I have found that a good neck on a cheap horn can turn it into a whole different thing.

 

As some know, my Crescent line is/was made in PRC, and (as very few know) I have a line made in ROC.

Both are very compatible with anything made for Selmer, and/or compatible with Selmer, but the PRC tenon is much larger in diameter than the ROC. The latter is very close to Selmer in tenon diameter. Most necks made for MKVI, SA80 or later, will play well on either but the tenon adjustment on the PRC is so large I would not advise it unless you have a lot of practice doing tenons.

 

As to steps in the bore, they're all different.

 

My 'cheap' yas-23 was beat up, used and needing a very thorough cleaning and adjustment even when I first got it in the mid nineties. After almost 25 years in storage, I popped it out and began playing again this summer. Leaks abounded and it felt very resistant. Having a couple of tone holes levelled, new pads installed, and a full COA it became way less so but it still wasn't quite right so I too had my neck re-specced and that leak fix was a huge gamechanger, so much so that my tech apologized for not catching it during it's overhaul, and fit a longer 480 style octave key mech at no cost to make up or the oversight. With the original neck it's now a(fairly) freeblowing monster, being able to also swap my G1 & V1 neck to the mix it turns into Godzilla!! Maybe some of your pads are hiding a leak as you suggest, or the neck bore/taper on the eastar is much smaller than your existing horn?

(That being said, I still prefer the sound of my '56 Dynaction, which I wish had the bigger bell brace your '63 does, even if the swooping J spaghetti noodle-thin brace looks much sexier lol)

 

Well, I had tried to swap necks with my SDA. And sure enough, no fit; The SDA neck is a bit bigger.

 

There is another thing, the neck fits into the body such that the inner wall of the neck tenon is NOT flush with the inner wall of the body (my SDA is flush). Perhaps this "step" is causing the resistance in the upper range. Question 2: Do most (or all) pro saxes have flush inner walls between neck and body?

Other respondents seem to have understood this comment better than I do, so maybe I am just dense.

I don't quite understand what you mean.

You said you expanded the Tenon so the neck fit is tighter now.

Do you mean when you instert Tenon into Neck Receiver, you can see (as you are inserting it in) there is a gap between the exterior surface of the Tenon and the interior surface of the Neck Receiver ?

Question 1: Is different resistance a known phenomenon among different saxophone makes/models (assuming they are all leak free)? I don't have experience in comparing saxes.

Yes, it is common. Oftentimes it may be the result of the neck design, sometimes the body tube design combined with neck.
Some models blow with little resistance "free blowing", other blow with more resistance and this can be a desireable trait for some players.

 

Maybe he means that the neck ID at the large end is not the same as the body ID at the same point.

Or maybe he means that the neck large end does not have a good butted fit to the sax body when fully inserted, so there is a small space/void there.

 

Maybe he means that the neck ID at the large end is not the same as the body ID at the same point.

^^^ That is what I mean. Sorry for not being more clear. The neck tenon is tight against the the body receiver. But the receiver doesn't provide a recess for the thickness of the neck tenon wall; so the the internal diameter (ID) of the tenon is less than the ID of the body, creating a step of 1-2mm at the joint. Is this seen among pro saxes?

 

Interesting question. Thanks for the clarity.

Now I have some measuring to do tomorrow when I get back home!

 

Addendum: With the limited tools here, it seems that my Conn 10M tenor has neck ID and body ID very closely matched.
Nowhere near 1mm difference.

 

Yeah, I've read before from those with technical repair skills who can improve such dreck. But think of the time, energy... and ultimately expense in doing so. Very few have such skill, and in the end, you're still left with a horn that ain't gonna last. Instead, I'd put such effort into rebuilding a $220-$300 vintage American horn that could last another lifetime and be of some use.

 

Yup, that may well be the case. But that is what this experiment will try to answer. Here are some pictures of the Eastar neck receiver that is not recessed for the neck tenon (it is flush; there is only the seam):

And here is the recessed neck receiver on my '63 Buffet SDA (you can feel the shelf with your fingers):

If you know of any pro horns that do not have a recessed receiver, please let me know. I'm trying to find out if this any more than a rarity in design. Thanks.

