Nitai, Did you check the octave vents for partial obstructions?
Actually, I don't remember. I think I did, and I dfinitely checked many things about both octave vents, but I'm not sure about this. Thanks tbone.tbone said:Nitai, Did you check the octave vents for partial obstructions?
I think I saw some of this corrosion but not much at all. I will have to check like you suggest.Gordon (NZ) said:- Failing soldering..... A leak light does not normally pick up these problems. You need to try prising the parts off and see if they move, or the bond line parts where the soldering is. It is very common for the solder of tone holes to get eaten away from catalytic corrosion.
YummyGordon (NZ) said:Try sucking around the junction of neck receiver and body to detect leaks in soldering.
I did exactly this. No improvements. Although one strange thing was that when we tightened the screw on the neck the neck moved slightly, though this didn't have anything to do with the problem.Gordon (NZ) said:Try putting grease in the neck-to-body joint and playing, as a diagnosis tool for leak detection. But clean it ALL out after the trial.
Yes I checked. It had enough play. Thanks for your suggestions.Gordon (NZ) said:Make sure the front F connection to the high F key is not restricting the closing of the high F pad. There should be a little play in this linkage.
What kind of pads were used for the overhaul? Are they relatively thick?clarnibass said:Yesterday someone (a very good local player) calls me that he has a gig in two hours and his saxophone (very old Martin tenor) doesn't play right... This tenor was recently overhauled (about a month ago) by some very good repairer in USA. I checked it and it really looked like a very good overhaul.... So... any ideas?!
There is usually nothing to see, until the parts are separated. However if the low notes are going greaqt, then I too think this is an octave mechanism problem.clarnibass said:I think I saw some of this corrosion but not much at all. I will have to check like you suggest.
See a lot of Martins in the shop then, eh?Gordon (NZ) said:IMO the "singing" depends on sufficient venting, and accurate sealing, rather than the pad thickness itself. Even if pads are a little thicker, a sax can still be adjusted to get those factors right.
Unfortunately, I don't think so. When he played A and above I made sure myself that the lower octave vent is closed and the higher one is open (and vise versa when he played below A) and he didn't notice any improvement.saxxsymbol said:sounds to me as if you have a problem with the octave mechanism itself.
For the same reasons as I mentioned above I don't think this could be the problem. I actually tried many rotations of the neck and it made no difference.jbtsax said:I have experienced these kinds of intermittent problems on some saxes because of the neck octave. You might check to see when the neck is rotated slightly right or left of center that there is still some lost motion between the rod that activates the neck octave and the extension from the neck octave pad that it contacts.
I also had an old Conn tenor that had such a flexible neck that when I pressed down hard with my top teeth on the mouthpiece when playing, the neck would bend enough to cause the neck octave to open. You might check this as well.
Thanks. I will probably buy this.jbtsax said:If you don't yet have the saxophone neck leak isolator tool available from J.L. Smith, it is a very useful tool check for leaks in the neck tenon.
I didn't measure, but they looked relatively thin to me. About 4mm I would guess.Grumps said:What kind of pads were used for the overhaul? Are they relatively thick?
Ya need thin pads on a Martin for it to sing.
OK, I don't think the overhaul is the problem since he played the sax for about two weeks after the overhaul and it was fine. He first noticed the problem with a new reed, so he bought four new boxes to make sure (I asked and it was the exact same brand and strength of reeds he always use). He said suddenly it was much worse. For the same reason (played fine for a couple of weeks after the overhaul) I don't think it is the cork on the mouthpiece (which was ok, I checked).shmuelyosef said:The first things that I think of with a problem like this are situational. Maybe the horn is a little different from the overhaul, and he didn't notice until he got close to comfortable with it. Did he change reed brands? This can make quite a difference. Is the cork tight on the mouthpiece? I have had people coming back after an overhaul that don't have a tuner and just push the mouthpiece on by 'feel'.
You are talking about the right side Bb and C keys right? The side C is exactly the note that had the leak, which I fixed. To make sure they don't leak I closed them with my hands while he played - no improvement.Jason DuMars said:The side C and Bb are positioned in such a way that setting stiff spring tension is virtually impossible. They are also aligned with strong air node points that get "beat up" when you subtone or force backpressure. So, consequently the pad gets forced open and creates pressure/instability.
I don't know what you are talking about, or what you are trying to say. There is no issue of quantity involved here. I have worked on Martins.Grumps said:See a lot of Martins in the shop then, eh?
Well some of the techs I know (as well as some fairly respected folks on this very site) feel Martins play best with thinner pads. Surprised you hadn't heard, so I was only wondering if you'd ever repadded one.Gordon (NZ) said:I don't know what you are talking about, or what you are trying to say. There is no issue of quantity involved here. I have worked on Martins.
So what were the stock pads like for these horns then?Gordon (NZ) said:Unless something is done to prevent it, thinner pads means more venting, so I do wonder if certain people, irrespective of status, might sometimes confuse pad thickness with venting, even if that confusion is only in the communication rather than the concept, and even if that communication is deliberate for simplicity, rather than getting bogged down with the separateness of the two issues. I guess only the context of their statements could give clues as to that.![]()