C G Conn were proud of their hydro-forming capacity many, many years ago! hence the consistency of 10 M's and 6 M's through the years. As you say the initial cost of tooling etc. is high but the results are worth it.

 

I too would say so.

Unfortunately many buyers show a bias towards an hand-hammered product against all logic.

I mentioned this some time ago but I saw a program of someone making knives whom put, on purpose, some “ hammer” signs and scuffs on his newly made knife because he said that his customers are way more likely to buy one like that that they are to buy a “ clean” product.

 

Great video.
It makes clear that building a saxophone is a hellishly complicated task!

And it also explains the obsession with white gloves...

I would say, however, that FORTUNATELY many buyers show a bias toward an hand-hammered instrument. I know it does not warrant any consistency and that any tonal advantage is -well- at least debatable, but musical instruments are part of the chain of tools and events that eventually can turn into art.
When making art inspiration is important and a horn that was hand-made, even if of lesser quality, surely gives you a different inspiration .

Art is human and wants to stay human.

 

I would say, however, that FORTUNATELY many buyers show a bias toward an hand-hammered instrument. I know it does not warrant any consistency and that any tonal advantage is -well- at least debatable, but musical instruments are part of the chain of tools and events that eventually can turn into art.
When making art inspiration is important and a horn that was hand-made, even if of lesser quality, surely gives you a different inspiration .

Art is human and wants to stay human.

A well-made, superbly finished, nicely engraved saxophone is certainly a beautiful object, but I think we agree that it's not a true work of art. It's a mass-produced tool whose primary purpose is functional, not aesthetic or symbolic. For the same reason, a beautiful automobile is not a work of art. I respect the skills of expert artisans, but I don't consider them artists.

As you note, the real art in this process is the music made by a musician with the saxophone. I disagree that the degree of human involvement in the saxophone manufacturing process makes any difference to the musician's artistic output. Similarly, I don't think it matters at all whether a painter uses a machine-made paintbrush, or a brush painstakingly crafted by an old guy who inserts horse hairs into a handle one by one. If a tool is effective, it doesn't have to have been lovingly made.

As to the general infatuation with hand-hammering, I think this is mostly due to a romanticized notion of artisanal work that extends far beyond the saxophone. Lunch places advertise "artisanal" sandwiches. We are supposed to believe that a tomato sliced by hand with a chef's knife is clearly better than (perhaps even morally superior to) a tomato that is rolled through a slicing machine. My perspective is that if hydroforming facilitates the production of more consistent saxophones, then I'm for it. For me, creativity and inspiration have their place in a horn's design. Manufacturing should be about predictability.

 

yes, that’s true... until you buy a carefully made, by human hands, “ lemon” .:twisted: then you curse that human who made it.

Great for “ acid Jazz” though

 

The music is probably some copyright free that is available on YouTube or something like that. I started noticing this a few a months ago. I heard one of those tracks from the Mauriat video in at least a couple of other completely unrelated YouTube videos.

Too bad they used the absolute worst recording when the guy was actually playing the sax live.

 

Cheers Nitai,

I would very much appreciate you views on the technical side of the video showing the hydroforming process and your learned opinion (which, as you know, I much value) on the general quality of the assembly.

 

The comparison of hydroforming and hand-shaping should not extend beyond the neck because past that point it makes little to no difference in sound or response. Selmer has been using it quite a while and of course their consistency has improved dramatically. At the same time, as already stated above, the wonderful variety imposed by hand-shaping of necks is missing. I wrote about this on here years ago, but in short, they filled the neck with molten solder, then began to shape it after the solder cooled enough to handle. This centuries-old trick allowed the tube to bent without kinking. As this was usually repeated several times to make a neck, the question becomes did we lose something precious when this process was replaced by hydroforming? What did the solder, the heating/cooling cycles and slow manipulation of the neck do to the brass that is now a thing of the past, if anything? And how about the annealing process that was needed because of 'work-hardening' of the brass after being hand-hammered? Is that still needed after the instant hydroforming process?
I think if you look at the Selmers before the Super Action 80 which had hand-shaping, hand-hammering and annealing, comparing them to today's sax with none of those things, I believe you will find the primary difference between the early saxes and today's. And, you will also find the answer to the eternal question; 'Why can't they just make MK VIs again?'. They could, using today's methods, but they wouldn't be the same.
BTW, the inconsistency in the old necks/horns was not really a bad thing as it allowed different kinds of players to find a sax they liked - a horn for every taste, in a way.

 

Ah, an art snob. Relax ... i am worse.

But i *like it* that my Yany was built mostly by people. It was fussed over,
Made right, and so on.

