........

 

Juan,

Those look very nice, but, according to Ferron, it's the thickness that causes problems, not the reflective area. According to him, yours are way too thick. Yours are at least 0.032" (.81mm) or maybe 0.04" (1mm) thick. Ferron says they should be no thicker than 0.0095" (.25mm). Mine are 0.005" (.14mm) thick - like paper. As stated, he claims that even a fraction of a mm change in tone hole chimney height will be noticeable.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I had pads made from 0.005" thin plastic wrap on my Mk6 Tenor. The entire surface of each pad was a resonator. The result was as described above - super.

 

Then again, old Selmers (Mk VI and SBA) were made with domed brass resos. I think the design of the horns allowed for that dome to take up some volume, and even require it to play the way they were intended. Although the dome is subtle, they are not flat and flat ones actually do play differently on them. In my experience the original resonators respond very well on old Selmers at least.

 

In my experience the original resonators respond very well on old Selmers at least.

I'm not saying that your horn won't play with original resonators, but, as most informed musicians know, the instrument that you get/got new from the manufacturer, is a mere approximation of what it could be. It's raw material waiting to become an artist's instrument. The manufacturers don't really care about fine-tuning anything for an individual. They have one guy play-test every horn, and if he likes it, it goes to market. Do you like the same thing he likes?

 

DO I like the same thing he liked? .. apparently in this case.
I have yet to play a Selmer with flat resos that I thought played right. yes sure they can sound good, but the response of flat resos I think does not suit the Selmer sound and response character well. They tend to make them play a bit on the bright side and kind of too brash, while original style gives them a rounder, more balanced sound.

Flat resos work well on, King's for example. They suit the King response and design, but Selmer is a different thing.

 

I have yet to play a Selmer with flat resos that I thought played right.

Which flat resonators did you try?

 

The original Selmer metal resonators are domed, but the dome is subtle. The roundness is not as obvious as for example, the later brown plastic resos.

 

Thanks, Marin.

No argument here, MM. I recall Palo at JustSaxes (the "other" guy in New Orleans) talking about the outcome of putting maximum size Pisoni domed resos in his Ref 54, this was in 2001 or so. He sold that horn to a pro that really enjoyed the outcome.

I'm with you, MM, I think a lil' detail in this area SHOULD go a long way to enhance the horn's resonance.

 

.............

 

My theory based on Ferron: The tone holes (chimneys) are the filters. They are calculated by the manufacturer to be a certain height (within a fraction of a millimeter). If you change the height of the tone hole, even by a fraction of a millimeter, you change the cut-off frequency/slope of the filter. This change is readily audible. The pad surface acts more like a brick wall filter or attenuator for all overtones. Consider it more as a volume control. If you want more pure sound turn up the volume by using oversized resonators. The resonator must be as thin as possible otherwise it effectively lowers the height of the tone hole, reducing the filtering effects - making it brighter. Thick oversized resonators put on every pad = loud and bright to the point that the sound becomes noise. This effect will be more noticeable the smaller the instrument - alto brighter than baritone. Fine adjustments are made by adjusting the height of the tone hole (concave resonator pushed into pad etc), but that is another chapter.

Adjustments can also be made with the mouthpiece/reed combination to compensate for changes in filter volumes if needed. In the end, what you have is a more dynamic, more responsive instrument.

 

My theory based on Ferron:.... If you change the height of the tone hole, even by a fraction of a millimeter, you change the cut-off frequency/slope of the filter. This change is readily audible.

You should test this. I did. My test was simple and fast. And I have done it in various ways. Basically this is it.

Play a horn. Note the intonation tone.
File the last open tone
play it again. Note the intonation and tone.
File more
Play. Not intonation and tone.
file more -to the body.
play. Note intonation and tone.

Now, play it again.
File the palm key tone holes.
play and note.
file
play and note.
file to the body.
play and note.

Build replacement tone holes.
play.
solder the tone holes (make them longer than the original)
play and note.

The test is so non-scientific that I will not post my findings. But I'm glad I know now what the difference is between a horn with no tone hole and one with a 2" tone hole!

Nice looking resos.

 

Great thread guys.:thumbrig:
(I think my brain's about to burst!)

 

are these very thin resonators still strong enough to hold the leather flat? or they get pushed up by the leather?

 

The paper-thin brass will not hold the pad leather flat, so, to be effective, the pad must have a rivet holding it's center in and be firm. Soft, cushy, thick pads won't work well.

