Sax on the Web Forum banner

1 - 20 of 47 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,633 Posts
A few observations... (I certainly don't want to take anything away from the inventor or find fault):
I never would have thought that the cone being circular was not at all critical... apparently. Fascinating!
I wonder how many leaks he is having to blow through... It's hard to imagine this mechanism being leak-proof above the first open "tone hole".
A bit more development on the mechanism is in order, to my ear. The non-optional castanet accompaniment gets a bit old...
What exactly is the advantage(s) of this over a conventional soprano...?

When I saw "polygonal", I assumed a bore cross-section like that of early H&K pistol barrels (P9, etc.), which are substantially round in cross-section, but actually consisting of four ~90-degree arcs, slightly greater in radius than that of a 9mm circle, connected by rounded corners of much smaller radius. This contraption could apparently be said to have a straight-up "square" bore, if I'm not mistaken.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,025 Posts
He looks like he’s sucking on the barrel of a rifle like I wanted to do about halfway through the video.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,809 Posts
Not sure what the point of this instrument is, I suppose that with the sliding holes it is possible to use different tunings. But I object on aesthetic grounds to the name "Infinitone" - "Infinipitch" I could go for, but it sounds like a bastard child of a shenai and a soprano sax, and I doubt it will ever sound any different.

I also object to the clacks of the actuators. I would never want a wind instrument that I could only play when attached to a computer or tablet. Maybe the sliders could be manipulated by hand, and separate "stops" set up to accommodate different tunings? Dunno. But if I want different tuning, then I would rather have an instrument that could be tuned to the requirements of the music, and played acoustically. With a computer, I have the WX5 or WX7, and access to MIDI tuning tables... And a much wider range of tone colors!!!!

Reminds me of the old Ellington favorite - "In a Monotone"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
Hey guys, the thread wasn't intended to set off a discussion whether the Infinitone was necessary or not (just consider it an experiment and don't insult its inventor, please).
I was actually interested in the feasibility of polygonal (say octagonal or square) bodies. Answers to this question would be much appreciated.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,068 Posts
I actually thought it was pretty cool a lot of thought and innovation.... not my cup of tea, but pretty cool none the less
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,204 Posts
I think the video clearly shows the possibility of a square cross-section. So funny I was just talking to my tech a few weeks ago about the possibility of a square x-section sax. I think it's very cool. Doesn't have to be the fully evolved instrument, this is how new inventions start. Anyone think the first television worked very well? Love seeing people take the time and energy to invent like this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,734 Posts
Looks like a gun. In reality, fast passages appear to be impossible. Doesn't make sense. On the upside, it won't need new pads anytime soon (ever).
 

·
Distinguished SOTW Member
Joined
·
2,003 Posts
Don't be too quick to judge. :) A "saxophone" with successive square tubes has been constructed and tested by J.P. Dalmont - a leading acoustic researcher. Below is a sketch that represents his "invention".

Are the sections square or cylindrical ?

Rhys
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
707 Posts
As one might expect.

Fig. A3.16 Saxophone made of successive cylinders.
 

·
Moderator
Grafton alto | Martin Comm III tenor
Joined
·
28,888 Posts

·
Distinguished SOTW Coffee Guru
Joined
·
38,811 Posts
Thanks Dirk, nice to see this!

indeed, square recorders aren’t all that unusual (especially low ones).

So if a recorder works ( although normally cylindrical ) there is no reason why conical saxophone wouldn’t work too.



The construction is way easier (and the materials too) that a traditional recorder and solves the problem of finding wood in required section to build a very large and long bass and octobass and so on.

I am afraid the infinitone is NO WAY as well studied and put together as these recorders and possibly a better acoustician than its inventor would make a better job.

The only reason, in my not so humble opinion, to tamper with the design of a saxophone is to:

1) Make a saxophone of type that didn’t exist before ( soprillo, tubax)

2) Make it cheaper ( failed to achieve by Vibratosax)

3) Make it better.

the infinitone , i.m.n.s.h.o., does nothing anywhere near any of this and it is just ood.

However, yes, it proves a point, but it proves it badly.

Take away all the echo and put this together any other instrument and its qualities (or lack thereof) are quickly apparent .

In fact , as a cheap solution it works way better to make a saxophone made of a series of cylindrical tubes of varying diameter resulting into a conical instrument.

This is a solution used by many hobbyists but never made into anything seriously sounding because of the mechanical problems associated to the production of a conical instrument with toneholes of different dimensions .


As we all know as the instrument gets a wider cone shape so do the toneholes (this is the main reason why the traditional tarogato has a very tricky intonation) but this requires a complex set of mechanics .
 
1 - 20 of 47 Posts
Top