My name is John and I'm a rolled tonehole filer

[jbtsax]

I've decided to finally "come clean" on this topic. I know "conventional wisdom" among sax players is to never touch a rolled tonehole with a file for fear that the rolled portion will be completely filed through. However, I have found a way that it can be done safely and have done it on several vintage instruments.

I strive to make the toneholes perfectly level when I overhaul a saxophone that has rolled toneholes. The first step is to mechanically make the tonehole as close to flat as possible by lifting low areas and tapping down high areas. Then the tonehole is carefully and judiciously filed using a rotary diamond file. Care is taken to never remove the amount of material it would take to go completely through the rolled portion. The next step is to use magnification and sand the "corners" that have been created using craft sticks starting with 240 grit and finishing with 800. The illustration below shows the basic process. The amount of the "circle" filed off in the picture is much more than would be taken off leveling the tonehole, and is shown "exaggerated" to make the steps more clear. If the tonehole is on a silver plated saxophone the sanded area is touched up with a silver plating wand. If the tonehole is on a lacquered saxophone it is left as is. At the end of the process it is difficult to tell the toneholes that have been filed from those that have not.

 

[Wade Cornell]

This is really good stuff. Good to know there is somebody thinking about this problem and solving it instead of just throwing more negative comments about rolled tone holes. Good on you jbtsax!

 

[rhysonsax]

Interesting stuff @jbtsax

I think that on "true" rolled tonehole edges the material is relatively thin, as it is the chimney wall that has been rolled over.

On saxes using soldered-on rings the material of the circular edge part is solid, so there is plenty of scope to remove material and it won't "go completely through".

On your diagram it would be interesting to see the thickness of the material and so get an appreciation of how close you are getting to breaking through. Or maybe you could have two versions of the diagram and show the difference.

Rhys

PS Has any manufacturer besides Keilwerth used the soldered-on rings approach ?

 

[Stephen Howard]

I'm not so sure that I'd say it's a 'safer' method - the moment you take a file to a rolled tonehole there's a risk of breaking through the roll. The only 'safe' method is not to file at all - and I can't in all honesty see anything in your process that reduces that.
If you do want to make it safer - ditch the rotary file. Unless you have the thing mounted in a mill, with the horn securely stress-free clamped beneath it (gawd knows how that would be achieved), the file will always rock in use. Sure, it won't be by much - but it will always end up taking down material that doesn't need to be removed.
This is why I use a flat standard and a hand file.

Something else to consider is the orientation of the horn when levelling the toneholes.
Most techs will pop the body on the bench and do the work while the horn is laying flat.
However, when the horn is held in the playing position it puts a degree of stress on the body tube - and in certain areas (particularly on the bell) this can throw a previously-levelled tonehole out of whack. It won't be by much - but it'll be more than enough to show up against a flat standard, and often enough that you'd consider the tonehole to need further levelling.
By testing in the playing position you can get a more accurate reading of where the rim is going to end up. Naturally, it doesn't take into account what happens when you add the keys to the horn or the additional stresses as the player moves the horn around - but it's as close as it's reasonable to get. And it avoids unnecessary filing...which is always the safer bet in any instance.

 

[JayeNM]

I'm not so sure that I'd say it's a 'safer' method - the moment you take a file to a rolled tonehole there's a risk of breaking through the roll.

Perhaps the case in some newer horns with rolled holes...but in older horns which show little or no filing, or in newer horn brands of good repute....I would not agree with 'risk of breaking through the roll'. Not in my experience.

I think a lot of vintage RTH's attest to that, I have seen many, many which has some significant filing done to them in the past yet they are still quite robust in the 'amount' of rolled edge left to 'em. Nowhere approaching what could reasonably be called 'damage'.

I think that on "true" rolled tonehole edges the material is relatively thin, as it is the chimney wall that has been rolled over.

I would challenge this (at least the presumption of 'relatively thin'. I think, for example, just the plethora of Conn Artist series horns showing significant file work having been done over the decades yet the edges still intact suggests otherwise...

@jbtsax ....kudos and brave of you to post this in an internet world....and I for one will add, some filing is done by the vast majority of techs I know and have associated with (that'd be approaching two dozen at this point)...and they aren't/weren't hacks or 'short-cutters', they do/did very good work. So for non-techs.....GOOD filing jobs are done (and can be done successfully) far more often than most folks think.
For an owner to automatically claim 'damage' of some sort, simply by being aware of the fact that some filing was done....or an owner to insist that filing will obviously cause 'damage'....both are a bit presumptuous.

 

[Stephen Howard]

Perhaps the case in some newer horns with rolled holes...but in older horns which show little or no filing, or in newer horn brands of good repute....I would not agree with 'risk of breaking through the roll'. Not in my experience.

My experience, sadly, proves otherwise.
Over the decades I’ve seen countless rolled toneholes that have been butchered. Here’s one – on a JK New King alto...

