4. Pads sticking to tone holes is a pretty big problem with saxes. Rolled tone holes present a larger surface area, which greatly increases the likelihood of a sticky surface on the pad sticking to the tone hole. (A burr on an unrolled tone hole can also be a cause of stickiness, but this can be permanently dealt with) .

My rolled-tonehole SML has been utterly free of sticky pad problems for the dozen years I've been playing it.
Recently I've been doing some gigs on a straight-toneholed King. It's a nice horn but the sticky pads are aggravating.

 

I agree with the article. A flute with drawn but not rolled TH can also suffer from side denting, but easily fixed. I see a lot of horns where someone has tried to level a rolled hole and cut through the surface leaving a leak that is hard to see. One other factor on the "cutting" of the pad is that flute pads are so delicate that rolls are easier to live with. If I need to build a flute with soldered holes, it adds a ton of $$$ to the price due to the time involved. An associate of mine had a set-up where he drew the hole and then soldered a chimney over and around the existing hole. That way, there wasn't the alignment and leakage problem.

 

One advantage of the soldered tone holes is that the give more bodyto the tone of a given instrument. I like soldered toneholes on saxes and Flutes, rolled tone holes too over straight toneholes too, but this is from a viewpoint of playing the horn. I prefer the thicker sound of these instruments to a more generic sound of another brand of horn.

I agree that there are problems with leaks around the toneholes on the soldered models, there are also problems involved with levelllng rolled tone holes too. A good tech is adept at repairing these instruments and dealing with the foibles that this creates. After speaking tp several techs here, the general consensus is that if the horn is set up correctly initially then any other repairs in the future will be much easier.

It is also the case that they take longer to repad in the case of rolled toneholes and levelling, this often means a higher cost for the repad. If you use ring pads on a Conn then many of the problems associated with the rolled toneholes are minimised. It is also true that these pads do change the feel of the horn under the fingers when compared to a similar horn repadded with standard Selmer style pads. Small changes ion the feel of a given instrument will equate to a greater degree of difficulty in executing technical phrases. it has to do with the feel of the key when it is depressed/ seals and when it returns.

These are other issues that are often forgotten about when repair things are talked about. As a player, how the horn responds, feels under the fingers and ultimately plays can have a dramatic affect on how I perform at the end of the day. I am splitting hairs here, but it is these issues that are ultimately the difference between one horn and antoher. Yes this is fanaticism to the enth degree. :shock:

 

One advantage of the soldered tone holes is that the give more bodyto the tone of a given instrument. I like soldered toneholes on saxes and Flutes, rolled tone holes too over straight toneholes too, but this is from a viewpoint of playing the horn. I prefer the thicker sound of these instruments to a more generic sound of another brand of horn.

I agree that there are problems with leaks around the toneholes on the soldered models, there are also problems involved with levelllng rolled tone holes too. A good tech is adept at repairing these instruments and dealing with the foibles that this creates. After speaking tp several techs here, the general consensus is that if the horn is set up correctly initially then any other repairs in the future will be much easier.

It is also the case that they take longer to repad in the case of rolled toneholes and levelling, this often means a higher cost for the repad. If you use ring pads on a Conn then many of the problems associated with the rolled toneholes are minimised. It is also true that these pads do change the feel of the horn under the fingers when compared to a similar horn repadded with standard Selmer style pads. Small changes ion the feel of a given instrument will equate to a greater degree of difficulty in executing technical phrases. it has to do with the feel of the key when it is depressed/ seals and when it returns.

These are other issues that are often forgotten about when repair things are talked about. As a player, how the horn responds, feels under the fingers and ultimately plays can have a dramatic affect on how I perform at the end of the day. I am splitting hairs here, but it is these issues that are ultimately the difference between one horn and antoher. Yes this is fanaticism to the enth degree. :shock:

I have to agree with this last point. I believe it was the feel under my fingers (and of course the sound) which swayed me in favour of the SX90R Keilwerth alto over similarly priced horns.

 

....My rolled-tonehole SML has been utterly free of sticky pad problems for the dozen years I've been playing it....

There are many other factors affecting whether pads stick to tone holes. I supect these are at work in the examples you cite. They have been discussed elsewhere in the forum.

 

what is a rolled tone hole?????

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tone_holes

 

I definitely like the positives of soldered tone-hole chimneys.