 

about this problem I'd like to quote Kymarto on a recent answer to a thread (I feel this is relevant within this context , perhaps Kymarto will chip in).

By the way, there are vintage French, German and Italian saxophones too (not only American), also priced

Indeed the whole case for a conical tenon is overstated. The perturbation at a cylindrical tenon is rather small, compared to later in the horn with the introduction of all those pesky tone holes. In fact, at one point a conical body was created using stepped cylindrical rings and it still blew exactly like a saxophone. Of course the ideal is a totally conical bore, but the minute we cut off the apex to put on a mouthpiece that is dead and gone. And of course the tone holes add quite a bit of compliance with their chimneys. Because of these and many other factors, makers have distinct conical angles in different parts of the bore. For a starter, the top of the neck is generally cylindrical, and sometimes with reduced diameter in what is called "necking in" to improve response in the highs. That has to do with the fact that the impedances are all screwed up in the mouthpiece, which is hardly conical.

There is usually a distinct change in the cone angle between the neck and the body, and the body is not always perfectly conical (and neither is the neck). In a curved sax, the bow is cylindrical, and then the bell has yet another cone angle.

And any place there is a tone hole, there is a major perturbation in the effective diameter of the bore at that point.

On a practical level, given that saxes have been around for 150 years or more, with countless manufacturers constantly tweaking the acoustical design to get an edge over rivals, and given that it really isn't a major deal to make the tenon conical, don't you think that if a conical tenon made a real difference it would be on all horns by now?

 

Thanks Milandro, that says a lot about the relative importance of sticking to the theory of a conical bore. One digression, regarding the normally cylindrical tenon section, a cylindrical tenon is a necessity if one hopes to fit the neck into the body. However, if the neck were designed to fit over the body (tenon on body; receiver on neck), one could have a conical tenon.

In any case, I'd still like to know if there are pro horns with neck tenon that does not sit recessed in the body receiver so that the ID of tenon and body are flush.

 

However, if the neck were designed to fit over the body (tenon on body; receiver on neck), one could have a conical tenon

Absolutely true and it might be a good piece of marketing hype.

however as kymarto pointed out, there are non conical bits of the tube all over the place and if a conical tenon did make a difference we'd know by now.

I'm sure we will see it some time just as we've seen many other marketing innovations such as the rimless bell

 

I have heard before of gaps (in depth) between tenon and receiver and the consensus was that it didn't matter ( that would create an even larger interference ) and in fact I belive that on a 6M the step is in fact a ridge where under and above the diameter of the tube goes wider ( in the receiver) Anyway I've checked several horns they seem to all have some sort of step but again we have notion of tenons not fitting all the way to the step.

Shorter neck tenon?

Got a new tenor, 238xxx tranny in nickle silver. It plays very nice and the plating looks original. The neck tenon is about 1.5~2mm shorter than the normal length. I have not seen a neck with a shorter tenon before, all the Conns I seen had same tenon length. The plating is on the edge of the...

www.saxontheweb.net

 

If my memory serves (and it probably does, I've had this horn since 1978) the Conn 6M has no step between the ID of the receiver and the ID of the body tube - plus, the neck tube fits INSIDE the receiver and there's an OUTSIDE sleeve - so there must be a considerable step there. There is another step where the inner tube of the microtuner ends and transitions into the ID of the neck tube. And the microtuner inner tube is cylindrical, not conical. Then as in all saxophones there's a huge step between the neck ID (microtuner inner tube ID in the case of the Conn) to the ID of the mouthpiece bore.

And you know what?

It works a treat. Plays beautifully in tune over the full range of the horn, accepts mouthpieces of any design, even and consistent tone and response from bottom to top.

Aside from telling us that minor steps in the bore are likely less important than it appears, it also tells us that if the bore can deviate from ideal this much and still be that of the best alto saxophone ever made, stuff like 0.001" of silver plating on the outside of the tube, or a special thumbhook, REALLY won't make any difference whatsoever.

 

I have a 6M and checked it right now, it has a ridge but not a step

 

Thanks JayeLID and everyone else, that pretty well answers my question. I checked my '73 Bundy alto; it has a thin step, but the tenon is also thin. Without pulling out a bore gauge, I'll call it a flush fit. I tested a variety of old reeds on the new sax, and with some adjustment I was able to get a much lighter resistance. Good to know. Perhaps the inherent difference in resistance is due to a smaller diameter neck (as mentioned earlier).

