Sax on the Web Forum banner

Selmer Mark VI Vs. Yamaha 82Z

32K views 43 replies 27 participants last post by  HeyJoe 
G
#1 ·
I would have figured there'd be a thread on this, but I can't find it, if there is, feel free to post a link, otherwise, I want to hear some opinions.

I am trying out my professor's Mark VI right now, and comparing it to my 82Z. (I use an Aizen LS 8 mouthpiece).

I can add to this with what I find. I'm curious if anyone else has had the chance to compare.

The college actually owns another 82Z, lately, my professor has been playing on that 82Z using his Mark VI neck and is conflicted about whether he likes it or using the Mark VI better.
 
#2 ·
Realize there are several variations of the Mk VI during it's production. Whereas all 82Zs may sound alike, Mk VIs certainly do not.
 
#4 ·
Alto or tenor? I have an alto MKVI and used to own an alto Yamaha Z after searching several Z's to buy. Even after I bought the Z (which was the best of several that I tried), I quickly let it go. Nothing special. I did not play them saide-by-side; my VI was with my son at the time and not available.

While I suspect that Yamaha's are PROBABLY more consistent than other brands and especially the MKVI, they do vary horn to horn. Much depends on the results of playing the one considered for purchase. DAVE
 
#5 ·
I'll play devils advocate and say I've never tried a 6 that I liked. But I've only ever played a few. They just weren't my cup of tea sound wise. Great feeling ergos wise. But I just didn't jive with the Selmer vibe.

I played a Few Z's while I worked at L&M. All very nice. I liked the Unlacquered one the most. I however still like larger bore horns more than either.

A good Conn, Keilwerth or similar.

I did well and found the cheapest possible alternative with awesome build quality and ergos.
 
#8 ·
Hi
I agree with the above,some are good some are so ,so...
That is for Mark VI,s
i had a Sop Mark VI,even after an overhaul in Montreal with some of the best innthe business,it was still a pretty bad VI.
Now I have a 62 Yamaha,,to me just a great sop.
I also had a Mark VI alto,,terrible horn too,I sold it and ended up with a Yamaha Z Unlackered,nice.
As for tenor,I did play a VI for amweek ,and it eas the best tenor I ve played,I guess I was nt ready to pay that much ,about 6 thousand a few years back,though sometimes I regret...there will be another one....
So it does varie a lot...
All the best
saxobari
 
#9 ·
I have both in tenor. I love my VI. It is just so physically easy to play, especially the low spatula keys plus a really special sound. While I prefer the overall ergos of the VI, the Z has its merits. I like the high end palm keys a bit more on the Z. Also I like the Z sound better for R&B/funk. But for jazz, I could not imagine finding a better horn than my VI. It is a very late model (1973/4).

Also I find that each responds best to a different piece. The VI works well for me with a Florida USA Link or an RPC roll over, while the Z has responded best to a Morgan.

I got the Z because I wanted a backup, something to take to gigs, and I had a Yamaha soprano and alto so figured I would be OK with the ergos. And I got an amazing price (new sax for essentially a used price). I'm not dissatisfied, and given the price difference (got my new UL Z for under $2900 last year) I might have taken that over a $5000 VI. But if money were not an issue I would look for a nice VI. I was lucky to get mine new in 1974 for $700. Wish I bought two.
 
#10 ·
Hi mi00ke
Great comments about the egonomics.
You are absolutely right .
No other sax companies will ever come close to those VI,s..
That is one thing ,on tenors,altos the ergonomics are just incredible...
On soprano,not the same at all,but again for altos and tenors,,Man what a beautifull action they made!!
All the best
Saxobari
 
#11 ·
I echo what mi000ke says, but my VI is a 111k and my Z is silver plated. For most situations the Z is the better horn. For one-horn acoustic, dynamic variety gigs the VI is hard to beat. If price is also taken into consideration then the choice is even easier. In other words, if I had to get by with just one horn today, then the VI would go.
 
#13 ·
I just realized my post is ambiguous. The VI is good at the straight ahead, acoustic, small club thing...and the VI sounds best practicing at home. The Z is best at most everything else. If I had to get by on one horn I would keep my Z and sell the others.
 
#14 ·
From my experience using a VI vs. a Z (altos and tenors) -- Z's are more "reliable" (they're a heck of a lot newer) and you don't have to worry about pads/springs/etc. Furthermore, the Z's play in tune amazingly well top to bottom. On the other hand, the VIs I play all blow better and are more expressive than any of the Zs.
 