It makes me feel better while i am playing. Especially the high end ones.
Solid silver and all that.

Surely the builders become a part of what i am doing?
According to the actual artist, yes. They are.


dsm

 

But i *like it* that my Yany was built mostly by people. It was fussed over,
Made right, and so on.

I'm all in favor of quality control. I just don't care whether it's automated or eyeballed, if both are equally effective in ensuring the absence of defects. If one method is more reliable than the other for a particular problem, then let's go with that one. A craftsman's caress may not be essential to achieve Six Sigma status.

 

Is there any truth in this statement I heard in several occasions that many Chinese sax makers use softer brass so they can hydroformed more easily (cheaper), therefore making these saxes more prone to developing leaks on a regular usage basis?

I suppose the big brand’s hydroforming machines and processes are capable of handling brass of same hardness as a handhammered process, are they?

 

Is there any truth in this statement I heard in several occasions that many Chinese sax makers use softer brass so they can hydroformed more easily (cheaper), therefore making these saxes more prone to developing leaks on a regular usage basis?

I find that unlikely given that the one thing Chinese manufacturers have in their favour is the workforce, hence the majority of instruments bare actually handmade probably to a greater extent than those from other countries.

So many people think the term hand made or hand hammered somehow magically means better quality because a bloke (or a lady) has used his or her hands on it.w with good old fashioned tools like hammers.

 

very interesting video + comments- thanks for sharing! @ milandro + 1 for making a new tool looking old, funny how the human brain thinks a used item is the better one!

 

Frankly speaking I find aesthetically pleasing to see people beating the hell out of a piece of steel and then getting a forged knife or anything else out of the process ( I am watching with great pleasure the History channel the program " Forged in Fire").

I can appreciate the traditional craft involved in it.

But when it comes to reliability of a modern machine making any artifact there is no doubt that it is incredibly reliable.

I can't help thinking that my swiss army knife is better now that it ever was ( I have a rather basic climber) when they first started making them by hand.

At the same time I also believe that it is possible to replicate exactly the successful horns of the past and produce them with way better precision that would equal or even improve on the older results but I doubt that people would ever recognize it.

After all this is a world which accepts the unproven additions of various pieces of metal here there and everywhere on the outside of a saxophone and is prepared to believe that this addition (never a subtraction by the way because additions can be sold) " improves" upon the sound.

And all this in absentia of any proof or even a principle in support of this predicament. To me this has always had the unpleasant whiff of magic amulets and quacks selling snake oils.

I have been watching with great pleasure this video by Ochres about their new saxophones.

It might be somehow slightly " lost in translation" (because they might appear to claim in the title that this horns have a 3D printing involved in the production process while it appears to have been only used in the R&D of the neck and bow) nevertheless very interesting indeed.

They use the newest techniques but prefer to use (horse)radish to patinate their saxophones

Sorry I don't understand Chinese. The quality of the playing is only , I think, for the purpose of testing the horn closing, I wouldn't assume anything form that sound sample.

 

I watched that too. Not much good without the translation.

Anybody??

 

well, there is quite a bit of visual information that can be distillated from the video but more can be found here

http://www.ochresmusic.com

and on the dedicated thread on SOTW

https://forum.saxontheweb.net/showthread.php?273162-New-manufacture

 

Hydroforming is used by expensive Taiwanese brands because making molds costs a pretty penny and in not a way to save money.

 

My repairman told me that when you hammer a piece of metal you cause the molecules in the metal to "anneal", meaning that the molecules in the lattice become better aligned, forming a more perfect lattice, and thereby allowing the bell to vibrate more like a single crystal, rather than like several different pieces of metal soldered together. Whereas when you hydroform the metal, annealing does not occur. Therefore, horns made by hand hammering vibrate better than those made by hydroforming.

On researching his answer, I think he is only partially correct. Annealing does not occur due to the hammering. Annealing is caused by heating the metal which softens the metal. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annealing_(metallurgy)).

In fact hammering the metal causes the metal to harden and can cause imperfections to develop in the lattice.
(https://www.halsteadbead.com/articles/work-hardening-annealing).

However, it seems that metal workers alternate hammering the metal which causes it to harden, with heating the metal which causes it to soften and therefore anneal.

So I think that what my repairman was trying to say was that the process of alternating the hammering with the heating causes the metal to anneal, whereas hydroforming does not require heating and therefore does not anneal the metal, and this is why horns made by hand hammering vibrate better than those made by hydroforming.

 

"Molecules" in a metal? I agree, your tech is only partially correct!

