Sax on the Web Forum banner

Rolled Tone Holes ..... why are they desirable?

26K views 161 replies 41 participants last post by  SchlockRod 
#1 ·
Rolled tone holes ..... What do they do for you?

My 1924 CONN has rolled tone holes, that I assume haven't been filed (not sure why anyone would do that). When you run your finger across them, it's completely smooth. The only advantage I can think of is that the pads seem like they would last longer. :dontknow:


Turtle
 
#2 ·
Some people maintain that they don't seal as well — and that they're more difficult to work with if they need leveling or other adjustment. It's pretty obvious that fine-playing instruments can be made with or without RTH, but I think they do represent high quality craftsmanship. If a sax has really well made rolled tone holes the chances are that the rest of the horn is built to high standards as well.
 
#3 ·
The search function is your friend on this one - several dedicated threads on this in the past.
 
#6 ·
You're right .... TONS of opinions, nearly ZERO agreement. :mrgreen:

The only agreement seems to be that the manufacturer, CONN, thought that rolled tone holes were very desirable. :dontknow:

The worst argument against rolled tone holes comes from technicians that have a hard time dealing with them. Probably, this is because they don't have the same machinery/tools to deal with them, like CONN had (I assume) before abandoning them. And, that the larger surface area of the rolled tone hole can cause sticking.

The best arguments for them are better sound (not everyone agrees!!), longer lasting pads, better sealing, due to larger surface area, and whatever that was that CONN knew about them, enough to spend the extra money on manufacturing ... my guess, better sound. They spent the extra money for better sound.

In the threads that I read, people who had experience with both, tended to like the sound better of the rolled tone hole models. Seems to me everyone else is just guessing (like me) about the sound differences.

Turtle
 
#4 ·
I agree, rolled toneholes where a symbol of higher precision because they required a more complex production technology. Horns which were produced with rolled toneholes were more expensive to produce and for this reason, RTH became associated with high quality.

However it has been argued that rolled toneholes in a vintage horn , while they speak of the class the horn originally had when it was made, might be the source of a number of problems down the line making maintaining such a Vintage horn more difficult or costly.

Besides, many technicians question the very advantage of a RHT over a non RTH saxophone and many threads to this effect witness on SOTW the (at time diverging) opinions on this.

http://forum.saxontheweb.net/showthread.php?10654-Rolled-Tone-Holes-Are-They-Better
http://forum.saxontheweb.net/showthread.php?93930-Pondering-Rolled-Tone-Hole-s-Value
http://forum.saxontheweb.net/showthread.php?149889-rolled-tone-holes
http://forum.saxontheweb.net/showthread.php?92178-why-doesen-t-yamaha-make-rolled-tone-holes
http://forum.saxontheweb.net/showthread.php?12241-Are-rolled-tone-holes-over-rated

The horns with applied rolled rims have been criticised by the likes of Stephen Howard, he has been pointing to the defects of the Keilwerths, for offering a feature with no real advantages ( ^) while that feature could be potentially generating some problems with the levelling of these applied rims on the tonehole.
 
#7 ·
If they did anything good at all, they would have been on the Selmer Balanced Action and all subsequent models. The first thing that pops out for me is the contact area is much greater, so any time there are conditions for pad sticking, the adhesion force is that much greater. If a wide rim were desirable on a tone hole, the thick, soldered-in tone rings of Martin and other saxes would not have been machined down at the rim as they were.
 
#9 ·
well, Conn were by no means the only ones doing it, there were plenty of European horns with rolled toneholes.

Whether Selmer were the “ Gods” of design or not is immaterial, they were , for sure, the most successful brand to carry on their designs an concepts.

That is why they still exist and thrive and all the modern horns are one way or other related to them, if nothing else in the mechanics.

I don’t know whether someone at Selmer ever considered this, but if they did, they must have thought that it was an unnecessary complication which made the horns more expensive and not commercially viable. The advantages of rolled toneholes over not rolled ones have yet to be be proven.

Read the posts in the links that I gave above.

One thing is for sure Selmer never applied that design feature and they are still here to tell the tale. Maybe there is no relationship between the two facts......nonetheless........ .

