Thin Pads on Vintage Martins. Why or Why Not?

[Grumps]

Always heard thin pads are best for vintage Martins. Is it because of the way the keywork was initially set up? Or perhaps the bevelled tone holes? Is it just a myth and cups and keys can be bent any which way to make up for the small difference in pad size?

Anyone care to elaborate?

[SAXISMYAXE]

The keywork is designed and set up to operate properly utilizing the thinner (160-.165) pads when adjusted to the proper key heights. Not doing so will cause the pads to hit the tone hole at the rear where the keycup is soldered to the stack key first, instead of plopping down directly, simultaneously all the way around as it should.

Bending, manipulating,or outright "King Konging" the keys in an attempt to fix this issue with thicker pads simply creates collateral problems that are totally avoidable by using the proper pads.

[clarnibass]

This is completely mechanical and it's not a question of a myth or not. If a saxophone (Martin or other) was designed to better fit with thinner pads (unless something was changed sometime) it would be better to use thin pads. But the thinner pads would need some bending anyway, since you don't always put the exact same amount of glue, and no pads are accurate and consistant enough, and keys move, etc. But your suggestion in another thread that not using thin pads will somehow make a Martin not "sing" is simply not true. It's just mechanical reasons because thinner pads will require less work. If it is a good one and leak free it will "sing" anyway.

[bruce bailey]

You can always add more glue or put shims under thin pads but thick pad will always be fluffing up and causing the horn to go out of adjustment. It is just dictated by the thin cups and angles of the arms on Martins.

[SAXISMYAXE]

Hey Clarnibass,

If you are directing this towards me, for the record I never said that Martins won't "Sing" without the use of thin pads, simply that they won't seal and function as well. You've obviously confused someone else's comments with mine. :rolleyes:

[clarnibass]

SAXISMYAXE, sorry if I wasn't clear. What I said wasn't towards you at all. I was referring to what Grumps wrote in another thread, that he has heard that Martins need thinner pads to really "sing" arguing the thickness itself is the important, while actually the seal and venting of the pads is what's important, and in some cases thinner pads will make it easier to achieve.

[Bootman]

Thin pads on Martins or they just don't play properly. It is purely mechanical. Try it out for yourself, it is very obvious when you play both type of set-ups which one plays and feels better.

[sax-ony]

I recently had a few pads replaced on a Committee II tenor, and my repairer was surprised by how low the key heights were and equally surprised by how well the horn sang with so little clearance between pads and toneholes. I assume from this that the low setup (which cannot be opened up without filing the heels of keys) is why the pads have to be thin.

[Grumps]

But your suggestion in another thread that not using thin pads will somehow make a Martin not "sing" is simply not true.
You're really getting hung up here on a figure of speech. In the thread that inspired this new one, the original poster was having problems with a Martin which was recently overhauled. I had asked if thin pads were used, and added that they needed them to "sing". Well, read the other opinions here. A horn that has been "kingkonged", has clanking mechanics or will more readily fall out of adjustment will not play as well as one set up in a more ideal fashion. And yes, in my opinion, will not sing as well either.

[clarnibass]

Maybe because English is not my first language "figure of speech" is especially important. In that thread, maybe instead of asking if they used thin pads, it was better to ask if it seals completely and has enough ventilation. It's always best to use the correct thickness pads, and that is what I would do.

[Grumps]

I disagree. When someone has a vintage Martin which played fine, was overhauled, then didn't play so fine; asking if thin pads were used (for the many reasons stated above) would be on point.

[hornimus]

Ditto what Bruce Bailey said. I've rebuilt only a handful of Martins. The keycups are fairly shallow. That coupled with the on-average smaller key arm/key foot angles on these horns when they came out of the factory pretty much dictates the use of the thinnest pads available for adequate venting.

[SAXISMYAXE]

SAXISMYAXE, sorry if I wasn't clear. What I said wasn't towards you at all. I was referring to what Grumps wrote in another thread, that he has heard that Martins need thinner pads to really "sing" arguing the thickness itself is the important, while actually the seal and venting of the pads is what's important, and in some cases thinner pads will make it easier to achieve.
Sorry Clarnibass. Don't despair, your English comprehension and usage is far better than my Hebrew! ;) I simply didn't remember ever posting that, and I didn't know if you thought you were quoting me or not.

Cheers.

