There are at least two schools of thought on this.

1) Buescher always used a parabolic bore (at least up till the 1950s).

2) Buescher only used a parabolic bore on the earliest, handmade saxes (due to the difficulty of making a parabolic mandrel).

No one, however vocal they are on the subject, has to my knowledge provided any attempt at proof beyond "Look down the horn, hold it up to the light, and watch the toneholes disappear." Sounds good until you realize that a bowed body tube could have the same effect.

Like so much else concerning Sax's intentions, this may ultimately be an issue of faith.

 

According to Benade (Horns, Strings, and Harmony, pp. 209--215), only the cylindrical pipe and simple cone satisfy the requirements of a woodwind bore: ``These two familiar ones are the only Bessel horns with integral multiple frequencies, and therefore are the only musically useful bore shapes for use in reed-driven woodwinds.''

In other words, a parabolic bore, either convex or concave, wouldn't have the volume with frequencies 1, 2, 3, 4, etc., times its lowest mode frequency, which Benade finds critical.

Seems to me a parabolic bore, to the extent it's more than just marketing hype, is a Bad Thing.

Geo

 

parabolic bore

paulwl-You're very correct about no one producing any solid scientific proof. That being said, I suggest that, having tried many various saxophones, the proof is in the way the saxophone plays. You've played modern saxophones and vintage Buescher (Aristocrat and before) horns alike, haven't you? Do you agree that there is a significant difference between them? I'm speaking of your overall tone being different, as well as easier-to-define physical aspects of playing, such as a noticeable vibration of the saxophone. I'm not suggesting that this is undeniable proof, but it certainly suggests a difference of some sort, right? What, if not a parabolic bore, would you suggest this is? If you perceive any difference at all, that is.

Until someone actually maps out the interior of them, you're right that it's just a matter of faith, although John Kelly would probably disagree. He had a .pdf article posted on his website for sometime that was very convincing, but it isn't there anymore and I can't quite recall it. Did you see that one?

p.s. We may have discussed this before on Classicsax. Forgive me for reliving it if we have.

 

p.s.s.

paulwl-just saw your website. Great playing and I see that you obviously have played vintage horns!

 

Aha!! No wonder there's a fractious debate. No one can agree whether or not it exists!!

Well, they sure do sound different, so it must be somethin'. It does seem like the curve in a parabola would do more to hinder than help sound waves, but then it seems like the curve in the bell would foul things up as well.

 

parabolic bore

geo,

In Benade's Fundamentals of Musical Accoustics, he says that in order to preserve a desireable frequency ratio, woodwinds are limited in the types of air columns (bores) that are musically useful. He then names the "cylindrical pipe (e.g. clarinet) and the straight-sided cone (e.g. saxophones)..." So...you could be correct, but there isn't an arguement that even a supposed parabolic bore Buescher has for one side a straight-sided cone. The other, key-holed side of the bore is the point of contention. Also, it's possible that Benade a) didn't know of the possibility that early saxophones supposedly had said parabolic bores, or b) used modern straight-sided cone saxophones.

Also, to address your point that curved bore walls might be a "Bad Thing", Benade, in that very same book, says, "The net result [of having curves and bends in tubing] is that the speed of sound is increased within the bend, and it also has a slightly lowered wave impendence. Moreover, at the junction of the curved and straight pipe segments, one can have several types of wave reflections." This would include the entire bore of a saxophone with one side a straight cone and the other a parabolic cone and herein lies the reason why vintage saxophone purist like playing older horns. All of this is resting on the thoery that vintage instruments have a parabolic bore, but I firmly believe that they do. Sorry about the lengthy post.

 

parabolic bore

geo,

In Benade's Fundamentals of Musical Accoustics, he says that in order to preserve a desireable frequency ratio, woodwinds are limited in the types of air columns (bores) that are musically useful. He then names the "cylindrical pipe (e.g. clarinet) and the straight-sided cone (e.g. saxophones)..." So...you could be correct, but there isn't an arguement that even a supposed parabolic bore Buescher has for one side a straight-sided cone. The other, key-holed side of the bore is the point of contention. Also, it's possible that Benade a) didn't know of the possibility that early saxophones supposedly had said parabolic bores, or b) used modern straight-sided cone saxophones.

Also, to address your point that curved bore walls might be a "Bad Thing", Benade, in that very same book, says, "The net result [of having curves and bends in tubing] is that the speed of sound is increased within the bend, and it also has a slightly lowered wave impendence. Moreover, at the junction of the curved and straight pipe segments, one can have several types of wave reflections." This would include the entire bore of a saxophone with one side a straight cone and the other a parabolic cone and herein lies the reason why vintage saxophone purist like playing older horns. All of this is resting on the thoery that vintage instruments have a parabolic bore, but I firmly believe that they do. Sorry about the lengthy post.