I'll report back on other findings of this cheap sax in due time.

 

Ope: re the "step question," my advice is to just go by your results. Different necks can have very idiosyncratic results, and trying to isolate one reason why is probably a fool's errand, because there are so many factors in play. Plus, the only thing that really matters is results, which are much more "real" than a lot of the theorizing you will see or get into here or elsewhere on the web. If you can't trust your own judgment and experience, then...well...why are you doing what you're doing (rhetorical question, not literal).

 

One additional piece of info that may be helpful - Selmer Mark VI sopranos (and others) have step in the solid bore, right around where the neck would fit in if it were separate. It's not abrupt, like a neck to body fit would be, but it's not a smooth change either. My understanding was that this was done to help tuning and/or response in the upper register. (Of course that could be wrong...). Anyway, it's additional support for the concept that bore diameter changes aren't that big a deal.

 

Ope...I just realized this is on topic, and was probably unconsciously at least in part inspired by this thread:

Yesterday, because I have this hip issue preventing me from standing for two hours to do the work I need to do, I repadded my Taiwan tenor to put woven felt in, instead of the stock pressed, and to enlarge the resonators to be as big as they can be without becoming a pain to seat. Some may recall I've harped on "repads" in the past, across the years, here and there, because usually that means replacing pads without doing proper mechanical work prior to that (a waste of money, to me, for reasons already explained both long ago and more recently). This was practical on the horn in the post because it's a relatively new one, probably less than 200 or 300 playing hours on it (but I could be underestimating, not remembering), and the factory does excellent mechanical work. I was very pleased with everything except the rigidity of the metal, which has changed subtly since I finalized the specs on prototypes.

The keytubes were butter. I had to do very little -- almost nothing -- mechanically speaking. If others want to learn to "repad," without having to learn to do mechanical work, Taiwan tenors, if you can get them from the same factory that makes mine, are very good candidates. Your main concern there would be shipping damage, which would force you to have to learn to remove "lost motion" or "play." The main stacks were perfect. I may have had to move pillars on pivot screw pillars slightly, I can't remember, but I don't think so.

I think overall the tube/screw fit and smoothness was probably actually better than my own work, on average, on vintage horns. It's not that I'm not trying, it's that the Taiwan tenor is new, having had no damage, or corrosion to screw or tube, and the work of the person who assembled was excellent.

I was done with seating the pads in less than half a day, because the mechanical work was excellent.

I would not say the same, remotely, of my PRC line. I have to do a lot of work on those that I didn't have to do on the ROC tenor, straight out of the box, even prior to them ever being played.

Also possibly of use: the main change was that I "maxed" the resonators (short of having to spend a lot of time making lots of small adjustments to prevent toneholes and metal resonators from making contact during use). These tenors are slightly bright, and I though I like them as they are I would not want mine to be brighter. I would not say enlarging the resonators on the tenor made it brighter, though it did make the color more vibrant. I would do it again, and would recommend it to all except someone really looking for zero sustain and a stuffy kind of thing (such people do exist, though they're rare).

 

I didn't say anything about your line of horns. Several companies make different necks. I'm sure not all Chinese necks are poor. I don't know why mine played better with a different neck.

 

Some definitely do suck, objectively (poor intonation, soft metal, name the objective/material criteria), but others don't. That wasn't really what I was trying to add. I wanted to add this to the convo, which I don't think was that unclear: once objective/material criteria are covered, taste is not universal, not even within ability ranges. IMO "suck" can really only apply to objective/material criteria. Beyond that, when we say something sucks, that itself sucks, because it is just "cognitive dissonance" presenting itself as objective.

 

I should add this, to what you added (@zephyr): comparing necks, it's somewhat important to compare necks of similar fit quality, or barring that to have experience in guestimating what the rough degree of degradation in performance is for each neck, based on the differences in fit. Intonation, voicing, resistance, speed of response, sustain/resonance, all these things and more will "improve" (quotes because some people will like a lot of resistance, slow response, exaggeratedly great or exaggeratedly dead sustain/resonance, etc.) or suffer according to the state of the tenon's fit (and not just "fit" as people who haven't worked on tenons closely and a lot would conceive of it). That means if your necks fit differently, they won't compare to each other -- they won't perform -- as they would if both were in similarly snug, airtight repair/fitting, so the comparison would be sort of arbitrary and not related to what either neck would play like if both received close attention in tenon fit.

