Intonation Big Bore = Less Forgiving Intonation & Tone

[Stephen Howard]

I've always assumed "big bell" refers to the end diameter of the bell flare

It does. Whenever I've measured identical model with different bell rims, it's only ever been the diameter of the rim that's different. I think it makes a difference...but it's a really subtle one and not really related to tone. It's more like it throws a little bit more sound back at the ears? You get more of a sense of being 'enveloped' in the sound rather than it being projected forward.
That said, I don't doubt that there's a degree of convincing oneself as to what's going on, given that it's that subtle.

 

[thomsax]

It's more like it throws a little bit more sound back at the ears? You get more of a sense of being 'enveloped' in the sound rather than it being projected forwar

I think that goes for the soprano saxes as well. Your ears is taking up the curved soprano better.

 

[Dr G]

Big bore, big bell, big bow…. Three different matters.

 

[turf3]

Notice that as soon as I ask for measurements, and point out that one source of tabulated measurement contradicts the basic premise of the thread, it goes silent.

I think that the "general saxophone playing public" meaning of "large bore" is greatly different than the "engineer's" meaning of "Large bore".

To an engineer, "large bore saxophone" would mean that the actual inside diameter of the tube, either at all locations, or at least at a majority of them, is larger than average; and that such IDs can and have been measured; and that instruments called "large bore" actually have ID measurements that are larger.

To the "general public" it appears that the term "large bore saxophone" means one of:

• Someone who's never made any measurements or seen measurements, told me it's large bore;
• The bell flare looks large
• Looking at the open end of the neck, it kind of looks large
• It plays with less resistance than [some other horn]
• It's old
• It's an American, German, or Eastern European brand.

 

[thomsax]

Notice that as soon as I ask for measurements, and point out that one source of tabulated measurement contradicts the basic premise of the thread, it goes silent.

I think that the "general saxophone playing public" meaning of "large bore" is greatly different than the "engineer's" meaning of "Large bore".

To an engineer, "large bore saxophone" would mean that the actual inside diameter of the tube, either at all locations, or at least at a majority of them, is larger than average; and that such IDs can and have been measured; and that instruments called "large bore" actually have ID measurements that are larger.

To the "general public" it appears that the term "large bore saxophone" means one of:

• Someone who's never made any measurements or seen measurements, told me it's large bore;
• The bell flare looks large
• Looking at the open end of the neck, it kind of looks large
• It plays with less resistance than [some other horn]
• It's old
• It's an American, German, or Eastern European brand.

I'm trying to find my printed papers, CD-R .. but I have also e-mailed a guy that probably knows something about this. What methods did you use? I'll be back as soon as I know more.

 

[turf3]

I have not made these measurements but a guy named M. Postma did, for about 40 different saxophones of soprano alto tenor and baritone, and he's posted his results publicly.

The initial premise of the thread was "is [such and such] behavior due to the fact that my Keilwerth has a large bore?" and when I pointed out that - at least according to those measurements, the Keilwerth DOESN'T have a large bore, it was like I had farted in church.

 

[thomsax]

I have not made these measurements but a guy named M. Postma did, for about 40 different saxophones of soprano alto tenor and baritone, and he's posted his results publicly.

The initial premise of the thread was "is [such and such] behavior due to the fact that my Keilwerth has a large bore?" and when I pointed out that - at least according to those measurements, the Keilwerth DOESN'T have a large bore, it was like I had farted in church.

Well I was silent because I really don't know? I don't how to defined a "large bore" sax. Hope to have some answers within some days.

 

[ellinas]

I think this is what he was describing - whether he realised it or not. I can't say I've ever noticed this on a sax, though.

Speaking as someone who does a lot of recording and mixing, the one thing I have noticed is that instruments can be more or less obviously out of tune depending on their frequencies and the bias of the speakers you're listening on.

I have recorded and mixed an awful lot as well. I don't think a speaker or a studio monitor can hide an out of tune player.... I can agree with some frequencies bringing out more the problem...

In all these years I have experienced that tuners don't always tune the same and its wise to use the same tuner. Especially portable ones...

I also experienced that sharp sounds nicer than flat.

Also that a solo instrument sounds less out of tune than when it's part of an ensemble.

And after all these years ... No matter how nice a sax sounds to you ... Always prefer the most tuned sax ... If you perform/record. A sax that you struggle to get on tune will force you record a so n so take. An easy to play instrument will set you free
🙂

 

[Colin the Bear]

I've started using the bluetooth on my phone, to play tracks through a speaker.
The phone while having fair decent sound, exaggerates any intonation/tuning issues.
Good for checking my own efforts but harsh on everything else.
A track which sounds way out sounds less so through the speaker.
Who knew samsung were producing phones for music critics.

 

[Veggie Dave]

The initial premise of the thread was "is [such and such] behavior due to the fact that my Keilwerth has a large bore?" and when I pointed out that - at least according to those measurements, the Keilwerth DOESN'T have a large bore, it was like I had farted in church.

Perhaps you should reread what was written...