I have a 2006 copy of John-Edward Kelly's pamphlet, and enjoy playing the type 3 or type 4 Buescher. Unfortunately, I'm not at all versed in the science of John-Edward's, though find the notion of a parabolic bore and Kelly's aeronautical training, intriguing.
So, I sometimes wonder if anyone would think of a cast and/or forged, hardened aluminum, parabolic bore saxophone?

Were we a more benign version of our own species, perhaps musical instrument design and production would ascend to a technological level more akin to what now gets devoted to an increasingly gadget oriented culture & society; and what seems unfortunate, a whole world lived within whatever production parameters are required to serve humanity as a whole, within such restricted parameters as our current degree of social evolution allows.

Versus a more evolved attempt at making form follow function..rather than what seems the obvious now, of design having to tag along as the poorest of relations scraping by, by darning up the various points of greatest abrasion-while the whole caterwalling world, goes that's way..much as the sole direction of the criminal mind as simply put, is a search amounting to a plea for effective discipline.

I have owned and played a number of fine saxophones; not unlike my experience owning cars; where an inexpensive though highly serviceable used car, in time becomes a prized collector's item with a price tag no one anything like a "normal" person could ever afford.

With now apparently fine saxophones selling inexpensively so to speak, due the relative economy of where these instruments are produced: not unlike the evolution of production, designating where and when the latest crop of reasonably acquired saxophones may come from-with a very likely caveat, that regions of active saxophone production are likely to produce the finest saxophonists and the finest music for the instrument too. Eventually, and ultimately.

So, I would like a world given to collectively contrived pandemic solutions; and similarly, saxophones having no doubt about themselves, no?

Anyway, given classical saxophonist Harvey Pittel's notion, about the future of the saxoohone; the wait for the rational evolution of the saxophone, seems likely to stymie those looking more for answers rather than questions.

One experience during 1973, found me recording an "informance" done by Harvey Pittel, then professor of saxophone at the University of Southern California..an "informance" as his whole northwest tour then was arranged, was to provide a more guided introduction to the classical saxophone and that's music by Pittel's informed dialogue about the instrument.

What then struck me, was Pittel's comparison of the historic violin with the saxophone: saying the horn's evolution is about five hundred years behind that of the violin.

I do enjoy having gotten to know and play quite a few interesting saxophones, as well as the similarly involved search for an instrument to play.

What is curious, is the reflection of the saxophone or another musical instrument as "subject" of that's own "object."

Thus, I think that ultimately music will most contribute what is necessary to evolve an instrument to that's potential.

I mean; I also greatly prize the saxophones currently produced in India, that are exceedingly simple while also designed for inexpensive maintenance too. A curved soprano in my hands during 2004 for $114 was an amazingly musical device, with a wealth of sonority whose mouthpiece alone was worth the purchase price of the whole saxophone. Developed and sold by a company first organized to grow musical quality reed cane in India, they do successfully very nicely.

Anyone, willing to speculate on India's musical evolution for the coming half a millennia? Where both saxophone and clarinet are popular, and the brass instruments too...wow.

I like Balkan Romani music, also a fine current evolution of the art of saxophone and clarinet. Much an improvisor's idiom too, with single dance tunes that can last as much as six hours for dance parties from dusk to dawn and beyond.
Bulgaria's greatest alto saxophonist Yuri Yunakov also Bulgaria's middleweight boxing champion for three years running in the early 1970s: is the person said to've been who Frank Zappa had in mind, in the comment "music is taken more seriously in Europe than in 'the states' "

Phew: Before I got encouraged a second time, to follow my dreams; I had developed a habit using the I-Ching for divination: within which I found koan like advice. The same hexagram for "music," is also that for "enthusiasm" which can end up intelligence too often garnered by hindsight, as one tries to accept evolution rationally.

Thus, I am intrigued greatly by this concept of a parabolic bore; which if poetic licence or licentiousness, I guess a person must explore alone..does anyone know of the Conn "M" action, being adapted to the parabolic bore horn? That would seem the ultimate of what are current conceptions of design? And, besides those "parabolic bore" Buescher, are other saxophones also made using a parabolic bore? And, could the parabola of the bore be opposite the tone chimneys? That would seem easier than creating the parabola within the tone holes and action?

