In my experience the neck is fit to the receiver to create an air tight connection below the screw slot. All the tightening screw does is to insure the neck doesn't turn while the instrument is being played. I agree completely that over tightening the screw on a loose neck that needs to be refitted distorts the receiver and causes it to leak even more. I fix those on a regular basis. The problem is the lack of knowledge and education of the player on how to maintain and care for the instrument more than the instrument design itself. Although you might be on to something making a saxophone "idiot proof".

 

The receiver slot and screw are basically useless. The slot is an automatic leak and tightening the screw only distorts the reciever - causing it to wear and leak.

So why not eliminate them both? A snug friction fit lasts for years and gives you a perfect seal (similar to flutes). If it ever loosens up you can expand the tenon with a simple tool as shown below - insert it into the tenon and wobble to open the tenon slightly (tool must be just the right size of course). Over the long run you have a better seal and less wear.

Alternatively, you could use the same solution that bass clarinets use: a corked neck tenon.

Personally, I prefer the existing solution, though an SML-style receiver would be better.

 

I've effectively eliminated slot problems by packing it with Teflon tape (as in the 4th blurry picture in this blog). Lasts for years. In fact I'll have to check and see if it is still in this sax. If the Teflon has any effect, I fit the tenon better as the actual solution with the screw not really doing anything and forget to remove the Teflon. With a proper fit I sometimes even forget to turn the screw.

 

The SML is slightly better but it still has slots that will leak.

I've set up mine with the right amount of tension so I don't have to tighten up the screw - I take the slack out of the screw and just leave it there. Its been 2 or 3 years and no loosening. But I did use the tool in the top post above to get the tension I want. It doesn't need to be too tight - just tight enough so it doesn't rotate when you're playng but not so tight that you can't easily twist to adjust it and remove it. I've pretty much decided to make my saxes this way from now on but I want to bounce it off this discussion group and see what comes back.

 

The SML is slightly better but it still has slots that will leak.

I've set up mine with the right amount of tension so I don't have to tighten up the screw - I take the slack out of the screw and just leave it there. Its been 2 or 3 years and no loosening. But I did use the tool in the top post above to get the tension I want. It doesn't need to be too tight - just tight enough so it doesn't rotate when you're playng but not so tight that you can't easily twist to adjust it and remove it. I've pretty much decided to make my saxes this way from now on but I want to bounce it off this discussion group and see what comes back.

But the slots themselves shouldn't leak as long as the bottom portion of the neck tenon is airtight (which is supposed to be the case, as @saxoclese says above).

It's all personal preference really, but one of the things that I prefer about the saxophone setup (as opposed to the bass clarinet, which is like your solution in that it is a friction fit) is that, airtightness notwithstanding, the neck doesn't move around on me. The cantilevered design of saxophone necks means that the simple friction fit you're proposing won't be as good a solution as on flute, where contact with your embouchure exerts insufficient leverage to move the headjoint (assuming it's well fitted).

I don't know whether your saxophones are aimed more at musicians who are new to the saxophone or to existing saxophone players, but I feel that experienced saxophone players would probably be a bit unnerved by the amount that your solution would allow the necks to move around when assembled. I've previously expanded an alto saxophone neck sufficiently that it was a moderate challenge to fit it into the receiver, and I still found that, without tightening the neck screw, the neck moved around too much for my taste. So I would imagine that it will be difficult to maintain the balance between a fit that makes the saxophone reasonably easy to assemble, but doesn't leave the neck too loose when playing.

 

The right amount of tension is enough so that the neck won't twist or change position when you're playing - but not so tight that you can't twist it with your hand. That's the way mine is setup. You would have to make a serious effort to move it with your mouth and - its just too uncomfortable to do that.

Any slot effectively reduces the sealing length of the receiver. Going with no slot gives more sealing length and more area to create friction - and longer life for the friction.

The whole problem is whether players can accept it (as you expressed). Now that I've tried and tested it - the slot and screw doesn't make any sense. But any change is going to throw people off and that's my concern. Eventually the neck will loosen up and need retightening and that's why I showed the tool. Its a simple economical solution that needs a video demo - a long bolt serves as a handle and you wobble it by hand or tap it lightly sideways with a small hammer or piece of steel to swell the tenon.

For now the best thing would be to take this setup to some trade shows and see how people react. That will have to wait till finish a few more new horns. I'm presently making an alto without the slot/screw.

 

deleted

 

Making a saxophone neck idiot proof for the unskilled mechanic(beginner player) has its challenges. I agree with Jim, the split/pinch system is for the birds. I have a Hohner President with a fitting that should be standard on all saxophones. The parts are made with just enough heft to prevent damage. Light press fit with a knob/nub screw to keep the neck from spinning. Sheer brilliance using plastic at the contact point.
@jim schmidt I love your tool idea

The neck actually bottoms out on the shoulder when fully inserted.
I turned the screw in for the picture. Normally the plastic tip would be flush with the side. Takes maybe 1/16 of a turn to lock the neck in place

On the left is the Hohner. On the right is a Martin Handcraft. It doesn't take that much more material to make something strong at an important fitting !