I've started making a new/very firm pad with a rigid backing/sides/pad edge, which will remain perfectly flat and stable no matter what. The thin resonators are meant for something like this. I'll have a thread with picts and audio next week maybe.

jicaino: regarding the excessive brightness of large flat resonators on smaller horns - No mystery here. When you put one of your machined/flat resonators, which worked OK on a baritone, on an alto, all the measurements change proportionately - the mouthpiece chamber is smaller, the reed is smaller, the lay is shorter, the bore diameter is smaller, the tone holes are smaller, even the resonator diameter is smaller - everything gets smaller EXCEPT for one thing - the thickness of your already too thick resonators. They are displacing proportionately much more of the alto's tone hole volume than they did on the baritone, thus, the filter effect of the tone hole is much much less. That gives you a brighter sound. Multiply that by the 20what tone holes that have a resonator, and .......

Marin: Vintage Selmer - I have no doubt that the Selmer designers didn't think of all this. There is no "Right" way to design a saxophone sound. There must be practically infinite combinations of acoustical elements which would result in a pleasing saxophone tone. The important thing is to find the one that is right for you. It is interesting to study the underlying principles which apply, and, doing so may be an invaluable guide for someone who is still searching for their "sound".

What thrills me about the thin resonators, is the increase in responsiveness and clarity of tone that results. The large chambered, low baffled mouthpiece that once seemed dull and lifeless may suddenly come to life with unexpected possibilities on such a set-up horn.

 

Some of the above points/theories are interesting.

If this idea about filters, overtones and pitch for example are correct, then again I have to imagine that the designers of Selmers at the time had these precise elements in mind when arranging then for use with domed resonators of a certain thickness. Vintage Selmers are good enough that it seems very unlikely that the designers set up those particular resonator designs arbitrarily.

 

Okay - dumb question time: are you guys talking about changes in response only, or response and sound?

Say you have two tenors from the same maker: one has oversized flat metal resos and the other has plain vanilla brown domes.

They sound pretty close, but the one with the brown domes has a slightly better sound and larger presence - huge, warm, lush. You'd be tempted to leave it alone, right? Or are you saying that "paper thin, super-dooper oversized" resos will preserve "huge, warm, lush" but add better response?

 

Say you have two tenors from the same maker: one has oversized flat metal resos and the other has plain vanilla brown domes. They sound pretty close, but the one with the brown domes has a slightly better sound and larger presence - huge, warm, lush. You'd be tempted to leave it alone, right? Or are you saying that "paper thin, super-dooper oversized" resos will preserve "huge, warm, lush" but add better response?

Really difficult to say since there can be so many variables and differences between any 2 horns, even from the same maker, that have nothing to do with the pads/resonators.

Which oversized metal resos do you have? Are they lying on top of the pad, or are they pressed back into the surface of the pad by the screw, then having in effect, no thickness at all?

I put a complete set of flat pads (covered with plastic liner) which in effect acted like a huge resonator, but displaced not one mm3 of the tone hole chimney volume, on my 82k MK6 tenor. They were very warm and lush if I played that way. They were also very full, clear and focused, with nice edge, if I pushed them. The total response of the horn was easier and quicker.

 

a super simple test would be double sided sticky tape and a few coins... stick coin to res in a closed tone hole and see what happens...
(but don't try and get too scientific)

plastic film as in "glad wrap"? like you cover salads with? is that strong enough to act as a resonator? or the warm luch sound was from effectively having no res?

 

plastic film as in "glad wrap"? like you cover salads with? is that strong enough to act as a resonator? or the warm luch sound was from effectively having no res?

GladWrap is too sticky. I used a light wooden back a layer of carpet tape, a layer of thin felt, another layer of carpet tape, and a layer of thin plastic waste basket liner. There were no real pads within 1000 miles. My pads worked great and the sound was as I described on an Otto Link 7. The plastic was inclined to stick though, but the horn was not overly bright.

I'm going to put the thin brass ones on my The Martin Tenor, without filing any of it's tone holes, and we'll see how they work.

 

..........

 

........

 

Also, I don't see Selmer willingly designing the Mk VI. I think they just nailed it, but I don't see how they would have invested countless hours researching about all this when they need to put a commercial product together, comply within certain manufacturing costs and use normalized resonators instead of a theoretically perfect size for each size of tone hole.

