martin alto keys height
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
About like any other alto.
Joined
·
20,665 Posts
Actually, FWIW...I have found that Martin keyheights tended to be a bit lower than other makers of their time.
Now granted, a 50+ year old horn which has probably been serviced (at least) 6 or so times on its life...who is to say definitely what the original factory keyheights may have been ?
BUT, conversely, as the vast majority of Martins I have done (that would be close to 200 by now) in fact had low keyheights, that is more than coincidental, methinks.
So...if someone said "same heights as a Yamaha 23"....I would definitely jump up and shout "nooooooooo!!!!!"
Indeed I have also found many times that when a Martin comes in and it's keyheights seem more 'open' than 'usual for a Martin'.....the mouthpiece isn't gonna be as far on neck as I prefer it to be.....
So I wouldn't get so 'general' in my reply to this Q, FWIW. If OP had said Conn or King, my answer would be different.
A more useful answer:
have your tech adjust the heights for intonation and tuning. You may find that for intonation and familiar mouthpiece positioning on the neck cork, your Martin will end up looking a bit more 'closed' in the keyheight dept than most other horns....
Now granted, a 50+ year old horn which has probably been serviced (at least) 6 or so times on its life...who is to say definitely what the original factory keyheights may have been ?
BUT, conversely, as the vast majority of Martins I have done (that would be close to 200 by now) in fact had low keyheights, that is more than coincidental, methinks.
So...if someone said "same heights as a Yamaha 23"....I would definitely jump up and shout "nooooooooo!!!!!"
Indeed I have also found many times that when a Martin comes in and it's keyheights seem more 'open' than 'usual for a Martin'.....the mouthpiece isn't gonna be as far on neck as I prefer it to be.....
So I wouldn't get so 'general' in my reply to this Q, FWIW. If OP had said Conn or King, my answer would be different.
A more useful answer:
have your tech adjust the heights for intonation and tuning. You may find that for intonation and familiar mouthpiece positioning on the neck cork, your Martin will end up looking a bit more 'closed' in the keyheight dept than most other horns....
Joined
·
134 Posts
I agree with this. I have a pretty pristine closet horn that is original and can measure it for you. I can't do this at the moment. If you send me a PM I reminder tomorrow I will get it done.
Its very critical to know the pad thickness before measuring the openings. The original pads were thin, probably .160". If the horn has thick pads in it, this will make the opening smaller than the original design. Something else that arises frequently is the use of tone boosters. I have found on the tenor that use of standard Selmer-type brown nylon tone boosters improves projection without sacrificing the great Martin sound.
Joined
·
1,236 Posts
it will be nice thanks!
Joined
·
1,236 Posts
I do the venting, right and left hand, it show i have room to low down the action, but when I do it, it start to choke, especialy at the palm. The tuning on the neck is 1/3, but it is on the pocket!
OK, well, I have a Martin Comm 1 and a Conn 6M and I think the key heights are about the same, and both play well in tune without any evidence of either too high or too low pads. In my (admittedly limited) experience, unless the mechanism's been badly bent up, you can kind of tell where the original key height was, just by the necessity to have more or less standard cork thicknesses wherever corks are used. Same with pad thicknesses, if no one's gone in there and bent stuff around too badly, the pads that are too thick will hit in the back and the ones that are too thin will hit in the front and the ones that are about right will pretty much seal laid dry into the pad cup. Especially on a horn with a high quality design and execution of the mechanism like a Martin (Conns are a bit more string-and-sealing wax, and with Holtons all bets are off).
Joined
·
20,665 Posts
Right, OK so you have some expertise in keyheights then. Yes, as you say, there will be a point where the tone begins to get stuffy, so you wanna keep above that point...
I find Martins interesting because of their keyheights combined with their relatively light spring tensions. As I posited before, I have done enough of them to feel confident that indeed slightly closed heights and light spring tensions were the way they were intentionally set up....
Joined
·
2,011 Posts
Lance of Martin Mods fame has a lot to say on why Martin key heights are lower than others. Sorry I don't have a link or ambition to find one but you will find him on the Facebook Martin Sax group.