I am not at all convinced that rolled tone holes are such a good thing however, and they are in no way a deal breaker as far as I'm concerned (when choosing a Conn etc.).

 

About a year ago I had a post challenging the Rolled Tone Hole's Value.

http://forum.saxontheweb.net/showthread.php?t=93930

I suspect that the Rolled Tone Hole became popular when Saxes like Vintage Conns became Popular. It was a feature of the horn that had little to do with it's playability, however because the horn was popular - the feature was deemed valuable by it's relationship to the Manufacturer.

It is sort of like the construction of the Front F Key on saxophone's today. While the Tear Drop Style is mechanically better - the Pearl Button Style is still manufactured by some companies because popular horns like the Mark VI Had them.

Rolled Tone holes don't make the horn - But some good horns had rolled tone holes.

Now the next question - does removing the Rolled Portion of the Tone Hole affect any tonal qualities of the saxophone. It lowers value because it becomes an altered instrument - but can all the Problems Gordon mentions be solved by removing the Rolled part - without creating bigger problems?

I feel that a good tech can remove the rolled portion without drastically lowering the hole's height.

I agree with Gordon, but I want to take this a step further. My Main Gigging Alto is a 1929 Conn - and I am/have been seriously considering removing the Rolled portion of the tone hole - for no other reason to see what it REALLY does.

Good Post Gordon!!

Charlie

 

Rolled tone holes, however, do decrease turbulence in the air column and therefore are a definite positive acoustically. Benade and Keefe both note that any edge anywhere, including at the end of the tonehole chimney, increases turbulence and thus decreases output efficiency. I would not believe it from anyone else, but Benade (possibly the highest authority in this regard), reports significant improvement from slight wear on the edges of fingerholes on clarinets.

Much as I like my Martin soldered toneholes, extruded toneholes are also better acoustically, although slight rounding of the sharp edges of the former will help.

More rounding is always better, and it is not possible to round tonehole chimney edges much because of the thinness of the metal.


Toby

 

More rounding is always better, and it is not possible to round tonehole chimney edges much because of the thinness of the metal.

I don't quite follow this. While I understand that more rounding may be better, that makes total sense, rolled toneholes don't actually round off what would otherwise be a 90 degree angle between tonehole chimney and pad.

As the roll flares outwards from the top of the chimney, the angle is not soften but made more acute as the roll goes away from the center of the pad, not in towards it (which would indeed soften the angle. Or do I have the wrong end of the stick as sometimes happens?

 

Agree with Toby. Acoustically better according to Dr. Arthur Benade.

Also, the rolled tone hole is much stronger than a straight drawn tone hole.

Once damaged it is more difficult to repair. But it is stronger and is acoustically better.

The biggest difficulty is the quality of the machine that rolls it. On student flutes, if you've ever seen or deal with a drawn non rolled tone hole, you'll see the disadvantages right away. Those flutes get mis shaped tone holes very easily. Fortuneatlely sax bodies are a lot thicker to start with.

Better flutes originally had soldered tone holes before there was the quality of machine to get a good rolled tone hole. Student flutes have rolled tone holes because it is much cheaper to make than soldered, but are still strong. The better the labor and machine, the better the rolled tone hole.

If done poorly it has many problems. It is more expensive to do it correctly, compared with drawing a tone hole and simply facing it down to a flat surface. The move away from it on saxophones had a lot to do with the economics of the labor/time and machine factor.

King had a nice difference. Silver soldered tone holes that don't develop leaks due to lead solder. Much stronger tone hole and no leaking. Expensive to make. The economics made them stop. Some flute manufacturers have moved to silver solder on the handmade flutes.

An easier, although not exactly the same, comparison would be to play several Keilwerths with the rolled inserts and then without. Of course, the instruments compared would have to be set up really well, something that "some" brands aren't known for out of the box. Or get similar models of vintage horns that are expertly set up. some with rolled tone holes and some without. I wouldn't want to remove a rolled tone hole.

-anchorsax

 

Pete, the issue is when the key is lifted, not when it is covered by a pad.

Air oscillates in and out of that chimney better without the turbulence created by a sharp edge at the top (and/or bottom) of the chimney.

Probably an ideal would be to actually have a significant flare at the top of the chimney, as at the top of the embouchure hole of most modern flute heads, and the chamfer found at the top of quite a few clarinet and oboe chimneys, and the "undercutting" that is almost standard at the bottom of clarinet tone holes (and flute embouchure holes).

