TubaForum.net

https://www.facebook.com/marketplace/it ... 049243713/

And it's been up for two weeks?

(There isn't a literal connection, but i can't help thinking of O Brother... "Well, ain't this place a geographical oddity: two weeks from everywhere.")

I just borrowed an old Martin BARITONE saxophone to have a little bit of fun at a pops concert - covering a tune that featured five saxophones (whereby four of the woodwind players in the orchestra doubled on saxophones). I was a little bit surprised to see that the conservatory trained principal clarinetist doubled on tenor, but it made me smile.

The thing about the Martin baritone saxophone was that I couldn't use it, because only a couple of pitches around the middle of the instrument were usable, and towards the neck everything got quite sharp whereas towards the bell everything got quite flat. I ended up covering the part on the cimbasso.

I guess what I'm saying is that I have played Buescher, Conn, and even German Couf bass saxophones (all: fine), but I've never played a Martin bass, and - based on my experience with the Martin baritone - I believe (were I interested in this Martin) I would drive to Kansas and test the instrument in-person, prior to committing to buying it.

Alto players tell me that old Martin alto saxophones are very squirrely as well.

Yet another issue with Martin saxophones is that their tone holes were manufactured off the instrument, and soldered in place with lead solder. If the instrument has ever been bent or dented - or maybe the lead solder has simply deteriorated, that could define some repair issues beyond pads, corks, and adjustments.

Quite a few years ago we had a bass sax in one of the bands here that I played in. The lady who had it played quite well, read bass clef (tuba) parts and played quite well in tune. I think it was a Buescher. Made me want one, but you never see them and they are way up there in $$. However, having found out the hard way recently that my hand size is not even big enough for an alto sax, just as well I didn't find one.

The saxophone is tuned by the placement of the mouthpiece, and if you've seen it done, you might wonder who's kidding whom - that 1/16 inch shift isn't going to appreciably change the pitch. Well, it isn't like tuning a brass instrument, because the mouthpiece interior actually corresponds in some mysterious way to a long conical imaginary continuation of the saxophone neck, owing to a "Helmholz resonance" phenomenon. Except, it does to some extent at the high end of the range, where the resonating length is much shorter. Hence the mouthpiece interior really has to match the saxophone, or you'll end up with something where for example it's got too much interior space and the low end is flat, yet it's pushed on too far and the high end is sharp. This is the story I've read, at any rate. I haven't really noticed the phenomenon myself, but I give it enough credit that if I had an intonation problem between high and low end notes, I'd sure want to try significantly different mouthpieces.

I wouldn't worry a bit about the soldered tone holes on a '50s Martin, but don't know about '20s. But then, I doubt that Martin actually made this bass saxophone. Conn or Buescher maybe.

I would bet $$$ that horn was built by Buescher. I own a Buescher bass saxophone, and they look almost identical. From the quality of the photos, It doesn't appear have the usual hallmarks of a Conn. If I could see the other side of the horn, the tell-tale sign of a Buescher would be a little tone hole toward the bottom to play written E flat with an alternate (forked) fingering, and bypassing the E flat pinky key. It’s a pad that is closed when not in use, and since the sound of the note is less than to be desired, most owners just cram a cork between the clapper and the protective cage, so it won’t leak over time. Another sign (on the non-visible side) would be if there was a high E natural and F key, which were not found on Bueschers (these notes are easily overblown on my horn, even F#, without the need of them).

Tuning:

Bass saxophones (and others) of that era were mostly built in “Low Pitch” (stamped as such on the horn below the serial number). They tend to play a little flat by today’s standard - and since you can push the mouthpiece on the neck only so far, the choice of mouthpiece (and reed) is vital. Short of that, you’d better have super strong embouchure muscles……..(“close enough for jazz”? )

I paid $4000 for my Buescher (with a leather Cronkhite gig bag, the original case, and an assortment of mouthpieces) 32 years ago, so if the horn is in decent shape, it’s well worth the price being asked.

Impression: I’ve found that horns that survive as long as 100 years in pristine condition generally have a reason why they haven’t been played to near destruction.

If that Martin was actually made by Buescher, I've played those bass saxophones, and liked every one I've played.

After having played literally thousands of saxophones - after having repaired them - and with really nice vintage Selmer Paris mouthpieces - or some Vandoren mouthpieces that should have never been discontinued - and the mouthpiece with which I test everything from Vito to a low C Buffet bass clarinets is a serial numbered Charles Bay mouthpiece (and all imaginable brands and thicknesses of reeds, left over from our brick and mortar music store are available to us) so I sort of know how to tune and operate a saxophone...but - just as with the E flat tuba - I don't have any reading skills.