 

I think most players who have been at it a while can tell if a neck fits. Probably not to the point that a good repairman does. I suspect most people haven't thought about it all that much. In one particular case a Chinese horn I had played out of tune and a Selmer neck I had made it play worlds better. So I got a Taiwan neck for it and found the same result. In another case the Chinese horn had that kind of neck that I see where the curve in much more arched. It didn't have that upward curve like a MKvi style neck, if you know what I'm saying. That neck was really not very good. However part of it could be my perception, as I didn't like the angle.

 

I'm sorry man, but here (on the first count) you are just wrong, and the reason (Dunning-Kreuger effect) is that you don't have the experience to correct your belief. If you want to learn to fit tenons, and you promise not to share the info here, I will privately tell you exactly what tools to get, where to get them, and how to fit tenons properly, as well as some suggestions for experimentation (I don't think you will do this, I'm just offering it in good faith). Any one who is skilled in fitting tenons and who has good tone production will confirm the point (short of being intentionally, consciously contrarian). Not trying to make you feel bad. The reason really is lack of experience. You are not alone. There are only a handful of techs of whom I'm aware that do know how to fit tenons well. I can tell you who they are, but that would put them on the spot in an unfair/inconsiderate way.

I have tools made for me from Ferree's over a decade ago, by the way, for fitting different pitchings' tenons that they told me I was the first to ever own. I doubt they have sold more than 2 or 3 more, period, since then, but I also have no doubt you can still get them made by Ferree's if you know what to ask for. It's not because the tool isn't cool as hell and profoundly useful, but because most people still have generally not had the experience to understand what's possible.

 

Eh...gotta correct myself. That tool was made more like 15 or 17 years ago.

 

Theoretically any disturbance in the perfectly conical bore is a perturbation that should affect intonation and response negatively, however in practice the impact of a lot of thing is going to be insignificant/imperceptible. If you are worried about bore perturbations think about tone holes, where there is a huge extra compliance in the bore at each place a hole sits. In practice they do screw things up somewhat, as they change the bore profile in ways that require that makers to tweak the tube cone angle to tame intonation problems. Bores are, in any case always a compromise. There is no one optimal bore profile; it is all a trade off between low end, high end, volume, response, brightness, fullness, intonation across registers, etc.

When you look at a disturbance in the bore such as a step, you need to consider the actual amount of perturbation it creates. Very local perturbations can be quite large without much affecting anything, since they represent only a very small change in bore volume overall, and only at one point. Much more significant are even small bore variations over a larger area, because altogether they represent a much larger perturbation. Any bore variation that measures 1/4 wavelength (of any significant partial) can affect that partial quite a bit, generally speaking. Even bore variations of a some tens of micrometers can have a significant effect causing cancellation effects if they exceed a quarter wavelength. by A small step at the tenon is really insignificant. The worst it could do, if the edge is very sharp, is to create turbulence losses at loud dynamics, but since is is not a large step I doubt the it is introducing any noticeable effect.

My guess is that what you are experiencing is mostly down to the neck geometry, since it affect a whole range of the horn. Variations further down the tube tend to affect only a limited range of notes. Variations in the neck, like variations in the mouthpiece, strongly affect the horn's playing characteristics and overall "character", although it is also always a question of how the various parts of the whole bore geometry cooperate.

I have a Chinese soprano which is actually an excellent player and well made and set up. However it come with two necks--one straight and one with a slight bend. The differences in playing characteristics between these two necks is considerable. Using the straight neck, the horn is quite free blowing, with a rather full tone. The curved neck plays much brighter and thinner, with a lot more resistance and very poor response, especially, for some reason (having to do probably with shifting some important partial impedances) affecting the A1, which really doesn't want to speak and often breaks to second octave A. If I had tried the horn with the bent neck I never would have bought it, but since it plays quite well with its straight neck I simply ignore the curved one.