 

Pete, he issue is when the key is lifted, not when it is covered by a pad.

Got it!

 

Any sharp edge in the air column--anywhere where the air is moving and hits an edge--creates turbulence. Turbulence drains energy from the standing wave, and that means that the player has to pump more energy into the horn to get the same output than with a rounded edge. Turbulence also increases as air velocity increases, so at a certain point turbulence can actually limit the maximum output possible, because any further increase is lost to increased turbulence.

While rounder is better, simply taking the sharp edge off of, say, a tonehole chimney at the top or where it joins the body, will already significantly reduce turbulence; further rounding then has less effect.

This certainly seems counterintuitive to flute players, since soldered tone holes are held up as the hallmark of a handmade flute, and handmade flutes certainly seem to play better than commercial ones. This can be explained, partly at least, by the fact that drawing toneholes tends to deform the body tube somewhat near areas where the metal is extruded, and this also is disadvantageous acoustically: so in these cases the sharp edges seem to be the lesser of two evils acoustically.

This is indeed one place where wood is superior to metal in instrument bodies: the edges of holes can be well chamfered without distorting the tube in any way.

The main reason that rolled tone holes went out of fashion on saxes seems to have to do with the difficulty of actually doing it. Conn had to reject a high number of tubes due to problems with the rolled tone holes, and if they are uneven you can't just file them flat. It is easier on flutes due to the much smaller hole size, I have heard; apparently it is quite difficult to do well and consistently on the large toneholes of saxes. Rejected tubes means lost money. Conn for many years was at the forefront of acoustical research (Conn strobotuner, sax microtuner, and a lot of investment in acoustical R&D), but once your revenues go down, you have to cut somewhere to make ends meet, more's the pity.

Toby

 

When a Rolled tone hole is created, correct me if I am wrong, the metal for the tone hole comes straight out of the body at (more or less) a 90 degree angle - then at the top of the tone hole it rotates outward to create the "rolled" portion.

If that is the case, then the inside of a rolled tone hole is no different than one that is not rolled. Maybe the top edge is curved as opposed to being more square - but the extra metal that is the "rolled" portion sits on the outside of the Top of the hole - not centered.

So, as far as air or sound waves are concerned, once it it leaves the body and the tone hole, how could the metal on the outside top of the hole affect what is going on inside the saxophone?

If the studies say that the extra metal on the outside of the tone hole does affect the "turbulence in the air column" what would be the results of adding additional metal rings to the outside of the tone hole? Would the result be noticeable? Does anybody have 1st hand experience they can share to backup the studies quoted?

I am really interested in this subject - and hope I don't sound argumentative at all - I just would like to hear more than quotes from studies.

I have a Junker Conn C-melody that I might be hacking apart at the shop to take some construction photos to share and maybe to use for some modification experiments. Would be interested to hear from anybody else that has some theories on the subject as well.

Charlie

 

When a Rolled tone hole is created, correct me if I am wrong, the metal for the tone hole comes straight out of the body at (more or less) a 90 degree angle - then at the top of the tone hole it rotates outward to create the "rolled" portion.

If that is the case, then the inside of a rolled tone hole is no different than one that is not rolled. Maybe the top edge is curved as opposed to being more square - but the extra metal that is the "rolled" portion sits on the outside of the Top of the hole - not centered.

So, as far as air or sound waves are concerned, once it it leaves the body and the tone hole, how could the metal on the outside top of the hole affect what is going on inside the saxophone?

If the studies say that the extra metal on the outside of the tone hole does affect the "turbulence in the air column" what would be the results of adding additional metal rings to the outside of the tone hole? Would the result be noticeable? Does anybody have 1st hand experience they can share to backup the studies quoted?

I am really interested in this subject - and hope I don't sound argumentative at all - I just would like to hear more than quotes from studies.

I have a Junker Conn C-melody that I might be hacking apart at the shop to take some construction photos to share and maybe to use for some modification experiments. Would be interested to hear from anybody else that has some theories on the subject as well.

Charlie

Benade has some theories. He says: "With really sharp corners, microscopic changes are readily detected by the player (e.g., 10 second thumb-wear on a brand new grenadilla clarinet tonehole)!!