#15 ·
From my experience using a VI vs. a Z (altos and tenors) -- Z's are more "reliable" (they're a heck of a lot newer) and you don't have to worry about pads/springs/etc. .
This is kinda off-topic, but the fact is you don't have to worry any more, or less, about pads/springs, etc on a VI than a Yamaha. Pads will wear out on either horn and will have to be replaced eventually. Springs can also be replaced but I've never had one wear out. Even my '40 Buescher still has its original springs and they work fine.

Every horn, new or old, needs maintenence, and a freshly-overhauled VI will be more reliable than a Yamaha that hasn't been maintained (and vice versa).

Back to the OP, I'm not sure what the question is, or if you're just looking for some sort of comparison test, but really you have to try a horn and make up your own mind about it. Nothing we say here will really help you make that decision, assuming you're are trying to decide between one or the other.
 
#21 ·
I had alot of both and i think the Z is very in the MKVI vibe but with a bit more of everything thrown in.I've found them more consisent in sound compared to the MKVI which i've owned a number and tested lots.Yes if you find a great 6 there amazing i know.Both are awesome in there own way.
 
#22 ·
I bought an 82Z around two months ago, so here are my impressions Vs my MKVI's.

The palm keys are very high! It was nearly enough to make me send it back to the dealer, and initial impressions in comparison to my 6's wasn't particularly good either - I'll go into that in a minute - but after a few days it was starting to feel much more comfortable and, more importantly, there was something in the sound and response that I was really starting to enjoy.

I completely understand why some people have said they find the 82Z resistant compared to a MKVI, and I also understand the other point of view. It seems to me that Yamaha have achieved something fairly unique with the 82Z - an instrument that can feel resistant (in a good way) and incredibly free blowing at the same time! On a straight comparison with my 238XXX tenor the Z is not as free blowing (ie it doesn't seem to take as much air, or there's more back pressure - ie more resistant) but at the same time it's more responsive! The notes just jump out with less effort, making it feel as if it's less resistant, whereas going back to the 6 reveals that it is - relatively. The difference between the Z and my 121XXX is less pronounced in that way, but the same findings apply. The Z seems to have a very nice solid core to the sound as well as being incredibly responsive from the very bottom to the very top. The harmonics (altissimo) are extremely easy to produce, although they seem slightly less full than on the 6's. In fact the whole range feels less full sounding, but it's certainly not thin either, in the way that I feel 61's and 62's can be, particularly in the upper mid register.

From past experience I know how much difference the neck can make, so I got hold of two more G1 necks for comparison. Whilst there was less difference than I have found between Selmer necks in the past, there were still very discernable differences between the three. I played all three necks to as many people as I could to get feedback and one person, who I managed to victimize on three separate occasions, picked out one particular neck as his favourite every time without knowing which was which (they all looked identical)! Interestingly, the two new necks both offered even more resistance than the original, but in most peoples ears were the better sounding of the three.

So IMO the 82Z is a great tenor. It's not a MKVI, although in many ways I feel it's more similar than the Selmer Ref 54, but it has it's own very attractive qualities. I still wish the palm keys weren't quite as high, although after playing the instrument for a while I don't notice them anymore, and they're certainly better than the palm keys on the Ref 54 which are too low (why they couldn't reproduce the ergonomics of the MKVI I don't know).
 
#25 ·
I bought an 82Z around two months ago, so here are my impressions Vs my MKVI's.

The palm keys are very high! It was nearly enough to make me send it back to the dealer, and initial impressions in comparison to my 6's wasn't particularly good either - I'll go into that in a minute - but after a few days it was starting to feel much more comfortable and, more importantly, there was something in the sound and response that I was really starting to enjoy.

I completely understand why some people have said they find the 82Z resistant compared to a MKVI, and I also understand the other point of view. It seems to me that Yamaha have achieved something fairly unique with the 82Z - an instrument that can feel resistant (in a good way) and incredibly free blowing at the same time! On a straight comparison with my 238XXX tenor the Z is not as free blowing (ie it doesn't seem to take as much air, or there's more back pressure - ie more resistant) but at the same time it's more responsive! The notes just jump out with less effort, making it feel as if it's less resistant, whereas going back to the 6 reveals that it is - relatively. The difference between the Z and my 121XXX is less pronounced in that way, but the same findings apply. The Z seems to have a very nice solid core to the sound as well as being incredibly responsive from the very bottom to the very top. The harmonics (altissimo) are extremely easy to produce, although they seem slightly less full than on the 6's. In fact the whole range feels less full sounding, but it's certainly not thin either, in the way that I feel 61's and 62's can be, particularly in the upper mid register.