Sure – filing, if done properly, is a valid repair technique – but the problem with rolled toneholes is that you have no idea how thick/thin the wall is. You can make an educated guess – but that’s all it’ll be – and if someone’s been there before and done a good job with reprofiling (as in John’s post) there may be even less material to work with than you think.
Because I’ve seen so many fine horns mangled in this manner I’m loathe to cheerily advocate a gung-ho “Get in – yer’ll be fine” approach – and will, on the basis of my experience, continue to say don’t do it unless you absolutely have no alternative and you damn well know what you’re doing.

 

[Wade Cornell]

My experience, sadly, proves otherwise.
Over the decades I’ve seen countless rolled toneholes that have been butchered. Here’s one – on a JK New King alto...

View attachment 14358

Sure – filing, if done properly, is a valid repair technique – but the problem with rolled toneholes is that you have no idea how thick/thin the wall is. You can make an educated guess – but that’s all it’ll be – and if someone’s been there before and done a good job with reprofiling (as in John’s post) there may be even less material to work with than you think.
Because I’ve seen so many fine horns mangled in this manner I’m loathe to cheerily advocate a gung-ho “Get in – yer’ll be fine” approach – and will, on the basis of my experience, continue to say don’t do it unless you absolutely have no alternative and you damn well know what you’re doing.

Judging by the condition of that horn the tone hole problem may be minor. Looks like a 1950s dunger that's been bogged to death. May as well grind it down further and bog that too.

 

[jbtsax]

In the saxophone manufacturing process an oval hole is cut at each of the locations for each tonehole. A round steel form is then mechanically pulled up through the oval to "draw" the sides of the tonehole up from the body tube to form the tonehole. The sides or walls of the toneholes then are the same thickness of the body material less the minute amount as a result of the brass being stretched as it is pulled. The illustration below shows the tooling invented for rolling or "beading" the top of toneholes on Conn saxophones. Figure 6 represents the tonehole once it has been "rolled".

I have a Conn parts tenor in my shop with straight toneholes that I have measured the thickness of the walls of several toneholes on the body. The average measurement is about .025". Subtracting say .005" to compensate for stretching the brass, it is reasonable to conclude the thickness of the rolled portion of a vintage Conn tonehole to be approximately .020".

My method of filing using diamond rotary tonehole files removes no more than 1 to 2 thousandths of an inch of material which I believe to be in the "safe" area.

 

[JayeNM]

My experience, sadly, proves otherwise.
Over the decades I’ve seen countless rolled toneholes that have been butchered. Here’s one – on a JK New King alto...

View attachment 14358

Sure – filing, if done properly, is a valid repair technique – but the problem with rolled toneholes is that you have no idea how thick/thin the wall is. You can make an educated guess – but that’s all it’ll be – and if someone’s been there before and done a good job with reprofiling (as in John’s post) there may be even less material to work with than you think.
Because I’ve seen so many fine horns mangled in this manner I’m loathe to cheerily advocate a gung-ho “Get in – yer’ll be fine” approach – and will, on the basis of my experience, continue to say don’t do it unless you absolutely have no alternative and you damn well know what you’re doing.

This is an interesting response, because in two instances you put forth extremes.

1) "cheerily advocating a gung-ho 'Get in -yer'll be fine" approach

2) "I've seen countless rolled toneholes that have been butchered"

Regarding the former, nobody here is saying nor intimating that this is the approach they advocate, nor a wise approach.
I think you and I and jbt would all agree that THAT sort of aggressive approach is not appropriate.

As for the latter....the fact that there are horns which exhibit dramatic damage due to this sorta poorly-conceived 'fix' (either overfiling....or repeated moderate filing over time until the edge fails) is not an indicator nor example of the methodology described in this thread.

It is more a statement of "if you wanna see how NOT do do it....here's an example"
or
"if done poorly, repeatedly, this could be the result"

An experienced tech should have a pretty good eye when looking at RTH's whether they are approaching the 'point of no return' zone. There are visual clues one can look for. A solid, experienced tech can make a pretty good educated guess....

The examples you put forth certainly exist and sometimes more abundantly than we'd like to see, but I am not sure how germane they are to what jbt is trying to communicate.

I took this thread more as saying "when done right, a bit of filing is not 'bad' nor should it be considered 'verboten' if done with forethought and a good, experienced eye".

Which is something I agree with 100%....yet even writing THIS runs counter to the sorta internet-induced, en vogue notion which has been floating around for too long, of:
"filing RTH = your tech is a hack".

If I had a dime for everytime I have read someone state this, usually stated with the utmost 'confidence'...I'd be retired on Naxos right now, drinking Kitron every afternoon....

 

[Wade Cornell]

I'm going to put up a question. Please those of you who are great technicians, please don't take this as criticism, it's not. It's just a question:

If leveling and only trying to achieve one or two 1/000 is this significant enough to even bother? The pad is slightly spongy (if it's not too old and dry), so isn't this already within the tolerance of the pad? If not wouldn't it be cheaper and easier to replace the pad so that it seals well enough?

