Ferree's awful Conn resopads

[MTKilpatrick]

I've been doing more repadding using Ferree's Resopads, and have had a closer look at their design. I'm getting really fed up with their terrible fit - it's usually a nightmare of a wrestling match to get the pads into the keycups. It should be obvious to anyone that such a problem negates any benefit of the internal metal ring. The ring holds the pad true and flat, but if you have to compress and distort it in order to press it into the keycup, you introduce possible distortions to the pad surface. Not good!

I have disassembled quite a few very old, original Conn pads and seen just how they differ from the Ferree's attempts. The originals did not have resonators but instead had an "internal resonator", thin disc of foil, possibly tin, between the skin and the felt body. Most importantly, however, is the way the skin is secured. Original Conn pads had the skin tied taut around the back of the pad using a twine, rather like a purse string. But Ferree's pads are simply glued, like any other regular type of pad.

The problem - I think - lies partly in the glue. I'm not going to talk about tolerances in the dimensions of the metal ring because I haven't got an accurate means of measuring it. However, what is very obvious is that Ferree's glue the skin not only to the card back of the pad but also right up to the rear rim of the metal ring! This results in glue seeping over the edge of the ring and onto the outer facing. This effectively increases the diameter of the pad. There lies at least part of the problem. In the original Conn pads, there is no glue anywhere near the internal ring.

Please, please, can someone manufacture some PROPER Conn Resopads (optionally with resonators) so that they fit PROPERLY into the keycup? Perhaps I might even try it myself if I can get some rings manufactured?

[Gordon (NZ)]

And pray tell me, what exactly is wrong with high-quality, STANDARD design pads?

That is what Selmer uses, complete with plastic resonator, in their conscioentious attempt to reproduce the MarkVI sound and feel in their Reference models.

[MTKilpatrick]

And pray tell me, what exactly is wrong with high-quality, STANDARD design pads?

What is wrong with wanting something that is identical to what was originally put in the instrument? Standard pads are fine, if you get them the appropriate thickness. Also wanting an original Resopad is perfectly acceptable too! Wondering why someone who claims to make Resopads but actually makes something not particularly like them at all, often deformed (utterly non-circular internal rings in many cases!!!) and mostly too tight a fit in the keycups, is perfectly acceptable too.

Michael

[morgan]

... it's usually a nightmare of a wrestling match to get the pads into the keycups. ...

I'd been wondering if anybody else had noticed...

[MTKilpatrick]

I'd been wondering if anybody else had noticed...


Well, at least I've found a *partial* solution. I decided to try ironing the rims of the pads! I took a thin strip of metal that was to hand - it happened to be an original Conn pad gauge - and heated it with the hot air gun. I placed it on the edge of the desk and then took the Resopad and rolled it firmly along the hot metal, thus ironing the skin to the outer edge of the pad. This helps to reduce the diameter of the pads a little, and sometimes helps them in. It's not an entire solution, as some of the pads are still too tight.

I don't know - the quality of the pads really is pretty low. Half of them are warped before I even touch them. It's baffling. Conn managed to press the internal metal rings to be flat. That was 80 years ago!

Michael

[griff136]

MTK

did you buy these pads in a set?

I buy them buy the size. Measure the cup with a vernier caliper the order that size. I aint had any problems.

maybe a bad batch you got?

[MTKilpatrick]

I have bought both sets and by size! In both cases I have had bad pads. It's very obvious when you are using the wrong size pad, even when there are pad sizes 1/32nd inch apart (in many case the pad sizes are 2 or 3 32nds apart).

So, buying a specific set for alto or baritone, or buying in bulk - a dozen of every size - the result is many pads which are deformed, and many pads which are a real nightmare to get it. The number of even quite small pads which are far from truly circular is quite staggering. The worst one today was a size 70 pad. Let's be perfectly clear: the nearest pad sizes are 64 and 78. There can be no confusion.

Either all of the baritones and the bass that I have repadded have bad keycups, or all of Ferree's resopads are fractionally too tight. Given that the manufacture of the pads is nothing like the original ones, I'm drawn to the obvious conclusion.

Michael

[SAXISMYAXE]

While I am by no means a professional tech, I have a large collection of instruments and have done a fair number of restorations and repair work to them over the years. Being primarily a collector of vintage Conns, I have used the Conn Reso pads offered by Farrees on most of them, without problems. As long as you accurately measure the pad cups to insure a proper fit, they have consistently provided me with a more than suitable replacement for the original. I wonder if this is a more recent phenomenon, as it has been about a year since I've ordered any from them?