From past experience I know how much difference the neck can make, so I got hold of two more G1 necks for comparison. Whilst there was less difference than I have found between Selmer necks in the past, there were still very discernable differences between the three. I played all three necks to as many people as I could to get feedback and one person, who I managed to victimize on three separate occasions, picked out one particular neck as his favourite every time without knowing which was which (they all looked identical)! Interestingly, the two new necks both offered even more resistance than the original, but in most peoples ears were the better sounding of the three.

So IMO the 82Z is a great tenor. It's not a MKVI, although in many ways I feel it's more similar than the Selmer Ref 54, but it has it's own very attractive qualities. I still wish the palm keys weren't quite as high, although after playing the instrument for a while I don't notice them anymore, and they're certainly better than the palm keys on the Ref 54 which are too low (why they couldn't reproduce the ergonomics of the MKVI I don't know).
Thank you, your post was very enlightening! I have a buddy who travels frequently to Japan, where he had the opportunity to test several Mark VI, even after your purchase. One point he commented that caught much attention, is the existence of many bad Mark VI. While the homogeneity of 82 Z's is noteworthy.
Of course, we're talking about different saxophones, one in production, with the technology of today.
Another of the past, where very few are really great nowadays.​
 
#23 ·
I've been through three 82Zs now and I now have one that really works. I have also been through three VIs and non of them really worked. I know what you mean about the resistance. Even the Z that I have not has a level of resistance. The difference is that I can blow though it and the horn can be HUGE sounding on stage. On gigs where the in-ear monitors are not working well I just take them out an can still manage to hear myself in a R&B band. I had a Couf SuperbaI that was very free blowing but it had a collection of issues such as tuning in the palm keys that drove me nuts. Overall I see the Z as a work horse. I gig with it and know I can make it sound like I want, play with the volume when needed, plays in tune, and really just gets out of the way for a 4hr gig.
 
#24 ·
I've decided that it's too close to call between my VI and my Z. I had the VI for many years, but when I got my Z I was blown away by how much more free blowing it was than my VI. Then I had them both set up by the same tech and found that while the Z still blew easier, the VI's ergos were just much smoother especially the low-end spatula keys. But then as I played both more and finally found a piece that worked well with my Z (Morgan jazz) I began using the Z as my main R&B sax, and the VI only with my jazz group. The sound of a VI and a Florida link is still something I can't get the Z to do. I am still looking for a piece that would give me that link sound on my Z (because when I use my Link on my Z it does not work well for me. The Phil-Tone Equinox is the closest I've come). And although I tend to practice more on my VI, I began to find the Z easier and easier to play and to get the sound I like. I can pick the Z up not having played it for two weeks and it just works so reliably. The VI, even with better ergos, is still a more temperamental sax. Well a few days ago I decided to bring the Z to a jazz gig instead of the VI and was not really happy with the sound. So I'm back to the Z for R&B/funk and the VI for jazz.

So as of now I could bring the VI to either type of gig and be pretty happy, but not the Z. But if I could only have one, I'm still not sure which one I would pick. Glad I am lucky enough to have both.
 
#29 ·
I feel like I am fairly knowledgeable on this topic as the only tenors I have owned are two mark VIs and a custom Z. Because these are my favorite instruments, I always try out the instruments in the music stores for comparison. Overall, I have probably play tested 30+ Mark Vis and 15-20 custom Zs. Actually, this might make me an expert. :)

I went from Mark VI tenor to Custom Z tenor back to a mark VI tenor.
I ordered a Mark VI that I had never played from saxquest. It was pretty good, but I found that I liked the unlacquered custom Z without high F sharp more. A friend of mine had one, and after play testing it, I was sold. I purchased one that I liked from a music store and I played the Z for about a year and a half. I put it to the test against about 6 other Mark VI tenors and probably 10 Custom Zs during that year and a half. One day, a private seller had 3 mark VI tenors for sale. I tried one that I fell in love with, and still have that tenor today. I have had this same horn since...2007.

In this comparison, I am speaking mostly to how the instrument feels, intonation and its ease of playing. I am not focusing much on sound as that varies too much horn to horn.
I found that not all custom Zs are alike, although they are more consistent than most saxophone models I have tried.
So, the Zs are consistently good, and my favorite combination, like I said is the unlacuqered without the high F#. I felt this was a combination that would compete with the vintage sound and feel of the Mark VI.