 

[jbtsax]

This is a valid question. Pads with medium soft and soft felt are more "forgiving" when toneholes are not perfectly flat. These pads are an excellent choice for "amateurs" learning to repad a sax who do not have the tools or expertise to fit keys and level toneholes. They also work well for professional techs who do "play condition" work where it is not economically practical to do the prep required for a top level overhaul.

The pads I prefer for overhaul work on professional model instruments have medium firm, or firm felt that do not take an impression or "seat" as some call it. These pads are very unforgiving when the keys are not perfectly fit, and the toneholes are not perfectly flat. I just completed an overhaul on a King Super 20 with Chocolate Roo Extreme pads which are much harder than either of the pads I am used to working with. It was a learning experience.

 

[Stephen Howard]

Judging by the condition of that horn the tone hole problem may be minor. Looks like a 1950s dunger that's been bogged to death. May as well grind it down further and bog that too.

Thing is, whoever did this probably did much the same to countless other horns. You might say that's no big deal when the horn in question isn't on your wish list - but here's what happens when a bodger gets their hands on something much nicer.
This is, or was, a crook from a Selmer MkVI alto:

 

[Pete Effamy]

Thing is, whoever did this probably did much the same to countless other horns. You might say that's no big deal when the horn in question isn't on your wish list - but here's what happens when a bodger gets their hands on something much nicer.
This is, or was, a crook from a Selmer MkVI alto:

View attachment 14363

What was the guy attempting to do with this, replace the cork??

 

[Stephen Howard]

Regarding the former, nobody here is saying nor intimating that this is the approach they advocate, nor a wise approach.
I think you and I and jbt would all agree that THAT sort of aggressive approach is not appropriate.

For sure - but in my experience, it happens. And it happens more often than perhaps, in your experience, you realise.

 

[Stephen Howard]

What was the guy attempting to do with this, replace the cork??

Dunno, but it looks like the end of the crook has been crushed in a vice.
There's no tenon sleeve on the crook...so maybe the guy was in the process of resoldering it and decided to clamp the crook in a vice to hold it steady?

 

[Stephen Howard]

I'm going to put up a question. Please those of you who are great technicians, please don't take this as criticism, it's not. It's just a question:

If leveling and only trying to achieve one or two 1/000 is this significant enough to even bother? The pad is slightly spongy (if it's not too old and dry), so isn't this already within the tolerance of the pad? If not wouldn't it be cheaper and easier to replace the pad so that it seals well enough?

If the tonehole is level it allows for as stress-free a setting as its possible to get, which in turn allows the pad to degrade evenly over a period of time and maintain a decent seal for as long as the pad leather remains in a viable state. Could be decades, if you're lucky.

No matter what you do, the horn is going to start losing performance from the moment you pick it up from the repairer - so getting the fundamentals right helps to flatten that curve out.

 

[JayeNM]

For sure - but in my experience, it happens. And it happens more often than perhaps, in your experience, you realise.

Absolutely. But to me, people (not directed at you) need to separate the tool from the methodology.
This is the problem I have with the commonly circulated internet opinion/wisdom...it basically equates any file taken to RTH's with being 'bad' or 'a hack job'., is all...

 

[JayeNM]

I'm going to put up a question...

Everything @jbtsax & @Stephen Howard wrote in their replies is dead-on.
I add that some (many ?) factories will take into account their 'baseline-produced levelness" of their holes when spec'ing their pads. Stock pads on new horns tend to be softer than pads an owner would choose (or tech would suggest) for padwork on a horn. This is, in part, due to mfr's intention to have the pads take up some of the 'slack' of the precision of tonehole level coming off the line.

As jbt says, beginner padders often start out w/soft, soft-medium pads for the exact reason you state. Many possess limited tooling, so they leave the holes as-is & using softer pads & various leveling methods (pad prick, shimming, bending, etc) manage to achieve an initially leak-free job. The results of this (work with the hole levels as-is) can be ephemeral, tho.

 

[thomsax]

I'm going to put up a question. Please those of you who are great technicians, please don't take this as criticism, it's not. It's just a question:

If leveling and only trying to achieve one or two 1/000 is this significant enough to even bother? The pad is slightly spongy (if it's not too old and dry), so isn't this already within the tolerance of the pad? If not wouldn't it be cheaper and easier to replace the pad so that it seals well enough?

I have some "vintage" saxes in mint condition. The tone holes rims is not even/ level on this saxes. The old pads that were meant for these saxes Conn's Res-O-Pad, Buescher's Snap-On ...... did they compensate for uneven tone holes rims? I have a Kohlert mod 1927 soprano (not mint condition) and there was no "adhesive" used on these pads. And the tone holes rims are uneven.

I have some cheap saxes with rth. The Eb tonehole on a Dörler & Jörka tenor was uneven. I built up under the pad to get a better seal. It's ok. I'm not a tech and I'm just working on my own saxes.

Damage close to Eb tonehole on a D&J tenor.

Pad, screw and washer on a Kohlert soprano mod 1927