[Saxdaddy]

More than likely just the wrong sizes were ordered. First, is this instrument suppose to have these pads, not every Conn made had them. While they can be made to work, they are not even close to being able to produce the same quality work, as a more modern pad. There are so many much better choices out there, if the overall playability matters at all. True that it is nice to have some things stay original, but these aren't original, and you don't have to modify the instrument in order to install other pads. You want really flex your repair muscle, put in some Jim Schmidt pads. The Conn reso was never a really good idea, or it would be used in one form or another by every maker out there today. In the end, good luck, but if you are just doing this stuff for yourself, try and have some fun.

[MTKilpatrick]

More than likely just the wrong sizes were ordered. First, is this instrument suppose to have these pads, not every Conn made had them. .... The Conn reso was never a really good idea, or it would be used in one form or another by every maker out there today.

At the risk of repeating myself, in many cases it's impossible to order the wrong size. The low-C (if I recall) on a baritone takes a size 70 pad (70/32 inches). The nearest pad sizes either side are 64 and 78, which are 1/4" different. Secondly I see no evidence that Conn were ever made without resopads during that period up until 1946/47 when they stopped rolling tone holes. Thirdly, when you've got a Conn resopad that is actually designed to the right spec, the pads do have many benefits. It's never true simply to say that "this is not a good idea because nobody uses it today". One could bring out hundreds of examples from all fields of engineering that have fallen by the wayside and been replaced by something inferior. Just look at the Betamax video format. It's superior to VHS. But VHS became the market leader.

Michael

[Saxdaddy]

While the example of beta vs vhs is is true, it doesn't work here. In you usual fashion, you have taken the position that you are the only one to have ever worked on a horn, I have also seen you take the position that you are a great repair person, but all the techs stick, so whats the point. You have the answers you need, you know it all, have at it. Just make sure to learn how to use a set of spring pliers first.

[paulwl]

I see no evidence that Conn were ever made without resopads during that period up until 1946/47 when they stopped rolling tone holes.
Michael, I believe I have seen such evidence...or something strongly suggesting it.

Item: Several Conn saxes I've owned from the 1929-35 period have come to me with plain softsided brown pads – no outer ring or outside resonator, although sometimes there was a center rivet. One of these horns was an essentially closet-mint 1930 Chu alto, leading me strongly to suspect that this (less expensive!) pad was factory stock during the early-depression era.

Item: I have before me a 1934 saxophone brochure from Conn. It includes accessories as well as pads. 2 kinds are listed: "Vacuum w/Ring" (illustrated with a cutaway drawing: no resonator) and the lower-priced "Regular Soft Pad."

Item: The earliest mention I've seen of "Reso-Pads" by that name, with outside resonator pictured, dates from 1937.

BTW, Michael, if you still own the satin-gold Naked Lady 14M bass (as I assume you must!), you might like to know that the list price in 1934 was a whopping $480. Add $55 for a deluxe plush-lined case and you exactly equal the list price of that year's Ford Standard Tudor Sedan...

[MTKilpatrick]

In you usual fashion, you have taken the position that you are the only one to have ever worked on a horn, I have also seen you take the position that you are a great repair person, but all the techs stick, so whats the point. You have the answers you need, you know it all, have at it. Just make sure to learn how to use a set of spring pliers first.

I'm sorry if my previous posting was a bit curt, but let me just clear this up. I stated quite clearly an example of one of the pads that I was struggling with. It was a size 70/32inches. In Conn terms that 's a pad number 23, according to this old Conn pad gauge I have. Let's understand perfectly that a number 22 pad is 64/32" and a size 24 is 78/32". The evidence I have seen so far suggests Conn never made pads 69/32 or 71/32. You wouldn't expect them to make large pad sizes so close together. That's unnecessary cost.

These are not like other pads which are made in any size multiples of 0.5mm. If you have evidence to the contrary, please let us know! There is no reso-pad which is 0.5mm larger/smaller than the 70/32 pad.

Given the above, there is absolutely no question of "ordering the wrong pad size" in the majority of cases. Now do you see how offensive your first sentence came across as being? The first thing you appeared to do was to assume that I was incapable of measuring the cup correctly and ordering the incorrect pad.

Now, one would assume that the metal rings in the pads are mass produced and should therefore have a reasonably close tolerance. I can take a batch of a dozen 70/32 pads and try them all in the cup. They are *all* excessively tight. I am evidently not the only person to have experienced this, and nowhere did I claim to be the only person ever to work on a horn.

I also don't where in this thread you think it was that I rubbished any techs. Gordon asked me what was wrong with using modern pads. I replied "nothing". I also added that likewise there is nothing wrong with the desire to use a reproduction Conn pad - if you can get good ones. I have been careful to keep my criticism directed at Ferree's. Nowhere in my postings have I in any way made a comment that rubbishes any tech. I have certainly been no more opinionated than you, who said:


While the example of beta vs vhs is is true, it doesn't work here.