What having picked up a $400 gold-plated 1930 Buescher alto in 1997 has done for my saxophonist's soul. Since these horns are known as "partially parabolic" I wonder whether any fully parabolic saxophones were produced, that would seem so; at least by the way Bueschers are described as "partially parabolic."

 

begging the question

Eric, great to see your name pop up here...Yes, we did sort of address this on classicsax.com forum, but IMO it generated more heat than light. The topic is ripe to be explored.

I dimly remember reading something by Kelly on this, but you're right, it disappeared quickly, and in any case it struck me as more of a screed than anything else.

Yes, I do notice a difference in vintage saxes vs. new ones. And between makes as well. But I wonder if anyone with enough experience to really know vintage hardware can even be a truly impartial user. It tends to re-map your mind's ear to prefer that sound (it certainly has mine).

Given that, I'm not comfortable with the idea that just because the player perceives a difference, it's due to the bore. It begs the question.

 

Only one way to know for sure. Measure it.

Next time someone has all the keywork off their horn, take an inside bore micrometer like machine shops use and mesure away.

1 bore measurement every inch should tell the tale.

Until someone does, all we have is mouth noise.

 

Parabolic Bore

Everyone is talking about measuring the inside diameter of the horn but would not the outside measurement of the tube reveal the curve of the bore also?

 

In an ideal world a perfect cone makes the best saxophone bore. However, the mouthpiece/reed system prevents the possibility of the perfect cone coming to a point at the small end.

Also, it ain't an ideal world. The column of air inside the bore is warmer and denser near the mouthpiece due to body temperature and humidity. The "bulges" from tone holes also mess up the perfection of the cone.

The most obvious deviation from a perfect cone is the different slope of the taper from the tip of the neck to the open C# tone hole. Almost all saxes exhibit this characteristic, and the variations are numerous:

A. A "faster" taper from neck tip to C#, or

B. The entire neck is smaller than the rest of the horn (Benade calles this "necking in"), or

C. Inserts in the first part of the neck (common in sopranos), or

D. Most common, a combination of two or more of these deviations from a perfect cone

Before 1867, Adolphe Sax also deviated from a perfect cone starting around the bottom bow to the bell. None of this stuff really makes a parabola, but 19th century instrument makers used the term "parabolic" loosely. Theobald Boehm used it to describe his flute head joint before Sax, and those flute heads weren't parabolas either.

Using the term "parabolic bore" in a rather unscientific way has one important benefit - it confuses those who would steal an instrument design. Maybe that was the best reason for Adolphe Sax to use the term.

 

Everyone is talking about measuring the inside diameter of the horn but would not the outside measurement of the tube reveal the curve of the bore also?

Presumes that the thickness of the metal + plating/lacquer is constant. Presumption pays off so litle in these matters, it just ain't worth it.

My guess is that the base of the parabola in the "parabolic bore" correspnds to the neck, like a previous poster implied.

 

Assumption is the mother of all screw-ups.

 

saxtek wrote:

"In an ideal world a perfect cone makes the best saxophone bore."

Please email me your technical references for this statement. Thanks.

 

References

Horns, Strings, and Harmony. Arthur H. Benade.
Doubleday & Co., Inc., 1960

The Physics of Music, Readings from Scientific American. (Various Authors)
W. H. Freeman and Company (May be out of Print)

Fudamentals of Musical Acoustics. Arthur H. Benade.
Oxford University Press, Inc., 1976

 

Went to look up the parabolic bore...
found this, which has sax's patent.

http://lachesis.caltech.edu/jayeaston/galleries/sax_family/sax_history/adolphesax history.html

The Saxophone is able to change the volume of its sounds better than any other instrument. I have made it of brass and in the form of a parabolic cone to produce the qualities which were just mentioned and to keep a perfect quality throughout its entire range.

Seems to me that the parabolic bore, more of a truncated parabola starts from the top ( maybe even the neck ) down... if its similar to the flute's parabolic headjoint which tapers out slightly in a parabolic curve. but the curve would only be obvious if you kept on for another half metre(?).
my opinion is that it is similar to the parabolic headjoint except on a cone not a cylinder.

Perhaps someone can run a computer simulation of a parabolic cone and a normal cone and see if the air slows down/???/...?...

As to whether buescher are parabolic... can someone take a high quality pic and try and fit it into a LARGE parabola? Then what about current saxes?...

Just my 2 cents

 

picture

Hammer said:"As to whether buescher are parabolic... can someone take a high quality pic and try and fit it into a LARGE parabola? Then what about current saxes?..." --I think a side x-ray could possibly do the trick. One where you could see the straight-sided cone on one side and the (supposed) parabolic key-holed side on the other. I wonder if this would work? Anybody a medical doctor? :wink:

Good reference, BTW, Hammer. It's important to realize where our instrument came from, and its inventors true intent.