Right, you would think that if they had it all on paper, they would just make another line of exact MK6's and sell them for $8000.00 each, since everyone wants one just about.

Your resonators looked great. Nice craftsmanship.

 

-You've certainly taken this theory to heart.

-Given that pads in older saxophones varied a great deal in the extent to which they puffed out in the center one must conclude that the manufacturers were either in the dark on this effect or that they considered it non significant. Certainly the difference in protrusion into the tone hole caused by the routine formation of a "seat" in pads as time goes by is far greater than that caused by all but the most over the top resonators.

-If one assumes designers worked this up on their sliderules using some set of models unknown to modern acoustics which led them to computed tolerances of hundredths of millimeters they also presumably included the resonators that the horns came with (though many models came with varied reso's over the years without apparant changes in any aspect of the horn otherwise) and so if your theory is correct you're destroying their efforts.

-The full interaction of variables in the production of sound in a saxophone is simply not encompassed by any scientific model at present. The best approximation of the acoustics while quite fully realizing that there are aspects which are just not yet fully understood is a feature of every decent scientific treatise on the subject. Some models are better than others and I've no doubt Yamaha has a cad/cam program.... but the full understanding of all aspects simply doesn't exist at present. Designers would have been very heavily influenced by "what works" via trial and error- moreso than by the starting point of "what painstaking scientifically based computations" indicated.


-Completely pulling the side C, side Bb, and Chromatic F# pads out and then sealing the edges of the cups on the toneholes with silicone to see what effect a larger difference than any reso made on my S-1 tenor was a bust. Very very little if any difference in playing and tuning. The experiment only lasted for five minutes since after I accidentally hit the side Bb in a burst of enthusiasm and broke the seal I figured I'd tested enough and replaced the pads.


-Certainly my off the cuff test wasn't conclusive but it was enough to satisfy me, coupled with the silence of any manufacturers or other designers of any stature on this aspect of resonators, that the ball is in your court to develop some proof for this theory.

-Best wishes though- you never know if you never try.

 

If one assumes designers worked this up on their sliderules using some set of models unknown to modern acoustics which led them to computed tolerances of hundredths of millimeters .....

Well, Not having spoken to any vintage instrument makers, I'm making an assumption here, and that is that if Benade, in his Acoustical Evolution Of Wind Instruments class (1977) had his physics students, in order to understand the principles of instrument design throughout history, build flutes, clarinets, and oboes, to within 100ths of a millimeter accuracy (in design anyway), that real instrument manufacturers would at least do that.

 

how do you distinguish what thickness of res, or protrusion into/out of the tone hole, will be best, given that it is likely that some saxes have tone holes too short, and some too long?
or do we just assume all saxes were designed with a flat solid cover on the tone holes to set the pitch etc? and so we should mimic that solid, non-invasive, cover?

perhaps for each different sax in the world, there is a different resonator thickness that will give the "best results"? or perhaps there is an ideal res thickness that may be different for each different tonehole, depending on if it was made short or long on that particular instrument (and diameter/placement?)

or so far we can just say that for a "The Martin Baritone", non-intruding large res is good?

how far do you think you can apply it to different makes of sax?


edit: maybe all this was accounted for during design, by having smaller thicker resonators, to balance the ill effect of having soft cushy pads doing bad things to the sound? and they lucked out and got it roght with some saxes?

 

how do you distinguish what thickness of res, or protrusion into/out of the tone hole,

One would think, that the manufacturer would have designed all acoustical aspects of the horn with equal accuracy, the bore taper, the tone hole diameters, tone hole placement, and tone hole chimney height, so they had to draw the line on tone hole chimney volume somewhere. Logically, one would assume that they designed an instrument to function optimally, as it was initially marketed, calculated to work best with whatever type pads, resonators, rivets, or what ever closed the tone holes at that time. So, the issue is - how far can you stray from the original set-up?

Consider this: I take my vintage horn with original pads and original small flat metal resonators (the rivets pull the resonators back into the pad with no resonator protrusion, so the pad is in effect flat), and it is set up with the original key height, tension, etc., and I replace the original resonators with modern, oversized, wavy metal resonators. Each resonator is 2mm thick and it sits on top of the pad with 100% protrusion. When I try out my horn now, I immediately notice that it doesn't play as well as it did originally. The pitch is uneven and flat and the tone is stuffy. And you there reading, yell out, "you have to raise the key height a little dummy!" Yes, it's important to understand why, so bear with me. The sounding area - the physical three dimensional space between the tone hole rim and the underside of the OPEN key (pad/resonator), was designed to function optimally with a certain volume of three dimensional space there. Too little space (the key is too close) and you get flat and stuffy. The point I wish to make is that it is a 3 dimensional volume of space, and it only takes ONE 2mm thick resonator to displace the amount, equal to it's own volume, of the original sounding area, to make my horn play poorly.