So Custom Z vs. Mark VI.
My final answer would be that the consistency of the custom Z, in unlaquered without high F# form, would make it better in my opinion than around 25% of Mark VI tenors for sure. Being the bottom 25% of performing VI tenors. The next 25% of performing VI tenors would be about equal or comparable, leaning toward the Z. This would be a situation where the price and SOUND will be your biggest determining factor. Finally, the top 50% of VIs go from leaning toward Mark VI and strong Mark VI superiority. In this case, again the cost is the most important aspect as these top performing VIs go for extremely high prices nowadays.
I must note again that sound is a very important factor. If anybody has any questions, feel free to message me.
 
#30 ·
I've had 4 Z's and 5 MKVI's.The Z's all blew much more free for me.More responsive.Bigger sounding,more projection.I still think the Z is the modern horn most like a MKVI though.Not saying 1 is better.Both are outstanding but i think you get atad more of everthing on a Z.I find i can push more air into a Z than a MKVI.
 
#31 ·
Strange that people's perception on the resistance of the Z varies. It was mainly for that reason, that I was expecting the Z to be freer blowing than my 6's, that I tried two alternative G1 necks, given that it's well known and widely accepted that 80-90% of the way a horn blows and sounds comes from the neck. I think the differences of opinion come in large part from the wide variation (comparatively) between different 6's (I know that my late 6 is particularly free blowing, whereas I've played some others which are far more resistant), but also from the fact that the Z is so responsive that it's probably very easy to equate responsiveness with a lack of resistance. However, I really like the Z, and I decided to keep mine as it has certain strengths and something different from the 6's.
 
#33 ·
Some time back, I tried the alto versions of the Mark VI and the 82Z. Both were properly tuned and setup. (For reference purposes, I used a Rousseau JDX5 on both saxophones)

In short, I found the comparison akin to a well-tuned sports car (Mark VI) against a properly built race car (82z). The 82z, for me, outshined the Mark VI, responding instantly to all my commands and offered a very warm, vibrant and "singing" nature to the tone. The Mark VI, on the other hand, felt a tad bit slower and did not sound quite as warm, and especially, "singing" as the 82Z. The keywork, also while good and responsive, just did not feel as comfortable as the 82z.

On the hand, I do believe the mouthpiece/reed setup did play a big role in the results of the comparison. The Rousseaus were made around Yamahas, hence, it perfectly complimented the design of the 82z. If I found the proper mouthpiece/reed setup for the Mark VI, it might come close to the vibrant, singing nature of the 82z.

Now that I switched over to tenor, I am planning to do a tenor comparison between the Mark VI and 82z. I'll keep you guys posted!
 
#34 ·
One reason I think people don't initially warm up to the 82Z is that it is not a locked in typical Yamaha sound. The flexibilty is rather amazing depending on the airstream and overall setup. Some days I'm still suprised at the different tone and response depending on how I approach it that particular day. For me playing funk/R&B on stage with a horn section when it comes to blowing the h*ll out of the horn and it still records great directly off the board mix. At home I can still lay back and play more straight ahead jazz and it has an amazing vintage hollow sound that I love.
 
#35 ·
An interesting thread - I have 2 friends that made the transition from VI to Z and never looked back. I still haven't played a Z yet - hoping to get a buddy to lend me one to try. I notice several people in this thread saying they use the Z for R+B and the VI for jazz. I completely get this as I use a Super 20 for my full band gigs and my VI for studio sessions, "acoustic" gigs and practicing. I see these as completely different tools for different jobs. The 20 gets a high baffle Sakshama G King and it cuts like mad for the loud gigs. The VI gets a Sakshama Zimberoff and it purrs.
 
#37 ·
I currently own a Selmer Mark Vi 113xxx Alto and it plays amazingly. I also currently own 3 Yamaha custom Z alto's. Two of them are black 50th Anniversary Z's and one Gold plated Z. I would love to own a unlacquered Z. My go to horn are the Z's. My friends and I believe that the Z's are the future Selmer Mark Vi's when comparing greatness and collectability. The Custom Z's are free blowing and offer several different necks for those who have different preferences. Ergonomics are pretty dam good. My Selmer Mark VI is way more resistant compared to the Yamaha and many people like this. This resistance gives the Selmer that historical sound like no other. For me the resistance bothers me a bit. I guess I could get used to it if that is all I played. I love all my horns. Hope this helps!
 
#39 ·
I like both but prefer the VI's I've played for their resistance, ergonomics, great action, and sound. The Z is definitely brighter, louder, and less resistant with a G1 neck. The action for all of the Yamahas I've owned, including the Z, felt a bit too stiff with the exception of a purple logo 62. It could just be that this was the way they were set up. If price weren't an issue, I'd go with a nice VI over a Z, but the Z is a definitely great option for an affordable, solid sax.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top