My suggestion is to try to find a neck that fits the Chinese horn and see what difference it makes. It is worth noting that even if the neck fits, its internal geometry and cone angle may not play well with the cone angle of the Chinese sax's body, but it will certainly give you a good comparison to the original neck and how it affects playability.

 

I have a Chinese soprano which is actually an excellent player and well made and set up. However it come with two necks--one straight and one with a slight bend. The differences in playing characteristics between these two necks is considerable. Using the straight neck, the horn is quite free blowing, with a rather full tone. The curved neck plays much brighter and thinner, with a lot more resistance and very poor response, especially, for some reason (having to do probably with shifting some important partial impedances) affecting the A1, which really doesn't want to speak and often breaks to second octave A. If I had tried the horn with the bent neck I never would have bought it, but since it plays quite well with its straight neck I simply ignore the curved one.

^ that section particularly interested me as a point for practical (as opposed to abstract) discussion. Most people who have my straight sopranos prefer the curved necks (PRC origin, I also have a Taiwan line for which no one has a soprano yet, as they're just finalized). Indeed a recent sale actually sent me back the straight neck because I told him -- which was the truth -- that just out of curiosity I put a curvy (curved soprano, as in alto-shaped, not straight) neck in it and the result was excellent. The issue there, and why he didn't initially let me just send him the curvy-curved (with the caveat to just send back to me the neck he liked least) was that with the curvy-curved neck there is kind of a tilted-bell situation, where the angle the horn sits at is not very variable; the horn wants to sit at one angle, relative to the front plane of the body, and that also translates to limited options for how it can be oriented in 3D (horizontally, diagonally, etc., across 3D axes). 2000 word vocabulary restatement: with the curvy-curved neck, the horn doesn't feel comfortable to play except within a very limited range of positions, relative to the player's body.

The irony is that, IMO, and from experience, the biggest reason that the curved neck is usually preferred is that it produces a more comfortable playing/ergonomic/postural position for the player, and to some extent allows the sound exiting the horn to reach the player in a way that feels (like an alto, tenor, baritone) more enveloping; that is, the sound bounces back and goes directly to the player more immediately and completely, so that it feels/sounds more "spread."

To me the interesting part, which I'm trying to interject, is that there are finite ranges in terms of that relative influence of curvature in the neck as far as too much of a good thing (for those players that prefer the curved because it produces more of a tendency to hold the horn in that John Coltrane "My Favorite Things" cover's image than, say, Sydney Bechet (with the horn more directly horizontal, or even upward tilting).

Side note: depending on what you have, Kymarto, you may find a Yanagisawa 991 or 992 neck is compatible and different. The Yanagisawa necks will have more "ring" on those PRC sopranos that they match. Some players prefer that, some prefer the original (on my Crescent sop line). Ability level seems not to have much relation to who prefers what.

 

Anyway, the sax probably does not need an overhaul - at least not if you have to pay for it. If I were you I would forget about trying to go back and make it 'perfect'. Correct the big things and skip the small stuff like 'rough rod ends' UNLESS they have a definite effect of performance. Its two brass parts rubbing together - over the years of playing it, they will 'mate' and become smooth. At that point you will need to swedge the rod a little.
To the original question of resistance, the key to the neck is probably in the small end, not the big end. The Chinese necks are typically butchered in the small end and can have globs of solder inside. Pick up a couple sets of files - 'Riffler' files with all kinds of curves/shapes, and straight ones in various shapes. You can work the small end of the neck without trying to over-enlarge it - this is a critical area - you want to smooth out the sharp inside rim and flatten any obstructions in the reinforcing ring solder and in the first part of the neck, but try not to ream it out larger. I have done this on a couple Chinese necks and its the first thing I look at on one of them. I even had to do it on a Sterling silver alto neck that was not cheap, and you would think they would have taken extra pains with it, but they didn't. My work made the difference in being able to use it or not.

 

Thanks 1saxman. Actually, I filed/smoothed the neck tenon joint and end-ring joint at the opposite the first day I got the sax (forgot to mention that before). But I did not think of solder blobs deep in the neck. Thanks to your suggestion, I used an endoscope to look into the neck, and sure enough, there is a solder blob at the pip joint! See video/photo. My Buffet SDA is clean. Now I have to think up a creative way to knock off or file down the blob. I welcome suggestions.