 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2018-04-12 04:38
I know most repair techs I've watched use a leak light to check for pad leaks on saxophones. Do those of you who do repair work ever use feelers (as is done routinely in checking clarinet pads)?
I have a young clarinet student who has just started playing alto sax. Her mom had her father's (the student's grandfather's) old Conn refurbished recently. My student seemed to be having trouble getting it to play - the Yamaha entry-level alto she was borrowing from her school played more easily. I don't have a leak light, but I checked most of the pads with a feeler. Most are quite firm when I pull on the feeler under the closed keys. Three of the pads - the G#, the pad just above the RH F key, and the D#/Eb pad - give very weak to no resistance when I pull the feeler out. In addition, the octave pad seems not to be closing very tightly. I'm sure all these pads were closing, but with almost no force unless I press hard. The Eb pad wasn't level - good hold on the feeler in back, little or no hold in front.
The repairman who did the refurbishing work seems very put out that I've suggested any of those pads, if they closed more firmly, might make the sax easier for my student to play. He apparently uses a light exclusively. When I talk with him tomorrow, he may explain why he can't also check with a feeler.
What are your attitudes about leak testing procedures? Am I unrealistic in expecting the pads on a sax to seat as firmly as clarinet pads do (or should)?
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2018-04-12 15:05
It's common to use both methods for saxophones. A feeler by itself is excruciatingly slow and has some issues. A leak light is fast and works great except in a few cases.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Steven Ocone
Date: 2018-04-12 16:47
I rarely use a feeler gage on a sax - maybe more out of habit. Deep impressions in a pad can make the leaks harder to see with a light. They may also create more drag on a feeler gage. For problem saxes I pull the shades and turn out the overhead light (with a leak light inside the sax). Old hard pads don't seem to seal as well even if they seem level.
Steve Ocone
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2018-04-12 17:09
Steven Ocone wrote:
> Deep impressions in a pad can make the leaks harder to see with
> a light. They may also create more drag on a feeler gage.
FWIW, that's part pf my concern - these particular pads don't seem to have *any* impression - so if the pad surfaces are a little irregular (or, in one case, either the chimney or the hole is not perfectly level) there are no grooves to seat on the edges of the toneholes.
The reason I've asked the question is that I'm not experienced enough with mechanical issues of saxes to be sure I'm being realistic in hoping that pads with the large circumference of a sax pad *can* actually seat uniformly around tone hole.
As for the octave key, the vent on this sax (as it is on my even older Conn) is on the underside of the neck. It has a small leather pad which, I suppose because of the firmness of the leather over so small an area, has no impression in it and seems (judging by the lack of pull on the feeler) to contact very lightly, just sitting gently against the vent. I'm concerned that a good, strong air column could actually blow it open, even if it does seal when not being played.
Again, am I being too picky?
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2018-04-12 17:38
Clarinet toneholes are considerably longer than sax toneholes, so leak lights aren't as effective, as well as most clarinets tend to use skin pads, the light shines through and lights them up making leak detection by light and sight alone more difficult.
I use leak lights on saxes and with the sax held below my bench or with the overhead lights out to make leaks more apparent. I don't use deep seats in my pads and close them against the toneholes rather than pressing them down firmly which I suspect has been done with the old Conn sax in the original post.
Conn saxes rarely have level toneholes and favour very soft pads, but they can have their toneholes levelled (which can be tricky with rolled toneholes) and firmer pads can be used. I overhauled three old Conn tenors recently using Pisoni Po J pads and while two Conns had rolled toneholes, the Pan Am one had straight toneholes which is the norm for saxes and levelling them is a much simpler affair. Although there are numerous other problems with vintage saxes that can compromise their mechanical reliability if they were never built well to begin with, if they've had a string of failed or botched past attempts at repair work or have excessive wear in the pillars and keywork.