[Gordon (NZ)]

The pads that certain suppliers often call "standard", are approx .185" thick. I have a complete inventory of them, and almost never use them. A well-established local colleague regards his stock as so dead that he has recently sold the lot. These pads are less than suitable for MOST saxes, because pads this thick will almost always close at the "back" of the tone hole before contacting the front, unless the front is packed out with glue used as a filler.

On the other hand, what is often described as "thin" is approx .165" thick, and are what I use for almost every instrument.

I think this is probably the experience of most serious technicians.

So the reality is that I have come to regard the .185" pads as "thick", and the .165" pads as "standard", because according to use, that is exactly what they are.

Some saxes do not have a lot of spare space for keys to lift higher than they were designed to lift. For such saxes, irespective of brand name, the result of installing over-thick (.185") pads is bad. Either a lot of glue is needed at the front as packing, or the keys need to be be tilted forward to accommodate the extra thickness. Either approach reduces venting, which cannot be corrected if the key cannot lift higher without hitting another part of the sax. This adjustment to accommodate over-thick pads is becomes ridiculous if the key cup arms are unusually short on a particular model of sax - because of the whole geometry of the key, without going into detail and drawing diagrams.

Perhaps this is why this discussion has been unfortunately hidden away in the Martin section of the forum rather than in the Tech section. Martins are by no means the only saxes to have unusually short key cup arms.

BTW, IMO such short arms are an extreme deviation from the theoretical ideal of having pads lift vertically from tone holes, and as such, represents a lower standard of mechanical design, but don't tell Martin enthusiasts that!

So may I suggest that this discussion may be little more than a semantic one. Normal, standard (.165") pads, which some suppliers unfortunately call "thin", are used for all saxes unless there is a particular reason for using thick (.185") pads, which many suppliers unfortunately call "standard".

The names given for thickness are really quite arbitrary.

Perhaps it is pertinent that Music Center (world's largest pad maker, previously Pisoni) in Italy, lists the following thicknesses for their standard range of pads. (They actually make any thickness to order):

Thick: 4.5 mm (i.e .177")
Medium: 4.3 mm (.169")
Thin: 4.0 mm (.157")
Very Thin 3.8 mm (.150")

[rleitch]

I just want to say that, speaking as the owner of a new vintage Martin tenor with all new pads, you guys have totally freaked me out.:?

Rory

[clarnibass]

Good post Gordon, and I think that maybe my definition of thin(er) and thicker was differernt from others...? I didn't realize but maybe most when mentioning something other than thin pads meant 4.7mm (0.185")? I was using something similar to Music Center, 4mm is thin, and anything above is thicker. 4.5mm or more is thick. I stock mostly 4mm and also (but less) 4.5mm, and use 4mm much more (I recently changed back to Music Center pads and they vary in thickness only slightly, less than any of the other pad makers I've tried).

Rory, don't freak out! This all came from another thread, on which I also mentioned that a Martin tenor is the best tenor I've played (sound, response)!

[clarnibass]

OK a question please for all those above who wrote Martins need thin pads. What pad thickness exactly did you mean, what pads thickness do you use on most saxophones, and what do you consider thicker pads?

Thanks.

[SAXISMYAXE]

Regardless of what past or present point of reference one is comparing the definition of what are the extremes of thick and thin pads available:

As Gordon touched upon, current industry application (parameters which seem to work ) translates to:

Thin equals .160 to .165.
Thick around .185

[hornimus]

OK a question please for all those above who wrote Martins need thin pads. What pad thickness exactly did you mean, what pads thickness do you use on most saxophones, and what do you consider thicker pads?

Thanks.

Kraus' 115 sax pads, 0.160"

http://www.krausmusic.com/pads/saxophon.htm

I believe (but am not certain) they are Luciens made by Music Center in Italy, like the rest of the sax pads Kraus offers.

[Gordon (NZ)]

Yes, I believe that is where Kraus gets them, but he has hinted that the particular Kraus model is made to Kraus specs, and could well be different in some way from the closest one listed in the standard range in the Music Center catalogue. After all, Music Center will manufacture to any requested spec.

[Gordon (NZ)]

OK a question please for all those above who wrote Martins need thin pads. What pad thickness exactly did you mean, what pads thickness do you use on most saxophones, and what do you consider thicker pads?

Thanks.

Just to clarify what I think I may have already indicated:

Because .160" to .165" (or in that vicinity) is soooooo standard for most saxes, I regard them as "standard", not "thin". I consider these pads to be suitable for Martins.

