Untitled Document
     
Advertisement Click to advertise with us!
     

Eppelsheim & J'elle Stainer

Helen

Content Expert Saxophones
Staff member
Administrator
I spent a fair amount of time today poking around the respective websites of these 2 companies. This was the first time I've ever spent any time really looking at the 2 sites in any great detail.

I was wondering if there is anyone around here that can explain to me the differences (if any) between the Eppelsheim Eb and Bb Tubaxes (?) Tubaxi (?) (What is the plural of Tubax of anyway?) and Stainer's contra-baritone, and sub-contrabass.

Since both companies promote these as narrow bore horns, are they not essentially similar? Stainer seems to limit the range of their horns more than Eppelsheim, so the size of the horn will obviously be significantly different. But other than range differences, what is the difference?

Also, and maybe this is another thread...But is a Tubax really a saxophone? Does it meet the criteria as one? Since I'm not an engineer, and I must admit, I don't get that whole conical bore thing, I'm hoping someone can explain this to me in a language that a non-engineering type can understand.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There has been some discussion that The Bb, Eb, and C Tubaxes (?) are not saxophones. They do have a proportionately smaller bore than any other saxophone, so the argument is fair.

Before Adolphe Sax introduced the saxophone, he brought out a family of brass (cupped mouthpiece) instruments that were essentially bugles with valves. They had a wide bore, like a cornet for the small ones, and like a euphonium for the big ones. He called them Saxhorns. Shortly thereafter, Sax devised another group of similar instruments with a bore that didn't expand as fast. They had a more centered sound, and the soprano version was strikingly like the modern trumpet. He called them Saxotrombas. In deference to Adolphe Sax, perhaps the Tubax is a Saxotrombaphone.

Eppelsheim's Bb bass is certainly a saxophone. It is similar in proportions to the old American basses, actually bigger in some places.

The new Eppelsheim "conventional" contrabass surely qualifies as a saxophone. It has the standard saxophone configuration, with an added low A. Although not as wide in its bore as contrabasses from the 1920s, there is some "wiggle room" for bore size among true saxophones. Selmer bass saxes are much smaller than Conns and Bueschers. The Orsi contrabasses were also smaller in diameter. The Eppelsheim contrabass is much larger in bore diameter than the Tubax, and it has a darker sound.
 
Thanks for that Randy. It makes things a bit clearer.

I think I'm going to have to do some more investigating for myself. I'm curious about the Tubax vs. sarrusophone comparison/contrast, especially when the sarrusophone is played with a mouthpiece as opposed to a double reed.

Maybe if I'm really brave, I'll wander down the roads of conical vs cylindrical bores. Usually I just get a massive headache whenever I try to make sense of stuff like that. The wave charts, the graphs: they're all just too much for a artsy/communications type like me. :)
 
Last edited:
There isn't a C Tubax. It's been reported that there is one (I think I may have, myself), but it's really a C reed contrabass (I can't find the article, at the moment, but I did/do have it archived someplace).

In other words, I'm not believing in a C Tubax until Groove buys one :).

The Eb Tubax sounds one octave lower than the Eb baritone and the Bb Tubax sounds one octave lower than the Bb bass. Again, I have pretty pictures from Benedikt Eppelsheim, himself -- someplace -- and the Bb Tubax is obviously bigger than the Eb Tubax when put side-by-side, but you can go to http://eppelsheim.com/tubax_bb.php?lang=en and see that the neck is different from the Eb Tubax.

I'm not sure what to make of J'elle Stainer. Their website pops up the same horn for "contra-baritone" and "sub-contrabass" for me. I'd call it a translation error. Their "compact" contra looks like it could be a standard Eb contra that's been extra curved. It definitely looks like the bore could be as big as the Eppelsheim Eb contrabass, for instance.

(It's a new idea to "curve" saxophones -- sort of -- but clarinet makers have been doing it for years. "Paperclip" metal contraltos and contrabasses spring to mind.)

