Sax on the Web Forum banner

What is the weight of your Soprano Saxophone? A Comparison

24K views 63 replies 26 participants last post by  Little Sax 
#1 · (Edited)
There has been a discussion regarding the weight of soprano saxophones. Let's clear up the matter once and for all.

Here are the rules:

1) Weight should be in both pounds and grams (if possible)
2) Include Make, Model, Finish, and Serial Number (23,xxx)
3) Include year of manufacter (if known)

NO MOUTHPIECES - Just the saxophone.


I'll go first.

1977 Mark VI Selmer 169,XXX Lacquer Finish 2 Pounds 10.5oz 1205Grams
 
#3 ·
I just realized that I have an extremely accurate scale in the house: in the kitchen! A digital kitchen scale. I used it to weigh my present soprano; here are the results.

I have a Musica soprano, which is a lacquer-finish B&S stencil -- serial number 05858, date of manufacture unknown (80s probably). It weighs 2 pounds 13 3/8 oz., or 1.29 kg (another good thing about the kitchen scale: weighs in either mode).

I'll have a new soprano within a couple of weeks -- either a Yani S901 or a Keilworth SX90 (I'm still "weighing" the decision). When I get the new axe, I'll post its weight too.
 
#7 ·
I don't have an adequate scale to just weigh my saxophones. However, I have a digital bathroom scale that weighs in pounds. It would not register the weight of a soprano saxophone alone.

I weighed myself, then weighed myself holding my various soprano saxophones - several times each to ensure the base weight was consistent, then twice holding each saxophone to ensure consistency. The scale never varied from the initial read-out.

I held a straight silver-plated Buescher TrueTone (1928), a Yanagisawa S901, a Yanagisawa S992, a Yanagisawa SC902, an Antigua 590LQ, and a KUSTOM (Taiwanese MKVI-clone of substantial build). All saxophones with removeable necks had the straight neck attached. No mouthpieces were included.

They all weighed the same . . . three pounds. Scientific? No. Significant to me? Yes. DAVE
 
#9 ·
Well, so far the Mark VI IS the lightest -- but the old horns are by far the heaviest! Doesn't this go rather against Houston's thesis that new horns are heavier because of extra keys, outboard motors, built in blenders, and other geegaws?

Of course we don't have enough info yet to be sure. . . .
 
#10 ·
Reedy you sure like to raze me:D --why don't you put your money where your mouth( finger is). :!: Let's make a friendly wager-- if that is not against forum rules. Not on sound becasue that is tooooo subjective. But weight. Since I have owned 2 new Yamahas, one Yani and one new Selmer in the last 4 or five years I think on the weight issue I can speak from experinece. There is an old saying here-- don't pee on my leg and tell me it is raining:)
 
#11 ·
Houston: What do you mean? If you disagree with what I've written, be specific. How can I do better than that?

And Reedsplinter, so far the VI is the lightest and the old horns are the heaviest? Where do you come up with that?

My MKVI-clone should be within a very few ounces of a real MKVI. I've owned, performed and travelled with a VI sioprano and it sure didn't strike me as having anything unusual about its weight, either way.

All of my sops weighed the same - or closely enough that I think you guys who are trying to make a big deal out of heavier and lighter sopranos are joking. A few ounces is no big deal. DAVE
 
#13 ·
Dave Dolson said:
And Reedsplinter, so far the VI is the lightest and the old horns are the heaviest? Where do you come up with that? DAVE
In terms of the facts as stated so far: the Mark VI is the lightest at @ 2 pounds 10 oz., the B&S is a little heavier @ 2 pounds 13 oz., and your group of vintage horns all weigh three pounds. So, thus far, what I said is accurate, isn't it? I also said we don't have enough information yet to draw any real conclusions.

Houston, I'm not interested in wagering.
 
#16 ·
1926 Buescher TT (206xxx)
1.18 kg
2 lb 9.5oz
naked of lacquer as the day it was born

Happy to help, but will not pretend to understand.....
 
#18 ·
Reedsplinter: No, I don't think what you said was accurate.

Among my sops were TRUE vintage (two 1928 Bueschers, although I only weighed one of them), Yanagisawas with various keying and shapes - NEW designs all), a new Antigua similar to a Yanagisawa S991, and a Taiwanese-made Mark VI-clone (maybe 25 years or more old). I think those sopranos cover enough age-range and keying designs that some conclusions can be drawn across the board.