 

Making a saxophone neck idiot proof for the unskilled mechanic(beginner player) has its challenges. I agree with Jim, the split/pinch system is for the birds. I have a Hohner President with a fitting that should be standard on all saxophones. The parts are made with just enough heft to prevent damage. Light press fit with a knob/nub screw to keep the neck from spinning. Sheer brilliance using plastic at the contact point.
@jim schmidt I love your tool idea

The neck actually bottoms out on the shoulder when fully inserted.
I turned the screw in for the picture. Normally the plastic tip would be flush with the side. Takes maybe 1/16 of a turn to lock the neck in place
View attachment 107289 View attachment 107290
On the left is the Hohner. On the right is a Martin Handcraft. It doesn't take that much more material to make something strong at an important fitting !
View attachment 107291 View attachment 107292 View attachment 107293

Whats the wall thickness of both the tenon and the reciever (with the plastic pinch screw)? It would have to be thick enough to resist bending.

 

@jim schmidt The components you made that tool with highly resemble a Norton swingarm bolt and bushing. Could also be TR-6. Think I have a couple. Will investigate

 

pig squealer - the Honer setup is indeed a good one and something to consider. No down side that I can think of (unless the plastic wears down). The entire knob etc could be made of plastic.

Although I am a Norton motorcycle fanatic - the expander tool is something simple I cut on a lathe. The large diameter section is approx 1/8" wide (you don't want it wider) and is only a few thou smaller than the tenon ID. The handle is just a long bolt. Last time I had to move it up and down in the tenon and tap it sideways with a small hammer. The first time I used it it worked by hand without a hammer. It only expands the tenon in small amounts which is preferred. When you **** the tool at an angle it presses on the ID of the tenon but doesn't seem to mark it up.

 

When you **** the tool at an angle it presses on the ID of the tenon but doesn't seem to mark it up.

I'm trying to figure out what word you could have possibly used there that the forum software found it necessary to censor.

Was it a common synonym for "tilt" (i.e., slant) that it interpreted as an anti-Asian slur?

Edit: I guess not. The mystery endures.

 

In my shop we strive for really great neck fit, one issue is that students and pros alike often completely neglect simple maintenance (like wiping the tenon clean) so they often complain that the neck fit has gotten tighter and want it taken down, even though it just needs a simple wipedown

 

It was ****. It seems crazy we cannot use that word, anyone had ****-a-leekie soup?

 

It was *. It seems crazy we cannot use that word, anyone had *-a-leekie soup?

Ah. As in "rooster"?

I suppose you could always use the French spelling.

 

apothecary glass friction fit lids solved the problem may centuries ago, I suppose it would be possible to do on a saxophone too but the tolerances would probably make this more expensive than it is nowadays.

 

A conical fit is actually a good idea - as long as it didn't jam up. It may not have the correct friction so you can turn the neck or it might jam up and not come loose. It would require some thick walled parts and precise machining.

 

I agree about the slot and screw, I cannot believe this is still common.

I can imagine some kind of seal/gasket like an O-ring inside the receiver at the bottom, so when the tenon goes in all the way it sits on it. There could alos be a mechanism at the top, e.g. a leage nut around the neck which screws it down onto the top of the receiver, but not that necessary any if the tenon/receiver is a good fit. Problems seem to atise when either tenon or receiver are out not truly round, have somehow got a bit distorted. The seal at the bottom in this case should still work.

 

conical mechanism combined with a little bit of condense water vapor would be certainly airtight

 

The receiver slot and screw are basically useless. The slot is an automatic leak and tightening the screw only distorts the reciever - causing it to wear and leak.

The slot is not an automatic leak if properly set up, and distorts from excessive tightening.

So why not eliminate them both? A snug friction fit lasts for years and gives you a perfect seal (similar to flutes). If it ever loosens up you can expand the tenon with a simple tool as shown below - insert it into the tenon and wobble to open the tenon slightly (tool must be just the right size of course). Over the long run you have a better seal and less wear. View attachment 107271

A flute doesn't need an anti-rotate feature, a saxophone benefits from it.

The method you propose depends on maintaining a close fit, and is not easily maintained (I am thinking of the majority of horns that do not see annual service).