If you look at A. Sax's patent drawings, the low saxophones are curved. I've mentioned the Pelisson (possible F) baritone that's curved, too. To me, the Tubax and J'elle "compact" contras look like what Sax envisioned, but Groove is absolutely right about the proportions are what make a sax a sax.

I've heard an "original" Eb contra in a concert and the tone, to me, was very hard to distinguish from the orchestral tuba on the very low end. Mid to high range, it sounds more saxophone-ish. I haven't done enough comparative listening to Eb Tubax music.

Oh. The Eb contrabass sarrusophone from Conn -- 16V, New Wonder model -- had a single-reed mouthpiece that would work with it, but it's obviously a custom thingy. Picturage from Groove's old horn. The single-reed mouthpiece was never original to the horn when Sarrus invented it, as far as I'm aware. Same holds true for the Rothophone. This might go back to the point a bassoon player friend of mine once made: you can make the bassoon play without a reed :).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There is at least one C tubax. At one time I had a photo of 2 guys playing Eb and C Tubax outside Eppelsheim's old factory. I'll try to find it again online.

The single reed mouthpiece for sarrusophone appeared shortly after the invention of the sarrusophone. The inventor of the single reed mouthpiece for that instrument was ----

ADOLPHE SAX!
 
The single reed mouthpiece for sarrusophone appeared shortly after the invention of the sarrusophone. The inventor of the single reed mouthpiece for that instrument was ----

ADOLPHE SAX!
... and probably done to try to win his court case against Sarrus :).
 
I'm not sure what to make of J'elle Stainer. Their website pops up the same horn for "contra-baritone" and "sub-contrabass" for me. I'd call it a translation error.

Yeah, I had that problem too yesterday until I fooled around with the little flags on the right side, and than "BINGO" I got different images. Hence my comment on another thread yesterday about their navigation issues.

Here are the pages I managed to get on the contra-baritone and the sub-contrabass. If the English language is missing when you get to the page, then if you click on the British flag, English text seems to appear...sometimes....
 
I think the contra-baritone is basically a Tubax. The description says the range is low B to high Eb, but the photo shows a horn that apparently descends to low Bb. Yes, confusing. The only person I know who has played this instrument is Benedikt Eppelsheim - at a music convention. His opinion - "I am not afraid."

The link to the Sub-contrabass photos show an enormous, unfinished instrument.
 
Last edited:
Hmm.

I might be able to agree with the "contra baritone" being a Tubax-ish thingy -- in other words, a "narrow bore" Eb contrabass -- and the "compact contrabass" is just an overly curved Eb contra with "traditional proportions".

The subcontrabass, based on this, would be a horn sounding one octave lower than an Eb contrabass. And it'd be fairly huge, if that's a real mock-up of the subcontra's bell.

I also took a look at the compact bass. I don't see a reason for one. Better mechanics and intonation? That'd be sufficient reason, such as with Eppelsheim's design. In this case ... I dunno.
 
Tubax in C

Here is the photo that shows the Tubax in C, courtesy of Benedikt Eppelsheim, who just sent it to me as requested. It shows Thomas Mejer playing his C Tubax on the left (There is only one in the world) and Peter A. Schmid playing Eb Tubax on the right.
 
Last edited:
I sit corrected.

I still wish I could find that other article ....

Anyhow, Tubax in Eb, C and Bb.

Let's see. I think your collection of horns is missing the G mezzo soprano, C Tubax and Bb Tubax. You're slipping, Groove!
 
Randy, is it time to take another picture of your collection? I thought you'd let the Conn-o-sax go.

Yes, it's time. My last publicity photo is over 20 years old. Now I have different horns and time has taken its toll. The Conn-O-Sax will be one of the last horns to leave my dollection. As for the photo session, maybe this summer...
 
One word: Calendar :).

Of course, I wouldn't begrudge you selling your Conn-O for $100K, if Quinn can sell his for that. IIRC, yours was in virtually identical shape.

However, I have to say, the Conn-O tone is possibly the nicest of any pitch of saxophone. In my opinion, at least. I'd want to keep the horn with someone who knows how to play it.
 
I have just joined this forum.