If your '55 alto is anything like my '54 tenor, the distance from the key feet to the body is closer than any of the dozens of tenors I've had and had apart. I was forced to use ultra suede to get a (seemingly) reasonable key height. Thin cork was loud and bouncy. It was easy to get used to the feel. Now, I find myself wanting to reduce the height on other horns.
If your '55 alto is anything like my '54 tenor, the distance from the key feet to the body is closer than any of the dozens of tenors I've had and had apart. I was forced to use ultra suede to get a (seemingly) reasonable key height. Thin cork was loud and bouncy. It was easy to get used to the feel. Now, I find myself wanting to reduce the height on other horns.
Joined
·
4,360 Posts
I have trouble accepting that some "vintage" saxophones "play better" with lower key heights. The purpose of a tonehole on any woodwind is to "vent" the soundwave whose wavelength corresponds to the location of that first opening in the body tube. The "rule of thumb" for full venting is given as at least 30% of the diameter of the tonehole. The diameter of the toneholes on the conical bore of a saxophone roughly correspond to the diameter of the body tube at that location with some exceptions. My view is that every note on a saxophone should "speak" with a clear and open tone throughout the range of the instrument. It can be proven that lowering a key to an opening smaller that about 30% of the diameter of the tonehole also lowers the pitch. It can be argued whether at that point it makes the note begin to get "stuffy", but I think it is certain that the note will have less volume and projection than when it is "fully vented".
I don't dispute the findings reported that some "untouched" vintage saxes appear to have lower keyheights than found on more recent makes and models. My guess is that these lower keyheights are representative of the mouthpiece design and sweeter and more mellow concept of tone of the saxophone at the time the instrument was made. That "hypothesis" would also suggest that the same keyheights may not be "ideal" for the instrument when played with a more open tip mouthpiece at the greater dynamic levels of today's style of playing.
I don't dispute the findings reported that some "untouched" vintage saxes appear to have lower keyheights than found on more recent makes and models. My guess is that these lower keyheights are representative of the mouthpiece design and sweeter and more mellow concept of tone of the saxophone at the time the instrument was made. That "hypothesis" would also suggest that the same keyheights may not be "ideal" for the instrument when played with a more open tip mouthpiece at the greater dynamic levels of today's style of playing.
Joined
·
134 Posts
Your thoughts make sense. However as a starting point, wouldn't you want the key heights where they were set at the factory? If you have some experience of where those key heights should be based on more open mpc then that would be a whole different thing.
Joined
·
134 Posts
I measured two Comm III altos. #1 is a 1962 Music Man with original pads, It has been disassembled and cleaned before. #2 is a fairly pristine 1954 horn and likely no work has been done to it, also original pads. I believe these are thin .160. I think #1 needs a little work. It sits out on a stand all its life and played frequently.
Lower stack #1 #2
D 32mm 32
E 32 30
F 28 30
F# 21 25
upper stack 20 22
side Bb 30 30
Palm keys 16 16
Bell keys 43 49
Lower stack #1 #2
D 32mm 32
E 32 30
F 28 30
F# 21 25
upper stack 20 22
side Bb 30 30
Palm keys 16 16
Bell keys 43 49
Joined
·
21,538 Posts
A lot depends on the regulation of the 1+1 Bb setting as it dictates how open you can go without lost motion.
Joined
·
1,236 Posts
Thanks a lot, I will start with those. The 54 is very close to mine, so that is a good comparaison starting point.
Joined
·
1,236 Posts
I play 80-85 , I have an old meyer 5 too but it doesn't make change for me
Joined
·
4,360 Posts
Tonehole diameters of a YAS-23 to compare
D........36.9
E........30.0
F........28.0
F#......24.8
G#......25.0
G........23.7
A........19.7
Bis......15.5
B........19.8
C........10.4
Tonehole diameters of a Mk VI alto
D........37.2
E........29.9
F........28.3
F#......23.6
G#......26.0
A........20.0
Bis......15.2
B........19.6
C........10.5
Here are the recommended key heights for the YAS-23 compared to 30% of the tonehole diameter
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