These microscopic changes dominate the musician's recognition of the differences between one instrument and its supposedly identical twin, in the case of today's machine-made clarinets, flutes, oboes, trumpets, saxophones, bassoons."

Coming from anyone but the world authority on such things, I would not believe it...

He also says (and this should answer your question about 90 degree angles): "If corners have sharpness such that the radius of curvature is more than 0.1 x sqrt(250/f) mm at the lowest note of the instrument, things won't give too much trouble, therefore use larger radii if at all possible."

Benade also mentions that if you are going "all out" it is also worthwhile to round the sharp edges on wooden bodies at the outside of the tonehole cutout where the normal thickness of the body begins.

The only problem with rounding sax tonehole edges is the thinness of the metal: you tend to end up with a rather thin and sharp top edge if you round both the inside and outside of the chimney, although you should round them as much as possible without creating something so sharp that it cuts the pad. And yes, pseudo-rolled toneholes, with a collar soldered to the top, work just as well as rolled ones, as long as the edges between the top of the hole and the sides of the chimney are rounded. The top of the chimney can be flat, as long as the edges are rounded.

All that being said, I have no plans to take any emery paper to the toneholes of my Powell flute (although the next time I have my Martin tenor apart I am considering it).

Toby

 

Wow--after being away from the forum for 5 years the minutiae keeps rolling!

Regarding Gordon's original point I am in general agreement. As a player and technician I do not see many practical benefits to rolled toneholes.

There are soooooooo many variables to consider before we start genuflecting over the acoustic and tonal benefits of rolled toneholes.

Are you leak free? Really?

What pads are used? Resonators?

How are resonators installed? Sealed?

How are pads installed? What kind of glue? How much?

Oh yeah---is the neck clean?

I will work with rolled toneholes as they present themselves to me, but I do not see them as an overall contributor to tone any more than particular tires make my car go fast.

Regarding Benade--the majority of his wind research was on clarinets or similar sized apparatus. Clarinets generally have cylindrical bores and conical tonehole chimneys. Saxophones have neither. Not that the laws of physics do not apply, but boy is it a stretch to compare directly.

JD

 

In the interest if being a picky eater and separating my apples from my oranges, why do saxophonists insist on the functional aspects of their instruments in terms of other instruments? I'll bet someplace someone is thinking a Foster extenstion for saxophone would be a good idea.

A saxophone is a saxophone, a clarinet is a clarinet, and a flute is a flute. Yes there are characteristics that are common to all but you must consider each characteristic in its own context for it to really mean anything and be applicable.

I would recommend checking Martin saxophones for tonehole solder leaks before determining the true playing characteristics. But thinning and chamfering the toneholes is a standard procedure I do on Martins. I would not suggest rounding/thinning yourself unless you are planning to possibly replace pads too--if you squeeze really hard it won't be a big deal

 

The Foster extension is a silly idea even on flute, and a well-designed bell does the necessary impedance matching that an open tone hole array would do on a sax. No need to complicate things. But I guarantee that it someone built such a contraption people would buy it and oooh and aaaah over how much better the sax played after it was fitted. The emperor never seems to run out of new clothes.

Toby

 

"I"

I have modified countless saxophone toneholes--replaced rims on filed through/crushed rolls, replaced/fabricated new Martin and King toneholes, and yes (gasp) done considerable before and after testing of toneholes that didn't necessarily need any tweaking but I tweaked anyway.

The verdict from my hands-on experience is it will change the acoustical properties of the instrument. Whether the change is positive, negative, able to be duplicated, or is even noticeable to the player is entirely subjective.

The smaller the instrument the more noticeable the effect of any change to the status quo. So, if you do all your modifications to baris, don't think you can get scaleable results with a soprano unless you like to think in exponents. Also, there is an argument to be made for every aspect of the instrument from the reed to the glue behind the pads to the molecular composition and alignment in the body tube itself. If you want more than just anecdotal blathering then repeatable conditions need to be created. In the world of musical instruments this is not practical, if it were even possible to eliminate the human element.

To return to Gordon's original point, the mechanical advantages of rolled toneholes are limited... and the acoustic advantages are debatable. It comes down to if a particular horn with rolled toneholes works for you. In my experience there are so many different variables in play that the rolled tonehole is way down the list of reasons a horn plays the way it does.