While it's nice to have an old sax rebuilt and passed onto the grandkids, vintage saxes aren't always the best for beginners if they are worse for wear or haven't been repaired well. I overhauled an old Selmer Adolphe alto for a player who already played tenor and had a modern one (can't remember what make), but he found the old style keywork on the Selmer was nowhere near as ergonomic as his tenor, so he had trouble adapting to it. Ergonomics weren't exactly high on the agenda in the past - I know a player who physically can't play a Conn bari sax as the finger spacing is far too wide for her, but has no problem with a Yamaha bari.
I only use feeler gauges on flutes, piccolos, oboes and clarinets. I do use leak lights on bass clarinets as the toneholes are relatively shorter than on soprano clarinets due to them having relatively thinner joint walls compared to Bb/A clarinets as well as basses using leather (and cork) pads. But on saxes I never use feeler gauges as leak lights will show up the entire circumference of the tonehole and make visible the majority of leaks (depending on the angle you're viewing it from). Dental mirrors can help where vision is restricted.
No woodwind instrument should ever have to be played by firmly pressing the keys down to make the pads seat. They should close against the tonehole by simply lowering the keys with light finger pressure just as you'd close a fingertip against an open tonehole, although you still have to take into account the torsion in the keywork and any give in the silencing materials used and work with that and that is all workable under normal finger pressure provided the pads are all seating well.
I've seen saxes, clarinets and even flutes and piccolos all apparently overhauled where the pads would only close (or not) by using excessive finger pressure - no woodwind player plays with a gorilla-like grip as that's both bad for technique and will only cause fatigue. No-one should have to force anything closed to make it work - if that is the case, then it's down to poor work by the repairer and should be addressed.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Steven Ocone
Date: 2018-04-13 04:29
Sounds like this sax has some leaks. Old saxes can be very obstinate. Repairs always take more time than I expect.
Steve Ocone
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2018-04-13 08:23
>> Clarinet toneholes are considerably longer than sax toneholes, so leak lights aren't as effective, as well as most clarinets tend to use skin pads, the light shines through and lights them up making leak detection by light and sight alone more difficult. <<
In addition the non-reflective material of the body and the countersunk tone holes sometimes partially blocking the view from the sides.
>> these particular pads don't seem to have *any* impression - so if the pad surfaces are a little irregular (or, in one case, either the chimney or the hole is not perfectly level) there are no grooves to seat on the edges of the toneholes. <<
Tone holes are almost never level unless they were leveled after manufacture (there are exceptions). Pads always have little irregularities in their surface, it's a matter of degree. By lab standards, milled steel is not flat either. It doesn't necessarily matter if they have an impression. they can be fine with barely any impression. The important thing is they seal with a light touch (I aim for less force than is put by players).
>> I'm being realistic in hoping that pads with the large circumference of a sax pad *can* actually seat uniformly around tone hole. <<
To the degree that they seal with a light touch, yes. The larger a key cup is compared with their arm length, the more uneven the front and back would be when changing amount of force for closing (the front would receive more force compared with the back when pressing harder).
The pads you mentioned might be fine even if they feel "weak" or not... it's not possible to say, just guess. It can also depend on how you checked (e.g. the key above the F key, called the F# key, needs to be checked by pressing the back bar, and its closing force can change slightly depending on how many right hand stack keys you press to close it too).
>> I'm concerned that a good, strong air column could actually blow it open, even if it does seal when not being played. <<
When I think an octave key might have an issue I check with a mag machine, but you can do the same by blowing air into the neck (depending on how much you "want" to put your mouth on the neck). Seal one end and blow into the other. Keep in mind that this puts much more pressure on the pad compared with playing, because the other end isn't sealed when playing and people tend to blow much harder in a test like this. Neck octave pads almost never blow open anyway.