Anyone seeking information about J'Elle Stainer may contact me anytime.

J'Elle Stainer is currently developping several instruments, some of them are still projects and prototypes as you may have seen in the web site.

I will be up dating the www.below65-4hz.com site soon with more photos, videos of performances in Europe and information about each instrument.

A few basses and contrabasses will be available in the USA early September.

Gilberto
 
Hi, Gilberto! You're the second instrument manufacturer we have on board! I hope you enjoy the forum.

I'll possibly be contacting you in the future, but please feel free to post here. You have some interesting instruments and we'd like to know about them.
 
Thanks for that Randy. It makes things a bit clearer.

I think I'm going to have to do some more investigating for myself. I'm curious about the Tubax vs. sarrusophone comparison/contrast, especially when the sarrusophone is played with a mouthpiece as opposed to a double reed.

Maybe if I'm really brave, I'll wander down the roads of conical vs cylindrical bores. Usually I just get a massive headache whenever I try to make sense of stuff like that. The wave charts, the graphs: they're all just too much for a artsy/communications type like me. :)

The sarrusophone is actually slightly more conical, as the bocal opening is much narrower than the neck opening for the tubax. The tubax timbre has a bit more "bite" to it, which permits one to cut through a band like a bari sax with an open metal mpc ;) (this is a good thing!). With the sarrusophone, especially played with a double reed, you can definitely tell that there's a bit of bassoon in its parentage.

As for the differences between conical and cylindrical, just think of trombones vs. euphoniums. The more cylindrical (trombone-like) the bore, the more "bite", and the more conical (euphonium-like) the bore, the more full the timbre.

Having played both (tubaxes at Benedikt's workshop and at Jay Easton's house, vs. my 1925 Gautrot Eb contra), I can state confidently that the tubax plays better in tune and has much better keywork. :-D The sarrusophone, however, is still much fun to play, and cost me a lot less than a new tubax...

Your typical vintage sarrusophone has keywork much like the original saxophones -- no articulated G#/C#, no high E or F keys (or even high Eb), no automatic register key. Low Bb is a LT (left thumb) key. No bis key or LH1-RH1 fingering for Bb. No side F# alternate. It does have a side C alternate, and a separate register key just for middle D. That said, Benedikt will make a sarrusophone to order that has fully modern saxophone keywork. He has an order right now for an Eb bari sarrusophone with range to low G (i.e., full bassoon range coverage). But he's not interested in mass producing them (unless a truly astounding number of orders pour in).

Enjoy,

Grant
 
Last edited:
Oh. The Eb contrabass sarrusophone from Conn -- 16V, New Wonder model -- had a single-reed mouthpiece that would work with it, but it's obviously a custom thingy. Picturage from Groove's old horn. The single-reed mouthpiece was never original to the horn when Sarrus invented it, as far as I'm aware. Same holds true for the Rothophone. This might go back to the point a bassoon player friend of mine once made: you can make the bassoon play without a reed :).

The sarrusophone was actually invented by Gautrot, a Parisian instrument maker. He named it after Sarrus, who was a French band director (much like J.P. Sousa and the sousaphone). Gautrot attributed the idea to Sarrus, but Gautrot's name is on the patents.

Enjoy,

Grant
 
so I know this is late for this, but why doesn't Bennedikt go and just call the tubax's, well, Tubax. New horn, new name.

Who's distributing the Stainer horns? or are they strictly custom order? I'm scouting around for a bass right now. I sold my Buescher because of the wretched intonation on it, and can't afford a new Eppie, and am still iffy with the IW's. The Stainer compact bass looks like it might be an interesting option.
 
I take it you've seen this already? I believe this might be the same horn they had on eBay before Christmas that didn't sell. Only then, they didn't indicate it was "B Stock". The Buy It Now Price was the same however.

They say that "we are the Bass Sax headquarters for both the IW Bass Saxes and the J'Elle Steiner Bass Saxes", and to date, they are the only ones I've seen selling the J'Elle horns here in North America. (And this is the only one I've seen them sell.)
 
Back
Top Bottom