I personally chuckle over the customers who are adamant that I do not disturb the original tonehole edge "to preserve that great vintage sound" but insist upon tonehole inserts and baffles. A little bit of knowledge isn't a dangerous thing--it just adds $500 on to the bill!

JD

 

Oh, and as an example of how miniscule a change can impact the playability of an instrument try this if you have decent flute chops.

Take a flute that plays pretty well (leak free and joints fit properly) but is grungy with some grime and trarnish. Pay attention to the resonance of the 2nd and 3rd octave--particularly high E and F#. Using an ordinary silver polishing cloth vigorously clean the end of the foot below the lowest pad cup and inside the tube as far as your thumb or finger will reach--just that last inch or so is all you clean. (Instruments that have sustained major dent work may have limited change.)

Poof! poor man's Foster extension (sort of)

 

Wow! Let's put that in perspective.

I give my flute keys a polish before a concert, and it plays better. But I know that has noting to do with the polish. It is all in my mind.

For a good sound, it is equally important that I have comfortable underwear, my underarms don't stink, and my teeth are clean!

 

Wow! Let's put that in perspective.

I give my flute keys a polish before a concert, and it plays better. But I know that has noting to do with the polish. It is all in my mind.

For a good sound, it is equally important that I have comfortable underwear, my underarms don't stink, and my teeth are clean!

One of my repair mentors years ago said something I will never forget when we were discussing the effects of refinishing a saxophone....

"if it makes you feel better when you play it - go for it"

Meaning if playing a pretty horn makes you enjoy what you do, its worth having a pretty horn. Agreed it's all in YOUR mind - but sometimes we have to groom our own ego with illusions to gratify our selfs. (kind of like wanting a sports car when a chevy truck will get you where you are going just as well)

BTW - I like Jeff's post. But I also agree that for a good sound, it is equally important that I have comfortable underwear, my underarms don't stink, and my teeth are clean too.

So perception vs expectation vs fact with all the variables adds up to uncertainty with few people agreeing with any results measured.

Lets live in a fantasy world for a moment and work together in thinking about how we could find a way to prove to each other if there was truly a way to measure a difference if a saxophone had or didn't have rolled tone holes. I think we all have our own Ideas - but how could we work together to record results accurately? (assuming anybody but myself is wanting to do this).

Charlie

 

Charlie,

Ah ha! Sorry, that wasn't clear to me. In fact, according to Benade, the outer edge does make a difference, because the wave extends some distance past the end of the tonehole due to a phenomenon called end correction.

I'm not sure you are aware of what happens at an open tonehole. The wave is traveling along nicely until it hits a place which is open to the ambient atmosphere. The sudden discontinuity causes a reflection--the wave inverts and travels back up the tube to the mouthpiece, where it meets a new wave traveling down the tube. It is that bounce at the open end or open tonehole that allows a standing wave to develop in the tube.

Of course not all the energy bounces back, some is radiated out of the hole at every bounce to become the sound that we hear. This is a complicated business and depends on hole diameter, chimney height and wavelength, but that is the basic picture. As I say, that bounce does not happen at the exact end of the tonehole, but some distance past it, generally .6 x the radius of the hole. Some frequencies are bounced at the first open hole, others (higher) travel down further into tube and are radiated by the lower open holes, others (higher still, past the cutoff frequency) travel all the way down and come out the bell or end of the tube.

This is, by the way, the whole point of the Foster extension, to "balance" the wave as it extends past the end of the flute, which is BS, but never mind...

So there is a lot of activity at the first few open toneholes, inside and out. Air is moving around quite a bit, as that is an area of maximum air molecule movement (a velocity or displacement antinode).

If the edges are rounded, the air molecules can move in an orderly fashion, but if there are sharp corners, things are thrown all out of whack. Imagine for a minute an airplane wing that had sharp edges and you might get the picture. Instead of traveling in a smooth wave, either out into the ambient air or back up into the tube, the molecules are sent in chaotic directions, and the waves lose energy.

This would also apply to sharp edges on resonators, for example. According to Benade, it could also apply to any sharp edge within a radius of .6 x the radius of the hole. You might even want to round the key edges! (Of course the further past the end of the tonehole, the less effect edges have).

One other thing to keep in mind is that turbulence is proportional to velocity, so these turbulence effects "kick in" more strongly as output increases, because the air molecules are displaced more forcefully. At a certain point the losses due to turbulence become so great they limit any further dynamic development.