 

The science angle is fun to think about, but it might not ultimately be all that informative.

Too, it strikes me that maybe the pro-parabolic forces are not even all that interested in looking into the question with precision instruments. There's so little to go on (except Sax' rather terse word) that they might very well be proven wrong about the parabola in Bueschers and other middle period saxes. This would leave them in the precarious position of having to defend their choices on purely esthetic terms.

This is something that their spiritual leader, Rascher, was opposed to. He believed there should be a higher dimension to it than esthetics -- in this case, doing justice to the intent of the inventor. The rationale is that the sax is one of the few invented, rather than evolved, instruments. (Of course you don't see people harrumphing over what they've done to Mr. Moog's synthesizer, but never mind that now.)

For chapter and verse on that topic from John Kelly, go here:
http://www.johnedwardkelly.de/texts/rascher.pdf
Most interesting reading, as are Kelly's "aphorisms" and "why art is not entertainment." He is quite the pamphleteer (as well as a phenomenal classical virtuoso). He even manages to fetishize "Resistance" (a quality Rascherians look for in a sax and mouthpiece) as a metaphysical essential of Art! The guy is hard, hardcore.

Note to Eric: Kelly now offers his acoustics essay only by snailmail, on application, at a charge of $5. Hmm... :?

 

The science angle is fun to think about, but it might not ultimately be all that informative.

Too, it strikes me that maybe the pro-parabolic forces are not even all that interested in looking into the question with precision instruments. There's so little to go on (except Sax' rather terse word) that they might very well be proven wrong about the parabola in Bueschers and other middle period saxes. This would leave them in the precarious position of having to defend their choices on purely esthetic terms.

This is something that their spiritual leader, Rascher, was opposed to. He believed there should be a higher dimension to it than esthetics -- in this case, doing justice to the intent of the inventor. The rationale is that the sax is one of the few invented, rather than evolved, instruments. (Of course you don't see people harrumphing over what they've done to Mr. Moog's synthesizer, but never mind that now.)

For chapter and verse on that topic from John Kelly, go here:
http://www.johnedwardkelly.de/texts/rascher.pdf
Most interesting reading, as are Kelly's "aphorisms" and "why art is not entertainment." He is quite the pamphleteer (as well as a phenomenal classical virtuoso). He even manages to fetishize "Resistance" (a quality Rascherians look for in a sax and mouthpiece) as a metaphysical essential of Art! The guy is hard, hardcore.

Note to Eric: Kelly now offers his acoustics essay only by snailmail, on application, at a charge of $5. Hmm... :?

The idea of "resistance" is exactly what struck me about the gold plated Buescher I had from 1997 to 2016 and had restored with black joey pads in 2014 by a friend a real talent at such things.

Particularly when "getting in voice" which always seemed to take about three months if I hadn't played in quite awhile for one reason or another.

That type three Truetone had a discernably different feel to the sound as the full tone came out, once I started to get the "voice" into the realm I felt sounded like I was getting the sound and expression I liked best from the instrument.

Resistance sure had a lot to do with the difference I heard from the way that type three Truetone sounded from other saxophones. An analogy might be a guitarist choosing a heavier gauge string, for the tone.

Except the Truetone seemed unique from other saxophones in the feel of needing more work to get in voice than other saxophones; though once a person got there you're locked into something really fine and also different.

(snip)

[Sorry - needed to edit out lengthy off-topic digression.]

 

Oh, here's Eric now. Looks like we crossed in the mail...if "mail" is the word. :wink:

It's important to realize where our instrument came from, and its inventors true intent.

In so far as that "true intent" can be determined, intuited, or interpreted, anyway...Whatever one's saxophonic convictions, it would give a sense of grounding and roots to an instrument that sometimes seems to be almost anti-historical.

 

In the end, wether it is a Parabolic bore or not wont affect the choices of those who play Buescher saxes. We play Buescher saxes because they are exceptional well made instruments, have great sound and intonation. This is what should matter to those of us who play Buescher saxes.

 

I dunno about you, Boot, but I started playing jazz on them a couple years ago, basically because no one was doing it and I wanted to find out why not.

I never did find out.

 

Well, I'm with Boot -- I just posed the parabolic question to stir up controversy!! I'll play 'em no matter what -- even if the bore's proved to be omni-directional to infinite tolerances.