 

[thomsax]

 

[thomsax]

 

[turf3]

Perhaps you should reread what was written...

Here it is:

"Here's a weird, and probably contentious 😉, question that has arisen due to a comment another sax player made on Facebook.

Their comment regarded how large bore saxes, such as Keilwerths, are less forgiving regarding intonation and tone production compared to Selmer-based horns. The question is, is this actually true?"

As I said, the whole question is based on a presumption that Keilwerths are large bore - and at least one source of detailed bore measurements indicates that it isn't so.

 

[Veggie Dave]

What you actually said is:

The initial premise of the thread was "is [such and such] behavior due to the fact that my Keilwerth has a large bore?"

No one said this. The remark the person made was about so-called large bore saxes "such as Keilwerths" (this was on a Keilwerth forum) and how these large bore saxes are unforgiving.

As far as I know Keilwerth don't claim to make large bore saxes, only saxes with large bows and larger bells, and this 'theory' had as much factual basis as those heavy neck bolts.

There is no suggestion at all that the question regarded any particular person, never mind me, or that it was about a particular person's issues with their playing.

 

[turf3]

As to the actual nature of the Keilwerth bore, here are M Postma's measurements.

The Keilwerth main tube is, if anything, slightly smaller in diameter down its length than the Selmers. Bow diameters vary a lot down the length of the bow (undoubtedly due to the requirements of forming) but it looks to me that the average diameter of the Keilwerth bow is about the same, or slightly smaller, than the Selmers. Neck profiles also vary a lot down their length due to the double bends, but we can visually get some ideas: the tenon diameter of the Keilwerth is a bit bigger than the Selmers; the region just upstream of the tenon the Keilwerth and Mark 6 look similar with the SA80s being smaller. The region from about where the octave key pivots to the cork end of the neck is smaller than nominal on almost all the saxes measured, but the Keilwerth appears a wee bit smaller in this area than the three Selmers presented.

So if one were to calculate average ID of Keilwerth vs. three models of Selmer, it would probably be on average smaller than the bore of the Selmers. The only dimension that's unambiguously larger on the Keilwerth is the tenon ID, which is more about the detail design of that mechanical connection than anything else. The region of the neck just above the tenon may be a bit larger on the Keilwerth than on the modern Selmers but not the Mark 6.

If we believe Postma's measurements are accurate, it's clear that the Keilwerth SX-90R he measured would NOT be called a "large bore" instrument by any reasonable measure.

If the professor referenced above has comparable measurements that show a different result, I think we'd all like to see them. They could reflect different measurement methods, or they could reflect design changes between the horns Postma measured and the professor measured.

 

[turf3]

...Bore? If the (tone)holes are drilled out I think we can use the word "bore". A saxophone is constructed around a conical tube. So a large, big , looong, wide .... conical tube.
...

As a native English speaker and professional mechanical engineer, "Bore" is perfectly applicable to the interior of a saxophone.

 

[Colin the Bear]

"Bore" is perfectly applicable.

Preaching to the choir.

 

[jbtsax]

@turf3 As someone with a very limited technical or mathematical background, I have never been able to understand how to read M.Postma's graph. Can you provide an explanation?

 

[spike]

The Postma Graph is of his measurements of selected alto saxophones.

 

[turf3]

Well, first of all, he presents bore measurements of soprano alto tenor and baritone saxophones, each group on its own graph. The graph I've put here is the tenor graph. (I think "YAS-62" is a typo since the horn so indicated is the same length as all the rest.)

The x axis is the length of the tube, in cm. The y axis is the ID of the tube, in mm. However, rather than overlaying all the measurements which would make the graph unreadable, all the graph except the bottommost are offset by 10 mm each. So the Keilwerth SX90-R measurements are read by subtracting 10 mm from each measurement.

The green lines are the average main tube profile for the 20th century instruments measured (so the very oldest instruments are excluded from this calculation). It's extended out at each end. Having this green line, repeated and offset 10 mm for each actual horn measured so each horn's measurements overlay the average line, allows you to compare visually.

There are small vertical lines that indicate the joints at either side of the bow. The neck to tube joint isn't explicitly shown but it's at that discontinuity where the cylindrical tenon ID goes into the conical main tube.

So if we look, for example, at the Buescher 400 tenor profile we can easily see that the main tube and the bow are smaller than average, and the neck is mostly smaller. By contrast, the main tube of the Conn "ladyface" is larger than average. The Keilwerth SX-90R listed has a main tube ever so slightly smaller than average, and in those places where the bore deviates from a theoretical cone (neck, bow, bell) the diameter (as visually indicated by its deviation from that cone) is mostly smaller than the diameter of the Selmers presented. This is exactly the opposite case from the standard internet scuttlebutt that "Keilwerths are large bore horns and Selmers aren't and that's why Keilwerths have a "bigger" tone". I'd guess that "bigger tone" is more related to the fine subtle details of the neck bore - especially as we see that necks mostly deviate smaller than the theoretical average cone toward the cork and larger toward the tenon.