TubeNet

https://www.lefreque.com" target="_blank

Just saw this, gonna leave it here.

Saxophone- and flute player Hans Kuijt at first invented the lefreQue for the saxophone being unsatisfied with the sound quality of even the very best instruments.

It's a saxophone, what did he expect!?!

Also, I will say that I think this entire idea is bogus and just another gadget to rope in the market that thinks their playing issues can be solved by attaching a doohickey to their instruments. There have to be so many other factors that influence the "purity of overtones" besides a little metal widget. But it's not my money.

But now the tone goes UP and OVER the bridge, and avoiding the stuff that it used to cross through and muddy up your tone. Definitely getting the solid gold version.

But yes, I'm sure it does *something* for *someone*, and for those top 1% players, I'm sure tiny differences are noticeable. For everyone else, the only noticeable difference is in our bank accounts.

bort wrote:But yes, I'm sure it does *something* for *someone*, and for those top 1% players, I'm sure tiny differences are noticeable. For everyone else, the only noticeable difference is in our bank accounts.

Preach, brother bort. They do have a pretty extensive list of professionals who use it.

I think anyone here with a little extra creativity could come up with a gimmick that, with proper marketing, could be sold to an extensive list of professionals. (I'm not saying we could manage the marketing part, just the invention.) Professional musicians are artists, not scientists or engineers, and they have no incentive whatever to discover whether the things that work for them are "real" or not.

With a little digging, you can read some of the wildest catfights* on the pro-music-focused internet about this thing. The true believers are cultish, the heretics are virulent...it makes anything I've read in the last 10 years on TubeNet look very tame. I'm not aware of a product with a similar effect on pro musicians' behavior; I have no idea if it has an effect on their tone.

*I don't mean to be sexist, as these disputes are not exclusive to - or even predominated by - women. Rather, they are exclusive to - or at least predominated by - catty people.

roweenie wrote:Barnum

That's about all there is to be said about it, as far as I can tell. The snake oil seems to be pretty obviously snake oil. Maybe somebody who can play anything anyway can play anything more to suit themselves with that doodad than without it. But I doubt us mortals can tell the difference, if there is any difference to be told, and I'd rather keep the money, save the embarrassment and explanations, and practice.

Biggs wrote:With a little digging, you can read some of the wildest catfights* on the pro-music-focused internet about this thing. The true believers are cultish, the heretics are virulent...it makes anything I've read in the last 10 years on TubeNet look very tame. I'm not aware of a product with a similar effect on pro musicians' behavior; I have no idea if it has an effect on their tone.

*I don't mean to be sexist, as these disputes are not exclusive to - or even predominated by - women. Rather, they are exclusive to - or at least predominated by - catty people.

In light of your extensive research, have you discovered which entity is more "catty"; the "true believers", or the "heretics"?

FWIW. I have tried these and there really is a difference in sound when they are used. I never bought into the "sound bridge" explanation since after all you have the shank of the mouthpiece inserted into the receiver. That's a pretty big metal-to-metal bridge, unlike a saxophone where you have a big piece of cork between mouthpiece and instrument (this device was originally created for saxophone). IMO this device simply dampens the vibration of the mouthpiece on the players lips. The natural reaction is too put more energy ("play louder" or at least DIFFERENTLY) into making the sound for the player to get the "feedback" vibration on the lips. Remember the trumpet "sound sleeves" that came out back in the 80s? Same effect, IMO. I'm no physicist/acoustician but that's my take on it.

Is it worth the cost? That's a different question and I'll leave it at that. I'll say that I've played using one and had students do so and there really is an audible difference. Several folks in the Met use them (pretty good band, I'd say).

So try using one before you condemn it as snake oil and you may be quite surprised. I know that I was.

Ad;

....Once you go lefreQue, you will never go back.

https://youtu.be/h1qQ1SKNlgY" target="_blank

roweenie wrote:

Biggs wrote:With a little digging, you can read some of the wildest catfights* on the pro-music-focused internet about this thing. The true believers are cultish, the heretics are virulent...it makes anything I've read in the last 10 years on TubeNet look very tame. I'm not aware of a product with a similar effect on pro musicians' behavior; I have no idea if it has an effect on their tone.