 

Paul,
I started playing Bueschers because I had my head exploded and all my preconceptions destroyed the moment I had a play of a 30's Aristocrat. There was no comparison between the Buescher tenor I know have and any of the other horns I tested it against then or since. You know how it is when you find a killer horn. You just stick with it.

 

I started playing Bueschers because I had my head exploded and all my preconceptions destroyed the moment I had a play of a 30's Aristocrat.

Epiphany! The One True Tone. Ye Must Be Horn Again.

With me it was slow but sure. The Saxophone Shop Around The Corner, kinda. I had my play, then another, and thought, "Oh, that's nice, but nothing I'd give up my beloved Conns for."

I was, however, conceptually intrigued. A saxophone made in the jazz age, but not suited to play jazz? Historical revisionism at work? The Conntrarian in me was hooked. I went from hmm, not bad to hey, it plays! to MANALIVE! No epiphany here. They grew on me.

Well, I never do intend to give up my Conns (heck, I even grabbed myself a Martin or two since), but these Bueschers are just as special, somehow. Maybe in a more delicate, intimate way that I appreciate more now that I am on the downhill side of 35 and no longer so hotblooded as I once was.

And the best thing is, the Conns aren't jealous... :wink:

All right, folks. Back on topic.

Is it possible that the early, handmade saxophones were so special because they were not (or not just) parabolic, but polyconic? Ie: pinch a little here, bulge a little there, knead the nodes, goose the taper?

 

buescher tenor...

I have a long shot at a Buescher tenor belonging to an old freind of the family. He's 83, and I'm trying to convince him to take up playing it again after probably 45 years off. I know it would be good for him in so many ways...

If I can't get him to play the thing, I'll at least get myself at the front of the line for it...

He bought it new in 1935 with money from selling papers! Silver, I haven't seen it yet but I have high hopes. Don't know if it would be a TrueTone or a New Aristocrat...

Not to digress from the topic, just couldn't help it. OK, if I end up with this thing I'll get ahold of a bore gauge and measure it, how 'bout that...

 

Interesting thread...

It might be a good idea to start with something that we know and work from there. I have done some research on this topic but not as much as I might like to.
Relating the Parabola to Buescher Saxophones is John-Edward Kelly's paper "The Acoustics of the Saxophone From a Phenomenological Perspective" Now, in this short paper, Kelly tries to explain in simple terms the acoustical properties of a Parabola as well as the tonal and historical ramifications of the changes that have been made as a result of removing the parabola and changing the Mouthpiece design so radically. He clearly tells us that the Parabola is on the tone-hole side of the the instrument going down the body. He has a picture (OK I'm going to try to describe a picture) of two lines similar to a cone. One of the lines is parabolic the other is straight. He suggests that straight line shows the basic line of the back of the horn (the part that the strap ring is soldered to). Then he suggests that the parabolic line relates to the side of the body tube where the tone holes are. -I am purposely not going to make any judgments here.

Some things to consider are: the way that tone holes are pulled from the body, the size and diameter of tone holes in various locations....

I think that this paper is where so many folks get the idea that you can "look down the horn and see the Parabola" as Paul mentions.

This next part I am writing with much hesitation....I would hope that no one would read this and conclude that my findings are by any means conclusive. OK.

I grabbed a True Tone (today), a late model crescent G# that I have here which looks to have a straight body (think about that...). I looked down the neck Tenon into the horn and could see how the backside of the horn looked straight; as Kelly states. The side with the tone holes seemed to disappear. This is Kelly's proof that there is a Parabola.

"Just a peek down the any one of Adolphe Sax's saxophones (from the neck of a straight saxophone, or from the neck-joint of the altos or tenors) is revealing aplenty: the forward, tone hole wall of the cone arches completely out of sight..."

Finding a good starting point near the top of the horn, I made a mark. I then found a good point that I could measure (the outside of the horn by the way) near the body-to-bow joint. Using a caliper and a crude ruler I began finding points on the horn that I could measure and marking them with their distance from the original mark I made on the top of the horn (the 'zero point'). In total got about 14 points where I could measure and there was no tone hole.

Using these points, I quickly graphed the point on an axis and found them to be a nearly straight. Only dipping slightly below the line I drew from the first to the last point.
With my crude measurements on *this* True Tone, I see a parabola as stated but cannot find it in my measurements. I went back to double check; I got the same measurements.

Of course:
-I measured the outside of the bore and metal thickness may be a factor (but more than a mm or so?)
-I used a dial caliper and not some huge internal bore measuring devise.
-Kelly say's the parabola is greatly reduced in many newer instruments. -This might be the case here. Kelly plays a Transitional.