Supporting Quotes:
"But it doesn't solve one problem: how we might get A=880Hz as the 
magic frequency for an alto, or whatever. There is nothing in the 
model I can see that corresponds to that."
danmcb 
User ID: 1502094  Mar 21st 2:01 AM   (SOTW /Tone Producing/Santy 
Runyon's theramin experiment))


Ralph Morgan wrote: 
First of all, PROPERLY DESIGNED, that is, using accepted acoustical 
design functions, a mouthpiece has two major functions--1. the 
interior, or chamber of the piece must be configured in such a way 
that it allows the smoothest passage of the air column through it, and 
has the correct cubic volume of air in the chamber to allow the sax or 
clarinet to function, or play, as it was designed to do. When I say 
correct, since it is the most important part of the bore of the 
instrument, I mean that it must be correct to the tiniest fraction of 
a cubic centimeter. Otherwise, we will have numeerous problems with 
the instrument, which in reality have nothing to do with instrument. 

I say that if we must (as Morgan says) measure the chamber to the 
TINIEST  FRACTION of a CUBIC CENTIMETER,  what do we use to judge,  
the optimum mpc. dimensions. if we do not use the Mouthpiece pitch.

How do I determin that I now have made  an Alto sax mouthpiece and not 
a "C" Mellody sax m

If I may, I think many of us, mouthpiece makers included take the mouthpiece design theory too literally. The design is, and should be entirely based on the results that you wish to achieve.  Getting into hyper-technical dimensions in an effort to create the perfect mouthpiece frequently leads to frustration and is fruitless.  There is no right and wrong, only what works and what works for one person may be entirely wrong for another.  Billy Drews uses a metal Otto Link 9* tenor mouthpiece on his alto.  It works for him and this gives you an idea of how much leeway one has in design.  Billy plays in tune. 

Adolph Sax thought the chamber should be round and so do I but most classical sax players use square chamber Selmer mouthpieces. Many great players like Lennie Picket and Mike Brecker use square chambers too although I believe that the way to achieve the most individual sound is to play a round chamber even if it means sacrificing volume.  

Presently, I make eleven tenor models all with vastly different size baffles, chambers, and bores, and intonation is entirely up to the user on all of them.  There is no "correct".

Now, if you want to talk about changing tone, that's another story but let's get of this subject because in the end it really doesn't go anywhere.  Phil Barone
                  

                  For all your mouthpiece needs
                       WWW.PhilBarone.com
WE HAVE THE LOWEST PRICES ON BAM CASES!
                   PhilBarone@...
                         PH: (212) 686-9410

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: tilemakerpro 
  To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 8:34 AM
  Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Dimensions


  Supporting Quotes:
  "But it doesn't solve one problem: how we might get A=880Hz as the 
  magic frequency for an alto, or whatever. There is nothing in the 
  model I can see that corresponds to that."
  danmcb 
  User ID: 1502094  Mar 21st 2:01 AM   (SOTW /Tone Producing/Santy 
  Runyon's theramin experiment))


  Ralph Morgan wrote: 
  First of all, PROPERLY DESIGNED, that is, using accepted acoustical 
  design functions, a mouthpiece has two major functions--1. the 
  interior, or chamber of the piece must be configured in such a way 
  that it allows the smoothest passage of the air column through it, and 
  has the correct cubic volume of air in the chamber to allow the sax or 
  clarinet to function, or play, as it was designed to do. When I say 
  correct, since it is the most important part of the bore of the 
  instrument, I mean that it must be correct to the tiniest fraction of 
  a cubic centimeter. Otherwise, we will have numeerous problems with 
  the instrument, which in reality have nothing to do with instrument. 

  I say that if we must (as Morgan says) measure the chamber to the 
  TINIEST  FRACTION of a CUBIC CENTIMETER,  what do we use to judge,  
  the optimum mpc. dimensions. if we do not use the Mouthpiece pitch.

  How do I determin that I now have made  an Alto sax mouthpiece and not 
  a "C" Mellody sax m


        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
              ADVERTISEMENT
             
       
       

  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
  MouthpieceWork-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 

>I say that if we must (as Morgan says) measure the chamber to the 
>TINIEST FRACTION of a CUBIC CENTIMETER, what do we use to judge, 
>the optimum mpc. dimensions. if we do not use the Mouthpiece pitch.

Ralph is a purest and his stuff is good.  But there are a lot of 
great mouthpieces out there that do not conform to his ideals.

You can measure mouthpiece volume by putting some tape on the facing 
curve, filling the mouthpiece up with water, and pouring it into a 
graduated cylinder.  I do not have my readings with me, but each 
mouthpiece size has general volume.  Clarinet is 13.5 cc.  Sax 
mouthpieces vary by more than a tiny fraction of a cc.  Shank length 
variation alone would do this.  A sax mouthpiece with more volume may 
simply need to be pushed on the neck a little more to obtain the 
target volume.

I do not know how to figure out the optimum.  I dont think there is 
one that applies to all players and sax tapers.  But we can determine 
what works emperically.  Just measure great mouthpieces.  Just my 
opinion... let others chime in.

E.Ferron outlines a method to calculate the missing cone volume based 
on the sax neck taper.  He then measures the volume of a mouthpiece 
and calculates where it should be placed on the cork to obtain the 
volume of the missing cone.  I have tried this on several saxes and 
mouthpieces and could not obtain the best tuning with the calculated 
positioning.  Some were really close and others were off by 10 mm.  I 
suspect the neck taper on some saxes is not the best way to figure 
out the missing cone volume.  The "cone" is really a rotated 
parabolic shape.  But I gave up trying to make this work.