This is not to say that turbulent and other losses won't limit dynamics even at a nicely rounded tonehole at some point, but it will happen sooner if there are edges, and the sharper the edges, the sooner it will happen. And the effects (according to Benade) make themselves felt much before this point is reached. To say that small differences in edges are the main determinant of playing differences in similar instruments is pretty bold, but knowing his reputation I have to believe it,because he was both a master of theory and practice, having designed and built many musical instruments, as well as advising the Conn company, among others. Don't forget also that all his studies were peer-reviewed, so he is not some loose cannon in the acoustic world.

Toby

 

Ah language.

There are probably very few, if any, physicists in the group here. Most of us are laymen with only a passing knowledge of the concepts related to instrument acoustics. With that in mind, use of certain words to describe acoustical phenomena can get confusing if they are not wholly accurate.

My attention is drawn by words such as turbulence and velocity. These suggest there is air flowing through the instrument. While they may be partially accurate within context I find the terms constructive/destructive interference and amplitude to be much more helpful in getting people's heads all on the same page.

JD

 

A standing wave is comprised of nodes and antinodes. At nodes the quantity being measured does not change, at antinodes it changes the maximal amount. Two quantites interest us: air pressure and air displacement; they are basically complimentary: where the pressure is changing the most (pressure antinode) the air is moving the least--it is just being squeezed (velocity node). Where the pressure is changing the least (pressure node) the air is moving the most (mostly back and forth, but it DOES have a velocity, because air molecules are being displaced a certain amount over time). This is also a velocity antinode, or displacement antinode.

A saxophone has a pressure antinode at the reed end and a displacement antinode at the open end. Pressure varies at the reed. Air movement happens at the open end (obviously, because the atmosphere has nothing to contain the pressure, so that pressure causes air movement as it is equalized into the surrounding atmosphere). Nobody is talking about laminar air flow, but there is very definitely air movement at the open end, and it has a measurable velocity, even though it is periodic. You can measure the velocity of a pendulum, right?

Turbulence is just that: turbulence--unstable flow. This is nothing mystical, it is a real property and it can be measured.

These are precise terms which have precise meanings in this context. Amplitude is something totally different, and actually does not apply to air flow at all. Neither do the terms constructive and destructive interference apply here, since they are wave properties, not air properties.

We need to talk about what actually happens to the air molecules as they are acted upon by waves, not the waves themselves.

Toby

 

Ok Toby - I'm almost with you, just a few more questions....

Having items within .6 of the radius of the tone hole in "the line of fire" being effected by the waves - then comes into question the definition of what is "the line of fire"? Items 180 to 270 degrees from the striking point (like the rest of the tone hole ring) would have the least effect - agreed or disagree?

On a different subject - would .6 the radius of the tone hole be considered the ideal mathematical placement of the pad height at the greatest point of opening? (don't let this be a point of hijacking the thread - just curious)

If this "study" of tone holes and how waves are affected beyond the tone hole is something you agree with - why does the idea applied to the Foster extension become BS is your mind?

Thanks,
Charlie

 

Hi Charlie,

I'm really not sure. My guess is that the inner edge of the tonehole is more important than the outer, and the bottom edge is certainly very important too (where the chimney joins the body), but I have no idea how to put weight to the various edges "in the line of fire".

Benade has a diagram showing edges in a wood-bodied instrument. It's a bit hard to describe, but if you think of how a tonehole is cut in wood, you'll remember that a deep circle is cut in the body, with a hole in the center. This hole has a raised edge, which corresponds to the top of the chimney in a metal instrument. Benade says you must round the inside edge of the hole, but of course the outside "edge" is actually already rounded by the router. BUT...he says that if you are really serious, you would also round the far edge of the circle cut into the body, which is large enough for the key to fit down into. This is pretty far away from the hole itself, and indicates to me that there is "action" quite far from the actual point where the hole meets the outside.

Key heights are an interesting topic, which was addressed in a very long and sometimes quite acrimonious thread started by jbtsax in the Acoustics section. Again, there are quite precise formulae for how key heights affect intonation, and the effects on the radiation of harmonics are well understood. I suggest you read that thread (if you can stand it) and come back with questions. The short answer is that key heights should generally be equal to or greater than .3 x the hole diameter, which (come to think of it) is indeed .6 x the radius :TGNCHK:

It's also very important to remember that while the rounder the better, the most important point is to get rid of a sharp edge. Just a few passes with 1200 or 2000 grit paper on the edge is going to help alot, and it will not disturb the top of the tonehole where the pad seats, it will mainly just take the sharp edge off. This is about the most one can ask for in a thin-bodied metal instrument.