I regard .185" as excessively thick for almost all brands, so they can hardly be called "standard". I therefore call them "thick", in spite of what any supplier traditionally and misleadingly calls them. However if the key cup arms are long, as for example the high F key, then they are not a problem, and may indeed accommodate non-level tone holes in such a situation better than thinner pads.

If pad is significantly thinner than .160", I would call it "thin".

I think this would be the LOGICAL stand for many if not most technicians who work on a wide variety of saxes. I personally regret being misled into originally buying a large inventory of .185" pads which I rarely use. If anything, I hope this thread can help others avoid the same mistake.

[rleitch]

Is it at all possible to state in laymans' terms what exactly one should look for if one suspects that the set up of a vintage Martin is not optimal with respect to pad thickness and key heights?

The cure seems to be a proper set up by a member of the Martin cognoscenti, but what are the symptoms? Short term and long term?

For example, does the keywork on a properly set up Martin actually feel closer than on other vintage horns. Does an improper set up go south fast? Intonation issues?

Also, and this is hard to answer, do most techs know this stuff or are we talking real arcana here?

Rory

[Gordon (NZ)]

If pads are too thick (for ANY instrument), then any or all of the following could be apparent. However the following could are not definitive symptoms (to the unpractised eye) because they could be caused by a lack of proper adjustment. They are the result of over-thick pads IF proper adjustment cannot correct the symptoms:

1. The affected pads will close at the back (i.e nearest the hinge) of the tone hole before contacting the front of the tone hole, such that gorilla finger grip is needed to effect a seal. This may show up as response that gets poorer as the player plays faster, and is less able to maintain the gorilla grip.

2. The affected pads do not lift sufficiently above their tone holes, resulting in the relevant notes being flat or dull in tone.

3. When the affected keys lift, they hit other parts of the sax.

[clarnibass]

SAXISMYAXE & wind.miller (& anyone else), maybe a little strange to ask in the Marting forum, but what thickness pads from your stock do you use on most other saxophones (not Martins)...? Do you use the 0.185" pads? Other?

(Considering that all pads will always vary slightly in thickness, easily by 0.1mm, or sometimes 0.2mm, and especially from some inocinsistent pad makers when I ordered 0.16" pads I received pads from 0.15" to 0.173") I stock 4.0mm (1.58") and 4.5mm (1.78"). I use the 4.0mm pads much more. I occasionally have (but don't stock much) 3.8mm (0.15") and 4.3mm (0.169"). These are the pad thicknesses I'm familiar with. I consider the 4.0mm and 4.3mm "normal" (or standard, or whatever), thinner than 4.0mm is thin, and 4.5 or thicker I consider thick. This is because I never used those suppliers that sell the 0.185" pads, and wasn't aware that it is one of two common thicknesses in some places. I came to my interpretation of thin/normal/thick based on the pads I found that work best on the saxophones I see.

[SAXISMYAXE]

Clarinibass,

The inconsistency issue is key to answering this question. When re-padding Martins, Vintage Conns and Kings, I try to select pads as close to .160 as possible. Needless to say, a restorer/tech should have a good selection of pads marked .160 to .165, as there will a lot of picking through the inventory to find pads that fit. Both in terms of thickness and circumference, regardless of the size actually ordered.

.165 and sometimes up to .185 are often necessary for most modern horns (Selmers and all the clones, Bundys etc.). Some Bueschers also require a slightly thicker pad. More often than not, this added thickness can be achieved both with thicker pads, and if needed, with paper shims and/or a thick seat of shellac.

[hornimus]

Clarnibass, I keep only the Kraus 115 series in stock because Kraus lists them as 0.160", the thinnest I've seen listed. I can always use extra shellac where a thicker pad might have fit more readily. I don't have experience with other pads, regardless of the saxophone. (I've used Prestini sets that were thicker, but had problems with sticking, and I've removed many many species of pads that were obviously too thick for the horns on which they were installed, and on which repair persons had bent/warped the keycups to make the pads seal.) On the few Martins I've dealt with, even the 115's would have not worked (pad closing at the back of the key cup too soon) if I used what I consider to be a typical layer of shellac. In fact if I had pads thinner than the 115 series, I might have preferred to use those, but I have not seen anyone advertise pads at below 0.160". I'd be interested if someone knows of thinner pads that can be purchased in bulk.

[Gordon (NZ)]

As earlier stated, Music Center (previously Pisoni) in Italy, from which possibly most suppliers, including Kraus, seem to get their pads, list 3.8 mm (0.150") pads in their catalogue. They will also make to any spec you provide, semingly no extra charge. (Personally, I have not found a need to keep inventory of these.)