That's just a premise followed by absolutely no argument whatsoever!

Michael

[MTKilpatrick]

[quote="paulwl"]
Michael, I believe I have seen such evidence...or something strongly suggesting it.


Oh, that's interesting! I assume Conn also made the regular pads that were offered?

I certainly imagine that the ringed pads with the internal metal foil were the standard issue. This appears to be borne out by the large Conn poster I have dating from 1929, showing a graphic of an alto and a cut away pad with internal foil, no resonator, and with internal ring. Unfortunately it doesn't show the rearside with the stitching.

Anyway, it doesn't negate the point that all Conns were made to fit reso-pads. They would hardly redesign a special set of keycups to fit regular pads and issue otherwise identical instruments on the same day with different sets of keys for different types of pads. That would be utterly ludicrous!

I also assume that the range of keycup sizes remained the same, i.e. the largest pads were 64,70,78,86l, and that what I said, regarding the possibility of trying to fit the wrong pad, still holds true. It also seems true, for example, from what I have seen, that even though the baritones were redesigned to have the low B and Bb on the same side, the keycups are the same size as those earlier instruments with the alternate sided toneholes.

Michael

[MTKilpatrick]

BTW, Michael, if you still own the satin-gold Naked Lady 14M bass (as I assume you must!), you might like to know that the list price in 1934 was a whopping $480. Add $55 for a deluxe plush-lined case and you exactly equal the list price of that year's Ford Standard Tudor Sedan...


Hmm. I wonder how we translate that into today's terms? How much does an equivalent car cost, and how much does an equivalent bass sax cost? How much on the cutting-edge of technology (then) was the manufacture of Conn saxes, and likewise how the car of the day compared to the car and sax of today?

Michael

[Sax Hut]

I'm wondering if this is more a problem common to ordering 'sets' of pads for individual horns? People often complain about ordered sizes not fitting, pad type notwithstanding. You never hear this from techs who must buy and stock in bulk and have all available sizes staring at them from a cabinet near their workbench. It's an expensive initial investment, but nice to be able to eyeb`ll several adjacent drawers of pads for cup fit instead of reading their sizes. Of course, in your particular case, you have to decide whether you are going to be doing lots of Conn reso repads ...

[Sax Hut]

MTK, I posted before reading your latest posts. Please ignore ...

[Saxdaddy]

Sorry the tone I have taken with you MTK, came from the past dealings with you on this board. So all the cups are in perfect round? Will the pads press fit into the cup, by hand?

[paulwl]

BTW, Michael, if you still own the satin-gold Naked Lady 14M bass (as I assume you must!), you might like to know that the list price in 1934 was a whopping $480. Add $55 for a deluxe plush-lined case and you exactly equal the list price of that year's Ford Standard Tudor Sedan...

Hmm. I wonder how we translate that into today's terms? How much does an equivalent car cost, and how much does an equivalent bass sax cost? How much on the cutting-edge of technology (then) was the manufacture of Conn saxes, and likewise how the car of the day compared to the car and sax of today?
Apples: I'm guessing about $14,000 will get you a reasonable 2-door econobox with automatic, AM/FM/cassette, power steering/brakes, climate control/defog/defrost, seat belts/airbags/safety windshield, and basic diagnostic electronics. Most or all unheard of 70 years ago. AM radio, leather upholstery and heater were add-ons (so was a trunk!) and of course you had quaint touches like tilt-open windshields, external spare tire mounts, and an elegant simplicity in style and engineering that are now lost forever.

Oranges: For your $14,000 today, your new Selmer or Keilwerth bass will have high E/F/F# keys (Selmers only), modern ergonomics like tilting spatulas and big comfy plastic thumbhook, removable keyguards (and bell on Selmers). But that's really about all they have over the old 14M. The Keilwerth body tube is even modeled after Conn's. And whereas the $480 satin gold Conn cost over twice as much as the basic $220 lacquered-brass horn (the same horn!), the latter day SA80 or SX90 is strictly available in brass, with silver or other special finishes no doubt costing still more. Saxes have lost something in terms of elegant simplicity etc., but not so much as cars. At least high-end, special order saxes still have a certain amount of handwork in them.

Going from a rough estimate of 1200% inflation in the dollar since 1934, I conclude that new cars were not such a good value then, but that new saxophones were a somewhat better value than now. (Caveat: Both the Ford Tudor and the 14M have appreciated prodigiously in value in 70 years, more so than today's product is likely to do.)

[griff136]

Anyway, it doesn't negate the point that all Conns were made to fit reso-pads. They would hardly redesign a special set of keycups to fit regular pads and issue otherwise identical instruments on the same day with different sets of keys for different types of pads. That would be utterly ludicrous!


MTK

I think with this thread you are missing the point slightly.