My problem with the Foster extension is as follows. It takes a bit of explaining...

The purpose of a bell on a woodwind is to assist in the radiation of high harmonics for the lowest notes. In a woodwind playing a note higher up on the pipe, with a lattice of open tone holes below, the lower frequencies reflect from the first open tone hole, but the higher frequencies go further down the tube and are radiated by those lower open toneholes.

The problem comes when you get to the lowest notes. There is no longer a lattice of open toneholes to radiate the higher frequencies, so they get bounced back up the tube. Without a bell, the lower notes of a clarinet or oboe or sax will sound mushy and muted, not at all like the higher notes. The bell is an impedance-matching device: it is carefully designed to mimic the effects of a tonehole lattice in radiating higher frequencies (and this is somewhat different from the function of a bell on a brass, which also has the job of moving mode frequencies around for the whole horn).

Of course a flute has no bell, and here is what Benade has to say about that:

"Once again the flute is different from other woodwinds; it needs no bell for two reasons: first because the vibration recipe of any flute, old or new in style, is so lacking in the higher component so that very little sound energy is present above the change-over frequency, and, second, the very large holes of the modern Boehm flute serve to cut off the tube so effectively that all think of themselves as coming out of the end of an ordinary pipe!"

This is from "Horns, Strings and Harmony", by the way, an excellent little book that goes quite deep into musical acoustics but without math and with many examples that are easy to understand and picture. I recommend it.

So as regards the Foster extension: first, there is no need to add a lattice of open tone holes below the end of the flute for impedance matching of the lowest notes, and second, there is so little sound energy getting to the bottom of the tube playing any higher notes that you could do just about anything down there and not change things.

This reminds me of the hoopla over Backun bells for clarinet, where highly respected orchestral players swear up and down that changing the stock bell for a Backun has all kinds of magical effects, when in fact the bell can only affect the last few notes. Backun himself says that he does not put rings on the tenon receivers of his barrels or bells to leave them free to vibrate fully. This is beyond ridiculous.

As I say I read the Foster patent, and it starts with a decent description of the acoustical behavior of the flute, which could be gotten from any textbook, and then veers off into complete nonsense, such as "balancing the wave" and matching the upper cavity with a similar lower cavity. This just doesn't make any sense acoustically.

It is also worth considering that not everyone finds the Foster extension useful, and one would think that if there really were a significant improvement in projection and stability it would be a fact that everyone would notice.

The sad thing is that if a flautist doesn't "feel the difference" using this snake oil, they might well think that it is due to insufficient sensitivity or bravura on their part.

I do not wish to diss your flute friend, but if you do indeed borrow one of these extensions I urge you to try to very carefully evaluate whether your own beliefs are influencing the way you play. The best way to do this would be to do a double-blind test: clamp the flute (gently but firmly) so that you do not support its weight. In the dark, have an assistant place and remove the extension in random order. It is up to you to play and to guess whether the extension is in place or not.

Now my guess is that the only thing that the extension does, at least above the low C#, is to change the radiation pattern of the flute so that more of what exits the end arrives at the player's ear. Therefore there is a possibility that, like cupping your ear, you will hear a difference. So to control for radiation differences, the flute should have the end near a reflecting surface such as a wall. Another thing that might be worth doing is to have others listening in the room, at a reasonable distance, and see if they can guess when the extension is on and when it is not.

If you do this honestly, with no "peeking", no subtle clues to tip you off, such as different vibrations in the body due to the weight on the end (even when clamped, if not clamped to avoid them), I think you will find it much harder to perceive a difference than when you know exactly how the end of your flute looks.

There are numerous examples of this sort of "fooling oneself" in the acoustical literature. Smith reports a special trombone bell which players felt had "magical properties", which they could suddenly not tell apart from a normal bell when all visual and tactile clues were removed in a double-blind situation.

Whatever the effect of the Foster extension, it certainly is not what is claimed in the patent.

Best,
Toby

 

The effect caused by the outer roll may be mass related rather than sound wave reflection related. The extra mass at the edge may provide greater stability to the resonating surface--or at least different resonating characteristics than a straight hole.