 

Obviously the receiver and neck tenon would have to be made for it, but o-rings seem like they might be a good solution for a friction fit that provides a good seal and probably sufficiently secure holding without the hassle of cork. I have been playing on a Behn clarinet mouthpiece with o-rings instead of cork and it's unbelievable to me how much better a solution it is in every way. Less hassle to remove, easier to keep clean, only minimal cork grease required and, when the o-rings wear out, new ones cost a few dollars and can be installed at home without messing with glue or anything. I wish my clarinet and bass clarinet had o-rings instead of cork, for sure.

That seems like potentially a good option for the neck tenon and receiver, if you are building from the ground up, which you are. A friction fit with a perfectly fitted tenon will probably work at least as well, but the upkeep on that seems much more of a pain than o-rings, since the required tolerances seem like they would need to be very, very tight. At least with the current slot and screw, even if the neck doesn't seal perfectly, a player can tighten the screw to keep neck from rotating.

O-rings would also be great instead of neck cork, IMO.

 

Obviously the receiver and neck tenon would have to be made for it, but o-rings seem like they might be a good solution for a friction fit that provides a good seal and probably sufficiently secure holding without the hassle of cork. I have been playing on a Behn clarinet mouthpiece with o-rings instead of cork and it's unbelievable to me how much better a solution it is in every way. Less hassle to remove, easier to keep clean, only minimal cork grease required and, when the o-rings wear out, new ones cost a few dollars and can be installed at home without messing with glue or anything. I wish my clarinet and bass clarinet had o-rings instead of cork, for sure.

That seems like potentially a good option for the neck tenon and receiver, if you are building from the ground up, which you are. A friction fit with a perfectly fitted tenon will probably work at least as well, but the upkeep on that seems much more of a pain than o-rings, since the required tolerances seem like they would need to be very, very tight. At least with the current slot and screw, even if the neck doesn't seal perfectly, a player can tighten the screw to keep neck from rotating.

O-rings would also be great instead of neck cork, IMO.

Yes an oring is a good option. When my neck cork gets loose I cut a slot in it and install an oring - good for a few more years.

 

I think I have the solution - I'll add a small piece of brass to the receiver with a threaded hole. Then use a small plastic screw to add tension against the tenon. The screw will have a small screw driver slot instead of a knurled knob. This should prevent some hamfisted brute from overtightening the screw and damaging the tenon. This way I don't have to redesign the tenon and receiver with a heavy thick wall. See pigsquealers post above where I got the initial idea. I'll give it a try on the Alto I'm making.

 

trimmed to length it will bottom out on the shoulder instead of killing the tenon

Nylon Thumb Screw | Thumb Screws | Zoro.com

Shop our Nylon Thumb Screw collection. Zoro has low prices & fast shipping on millions of tools, parts and supplies for your business.

www.zoro.com

 

Why bother with tenon and receiver at all. You could do something like this

 

Pete, why bother with the rest of the sax? In hardware stores when the mood strikes me I'll blow thru one of those flexible steel connector hoses & play a righteous overtone series, loudly. It doesn't sound any worse than bagpipes! Best of all, I never get arrested 'coz nobody can tell where the sound is coming from; I'm just a shopper holding a steel connector.

 

Threads would allow any angle and positive lock

 

All you would need is a lockring!

 

Please people, you're not thinking straight! Where will the high mass screw go to improve tone??

 

Make the tenon of tungsten.

 

You've got several choices and each one has drawbacks.

The carefully fitted slip joint as in the head joint of a flute: flute headjoints (except the folded ones) don't have the side forces of a saxophone neck joint, and the length of the sax neck joint is necessarily much shorter due to the taper of the bore. A sax neck joint is more like the joint of the flute foot, and those are notorious for getting loose and sloppy. A tight slip joint also has to be kept clean or you risk galling and seizing.

Taper joint: just like a trumpet mouthpiece, you get just a leetle too much installation force and you've got to use a special puller to get the thing out of there. In machinery tapered joints are provided either with a jacking screw or a slot for a drift to separate them.

The screw type joints shown above will work just fine for mechanically securing the neck but you've still got to make a seal somehow.

O-rings will make a high quality tight seal, but they wear and get old. And you've still got to mechanically secure the joint somehow.

The current slot design ion theory relies on the upper part to pinch and secure the neck and the lower part to seal. However, for that to work properly requires a tight fit at the bottom and a loose fit up above, and all the joints I've seen are the same diameter top and bottom. So you have to expand the bottom so it's bigger than the top, and then it wobbles and you can't get it clamped tight enough, and the more you crank down on the screw the more the receiver distorts away from cylindrical. Yes, millions of them work OK, and the big rigid clamp instroduced by Selmer is way ahead of the thin tubing used by older instruments, but it's still a b**tard arrangement.

