Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 52

Thread: lefreQue Plates???

  1. #1

    lefreQue Plates???

    Hey all,

    I was just on Steven Mead's website and I noticed that these new lefreQue plates have come out. Now I have never heard of them or seen them until today when I watched the video him and Misa Mead put up a while back. I was just wondering what opinions and views you all have on them. From what I can interpret, they seem to focus the vibrations of the instrument so that the core sound is improved. Just thought I would see what you all have to say about them as they do seem slightly odd and I have never seen something like this before.

    Here is a link to his website where there are numerous reviews by other players:
    http://www.euphoniumstore.net/lefreq...e-the-benefits

  2. #2
    There has been some discussion about these already. Check this thread:

    http://www.dwerden.com/forum/showthr...19605-Aprils-f
    Dave Werden (ASCAP)
    Euphonium Soloist, U.S. Coast Guard Band, retired
    Adams Artist (Adams E3)
    Alliance Mouthpiece (DC3)
    YouTube: dwerden
    Facebook: davewerden
    Twitter: davewerden
    Instagram: davewerdeneuphonium

  3. #3
    Thanks for the link. Definitely some interesting stuff. I am very interested in them. I would very much consider them as I can see why a lot of players across numerous instruments are getting hooked on them. I also found a vid with Steven Mead and Derick Kane in which both are using the lefreQue plates.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snBpWzQxavk

  4. #4
    Those are the kind of thing that I would have to try before I buy, in the presence of my teacher.
    David Bjornstad

    1923 Conn New Wonder 86I, Bach 6 1/2 AL
    2018 Wessex EP100 Dolce, Denis Wick 4ABL
    2013 Jinbao JBEP-1111L, Denis Wick 4AM
    2015 Jinbao JBBR-1240, Denis Wick clone mouthpiece of unknown designation
    Cullman (AL) Community Band (Euph Section Leader)
    Brass Band of Huntsville (2nd Bari)

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveBj View Post
    Those are the kind of thing that I would have to try before I buy, in the presence of my teacher.
    Good idea! The ideal test would be a kind of double-blind test. The teacher would listen without being able to see you. You would be blindfolded. A friend would take the horn into another room and either install, uninstall, or leave the device(s) in place, then return to you. This would be repeated several times.

    It might be even better to record the session with high-quality mics/audio-recording. Then you could edit the audio tape to eliminate the pauses. Then you and your teacher could once again listen, this time without the delays. Still only your friend knows which of the takes are in which configuration. After you and your teacher decide which, if any, of the takes sound better, then compare with the installed status and see if it was just random differences in your playing.

    Through all this you should be playing 2 or 3 excerpts that you know really, really well, and which are well within your ability. You should have a firm sense of interpretation so you can be sure of playing them consistently.

    There is a huge psychology factor in play with anything like this, whether it is a horn, mouthpiece, or accessories. If you think a given mouthpiece will improve your sound, and if experts tell you it's the greatest thing going, you'll probably think you sound better on it no matter what it actually does for your playing. It's a challenge we all face when trying out stuff. I have not yet found the magic answer. What I DO try, though, is to psych myself out when I go back to the old setup (without the new gadget/horn). Then I see if my own input can make the desired difference. Then I go back to the new setup and try the same thing to see if I can get even more advances, or if the effort is less to get the same good advance.

    Of course, if you become convinced they will make you sound better, the simple fact is that having them on the horn probably will make you sound better! No shame in that, I suppose.
    Dave Werden (ASCAP)
    Euphonium Soloist, U.S. Coast Guard Band, retired
    Adams Artist (Adams E3)
    Alliance Mouthpiece (DC3)
    YouTube: dwerden
    Facebook: davewerden
    Twitter: davewerden
    Instagram: davewerdeneuphonium

  6. #6
    Thoroughly thought out, Dave Perhaps a little too complex for a geezer amateur like me.

    Your comments do point out how much our playing can depend on psychological unknowns.
    David Bjornstad

    1923 Conn New Wonder 86I, Bach 6 1/2 AL
    2018 Wessex EP100 Dolce, Denis Wick 4ABL
    2013 Jinbao JBEP-1111L, Denis Wick 4AM
    2015 Jinbao JBBR-1240, Denis Wick clone mouthpiece of unknown designation
    Cullman (AL) Community Band (Euph Section Leader)
    Brass Band of Huntsville (2nd Bari)

  7. #7
    When I was a child and bought a new pair of tennis shoes, I always thought that I was able to run faster with the new shoes on. I'm thinking this is much the same. There might be a difference, but probably much less value than might be achieved by more practice!
    Sterling Virtuoso Euphonium, Denis Wick 4AL

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Indianapolis area
    Posts
    1,003
    THINKING OUT LOUD...