OK. So we adjust the OPEN key height by 1mm-2mm, and everything is fine - in tune and resonant. But, answer this for yourself: If it takes only ONE 2mm thick resonator to ruin the intonation and tone of any respective note at any one OPEN key on the horn (with ORIGINAL key heights), unless we make compensating key height adjustments, and these compensations must be made on every key for each resonator, what then is the effect of the change in body tube bore volume, caused by the displacement of the accumulative volume of ALL of the resonators on the CLOSED tone holes, for which there is no compensation?

The horn will work. Some people find their horns too bright. Some don't notice anything but improvement. On my horns, I noticed some improvement, but the inkling that something was not quite right, made me uncomfortable. I had to work a little too much to control the sound and the response. After putting on oversized, flat 005" thin resonators, which have practically 0 displacement, I noticed even more improvement, as mentioned in earlier posts. I prefer leaving the bore of the instrument original and using thin, non-protruding resonators to get more of the inherent tone quality of the vintage horn.

 

...........

 

so basically one of those keyless altos that Buescher made for Mr. Rascher would have been too bright and too sharp?

You're missing the point. It's about how much you alter the original design, not whether it has keys or not. If you added a bunch of your pretty resos to the keyless horn, it might.

 

If paper-thin, and full coverage is the way to go, have you considered simply gold plating the pads, as is done with some flute pads.
http://cvip.fresno.com/~js210/fpad.html

 

Gordon, Yes. The complete resonator pad like JS pads. I posted either earlier here or in another related thread,that I had made full coverage pads before. They work.

The thing is, of course, not every horn is the same, nor every player. If you use the thin brass, you can adjust the amount of resonator coverage to suite. Once you get into it, you may prefer different amounts of coverage, on different keys. This is an artist-level adjustment for the discerning player who wants a personalized sound.

The resonator needn't be thin either, if it is recessed into the pad so it doesn't displace any bore volume. Working with the thin brass though, is easier and faster.

 

Changes of as little as a fraction of a millimeter are detectable in the tone/response of the instrument, and though there is some room for adjustment here, making the tone hole chimney shorter almost always has negative results.

If this is true, then wouldn't simply pressing harder on the keys and compressing the pad have the same effect? Or, as I think someone else mentioned, the pads wearing thin? Or are these much smaller fractions of a millimeter than what you're referring to? You talked about manufacturers designing instruments to within 100ths of a millimeter - ie, micrometers - is it actually possible or feasible to build the tone holes to that accuracy? I would guess that applying more pressure to the keys or pad wear could account for lost volume on the scale of 100ths of a millimeter. Not trying to be a critic, I haven't read the sources you've given, but I am curious.

 

I would guess that applying more pressure to the keys or pad wear could account for lost volume on the scale of 100ths of a millimeter. Not trying to be a critic, I haven't read the sources you've given, but I am curious.

I've heard of tire wear, but not pad wear. Where does the leather go?

Seriously, one must assume that the manufacturer took these things into account when they designed the horn:

1. the depth of the standard pad imprint - the standard pad protrudes Xmm into the tone hole - compensated for according to #2

2. the average pressure exerted by the average player

Pads that swell up protrude excessively into the tone hole and can cause noticeable changes in the horn's acoustics. Low Eb is a very sensitive area. I suggest that you do some reading if you are truly curious.

I think that the thinner a resonator gets, the less rigidity....

Hold a big piece of leather covered felt 12" in front of your face and speak in a normal voice. Non of the sound is reflected back to you. Cover the leather with a thin .002" sheet of plastic food wrap. Speak again. You notice distinctly, that the sound is being reflected back at you. It isn't the rigidity which determines an objects sound reflective properties. It is the hardness and smoothness of the surface. Plastic wrap is sufficiently hard enough to reflect sound energy.