 

a little knowledge is dangerous

 

Of course a hydroformed bell could still subsequently be annealed if that were important.

However experts say it makes no differenced to a sax, any difference being inaudible.
Possibly a slight difference for a brass family instrument.
And quality cymbals have all manner of secrets associated with their manufacture.

 

What I found most interesting in the video posted by milandro was at 3:10. After all of that careful craftsmanship, the high F key is finally adjusted by torquing on it with a pair of pliers. It is a quick clip, but it shows that even precision construction sometimes needs a little tweak. The only unique part of of the clip is that they kept it in the video. I don't know why key bending bothers some, especially after watch in a video of hand hammering the body tube and claiming that controlled bashing makes for a better sax.

I've got two nearly identical Martins. Maybe they are hand hammered, I don't know. Maybe I could try hammering on one and report any perceived changes. I know that my hand-yanked keys improved them.

Mark

 

I’m not saying that I agree with my repairman, as I have read all the scientific reports that say that the material a horn is made of does not matter. However, he is a very good repairman and I hadn’t seen anyone bring up the “hand hammering + heating causes annealing” argument on this thread, so I thought I would report what I had heard.

 

Hammering (whether by hand, or by machine) causes WORK HARDENING, by distorting the grain structure of the metal. After too much work hardening, further stretching or bending will cause the material to fracture. Before that point's reached, the metal will be heated to ANNEAL it, which causes the grains to re-form with reduced distortion and reduced residual stress.

Hammering is the work hardening part. Re-heating (usually to a red heat, then permitting slow cooling - but I am not an expert on the forming of brass) is the annealing part. The degree of "annealed state" versus "work hardened state" in a finished part of formed metal depends on when the last anneal cycle was performed and how much work hardening occurred after that. This would be driven by the manufacturer's process details.

Furthermore, I suspect that the vast majority of saxophone bells go through a final die forming process to reach final dimensions and smoothness.

Your repair guy has the basic metallurgy all fouled up.

 

... Your repair guy has the basic metallurgy all fouled up.

I guess somebody had to tell it straight.
But he still maybe a great adjuster of saxes.

 

Here's the Selmer video:

 

This video is really "old".
For example: Selmer no longer forms the bells in that way (excluding Series II bass and probably Series II/Series III baritones)

The introduction of the Jubilee Series was a real revolution in the way Selmer (and then other manufacturers in Taiwan) gave shape to "that" sheet of brass.
Luckily... in this case, they raised up the quality.

 

Hand hammering causes the brass to form artisanal molecules.

 

another example of one whom has great credit and expertise for one thing but commenting about another of which he knows just as much as the next man.

This is like the vibrationalists quoting great players whom have ideas about the physics of what they play and while they are great players they maybe having no idea of what they are talking about.

Unless one is a metallurgist or an acoustician ( I am neither and would always take the advise of an expert over my own words) his guess is just as good as anyone else’s.

 

Also, a cursory google on the topic of actual bells (the ones that ring) indicates that they are far from single crystal, and that over time the cast materials used have evolved to become harder and harder, which happens to be something that annealing would typically have the opposite effect on by relieving any work hardening that had occured... I found it quite an interesting read.

Definitely NOT single crystal microstructure!^^^^^

http://www.foundryworld.com/uploadfile/20094132737377.pdf

Maybe we should be casting the bell from tin bronze, enough of this hammering or hydroforming!

 

It is exceptionally difficult and expensive to make large objects as single-crystal. It's only done where the demands for hot strength are extreme, as in exotic jet engine turbine blades. Bells (the ringing type) are ordinary castings and the grain structure is a function of the alloy, the casting process, any minor alloying elements added to control grain structure, cooling rate, and various other matters.

It's going to be basically impossible to draw any useful parallels between as-cast and machined cast brass/bronze, and rolled sheet brass subjected to various stamping and forming processes with occasional annealing in between the forming steps to prevent cracking. They're not even the same alloys. As far as I know saxophone tubes are made from rather ordinary and common brass alloys, just like anyone can go down to the metals distributor and buy.

 

I think you missed my point, which was that the learned tech quoted above wanted to "anneal" the brass by beating in order to create a more "single crystal" type structure in the belief that it would ring better, which is wrong on even more levels because apparently the best ringing bells have nothing at all to do with single crystals and more to do with hardness, which annealing would negatively affect.

But if "ringing" really does have an effect on sax sound a bell cast from tin bronze would certainly be an option. Wall thickness would be a challenge, but I can see a certain subset of wealthy "klangbolen owners" forking over hard cash to try... and it would move the debate on from Hydroforming Vs Handhammering