I am saying this from he standpoint of a NON-Selmer user by the way! I play King as a main horn and the Super 20 had no rolled toneholes too ( but had brazed on toneholes and not pulled ones)
 
#10 ·
This is an interesting thread, and poss more so for a classical saxophonist, who generally play with more dynamic variation. All flutes as far as i am aware have rolled tone holes, and ive heard many flute recordings where you hear that characteristic pad closing sound, which is poss due to the mic placement. It is prob not as evident on the sax as it is a much louder instrument and the pad sound is obliterated. A poss test would be to place a mic very close to the pad, on RTH and Non RTH. Just a thought.
 
#12 ·
I think it would be interesting to hear from the current sax makers who are offering rolled tone holes, what they think. Also, why Selmer never went that route.

From the link just above: "Conn developed an alternative to the sharp-edged, extruded tone hole, by rolling the edge of the drawn tone hole opening over toward the outside into a rounded shape. This rolled tone hole design presents a wider surface for the pad to seat against, yet the rolled, top-most portion of the tone hole surface (though narrow enough to form a seal) makes a gentle imprint into the soft, thin pad leather. The rounded imprint does not severely cut into the pad, promoting pad life. The rolled tone hole was produced beginning about 1920, and the process was abandoned to reduce cost in 1947. Instruments with rolled tone holes are widely regarded as Conn's best playing saxophones, and, arguably, some of the finest saxophones ever produced."


:)


Turtle
 
#17 ·
I think it would be interesting to hear from the current sax makers who are offering rolled tone holes, what they think. Also, why Selmer never went that route.
I had a chat with Peter Ponzol about this. He thinks it is worth having rolled tone holes on the bottom two or three notes, but not the rest. Hence that's what he did on the pro One models.
 
#13 ·
Keilwerth would be an interesting source of information, as they produced BOTH versions of otherwise similar horns for quite some time. There must also be players out there owning both versions of the "same" horn. Anyone ?
 
#14 ·
the modern Keilwerth “ rolled” toneholes have rolled appendixes applied on top of normal toneholes, a quite different predicament than the original Keilwerth rolled toneholes.

In my opinion most modern producers of rolled toneholes only do so because they are more appealing from a marketing point of view.

As I said before nobody has ever shown a substantial advantage (sonic of in terms of protection of the pads) from the rolled tonehole in comparison with a non rolled tonehole.

By the way, not all flutes have always had rolled toneholes but flute pads are also very different from saxophone pads.
 
#15 ·
Was there a patent associated with Conn's RTH?

Perhaps that is why so few copied them.

Just to add my 2c, I reckon the 'value' of RTH was marketing, just like many other 'improvements' made by Conn which haven't become a feature of modern horns (microtuners, anyone?).
 
#16 ·
Many companies ( Keilwert, Hammerschmidt, SML, Lyrist, Schenkelaars,...............) produced horns with rolled toneholes in the past if it was patented (I doubt) the patent couldn’t be enforced.

Same was for the microtuners which were, by no means, a Conn exclusive.
 
#23 ·
Many companies ( Keilwert, Hammerschmidt, SML, Lyrist, Schenkelaars,...............) produced horns with rolled toneholes in the past if it was patented (I doubt) the patent couldn't be enforced.

Same was for the microtuners which were, by no means, a Conn exclusive.
Wow, I didn't know that!
 
#19 ·
Something to consider about CONNs with rolled tone holes is pad construction. CONN designed what were called Res-O-Pads for use with rolled tone holes. They were also used on at least some of their non-RTH saxes but were designed specifically for their RTH saxophones and were (are?) a proprietary item. Could that be why Selmer never used RTH?

The pre-WWII German made G.H. Hüller saxphones that I've owned also had RTH with pads that were essentially the same as the CONN Res-O-Pads but i'm not sure whether they were made by Conn or of their own design/manufacture.
FWIW, I've had 3 or 4 G.H. Hüllers, at least two of which had the original Res-O-Pads-ish pads .

Again, Cybersax has a good explanation here...http://www.cybersax.com/QA/Q&A_Conn_Res-O-Pads.html
 
#32 ·
Could it be that RTH weren't popular with purchasers? If techs today grit their teeth at levelling the buggers I'm betting they did so too back in the RTH-Conn days too and passed the message and extra labour costs on to the owners.
No point marketing something that became unpopular once the novelty wore off.
Complete speculation, of course.

Personally, my SMLs RTHs are superb - a little more sticky though - and my tech probably hates them!
But you know SML would've soldered on an electric foot-warmer if it could've been marketed as 'the 23rd Gold Medal Feature'...
 
#35 ·
Ok....Here is my theory. Or rather idea. I don't think it's gone through enough to be called a theory.