You're forgetting that a saxophone works as a SYSTEM of parts functioning together. The .005" thin brass is firmly affixed to a firm pad, which is firmly glued to the key cup, which is firmly screwed to the key posts which are firmly soldered to the body, which, in order to keep everything sturdy, should be thicker than .005". Surely the .005" brass, being the same brass as the body of the horn, has identical density, hardness, and smoothness, as the tube wall. The firm pad under it keeps it from vibrating sympathetically with anything, so it makes a superior sound reflector.

Should the body tube be thinner? You are missing the entire point and becoming silly. The point is this - don't change the designed bore volume by displacing it with thick resonators. As to the body wall of the tube - they measure the bore from inside the body tube, not the outside. The thick body wall does not displace anything, so it would not be acoustically advantageous to make it thinner.

 

I think that the thinner a resonator gets, the less rigidity, therefore the less like the actual wall of a sax that it is. Shouldn't you be aiming for something that contains the vibration of the air column, rather than allow it to leak out such as soft (i.e. non-rigid) materials do.

Taking your thinking a little further, would you advocate that the body of a sax be far thinner too? I think the acoustic experts would disagree, even if it were practical for mounting keys on.

 

You're on the money with that one. I'm far more focused upon what I'm playing in terms of notes and phrasing and dynamics than the instrument's sound. It doesn't help that I'm a 50% sax, 15% clarinet, 15% trumpet, 15% piano, 5% accordion player. I rarely play the same horn for more than two days running. But, despite boxes of mouthpieces I always use the same piece with each respective instrument (less the keyboards of course.... though I generally use the same hands when playing those!).

I'm probably a poster child for someone who ought to have no more than one instrument but there it is. About 10 hours a day on music; 7 hours playing, 3 hours tinkering.......

 

You're on the money with that one. I'm far more focused upon what I'm playing in terms of notes and phrasing and dynamics than the instrument's sound. It doesn't help that I'm a 50% sax, 15% clarinet, 15% trumpet, 15% piano, 5% accordion player.

I'm probably a poster child for someone who ought to have no more than one instrument but there it is. About 10 hours a day on music; 7 hours playing, 3 hours tinkering.......

Sounds like a great life!

 

Were I to have put one tenth the dedication into practice fifty years ago I'd be a superb musician. As it is I'm just a contented retired doddering amateur with time on his hands.

But....- "Who you gonna make happy with that little thing?"* Such is life.





*Martysax is the logical choice for clarity should you not get the reference...

 

But....- "Who you gonna make happy with that little thing?"* Such is life.

Life - Live is completely full to the brim.

 

Gordon,

The proof is in the pudding. I posted these links before and invited comment. I'll do it again here. This is a 1915 Conn Wonder baritone with partly mushy, partly firm pads, and the oversized (to within 1mm of the tone hole impression) .005" thin brass, stick-on resonators. Before installing the resonators, it sounded nice, but slightly muffled and had some intonation problems. Do me the justice of listening on a decent speaker or headphone system. Do you hear any acoustical loss here? Can you imagine the sound being any fuller, more focused, dynamic, or even throughout the range of the horn. I'm not talking about my playing. Please comment.

www.martinmods.com/conn01.mp3
www.martinmods.com/conn02.mp3

 

Comment, seeing you ask:
Without going into detail, neither clip is a sax sound I particularly favour, but I have no idea whether that is you or the resonators, or the sax or the recording. In the second link I find the sound very different (not even) between the low and high notes, and the tone distinctly un-"full" for the upper notes. Perhaps we have different meanings for this word.

Here and in your pvt reply, you imply I have not read any learned works on acoustics. That is not true. I do wonder though, whether different people, in their inexpertise, interpret what they read differently. Communication is often poor between an expert and a student.

As for any perfectionism applied practically by manufacturers to acoustic design... Can you refer to any documentation on this which is not related to advertising by the manufacturer? I believe, from the frequent botch-ups (in all areas of design and manufacture) that manufacturers have made over the years, that we assume these standards to be rather higher than they actually are, with only a few recognised exceptions. If the standards were as high as you believe, then why do manufacturers keep boasting improvements, yet so many players keep 'worshipping' vintage instruments as superior?

 

Since you are a professional tech, and no doubt have worked on many vintage horns, l'd be interested in your sample of a nice vintage Conn Wonder baritone sound, at any volume/style. Could you supply a link?

And: My private reply was private. Right?

To read: start with this: http://ccrma.stanford.edu/marl/Benade/documents/Benade-Physics323-1977.pdf