JD

 

Actually no. There is not enough vibration of the metal to make any conceivable difference in the sound. Even a thin metal chimney is plenty rigid enough not to be affected by the sound pressure. And let's not forget that an open tone hole is a velocity antinode, not a pressure antinode: where air displacement is at a max but pressure variations are essentially non-existent.

Toby

 

I can't think of a better example of not being able to see the forest through all the trees than this thread.

We cannot assume (well, I will not assume) to be able to perceive what another can from any given instrument. So I apply my experiences and those of my customers to this topic from the standpoint of the player. This is much different than the point of the listener.

Yes a concrete flute or garden hose or whatever may sound the same as a silver flute. Would you want to play it on jobs or even recreationally? It will not feel the same to the player and that is the whole point in my book. What draws a player to an instrument is how it feels/sounds to them when they play it, NOT how it sounds when someone else plays it.

In regards to the material not being of consequence, explain necks of different materials and their effect on the sound. If the material does not matter then why do players prefer sterling, bronze, etc? If the instrument does not resonate to an appreciable degree then why is there a playing difference between "identical" (from manufacturing tolerances) necks when one is clear lacquer and one is heavy black lacquer? Or silver plating just on the outside?

You guys can continue saying that it has no effect and I will keep giving my clients what they require as musicians.

 

What draws a player to an instrument is how it feels/sounds to them when they play it, NOT how it sounds when someone else plays it.

Whoa, hold on there. I make my living out of how my saxophone sounds to other people Clients, customers), not purely how it sounds to me. If I'm going to buy a new instrument I will test how well it records, there are plenty of instruments that sound just great to me but do not quite cut the mustard in the studio. Yes, initially I 'm drawn to an instrument because of what it gives back in terms of sound, feel and response, but ultimately I need one that makes me sound good to other people. Tall order, I know.

In regards to the material not being of consequence, explain necks of different materials and their effect on the sound. If the material does not matter then why do players prefer sterling, bronze, etc?

I would choose a material for its looks and wearability, seeing as I don't believe it's going to affect the sound.

 

Gordons post makes sense to me. I have found that the neck plays a big roll in the total sound.

Whoa, hold on there. I make my living out of how my saxophone sounds to other people Clients, customers), not purely how it sounds to me. If I'm going to buy a new instrument I will test how well it records, there are plenty of instruments that sound just great to me but do not quite cut the mustard in the studio. Yes, initially I 'm drawn to an instrument because of what it gives back in terms of sound, feel and response, but ultimately I need one that makes me sound good to other people. Tall order, I know.

Yes and that's a good point. Most of the posts here are about how someone either loves or dislikes the sound according to how they are hearing it but the audience is going to hear something more like the recorded sound and isn't that what playing is eventually about, playing to an audience and being judged by an audience rather than just playing for yourself. Just playing for yourself is ok but usually we hear other sax players when they play for an audience.

 

So Pete, are you changing the discussion from one on what sound different materials make, to how an instrument feels?

Yes, different materials feel different to the touch, and that may influence the player's pleasure, but it has nothing to do with the sound, other than that a happy player is likely to play better. This player feels getter playing his sax after a shower and a shave, but it was my mental state that made me play better, not the shower or shave having any effect on the function of the sax.

BTW, If I were a sax maker, and made a neck with a slightly different bore characteristic that had a different sound that some people thought was better, then I would make it from an exotic material so that people would have a romantic attachment to it, and be more willing to pay me a much higher price for it. Also, I would not have to draw copiers' attention to the real reason for the different sound.

The world of marketing is full of such BS. It makes money!
To believe otherwise is naive.

 

So Pete, are you changing the discussion from one on what sound different materials make, to how an instrument feels?

Yes, different materials feel different to the touch,

I don't mean feeling different to the touch, I mean how it feels to play it. This is possibly the same thing as response to many people, but I am also talking about a "feeling" I get from playing the instrument. Some people might call it resonance and it does seem like that, except that as we know the instrument itself is not resonating in the same way a guitar or bell does, then it's probably more of a psychological "feel". Maybe "vibe" is a better word.

Hope that makes sense,

 

That's It.

A sax made from mouthpiece hard rubber.
A perfect solution and the mouthpiece can be just molded on.
No need for separate mouthpieces.