Why Aren’t Saxophones Made of Wood?

Although saxophones are classified as woodwind instruments—because they use a wooden reed to produce sound and rely on tone holes to change pitch—they are almost always constructed from brass rather than wood. This choice stems from fundamental differences in their design and manufacturing challenges compared to traditional wooden woodwinds like clarinets or flutes. Here’s why:

Ⅰ. Conical vs. Cylindrical Shape

Clarinets and flutes have cylindrical bores (straight tubes of uniform diameter). Drilling a hole through wood or plastic is straightforward with a single lathe bit.

Saxophones, however, feature a conical bore (a gradually widening tube). Creating such a large, tapered cavity in solid wood would require an impractical, massive drill bit and an excessively thick wooden blank to prevent cracking.

Ⅱ. The Challenge of Curved Bows

A saxophone’s body consists of three parts: the main tube, the curved bow, and the bell. The bow’s curvature is acoustically complex:

Airflow must navigate a tight turn, with the outer wall longer than the inner wall. This disrupts standing waves, causing tuning issues (e.g., "warble" in low notes like C).

Wood cannot be easily shaped into such curves. While oboes and bassoons have conical wooden bodies, their bends are simpler or reinforced with metal (e.g., the bassoon’s brass boot joint).

In contrast, saxophone bows are stamped from brass sheets and brazed together—a process impossible to replicate in wood without compromising structural integrity or acoustics.

Ⅲ. Manufacturing Practicality

Brass offers critical advantages:

Malleability: Brass tubes are shaped using steel mandrels and hydraulic presses. A lead ring is forced over the brass, molding it into a perfect cone—a method far cheaper and more precise than carving wood.

Durability: Wood would need extreme thickness to support tone holes, making the instrument too heavy to play comfortably.

Curved bells: Metal allows for stamped and soldered components (like the bell’s flare), whereas wood would require hand-carving with near-impossible precision.

Ⅳ. Acoustic Compromises

Even if a wooden saxophone were feasible, its acoustic performance would suffer:

The bow’s asymmetry already challenges brass saxophones; wood’s natural irregularities would exacerbate tuning instability.

Historical attempts (e.g., Selmer’s 1960s wedge modification) show that even metal saxophones require precise engineering to mitigate airflow issues—problems wood cannot solve.

Conclusion

While saxophones share acoustic principles with woodwinds, their conical bore, curved bow, and large size make brass the only practical material. Wood lacks the strength, workability, and consistency needed for mass production, and its acoustic drawbacks would outweigh any tonal benefits. Thus, despite its woodwind classification, the saxophone remains a brass-bodied instrument by necessity.

The following is Mansdone Saxophone！