Post Edited (2018-04-13 20:48)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2018-04-13 18:47
clarnibass wrote:
> The pads you mentioned might be fine even if they feel "weak"
> or not... it's not possible to say, just guess. It can also
> depend on how you checked (e.g. the key above the F key, called
> the F# key, needs to be checked by pressing the back bar, and
> its closer can change slightly depending on how many right hand
> stack keys you press to close it too).
Thanks, Nitai, Steven and Chris! From reading your responses I have a different perspective on all of this.
Now, one last, more specific question before I let this go:
You say the F# key (thanks, Nitai, for the key name) should be checked by pressing the back bar. I'm a little surprised by this, since it's closed by pressing on either RH 1 or 2 (F or F#). The back bar is a linkage I had never really noticed or thought about, but I can see how it would affect (even determine) the closure of the F# pad.
Should the F# pad be expected to contact with the same firmness as the F key when pressed by RH 1st finger with normal pressure? If yes, is this adjusted by somehow moving the back bar? I can't see without a closer look than I've just had (the bar is pretty well buried in the mechanism) if there's an adjusting screw on it. If there isn't, can the evenness of the F# and F keys be improved by adding small thicknesses of cork between the F arm and the back bar? If there's no light getting under the F# key with a leak light, does it matter if the two pads aren't seating with equal firmness?
I suspect I'm nit-picking, but the student and her mom are kind of caught in the middle of this, having paid a substantial amount of money for the work. The tech, whose clarinet work I've never had reason to question, seems to be taking my suggestions as a personal rejection, but he hasn't contacted me and I've been unsuccessful in contacting him (he seems only to have a cell phone - no email). If this were my sax, I'd be sitting with him in the shop discussing all of this back and forth face to face. But I have no contact with him, it's not my sax, and the mom is trying her best to act as relay between the two of us. I want to be sure she's not stuck trying to relay suggestions that I've made out of ignorance.
Thanks again!
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2018-04-13 20:08
Keywork on Conn saxes is agricultural at best, so they won't have any adjusting screws on them compared to Yamaha saxes which are loaded with them to make fine adjustments of both LH and RH main actions (except the 800 series).
Like all linked keys, the uppermost pad that's closed by another one lower down the same stack should close with more pressure than the ones directly closed by the RH fingers (same applies to the LH main action).
That will ensure the uppermost pad will close and also hold the G# pad closed and due to the natural torsion in the keywork, the other keys closed directly by the RH fingers will also close under normal (as opposed to excessive) finger pressure.
If you set everything up with equal pressure and not taking into account the give in the pads, the silencing materials, the amount of slop or wear in the mechanism and the torsion in the keywork, things simply won't work - you can't be absolutely textbook by thinking key 1 closes key 2 which closes key 3 is a given as in reality there are these other factors to consider and work with instead of against.
Same with setting up the long Bb (xoo|xoo) and setting up the crows foot to get the low E/B working using just the one LH or RH key on clarinets - the uppermost pad of the linked keys will need to close with slightly more pressure than the one closing it for it to work reliably.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2018-04-13 21:12
Chris P wrote:
> Like all linked keys, the uppermost pad that's closed by
> another one lower down the same stack should close with more
> pressure than the ones directly closed by the RH fingers (same
> applies to the LH main action).
>
Thanks, Chris. In this case the F pad (directly closed by the RH 1st finger) is *much firmer* against its tone hole than the F#, which is closed by the back bar. So, if I understand your answer, that's backward from what it ought to be.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2018-04-13 21:24
Yeah - and as soon as the G# pad cup opens (if the G# key is linked to the low C# and B touches), it'll also force that pad to open even more making the low notes impossible.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2018-04-14 10:51
>> You say the F# key (thanks, Nitai, for the key name) should be checked by pressing the back bar. I'm a little surprised by this, since it's closed by pressing on either RH 1 or 2 (F or F#). The back bar is a linkage I had never really noticed or thought about, but I can see how it would affect (even determine) the closure of the F# pad. <<
Use the back bar to check the F# key by itself, not in relation to other keys. Or also to check the closing of F# and G# only. If you check by pressing the F# key itself, the force is applied differently than the way it is when playing (even if the mechanisms are as tight as possible). I prefer to check any key the same as it is when playing it since tiny differences can affect them.
