ritual.

Do I tell people not to draw an eye on the bow of their ship because that is not going to change the weather, their luck, ward off the evil eye or get better catch for fishermen?
No I don't.

But do I tell a person telling (and selling!) that a piece of metal that he claims it changes the sound ( but cannot prove it does) that the supposed science is not supporting the sound change? I do!

You are of course free to use any amulets you want, but I am free to say they are just that!

 
#306 ·
[...] The argument used is that despite the inaudibility in an experiment of the influence of the attribute in question the player hears it or thinks he hears it, therefore is positively influenced and therefore he plays better.

Nobody thinks of implementing a world saxophone police going around and checking that you don't use any of these or whatever else you want to use in the belief that it improves your performance. The point is an entire other.

The maker of an implement sold or not ( the P ligging or the metal hook costed nothing or were already part of something bought by the player for another purpose), his friends (!) or his fans come here to a discussion forum to discuss the merits of a certain thing, but then the moment they are questioned about showing the beef, all they can say is, it works for me therefore it is so. I can feel it, I can hear it. You can't, it is your problem.

They come here or elsewhere with pseudoscientific claims looking for validation in a discussion, but then refuse the same science that they claim is at the base of their magic amulet. Which is, if you ask me the same as throwing the stone and hiding the hand!

Claims are made, often of a pseudoscientific nature ( it improves vibration transmission, it changes the crystalline structure.........) and then they say well, we can't prove it in a controlled experiment, but we don't need to, it works for me, so, deal with it! Which equals to the teapot proposition.
[...]
My personal position is: "I feel a difference, I hear a difference, should I invest my money in it? (and this applies to any piece of gear)"
Immediately followed by "Will it really improve my performance or am I just fooling myself?"

In the specific OP object, my thoughts (simple thoughts) about vibrating saxophones would not contemplate that a lefreque could ever work. Maybe if hard soldered, but not kept together by rubber bands.
I still tried it with an open mind, no strict scientific method, but a lot of skepticism, since my high opinion of SOTW member Pete Thomas.

Very surprised to find a difference. My experiments with gear and materials are taking me to a different direction, so i will not investigate further, but I would not dismiss other people experience as "magic".
I also have little faith in many scientific claims. There was a book Milandro would love about Galileo cheating to demonstrate his (correct) theories.

On the other hand

My endorsed instruments are often tested by serious professionals, that kindly allow me to hear how the horn sounds played by someone else.
They usually sound different than their vintage horns (marketing hype: Sequoia is NOT a mkVI on steroids) and they can find how to have the best from an instrument in very little time.
Recently an advancing student sounded exactly the same on his ultracheap horn, my Sequoia and my 5 digits mkVI. I am sure they can sound very differently.
 
Top