I don't know a lot about bass saxophones yet except that Buescher are very good - and actually better than an H. Couf German one, that I owned for a short time years ago.

Back to the Martin baritone sax:
Those were made by Martin, and I've straightened out and refinished some low B flat and low A Martin "Magma" bari's before, but didn't spend any time playing them - other than to make sure that they played all the notes, and that was long ago (and actually before automatic chromatic tuners were common, and certainly not free on cell phones). I know all about pushing mouthpieces in and out and how much that does up high compared to how little that does down low, but - if an instrument is sharp close to the mouthpiece, gets flatter around the middle of the instrument, hits roughly in tune around the middle of the instrument, and then dips way into the flat range the lower the instrument dips into the bell notes, where the hell is the mouthpiece supposed to go?

...The answer is that the mouthpiece goes with ANOTHER bari sax, and that PARTICULAR useless bari goes up on a shelf or is hung on the wall in a restaurant.

bloke wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 8:33 pm if an instrument is sharp close to the mouthpiece, gets flatter around the middle of the instrument, hits roughly in tune around the middle of the instrument, and then dips way into the flat range the lower the instrument dips into the bell notes, where the hell is the mouthpiece supposed to go?

Well, as you surmise, it isn't going on that saxophone. Unlike valved instruments, there's really only one tuning for a saxophone where all the notes come together. Yorkboy's "low pitch" story combined with a neck shortening operation would hypothetically account for the problem. Or it could be the mouthpiece.

donn wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2024 11:30 am

bloke wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 8:33 pm if an instrument is sharp close to the mouthpiece, gets flatter around the middle of the instrument, hits roughly in tune around the middle of the instrument, and then dips way into the flat range the lower the instrument dips into the bell notes, where the hell is the mouthpiece supposed to go?

Well, as you surmise, it isn't going on that saxophone. Unlike valved instruments, there's really only one tuning for a saxophone where all the notes come together. Yorkboy's "low pitch" story combined with a neck shortening operation would hypothetically account for the problem. Or it could be the mouthpiece.

He and I have chatted privately, and (as so much early jazz music - TODAY - includes a piano, and ALL pianos - INCLUDING electronic ones - are intentionally tuned flat below A=440, and CONSIDERABLY flat in middle range of the bass sax) something like an A=438 set-up (etc.) might WELL be a blessing.
...When accompanying piano concerti with symphony orchestras, I ALWAYS pull my tuning slide OUT. The piano's pitches are THE pitches (even though stretched), and I don't wish for my whatever-low-pitch-in-particular to "gurgle" against the piano's same-pitch. By the same token, it's the violinists' duty (as they will... ) to play sharper.

USA depression/pre-depression-era "low pitch" instruments really aren't that much lower in pitch than A=440-designed instruments.
(Most old "low pitch" brass are easily capable of being pushed in to A=440 tuning, as (well...) A=440 was already quite becoming a "thing".

cutting the neck off of an A=438 bass saxophone:
yeah...the left hand might benefit (UNLESS the left hand - particularly upper octave - is sharp-natured), but there would be very little effect on the right hand and bell pitches.

piano "stretch" tuning (to avoid having perfect 5ths "rattle")...

Check out A¹ - A³ tuning:
(I feel fairly certain that you already knew this...)

Apparently (??) this is the tuning of a Fender "Rhodes" keyboard, but (based on all other charts I've seen for tuning pianos), this is just about what's done with all - electronic, semi-electronic (such as Rhodes), and acoustic - pianos.

bloke wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2024 12:14 pm cutting the neck off of an A=438 bass saxophone:
yeah...the left hand might benefit (UNLESS the left hand - particularly upper octave - is sharp-natured), but there would be very little effect on the right hand and bell pitches.

It would certainly be a misguided remedy - exactly the discrepancy you're complaining about with the bari. And pushing a mouthpiece on real far would have the same effect (disproportionately to the dimensional shortening becaues of the Helmholtz resonance effect mentioned above.)

I have a friend who has a Conn BBb bass sax, late 1920's. He plays it for community band. It is quite a horn that he keeps well maintained. Pitch is good; tone is great. It really adds breadth to our tuba section.

I'm thinking that's probably an over-complication.

I'm simply referring to the fact that - as tone holes are farther and farther from the end of the instrument (where the source of the vibration also happens to be generated) a mouthpiece push/pull difference (1/8"...1/4"...3/8"...whatever...) is going to make less-and-less of a difference in the pitch.