After F# is adjusted by itself, you can check it with F and E by pressing those keys.
In some cases I prefer a different way to what Chris described. For example the 1-1 Bb on clarinet, I prefer the lower pad to have slightly more pressure. Some players really don't like to feel anything in their left hand when pressing the right hand, and also it is the last closed key (before the first open hole) so closing is less critical than the lower key closing for lower notes (the upper key is closed by the left hand finger for other notes anyway). This is a specific case.
New saxophones and a lot of old saxophones have the F# key closed by all three right hand stack keys. Some only have the F and E keys closing it (sometimes with D closing E by a linkage).
Because the lever is longer for E, so there's more flex, I prefer to have E close F# with slightly less force than F closing F#. Also because F# is the last closed hole (again before the first open one) when playing F# (using the E key) but for F, it is one above that.
The lower you go, the more critical the closing pressure is, but I want to avoid as much "spongy" feel in the stack key, which can happen if F# closes too soon compared with the others. So for F# (played by E), I make sure it just closes, maybe slightly more for F, and with all three fingers down it is even a little more. These are all tiny differences in closing force, it's not like it doesn't close in any of these cases.
Also important to check G# for all of these adjustments.
>> In this case the F pad (directly closed by the RH 1st finger) is *much firmer* against its tone hole than the F#, which is closed by the back bar. <<
Do you feel a significant difference in the closing of F# in these cases: using F key, the F# key by pressing the key itself, F# key by using the back bar, the E key by itself, using all three stack keys?
Don't use excessive force when checking F# with the back bar or pressing on the key itself. If checking this way with very light force it is closing much more than using both F and E, then it's likely and adjustment problem. If not, the F# pad itself might not be closing accurately, or the F# to G# adjustment is preventing it from closing with more force.
You can check this (maybe with another person) by pressing on the G# pad with more force, eliminating it from affecting the closing of F#.
Another important linkage is the F# to Bis Bb (similar to clarinet 1-1 Bb). Make sure the F# key linkage arm is not hitting the Bis Bb linkage arm before closing enough. This is the same as the 1-1, IMO the Bis Bb should just close, with very light pressure, by the F#. I like to close F with regular playing force, check press the left hand stack A key (which closes Bb) and see that the Bis Bb linkage arm still moves a fraction.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2018-04-14 17:01
I have to admit I'm not a fan of calling sax main action keys misnomers such as 'C key' or 'A key' or 'F# key' as those terms are incredibly vague at best.
Which is why I use labels like LH1, LH2, LH3, RH1, RH2, RH3 for the main action fingerplates on saxes as that is self explanatory. That applies across the board on all woodwinds from piccolos to contrabassoons and everything else between and outside that. Any other keys or toneholes are named accordingly and specific to the instrument in question.
Now, if someone says they're having trouble with the C key on their sax, that can mean anything and nothing specific as it could mean around 6 entirely different keys depending on your viewpoint. And giving keys names like 'A key' can only lead to confusion when you're having to explain the A key is now the C key when you're playing C (or vice versa). If it's called LH2, then that clears up any confusion unless (like me) you get your left and right mixed up.
If you think a basic woodwind instrument such as a tin whistle has no keys and only has six toneholes closed directly by each finger on each hand (not counting the pinkies), then a sax and others should be treated the same in naming the toneholes/ main action fingerplates which are directly closed directly by the fingers. Closed keys are easy to name as they're named after the note that issues from them when they're operated (G# key, side Bb key, low Eb key, etc.).
The problem is there is no universal and definitive system for naming woodwind keywork - players, teachers, repairers and manufacturers won't all use or agree on the same terms, so it is a minefield.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