    In the early or mid-80s I helped a student with a physics project involving the then-fashionable concept of "sound sleeves." He played trombone and I played euphonium, both blindfolded and both with and without the sound sleeve on the mouthpiece. We later looked at oscilloscope pictures of the sounds and determined if the mix of overtones was any different with or without the sleeve. Turns out it was reasonably different for the trombone but not necessarily for the euphonium.

    The experiment wasn't perfectly sound (pun intentional) because the sleeves added a non-trivial amount of weight that was perceptible, moreso on the trombone than on the euphonium.

    It strikes me, though, that the answer to the Lefreque question could be answered simply by looking at an oscilloscope picture of a player's sound with and without the things attached.

    So anyone have a euphonium, a set of Lefreques, and an oscilloscope? I own two of the three requirements, but my oscilloscope has tubes and is close to my own age of 63.

    There is a HUGE discussion of these things on the SAX ON THE WEB forum, stretching well over 20+ pages and including some participation be the manufacturer.

    Intuitively, I can see why there might be some justification to a "sonic bridge effect" claim where metal meets cork in a sax or where wood meets cork in a bassoon, but it isn't clear to me that the neck of a sax is an area of critical resonance in a saxophone or that the joints are a significant impediment to airflow in a bassoon.

    In a brass instrument, however, there are no such problems. We have metal on metal where the mouthpiece is inserted into the receiver, so I have grave doubts about THAT claim...Please read on, though...

    Here's a thought: As tubing is formed and bent in brass instruments, the thickness of the metal must be thinner at the bend points. If I understand correctly, one of the salient selling points of the Adams euphonium is that the tubing is of a CONSTANT thickness, even at the bends. Other than at the mouthpiece, if you look at where Mr and Mrs Mead and Derick Kane have their devices installed, They are placed at significant bend points in the euphonium: a second-valve knuckle and a bend in the top bow. It could well be the case that the things simply add MASS at those points, and the mass alone at a possible nodal point affects the sound and response of an instrument. The fact that players had been putting GOLF TAPE on those points since time immemorial might support the hypothesis that the added factor is mass. In that case, we could put a fifty-cent collar of plastic-coated lead or other heavy material at those points with success equal to a solid-gold Lefreque. So maybe Adams can tout their "built-in Lefreque" of constant-thickness tubing. ;-)

    As to the claim that different materials of Lefreque produce differing tonal characteristics, I remain skeptical...I would be very open to a look at oscilloscope patterns of tones produced using the different materials on an instrument played by a blindfolded player.

    As things do on some forums EXCEPT THIS ONE, the discussion on Sax on the Web became rather adversarial. The manufacturer had been participating in the thread, promising hard evidence, but never producing any. In some ways, I don't blame him for bowing out of the thread, since the tone of the skeptics had become rather hostile. Having said that, however, if the fellow HAD some hard evidence, the EASIEST way for him to silence the critics would have been to present that evidence.

    At times like these, I am reminded of all the time I spent with Harvey Phillips, the patched-up $200 Conn CC, and the Conn 2 mouthpiece.
    Last edited by Snorlax; 08-28-2015 at 06:16 PM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Central North Carolina
    Posts
    2,369
    Quote Originally Posted by Snorlax View Post
    ... if the fellow HAD some hard evidence, the EASIEST way for him to silence the critics would have been to present that evidence.
    This is, in fact, an impossible argument to overcome without presenting exactly that evidence. Of course, there's the perennial problem of what "hard" means in this context. To some people a subjective test of one's own device -- or a test performed by friends who have been told what to expect -- is "hard" evidence. Others require more objectivity, at least before making a purchase. It's a sliding scale. How many people read the details of a clinical study and published epidemiological studies and post-marketing reports before taking a drug that's been prescribed to them by a physician? There's a general bias to depend on the reports of others as being objective, accurate and unbiased. In the end, you have to make your own judgment based on whatever evidence is important to you.
    Gary Merrill
    Wessex EEb Bass tuba (DW 3XL or 2XL)
    Mack Brass Compensating Euph (DE N106, Euph J, J9 euph)
    Amati Oval Euph (DE 104, Euph J, J6 euph)
    1924 Buescher 3-valve Eb tuba (with std US receiver), Kelly 25
    Schiller American Heritage 7B clone bass trombone (DE LB K/K10/112/14 Lexan, Brass Ark MV50R)
    1947 Olds "Standard" trombone (Olds #3)

  10. #10
    Hi Cameron,

    What exactly are you looking to improve with these?

    In my experience, they do change the response of the instrument (attacks feel cleaner, but notes are *harder* to lip), but when I use them I still get my sound. Actually, given the lipping thing, I've stopped using them on euphonium. (Still use them on trumpet, though. While it sounds the same, my playing feels crisper.)

    Minus an oscilloscope, my advice would be to try before you buy. There are both pros and cons with these.

    Best,
    Adrian
    Adrian L. Quince
    Composer, Conductor, Euphoniumist
    www.adrianquince.com

    Kanstul 976 - SM4U

Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •