Saxophones Pork Tales: Saxophone Repair DIY Adventures.

Life around the barn.

Tales from a pig that likes to stick his nose into everything.

Paint that S. How difficult could it be ?

1) Search the net.
2) Find the color.
3) Order color.
4) Study task on University of YouTube, aka; For destruction by DYI presented by pro tech.

Do the cleaning & prep.

Paint and cleanup / detail the edges with hard cotton swabs. Sounds easy……

Yeah tha guy Matt makes it look easy.
Anyone remember your first experience cooking bacon crispy while still in the frying pan !

 

[Stephen Howard]

Nothing much happened today. Picked up another 24 feet of hinge rod I needed.


I did actually make a few new hinge rods. The new poor man’s collet is working nicely. Runout is a little disappointing @ .001. Still I’m able to turn 3mm/.118 to .103/2.6mm accurately. Being able to work a spare over a foot long is nice too. Someday I’ll buy a tail stock die holder. But for now i can machine the end. Move the carriage left. Then I have clearance room for die handle.

Do yourself a favour and buy a decent collet holder. It makes such a difference in terms of accuracy, safety and speed. You don't need to go the whole hog and get a spindle chuck - a good quality morse taper chuck will be more than up to the task. But...make sure you get one that will take a drawbar (you'll have to make it)...and that has a hollow shank.
I use an ER 16 holder with a mini nut for all my rod work. Taiwanese, I think. Set me back £100 - and worth every single penny.
And don't skimp on the collets. You won't need that many - if you're going from 1 to 4mm in half mm steps that's just seven collets.

 

[mark_addy]

I also find ER-series collets handy (I splashed out on a set of ER25 a long time back to use in my Franken-miller, and later bought an MT3 chuck to use on the lathe for them - but never have yet. Yes @Stephen Howard , I really ought to make a hollow draw bar! I even bought one on a 25mm plain shank with the idea to make a toolpost grinder, which I haven't got around to yet either.

It's a shame you're not in the UK @PigSquealer - I got given a pile of half-finished college exercises, which mostly comprised small machine vices and tailstock die holders. I finished one for my mini-lathe (MT0!) - it's kind of OK, sorry for the shocking photo - I could have sent you one to play with.

 

[PigSquealer]

Do yourself a favour and buy a decent collet holder. It makes such a difference in terms of accuracy, safety and speed. You don't need to go the whole hog and get a spindle chuck - a good quality morse taper chuck will be more than up to the task. But...make sure you get one that will take a drawbar (you'll have to make it)...and that has a hollow shank.
I use an ER 16 holder with a mini nut for all my rod work. Taiwanese, I think. Set me back £100 - and worth every single penny.
And don't skimp on the collets. You won't need that many - if you're going from 1 to 4mm in half mm steps that's just seven collets.

I’ve actually been slowly filling a coffee tin for a new 10” x 30” lathe & tooling. The collet set complete with 12 collets is around $350-$400.
Current lathe was built in 1948 it’s 78 years old. -/+ .002 is OE spec. Still has some good life left in it, but I’m tired of fighting it.

 

[PigSquealer]

Anyone see the problem here ?

How about now ?

Maybe this time you’ll notice ?

Here’s a better view.

When the high F# was removed the stack was shortened. The pillar needs to be shimmed underneath to equal the height.

 

[Stephen Howard]

When the high F# was removed the stack was shortened. The pillar needs to be shimmed underneath to equal the height.

Alternatively, why not 'do a Yamaha'* and simply fit a bare barrel between the original location of the upper pillar and the body octave key?
It's a lot less work.

* On the YAS-21 there was a spacer barrel between the A and the G#.

 

[skeller047]

Current lathe was built in 1948 it’s 78 years old. -/+ .002 is OE spec. Still has some good life left in it, but I’m tired of fighting it.

I too was built in 1948 and am 78 years old. I am afraid I am much more out-of-spec than your lathe….

Do you follow Adam Booth on YouTube? (ABOM79) He has a very large Monarch lathe that I think you would enjoy seeing work. I t’s a rattly old beast (though less than 78), but he regularly gets 0.001” precision on it. (He also has a new Precision Mathews lathe he uses for the more delicate things.)

 

[PigSquealer]

Alternatively, why not 'do a Yamaha'* and simply fit a bare barrel between the original location of the upper pillar and the body octave key?
It's a lot less work.

Thanks for the suggestion.
I just made the new barrel rod and noticed the issue. Yeah, i would have done that…..the gurrr of sorting previously work not done well. At least I now have the answer as to why the rod was .108 and not the needed .118 I just made.
The pillar was soldered flush. To overcome a massive bind. A way undersized rod used.

At this point I’m favoring a distance shim under the pillar. Largely from four years in past experience with servicing the owners horns. He’s knocked the pillar silly being on the receiver a few times on other horns. In consideration this needs to be durable week in, week out at live gigs.

* On the YAS-21 there was a spacer barrel between the A and the G#.

Never noticed that before ! Thanks ! Yeah, it’s all small stuff 🤪. Minor details…..🙄

 

[PigSquealer]

I too was built in 1948 and am 78 years old. I am afraid I am much more out-of-spec than your lathe….

Well your ability to compensate +/- 5¢ is undetectable compared with +/- .005 on an old lathe. Honestly I wouldn’t trade you in on a new unit 😊. Wishing you a ton (100 years) of happiness and life.

Do you follow Adam Booth on YouTube? (ABOM79) He has a very large Monarch lathe that I think you would enjoy seeing work. I t’s a rattly old beast (though less than 78), but he regularly gets 0.001” precision on it. (He also has a new Precision Mathews lathe he uses for the more delicate things.)

Will look up Adam Booth. Thanks !
I do follow and learn from many other machinists. Old school to modern high tech. Watch repair to locomotive and industrial needs / repair.

To everyone,
I invest no less than 3 hours a week in learning metal crafts / machining. YouTube U, machining methods, metal fabrication, non related to brass / saxophone repair.
Online trade forums. Metals, Tool use, and sources.
Food for thought.

 

[PigSquealer]

The reason I use mostly 222 purple below. 243 blue works but I find it a little more difficult to loosen. Still the 243 is a good choice for Yamaha pivot screws.

 

[Stephen Howard]

At this point I’m favoring a distance shim under the pillar. Largely from four years in past experience with servicing the owners horns. He’s knocked the pillar silly being on the receiver a few times on other horns. In consideration this needs to be durable week in, week out at live gigs.

Sounds very sensible - tall pillars that high up the horn often get whacked out of line.

 

[PigSquealer]

Happy Birthday Dug 🥰. Three days and the cone of shame comes off !

 

[PigSquealer]

Sounds very sensible - tall pillars that high up the horn often get whacked out of line.

The owner knows how to care for and handle a sax well. Has many makers & different vins. The issues are usually related to cases and travel. Even with preventative measures. Add that his playing style genre doesn’t need a high F#.
Removing and lowering pillar damage risks are imperative to the activity needs here. All with cosmetic and preservation reviewed.
I will probably just cap with a brass disk the HF# rolled chimney as before, but tidy as can be. I don’t feel positive about cutting the socket off and patching level. The location is upside the reciever. Structural integrity being the concern.
Your thoughts ?

 

[Stephen Howard]

The owner knows how to care for and handle a sax well. Has many makers & different vins. The issues are usually related to cases and travel. Even with preventative measures. Add that his playing style genre doesn’t need a high F#.
Removing and lowering pillar damage risks are imperative to the activity needs here. All with cosmetic and preservation reviewed.
I will probably just cap with a brass disk the HF# rolled chimney as before, but tidy as can be. I don’t feel positive about cutting the socket off and patching level. The location is upside the reciever. Structural integrity being the concern.
Your thoughts ?

I tend not to settle for a cap and prefer to make a plug. Maintains the integrity of the bore. Does it make a difference? Maybe only to me 🙂

 

[turf3]

Is there any evidence that any manufacturer compensates for the presence of the high F# tonehole, perhaps in the positioning of the F tonehole, or something similar? If that were the case, then capping off the chimney would leave the bore still to design intent. That tone hole's so far up, and it's in play on every single note on the horn, that it seems changing it poses a non zero risk.