4.5' B-flat trumpet - 1/8th inch tuning slide pull makes the same tuning difference as
9' B-flat trombone - 1/4th inch tuning slide pull makes the same tuning difference as
18' B-flat tuba - 1/2 inch tuning slide pull makes the same tuning difference

...so - if the first open tone hole (per a "fingering") is only 6 inches from the mouthpiece (defining that length air column)...a 1/8th inch mouthpiece pull/push is going to make 4 times as much tuning difference to that pitch as it would to a pitch coming out of the first open tone hole which is 24 inches away from the mouthpiece (defining that length air column).

This is both my understanding as well as it is my experience.

ie. If a woodwind instrument's tone hole spacing (OK...as well as "voicing" - meaning hole size and pad height - when open...but not to over-complicate...) is not really close to correct from c. an A=438 range to around an A=442 range, that instrument is going to be a poor instrument (as is the Martin BARITONE saxophone with which I recently dealt)...and yes...messing with reeds/mouthpieces/embouchure can "favor" flaws - just as the mouthpiece and mouth can "favor" flaws in brass instruments...but (again) that's adding more (human) variables, which confuse the point...

...and that PARTICULAR BARITONE saxophone's tone hole placement inaccuracies/flaws are (in my opinion - as well as it's owner, a previous owner, and others who've borrowed it) insurmountable, sorta as with (and no offense to those who own them...) those insurmountable (OK...unless main slide trigger) flaws encountered with an old Buescher "monster" E-flat tuba.

...and (not to change the subject even more, but...) If a brass instrument's main slide is pulled, the other slides (in their previous in-tune positions) are going to be a bit too short.

BRS wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2024 2:41 pm Hesitant to poke my nose in on this, but key height can indeed move things around a bit. My saxogeek specialist pals do this stuff to vintage instruments regularly.

I love me some bass saxophone and would love to have a good one to get my Adrian Rollini on.

That to which you refer is not rocket science, but (more - once pads all actually seal) "listening science".

It can be JUST a bit disheartening to go back and change entire stacks (once completely adjusted).

again: that Martin baritone sax...no hope of that helping to the degree that "help" is needed.

Quite a few people charge more to re-pad really good saxophones.
In reality, those are probably the EASIEST to re-pad.

bloke wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2024 2:05 pm I'm simply referring to the fact that - as tone holes are farther and farther from the end of the instrument (where the source of the vibration also happens to be generated) a mouthpiece push/pull difference (1/8"...1/4"...3/8"...whatever...) is going to make less-and-less of a difference in the pitch.

Sure. That's why the saxophone has no pitch standard flexibility. A valved instrument can pull its slides out and adapt to a slightly different pitch standard; a saxophone can't.

I'm constitutionally unable to casually accept the premise that manufacturers like Martin and Buescher sent instruments out from their factories that were routinely not in good pitch tune, like in our grandfather's day no one really noticed such things. So given that such instruments are encountered, the explanations I can think of are changes in design pitch standard, and one-off damage and/or build flaws.

BRS wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2024 2:41 pm Hesitant to poke my nose in on this, but key height can indeed move things around a bit. My saxogeek specialist pals do this stuff to vintage instruments regularly.

It's sure true on the smaller saxophones. As the pad & hole get bigger, I would guess the acoustic effect of the raised pad is going to be smaller - not saying it's nil, but wouldn't bet on that for a fix with one of those big old saxes with intonation problems.

Aside from bloke's Martin bari and its intonation issues -- I believe there's a fair amount of tonal variation between an old Buescher like this and some of the other saxophones you might find on the market. My experience is with a Keilwerth made '80s instrument, which I doubt I would recommend as ideal for someone wanting to get a Rollini type sound. Don't know about the current instruments manufactured in various locations. But of course a Buescher would be a good bet.

Someone brought in a Yanagisawa "Vito" baritone saxophone one time that have been (so-called) overhauled, and all of the pads were down really low - with the intonation weird and it was stuffy. Raising all that stuff (and ending up with all of it in proper adjustment) is almost as much work as a repad job.

I bought this bad boy and drove 1200+ miles from Binghamton ny to Shawnee Kansas and its awesome. G# is my buescher banshee victim but I use a noblet paris baritone/bass saxophone mouthpiece and it's awesome! Intonation isn't too bad but Bb tends to be a good bit sharp but I lip down and it works. First bass for me and it's like I traveled back in time.