No one in their right mind would make a cup to fit a pad now would they.

They would just get a pad that fitted their cup! whether it was a standard pad or one with resos.


regards

Griff

[MTKilpatrick]

Sorry the tone I have taken with you MTK, came from the past dealings with you on this board. So all the cups are in perfect round? Will the pads press fit into the cup, by hand?

That's all right. I wasn't sure if my tone came across as rude when I started "At risk of repeating myself...". I hope not.

The cups - well, most of them have seemed in rather good condition on each of the saxes. One or two were not exactly flat, but with close inspection I could see little distortion away from a true circle. This is in far contrast to the state of the pads. As I stated earlier, nothing more than a cursory inspection with the naked eye reveals that a lot of them are far from round. It's VERY obvious. I mean it. Many of them are distorted in the other dimension, not being flat either. I can post some digital photos on my website if you really want to see them!

Very few, if any, of the pads are easy to fit by hand without what I consider to be excessive pressure. Even by heating the cup to get some expansion and also ironing the skin around the rim of the pad to shrink it, most of the pads require excessive pressure to fit in. I would use the term "force" for the majority of them.

Some of the very old pads that I removed from the instruments were intact, no tears in the skin. They could be reinserted into the cups with just a little finger pressure. That is how I believe they are intended to fit. There is enough freedom for the ring to hold its shape without being constrained by excess pressure from the cup. With the Ferree's pads, that's simply impossible.


Michael

[Saxdaddy]

I ask about press fitting, because thats how they are installed. Thats one reason I asked. Of course they will, or should fit tighter at first, but it should not require too much pressure. The comment on changing cup sizes doesn't work though. Instrument makers change things all the time. I still don't see why you want to use the reso pads though. I never did like them, and have always replaced them with regular pads, and never have had a customer not like the end result.

[MTKilpatrick]

I ask about press fitting, because thats how they are installed. Thats one reason I asked. Of course they will, or should fit tighter at first, but it should not require too much pressure.

Indeed. Well, either I've got *three* different instrument *all* with badly made keycups, or all the Ferree's pads are a tighter fit than they should be. I can try replacing a pad or two in some other of my thirteen Conns saxes if you want more evidence.


The comment on changing cup sizes doesn't work though. Instrument makers change things all the time.

Sorry, but that can't be sensible. My baritones are 189xxx, 208xxx, 263xxx and 314xxx. All the low-C keys are the same. Others I have measured are too. I can measure all other keys too if you like, and then compare keys on my altos from different years.

Think about it: Conn redesigned their saxophones constantly, adding front-F plates, changing the sides of the low B and Bb toneholes, changing the shape of palm keys, and so on, ad infinitum. However, the basic design of the instrument tube, once the correct size and position of toneholes has been set, changed little. Now. why would they start changing the size of the keycups? To what end? Even if they decided that the low B tonehole was millimetre too big when it changed sides on the baritone, why would they start using a different sized pad and keycup if the original size 70/32 pad was still appropriate for the resized tonehole? Why go to all the expense of tooling up for a new size 69 or 71 pad when previously they made only 64,70 and 78?

Furthermore, it's very clear from the baritone (gold 189xxx) that's in bits on my bench that some keys which have identically sized keycups have different sized toneholes. For the sake of cost of manufacturing, Conn limited the number of pad and keycup sizes to a specific set, the same set, apparently, that Ferree's reproduce (albeit in my opinion not to the right tolerances). Obviously if two toneholes are only a millimetre different in diameter, the same keycup and pad can be used for both.


I still don&t see why you want to use the reso pads though. I never did like them, and have always replaced them with regular pads, and never have had a customer not like the end result.

Well, I'm certainly beginning to dislike Ferree's pads. There's nothing wrong with wanting to try to reproduce the original pads, and if that means I have to tool up to make them myself using the metal rings rescued from original pads, or find someone else experienced to do it for me, then so be it!

I'm actually interested in trying the foil-insert pads with no resonators, as were originally in at least three of my horns. By the way, discussing this elsewhere, it has been suggested that such pads might have been called "Conn-Foils" to distinguish them from Reso-pads which were the same as the ones Ferree's make with the plain resonator. Google brings up nothing at all, however, for Conn-foil.

Michael

[shmuelyosef]

If you are not too concerned about 'original' but want to get close to the foil-backed sound and feel, you could try Curt's Saxgourmet pads (www.musicmedic.com). These have a foil-backing and are very hard. They have a resonator hole, but I think the original pads had rivet centers on the small pads and small 1/2", 5/8", and 3/4" resos on the larger pads. I have these pads on my Conn 12M #327XXX and it feels and plays great! I was going to sell it until I did the overhaul (on speculation) and discovered what a great horn it is...now I can't seem to part with it.