[Christopher]

I've been thinking about this one for a bit, but they always seem to extend the range upward. To me this seems useless since I find the altissimo fingerings to produce better intonation. So does anyone else have the same opinion that saxes should have an extended low range as opposed to an extended high range? I think down to low F would be good. Also would this be possible? I know it is for low A, but everybody knows the partially covering the bell trick.

 

[Koen88]

maybe because the lower you go how bigger the sax has to get? if you`ll go to low F you would be blowing in you`re own face!:mrgreen:

 

[Christopher]

i remember you saying in another post you are an engineering student. So you probably so have a good base knowledge for such things. I realize it would have to increase in size. The real question for me is how much per half step?

 

[Captain Beeflat]

The size would increase exponentially. There is only a short length increment at the top notes increasing as the pitch lowers.
Just look at the increase in bell length between a Bb baritone & the low A version.
Altissimo is simply harmonics....if your intonation is better in this area I would attempt to improve in the normal range.

 

[Christopher]

I do that regularly across my entire range which is up ton Bb5. I just thought it would be nice to expand the low end a bit. Maybe not f but g seems like a logical starting point to me. I could live with G# and cover the bell to get g if I had to.

 

[Koen88]

you`ll get something like this...

*edit: this is a low G tenor*

 

[Pete Thomas]

I've been thinking about this one for a bit, but they always seem to extend the range upward. To me this seems useless since I find the altissimo fingerings to produce better intonation. So does anyone else have the same opinion that saxes should have an extended low range as opposed to an extended high range?

Selmer once did as they introduced a low A alto. It was not very popular. Even low A baritones are not popular with many baritone players so it's really a question of demand. If enough people wanted this, it would happen.

 

[king of jazz]

I didnt know they made keys to go past high F sharp. Instead we make fingerings to go higher. Good luck finding fingerings going lower .

But the size of the sax will be ridiculous- not only will changing the length make the sax too big but all the key placements will need to be redone to adjust for more space in the sax due to the lengthening. My c foot flute can reach a c4 easy but using the same fingering on my b foot flute which is slightly longer at the end make it extremely difficult. I know they have made altos go to low a and same with tenor i think. Down to low F is ridiculous as it will be more just a honk as you will need more air to fill the sax.

Also find me music for sax that goes down to a low F, wait no one has done that because the sax was never intended to do that. You just get the next instrument down to play the part and their range will crossover with the next instrument up from it. The amount you will have to add for each one to get to a lower F i would judge to be about up to the height of the neck on alto and down again 1/2 way. The higher notes are so close together as they are of higher frequency than lower notes and each time you go down an octave you are halving the frequency ie. a=440 and a=220 blah blah blah till we can't hear it. In order for each you need alot more length- look at an organ for example, the length and circumference difference between the octaves is huge.
Back to the first point- whos making keys past high f sharp?

 

[Koen88]

I believe there are soprano`s out there with High G, which is operated with the right hand its next to the F# key..

 

[Christopher]

I believe there are some soprano models that have a high g key,it is not very common though. I think it would make an interesting looking sax nonetheless provided the imaginative image provided by koen.

 

[CooolJazzz]

Very few people take full advantage of the extreme lower end as it is...which is unfortunate. Adding keys for even lower notes would simply mean one or two more keys that never get used by 95% of the players.

 

[Christopher]

I guess I'm one of those that finds himself wanting to go lower in a solo from time to time. I like to imagine what I could do if certain things were there or possible for that matter.

 

[CooolJazzz]

I guess I'm one of those that finds himself wanting to go lower in a solo from time to time. I like to imagine what I could do if certain things were there or possible for that matter.

I think that's GREAT. I wish MORE people made use of the full range of the saxophone...especially on the lower end.

 

[Christopher]

I agree. I make a general routine to practice long tones ,scales and arpeggios, although somewhat slow since the fingerings are pretty new to me throughut my entire range. I actually managed to get a C5 out on my Runyon tonight. That kind of shocked me. While we are on the subject of range in general, does anybody know what the highest note altissimo is? I can only find charts up to C5.

 

[milandro]

I just don't think that the lower range extension is really required on tenor and alto saxophones, however experiments with low A (which is a written C) on an alto have been made but never attracted too much attention (while in the baritone, nowadays the low A appears to be mandatory)

The Conn-o-sax was a saxophone extending from high G to Low A..........very few survive because...........nobody wanted them!

These day there are Bass Saxophones extending to low G making thee instruments very bulky indeed

for some strange reason these are popular in Brasil

 

[daigle65]

The extended range on bass clarinet makes sens because it is has a cylindrical bore which means that the resistance is fairly even throughout the range, so the low C isn't that much harder to play than the low E.

The saxophone with it's conical bore is a whole other story. Having a low G or F on a tenor sax would be very difficult to control, forget about playing ppp.

 

[rhysonsax]

i remember you saying in another post you are an engineering student. So you probably so have a good base knowledge for such things. I realize it would have to increase in size. The real question for me is how much per half step?

One semitone = twelth root of 2.0 = 1.05946.

A rule of thumb that musical instrument makers use is about 6% extra length per half step (or 6% shorter string per half step higher pitch on a guitar etc).

But adding extra notes at the bottom end of the instrument just means extra weight to carry around (and not just 6% extra per half step) to reach a note that is already available and probably sounds better on the lower sax. Learning altissimo increases the range upwards for no extra cost or weight.

Rhys

PS I have low A alto, baritone and bass saxes

PPS The extra weight of the body tube would increase by roughly 1.05946 squared or 12.25% for one extra note, if the wall thickness stayed constant. And that's not allowing for extra mechanism and the weight of large key cups etc.

 

[JL]

I don't think you can do it by adding keys, can you? As several posters have implied, you are limited on the low end by the size of the horn. I'm a bit unclear on the question. If tenor doesn't go low enough for you, then a bari would be in order, wouldn't it?

 

[Dr G]

What is the periodicity of someone feeling the need to reinvent the saxophone?

New mechanism.

Instant transposition/different key

Different range.

New composition (plastic, unobtanium, etc.).

Cheaper, better, faster, lighter, more...

The saxophone peaked several decades ago. I, for one, like it as it is - or was.

 

[bruce bailey]

Extending downward would add weight and make the horn stuffy overall.