*I don't mean to be sexist, as these disputes are not exclusive to - or even predominated by - women. Rather, they are exclusive to - or at least predominated by - catty people.

In light of your extensive research, have you discovered which entity is more "catty"; the "true believers", or the "heretics"?

Personally, I find the heretics more off-putting simply because of their eagerness to make the argument personal. Since they are convinced the Lefreque has no effect on sound, anyone who endorses/uses it must be so stupid they'll believe anything, so delusional regarding their own aural sensitivity they'll claim to hear anything, or, most bizarrely, so shallow they're just attracted to the Lefreque because it is shiny jewelry.

But, I'd prefer not to be locked in a (chat) room with either faction.

"Extensive," maybe, but not exhaustive

Biggs wrote:

roweenie wrote:

Biggs wrote:With a little digging, you can read some of the wildest catfights* on the pro-music-focused internet about this thing. The true believers are cultish, the heretics are virulent...it makes anything I've read in the last 10 years on TubeNet look very tame. I'm not aware of a product with a similar effect on pro musicians' behavior; I have no idea if it has an effect on their tone.

*I don't mean to be sexist, as these disputes are not exclusive to - or even predominated by - women. Rather, they are exclusive to - or at least predominated by - catty people.

In light of your extensive research, have you discovered which entity is more "catty"; the "true believers", or the "heretics"?

Personally, I find the heretics more off-putting simply because of their eagerness to make the argument personal. Since they are convinced the Lefreque has no effect on sound, anyone who endorses/uses it must be so stupid they'll believe anything, so delusional regarding their own aural sensitivity they'll claim to hear anything, or, most bizarrely, so shallow they're just attracted to the Lefreque because it is shiny jewelry.

But, I'd prefer not to be locked in a (chat) room with either faction.

"Extensive," maybe, but not exhaustive

As I had suspected. Despite your best efforts to appear neutral, your choice of defining terms betrayed your sympathies.

https://www.fluteland.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=19670" target="_blank

Flute players are funny. That being said, I'll probably try this and post a video. I sure know anything to help my sousaphone playing will be appreciated

I had no idea flute players were so funny!!

I'd say try them before knocking them, I own one and can say at least for me, the instrument responds better. You can get a similar experience with the heavyweight mouthpieces. I find that it is when I use a standard conn-helleberg size mouthpiece, it works great. It does not work well with the Mike Finn's or Monette's prana size mouthpieces so much.

Cthuba wrote:I'd say try them before knocking them, I own one and can say at least for me, the instrument responds better. You can get a similar experience with the heavyweight mouthpieces. I find that it is when I use a standard conn-helleberg size mouthpiece, it works great. It does not work well with the Mike Finn's or Monette's size mouthpieces so much.

Did yours come with a "money-back guarantee", should it not work for me?

roweenie wrote:

Biggs wrote:

roweenie wrote: In light of your extensive research, have you discovered which entity is more "catty"; the "true believers", or the "heretics"?

Personally, I find the heretics more off-putting simply because of their eagerness to make the argument personal. Since they are convinced the Lefreque has no effect on sound, anyone who endorses/uses it must be so stupid they'll believe anything, so delusional regarding their own aural sensitivity they'll claim to hear anything, or, most bizarrely, so shallow they're just attracted to the Lefreque because it is shiny jewelry.

But, I'd prefer not to be locked in a (chat) room with either faction.

"Extensive," maybe, but not exhaustive

As I had suspected. Despite your best efforts to appear neutral, your choice of defining terms betrayed your sympathies.

C'mon man. I only used those terms to illustrate folks' commitment to and sincerity of their views on the thing; "the yays" and "the nays" just didn't have the same ring, you know?

As to my sympathies, the only sympathy I meant to convey was for people getting reamed on message boards for being stupid, delusional, shallow, etc. as a result of their belief. I don't own a lefreque and would never purchase one (I don't feel I'm at the level where equipment is holding me back), but I do know many people who did purchase them and are happy with the results. Lefreques are used by perfectly intelligent, reasonable people and buying a lefreque, despite what internet comments say, doesn't disprove their intelligence and reason.