 

The screw type joints shown above will work just fine for mechanically securing the neck but you've still got to make a seal somehow.

exactly as I mentioned above in post 19. it just needs a gasket/seal. A saxophone always has things that seal and need maintenance (aka pads)

 

I understand the drawbacks of the conical friction surfaces (infact I have researched a bit this line of thought and there are some pretty interesting things for example combining different metals but they seem to be for at least semi-permanent joining).

I think that the O ring has way more possibility to work well and it is amost guaranteed that even a child may be able to replace the warn out O ring in seconds those very few times that it would need servicing.

But, this, as many other things, show how conservative is the environment we operate in.

Jim Schmidt takes a different stance in almost anything and that should be, I think, the attitude in any industry.

I have said it many times, the saxophone has a similar evolution and origin to the push bike and yet see how many times the concept has been revised and the technique and materials have been updated which, by and large, a modern saxophone and one made at the very origin still look pretty much alike and have changed so little.

To the point that leather, cork and felt , soon, will be used ONLY for this machine and in no other machine still made.

True, innovation has to have a purpose but also clinging to " tradition" because of inherent lack of wanting to innovate is a questionable attitude.

The gasket seal would be very good a solution but probably would be looked at with great suspicion.

 

I understand the drawbacks of the conical friction surfaces (infact I have researched a bit this line of thought and there are some pretty interesting things for example combining different metals but they seem to be for at least semi-permanent joining).

I think that the O ring has way more possibility to work well and it is amost guaranteed that even a child may be able to replace the warn out O ring in seconds those very few times that it would need servicing.

But, this, as many other things, show how conservative is the environment we operate in.

Jim Schmidt takes a different stance in almost anything and that should be, I think, the attitude in any industry.

I have said it many times, the saxophone has a similar evolution and origin to the push bike and yet see how many times the concept has been revised and the technique and materials have been updated which, by and large, a modern saxophone and one made at the very origin still look pretty much alike and have changed so little.

View attachment 107348 View attachment 107347 View attachment 107346 View attachment 107345
To the point that leather, cork and felt , soon, will be used ONLY for this machine and in no other machine still made.

True, innovation has to have a purpose but also clinging to " tradition" because of inherent lack of wanting to innovate is a questionable attitude.

The gasket seal would be very good a solution but probably would be looked at with great suspicion.

The JS tenor in the photo you showed in post #37 has the stainless steel tenon and receiver. I went with SS specifically to eliminate the wear problem at this joint and I may just go back to it in the near future.

 

You want to stay simple so I think the best compromise is the plastic screw for tension and then stainless steel for the Tenon. I used to use stainless and it doesn't wear like brass. If dissimillar metals work best then I could still use a brass received - or I could go SS on both. The whole length of the tenon/receiver could be kept tight for a good seal and maintenance would be less frequent. The tenor below has a SS tenon and receiver.

 

You want to stay simple so I think the best compromise is the plastic screw for tension and then stainless steel for the Tenon. I used to use stainless and it doesn't wear like brass. If dissimillar metals work best then I could still use a brass received - or I could go SS on both. The whole length of the tenon/receiver could be kept tight for a good seal and maintenance would be less frequent.

I am sure that a number of solutions could be found by a team of engineers willing to innovate.

I have a friend in the space industry, the amount and type of problems they have to solve makes this problem look pedestrian

 

Whatever the solution it does need to be pretty basic. All of us dont have access to high level techs with new fangled tools. Its important that it be simple enough for the average tech and utilize tools likely to be in their possession

 

Its important that it be simple enough for the average tech and utilize tools likely to be in

Or plumber

 

First of all, that blue "bicycle" is a toy/styling exercise, not an actual functioning bicycle used by people who actually ride bicycles.

The modern "safety" bicycle was invented around 1880. It, just like today's machines, features two wheels of equal size, a diamond frame, chain drive, and saddle and handlebars that are darn near identical to those of today. By "those of today" I don't mean wild stuff architecture students come up with for a senior project, I mean the actual bicycles millions of people ride all over the world every day.

Secondly, you leave out the economics side of the picture. Yes, a 2021 automobile is a far different thing than a 1910 automobile, but they've been made by the billions in that time frame, with large and clear advantages to going from 15 mph top speed and MTBF of hours to 100 mph top speed and almost repair-free service for 100,000+ miles. Not to mention that the revenue per automobile and per year for an automobile manufacturing company is far higher than for a saxophone manufacturing company. So the car company can afford to hire a lot more engineers. If your budget extends to 10 engineers in the R&D department, 9 of them will be working on current product support and small updates and 1 might be able to work on long term developments and research. If (like, say Ford or Toyota) you have 1000 engineers on staff, you can have a long term development group of 100 people. Which is going to be able to do more?

And again, it's been shown over and over that the money in making saxophones is down at the lower price high volume student level. Innovations that add $10 to the price of a horn are going to have a high hurdle to clear to get adopted, never mind innovations that add $100 or $1000.