All of them weighed roughly the same. The only conclusion I can draw from that is that any claim that one era of sopranos weigh more or less than another era is meaningless and probably should be considered MYTH.

I don't consider a B&S Musica to be an old saxophone. The design is most likely one with the tilting pinky-table and the low B and Bb (and probably the low C#) placed on the bottom half of the tube (unlike vintage Bueschers and VI's). I could be wrong about that, but so what?

I would think that any soprano with modern keywork would be considered to be modern, not old.

I agree with SaxyAcoustician about the significance of a few ounces one way or another (although Houston was right - it isn't about the sound). That was the point I'm trying to make. A few ounces either way means nothing. DAVE
 
#21 ·
Dave Dolson said:
Reedsplinter: No, I don't think what you said was accurate.

Among my sops were TRUE vintage (two 1928 Bueschers, although I only weighed one of them), Yanagisawas with various keying and shapes - NEW designs all), a new Antigua similar to a Yanagisawa S991, and a Taiwanese-made Mark VI-clone (maybe 25 years or more old). I think those sopranos cover enough age-range and keying designs that some conclusions can be drawn across the board.

All of them weighed roughly the same. The only conclusion I can draw from that is that any claim that one era of sopranos weigh more or less than another era is meaningless and probably should be considered MYTH.

I don't consider a B&S Musica to be an old saxophone. The design is most likely one with the tilting pinky-table and the low B and Bb (and probably the low C#) placed on the bottom half of the tube (unlike vintage Bueschers and VI's). I could be wrong about that, but so what?

I would think that any soprano with modern keywork would be considered to be modern, not old.

I agree with SaxyAcoustician about the significance of a few ounces one way or another (although Houston was right - it isn't about the sound). That was the point I'm trying to make. A few ounces either way means nothing. DAVE
OK. Sorry I said anything.
 
#22 ·
Do you suppose it might not be the weight itself, but differences in the design that makes some sops SEEM heavier than others?
 
#23 ·
hakukani: No, I think it involves our built-in biases and our beliefs in myths. There are so many myths propagated about all sorts of things. Try discussing firearms or autos sometime!

I think folks want to believe the myths and buy into them, that's all. One poster said he could feel the weight difference when holding a MKVI compared to some other model. I just don't buy that, even though the poster may believe it.

I know many of us over time have hefted items, trying to determine weight, and we come to some conclusion, but I've never seen it verified. Personally, when I heft two different items, I can't decide which is heavier unless there is a major difference - and the few ounces of difference that MAY exist among various sopranos is just not enough for me to conclude that one's weight is that much different than another's.

My bathroom scale goes in half-pound increments. I'm not sure how it works, but rounding up seems to be the way it often works. When I weighed all my sopranos this AM, it didn't hesitate (as if it were seeking the half-pound measure, as it sometimes does when I weigh just myself). It went right to the weight, which was invariably three pounds (subtracting my weight, of course). Even if the MKVI was the lightest among all sopranos, it isn't by a significant amount - and again, it is meaningless. DAVE
 
#25 ·
Being serious - if you don't use a sling, then (with the thumb taking the weight, as a sort of fulcrum) there can be a noticeable difference in balance (and therefore the perceived weight ?) with different mouthpieces.

(To me) It's very noticeable when (e.g.) going from ebonite to a chunky metal mouthpiece on soprano. Probably much more apparent on 'straights' than 'curvies'. I really think comfort has more to do with the overall balance of an instrument, rather than minor variations in weight.
 
#26 ·
Dave Dolson said:
I think folks want to believe the myths and buy into them, that's all. One poster said he could feel the weight difference when holding a MKVI compared to some other model. I just don't buy that, even though the poster may believe it.
It's not a myth at all; modern horns are heavier because they have more stuff on them--more keys (high F#, G), bigger keys (palm, pinky tablet, low C/Eb) and more more rods to control them. Your bathroom scale won't tell the difference because we're not talking about pounds or half-pounds, but ounces. Only a very sensitive scale would show this, but who cares? I can tell--it's not an illusion or a delusion or avid belief in some "myth"--and many other players would agree. As I said, the weight difference isn't necessarily a make-or-break thing, but when you play several hours a day as I do it does matter, and it's one of many reasons I play a Mark VI.
 
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