1. They do make pads last much longer.
2. They do affect the sound.
3. They do tend to make pads stick more.
4. These 3 things are affected minimally but are nonetheless affected.

Here is what I base my theory or idea on.

1. I have owned both RTH Conn's and non-RTH Conn's as well as Keilwerth's. The models with RTH had the pads last much much longer and I played them more!!!
2. My RTH models all had more problems with sticky keys:(
3. My RTH models had a bigger sound I am 100% certain. Both horns had similar sounds, but the RTH models were just fatter and bigger. To me the vintage Keilwerths and Conns with RTH have the biggest sound of any sax out there and I don't think many will disagree. I can't think of a horn other than the King Super 20 that can compete with them. They are just big and fat whether they are your cup of tea or not. No Selmer can compete in volume or fatness.

Ok...more food for thought. and I know some of you will dismiss this as Bologna Sandwich, but the more I play these models the more I know that there is a difference. I watched this video of a Keilwerth guy talking about how sound from your sax doesn't just come out the Bell it emanates from all of the open tone holes. The RTH acts as a "mini-bell" and allows the sound to project better thus making the horn slightly louder and bigger sounding. I know that seems a little "ehhh", but if you look at a RTH horn and start thinking about it. He is right. They do kinda look like little bells and their theory might be true. No one can prove it either way though.

Final thoughts....I don't think it matters to much overall as long as you like your horn, but having played both extensively I know that I strongly believe RTH horns have a bigger sound. Now whether it is a coincidence having to do with other things I don't know, but I do believe they have a bigger sound. I know that it makes pads last longer. 100%. and I know that it makes them stick easier! and I know my repair guy yells at me sometimes!!!! LOL. That's what I think.

PEACE!
 
#36 ·
While it is true that the sound emanates from open tone holes, it is (sorry but true) absolute tripe to say that rolled tone holes act as "mini bells". A bell is an impedance matching device to help with the transmission of higher frequencies for notes that do not have at least a few open tone holes below the last closed tone hole. The open tone hole lattice acts as a radiator of higher frequencies, and the bell keys would sound very muffled if there was not a bell to help radiate the same higher frequencies that are so well radiated by a lattice of open tone holes for notes higher up the tube.

Anyway, a bell depends on having a flare, and rolled tone holes have no flare at all...So it doesn't need proving, it is BS.

It may well be that RTHs extend pad life, and may have a tendency towards stickiness, having more surface area contacting the pad. However it is an unsubstantiated leap to say that the RTHs are the reason that your horns with them sounded "fatter" and "bigger". Most probably there were minor differences in the bore responsible for those differences. Just because horns look alike doesn't mean their dimensions are the same, and very small differences can have a major impact in that area.

That being said, it is important to keep sharp edges out of the air column, and very sharp edges of tone hole chimneys can and will cause a noticeable difference, especially at louder playing volumes, where turbulence losses start to kick in. To know if the edges on non RTHs are causing turbulence losses, we would have to know the radius of the edge and the note being played. It is safe to say, however, that a fairly minor rounding of the edges will get rid of most turbulence losses.

My understanding is that RTHs were a major pain in the neck for Conn, and many bodies had to be trashed because of defects. Also a bitch to level...The disadvantages obviously outweighed the advantages, especially economically.
 
#39 ·
Also a bitch to level...
My tech loves working on rolled tone holes...but he does get paid by the hour :)

Probably a silly question, but how do we know that that potential turbulence doesn't actually sound good?
 
#42 ·
Rolled tone holes on a sax are like tail fins on a car. All the best cars have them. Many manufacturers don't use them any, but cars with tail fins run better, sound better, look better, last longer, handle better, are more aerodynamic, and are more prestigeous to own. It is more expensive to produce cars with tail fins, more expensive to purchase, and more expensive to have them serviced. But those who own them will tell you ad naseum about their wonderous superiority. It's similar for adjustable thumb rests. I can't think of a decent sounding sax that doesn't have one.

Are we done here?

Mark
 
#45 ·
Dead- but it STILL won't lie down ! - that's why I love SOTW so much.....

Happy 2013

Blowhard2
 
#46 ·
The Land of the Living Thread. :D

You would think that, if CONN had such a "problem" with rolled tone holes, they would have abandoned them a little quicker than 30 YEARS. That is a pretty thin argument, to say the least. More likely they abandoned them because they were too expensive to manufacture.


Turtle
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top