If you are in USA, I don't think you can order direct from them, like others of us do, but for a larger order, no doubt you could get them via Kraus etc, special order.

Also, one technician repeatedly says that Ed Myers makes any pad you like to specify.

[SAXISMYAXE]

Unfortunately Krause will not sell to the amateur either, and only sells to techs.
One way around this if you are tight with your favorite tech(s), as I am, is to cajole or otherwise bribe them into ordering the pads from these sources FOR you.

If the 115 series or the bespoke pads mentioned are indeed consistently .160 in thickness, this might be worth the extra effort. I have never used those two brands specifically, but can attest to the great pains involved in having to sort through a batch of "other maker's" pads to find those thin enough to suit, as I mentioned previously. This is both costly, wasteful and time consuming.

Fortunately, in the half dozen or so Martins that I have re-padded (admittedly, not a large number compared to the working pro technician, and I am not professing to be one myself), I haven't had a need for a pad thinner than .160, although I don't doubt that such beasts exist.

[Gordon (NZ)]

... If the 115 series or the bespoke pads mentioned are indeed consistently .160 in thickness, this might be worth the extra effort. I have never used those two brands specifically, but can attest to the great pains involved in having to sort through a batch of "other maker's" pads to find those thin enough to suit, as I mentioned previously. This is both costly, wasteful and time consuming...

That sounds like an exceptionally disorganised pad storage system. I buy from where the pads have a high degree of consistency. The pads are stored such that I measure the key cup diameter, decide on thickness, and go straight to the right pad compartment. I assumed that all technicians would have a similar system.

[SAXISMYAXE]

Very true. I order from two well known retailers who sell to the general public, and use well known makes of pads. However I still find the over all dimensions very quite a bit, enough to need additional sorting.

I'd LIKE to order from Krause but...........:|

[clarnibass]

OK, here is some of my experience, and some information that might be useful to others.

As far as consistency - I used to order pads direct from Music Center. I just measured about ten random pads from those, which are supposed to be 4.0mm. Several were about 0.05mm from 4.0mm, several about 0.1mm from 4.0mm (both more and less) and a few 0.15mm or 0.2mm difference, but consider that my measuring is probably not as accurate as some of the differences. The sizes of the diameters are VERY accurate! I found Music Center to be the most consistent of all pad makers/suppliers I have tried.

Several months ago I changed to an American supplier because their prices were attractive, and their pads were recommended (they are not made by Music Center). For 4.0mm pads I had variation from 3.8mm to 4.5mm which is especially annoying for big interenational orders. I recently changed back to Music Center pads through a supplier without a minimum order (in spite of the initial higher price per pad, this actually saves money, because I don't have too many pads of sizes I don't use, and I also save the very expensive carrier shipping sometimes required for expensive/heavy/big orders and don't pay tax for small orders).

Gordon, are you sure Music Center won't supply direct to America? Also, they actually do have a price increase for different thickness (10% according to their 2007 catalogue, but I suspect not everyone receives the same catalogue).

There is a supplier who sells thinner pads (3.8mm) made by Music Center but not in USA (but I'm sure they can ship to USA). In USA maybe you can ask some supplier to special order these for you if you really need them.

Ed Myers will sell to anyone as far as I know. I just measured a few of their thin pads, and they were aprox. 4.0mm-4.2mm. I was told by Kathy (she is the one in charge in Ed Myers pads from what I know) that they can make pads in any thickness you want, but at a higher price. Their regular prices are very competitive, so I'm guessing their higher prices for special orders aren't too bad either.

I ususally use the same way as Gordon. Measure (or sometimes guess) the correct size and go for the one I think is correct, and then change if I'm a little off. I have no problem doing this with the MC pads (with the other maker I sometimes had to look through different pads in the same size).

But I'm still not convinced Martins need thinner pads than other saxes, and still think they use the same size pads that other saxophones use. For example, a few days ago I changed a pad on a Selmer SIII and used a 4.0mm pad (which was exactly 4.0mm). I felt a slightly thinner pad would also be good if not even better. Does this mean Selmers need thinner pads?

[Gordon (NZ)]

"Gordon, are you sure Music Center won't supply direct to America? "

That's what I have been told by repairers in USA- something to do with excusive agencies. Perhaps they were wrong.

And perhaps it is just a little reticence that may exist towards private imports that I detect in USA.