 

[rhysonsax]

I tend not to settle for a cap and prefer to make a plug. Maintains the integrity of the bore. Does it make a difference? Maybe only to me 🙂

Can you explain the thinking behind that a bit more ?

I would have thought that the bore design is optimised to work with the tone hole chimney "capped" by its pad in the key cup. That would seem acoustically similar to a cap at the top of the chimney rather than a plug which would occupy the volume inside the chimney.

Won't a plug change the tuning, or am I misunderstanding something ?

Rhys

 

[turf3]

Can you explain the thinking behind that a bit more ?

I would have thought that the bore design is optimised to work with the tone hole chimney "capped" by its pad in the key cup. That would seem acoustically similar to a cap at the top of the chimney rather than a plug which would occupy the volume inside the chimney.

Won't a plug change the tuning, or am I misunderstanding something ?

Rhys

Well, that was my question also.

If the horn was designed on the assumption of the high F#, then capping the tonehole would be closer to design intent. If it was designed before the high F#, and if the addition of the high F# only involved pulling the tonehole, then plugging it flush would be closer to design intent.

If the horn were in good playing condition, it would be pretty straightforward to try it both ways with a tuner and see if it even makes any difference.

 

[Stephen Howard]

Can you explain the thinking behind that a bit more ?

I would have thought that the bore design is optimised to work with the tone hole chimney "capped" by its pad in the key cup. That would seem acoustically similar to a cap at the top of the chimney rather than a plug which would occupy the volume inside the chimney.

Won't a plug change the tuning, or am I misunderstanding something ?

Rhys

Assuming the bore has been designed to take account of the extra volume of the top F# tonehole, I think it's very safe to assume that any discrepancy caused by plugging the tonehole rather than capping it will be negligible.
If it were that critical then the depth of pad seat coupled with the position of the mouthpiece on the crook would have significant effects. Ditto the size and style of reflectors used.

Plugging the tonehole has a practical benefit. That area of the horn collects the most gunk - the palm key tonehole pads are the first to need changing and often fail long before the low Eb (where all the other gunk collects). Leaving an effective 'pocket' in which such gunk can collect is neither hygienic nor helpful - and believe me, I've cleaned out enough top F# toneholes to know exactly how much 'groceries' (RIP JBT) build up in that area.

Thus I always favour keeping the bore as smooth and consistent as possible.
On an empirical basis neither I nor any client who's had such work done has noticed any difference in response or tuning in the last 45+ years...so I kinda reckon the method is good to go.

If you want to check out the results yourself it's easy to do so. Just pop a bit of Gaffa tape over the top F# tonehole's incursion into the bore. Otherwise, fill the tonehole with Blu-Tack - but take care not to encroach too much into the bore.
Have fun!

 

[turf3]

Assuming the bore has been designed to take account of the extra volume of the top F# tonehole, I think it's very safe to assume that any discrepancy caused by plugging the tonehole rather than capping it will be negligible.
If it were that critical then the depth of pad seat coupled with the position of the mouthpiece on the crook would have significant effects. Ditto the size and style of reflectors used.

Plugging the tonehole has a practical benefit. That area of the horn collects the most gunk - the palm key tonehole pads are the first to need changing and often fail long before the low Eb (where all the other gunk collects). Leaving an effective 'pocket' in which such gunk can collect is neither hygienic nor helpful - and believe me, I've cleaned out enough top F# toneholes to know exactly how much 'groceries' (RIP JBT) build up in that area.

Thus I always favour keeping the bore as smooth and consistent as possible.
On an empirical basis neither I nor any client who's had such work done has noticed any difference in response or tuning in the last 45+ years...so I kinda reckon the method is good to go.

If you want to check out the results yourself it's easy to do so. Just pop a bit of Gaffa tape over the top F# tonehole's incursion into the bore. Otherwise, fill the tonehole with Blu-Tack - but take care not to encroach too much into the bore.
Have fun!

Well, I don't have a horn with a high F# anyway. I might just do that with the high F tonehole, though. Not right away, but when the work's all done.

Anyway, if you've done a whole lot of these, always making the smooth bore, and no issues have ever been noticed, that's a pretty fair basket of actual field data.