I do not play clarinet, however I heard something about overblowing 
the 12th(?) to change octaves.?  Also I heard something about Buffet's 
poly cylindrical bore.  I hear talk of delay in vibration. I hear talk 
of unique clarinet acoustical resonance.

This makes me think that a clarinet is harder to play than a 
saxophone.  I feel that a clarinet designed mouthpiece (though dry and 
unexciting) would work fine on a sax.  A saxophone mouthpiece design 
would choke up on a clarinet.

The preceding ramblings are just a figment of my imagination.  Does 
any one out there care to support these opinions with fact?

Also while I am at it;  I would like to discuss whistle mouthpieces 
vs. single reed mouthpieces.  By whistle mouthpieces I mean such like 
a "recorder," "Flute" or "Piccolo."   These pieces allow air to leak 
out (besides through) the piece.  If one were to drill a hole in the 
top of a single reed mouthpiece chamber, so as the air might be able 
to escape, the clarinet or saxophone would have a nervous breakdown!

I am sure that one might be able to change mouthpieces on a wooden 18 
inch long alto recorder.  That is to say placing a sax or clarinet 
piece on it.

WW & BW sell a Maui Xaphoon on page 36 of the Fall-Winter 2002 
catalog.

I do not think that the recorder mouthpiece would work on a soprano 
sax though.  Has any one tried it?  Would a High pitch whistle 

--- In MouthpieceWork@y..., "tomheadly" <VaKach@a...> wrote:
> 
> I do not think that the recorder mouthpiece would work on a soprano 
> sax though.  Has any one tried it?

The flute and recorder have cylindrical bore pipes that are open on 
both ends.  The clarinet is a cylindrical bore instrument closed on 
the MP end and open on the other end.  The sax is a basically conical 
bore instrument open on one end too.  These basic designs are what 
determines if the instrument overblows an octave or a 12th and what 
the overtone series is (how the instrument sounds).  There are 
several good texts on this.  Several are listed in the MouthpieceWork 
site.

So trying to use a recorder mouthpiece on a sax or clarinet would 
change its basic design into another instrument.  I have not tried 
it, but I do not think it would yeild good results.

FYI, the flute and recorder mouthpiece splits the player's air 
stream.  At the split, an "air reed" is formed that vibrates back and 
forth to become the sound generator.

There are three musically valid bore shapes for a woodwind instrument--a cylinder open at both ends (such as a flute or fipple flute (recorder), a cylinder closed at one end (clarinet) and cone closed at one end (sax, oboe, etc.). The cone closed at one end, for mathematical reasons, acts like a tube open at both ends, in that it plays the entire overtone series. So essentially there are two modes for the vibrations of the air column in a bore--open tube (and its analogue, cone closed at one end) and closed tube. Any other shape will not play octaves in tune--the whole overtone series will not be integral multiples of the fundamental.

The vibrating air column of the flute is open to the surrounding air at both ends, therefore the pressure is at ambient pressure at both ends, making both ends pressure antinodes, or displacement nodes. There is one pressure node in the middle of the air column. The clarinet has a pressure node at the mpc (closed) end. The open end is obviously a pressure antinode. This creates a wave twice as long as for the open tube. It's easy to demonstrate--just take a pipe and blow across the top, alternately opening and closing the bottom. You may not get a pure note with the open pipe but you will hear that it is an octave higher than with the end closed.

Therefore the clarinet plays an octave lower for its comparable length than a sax. It also means that the even overtones (the first octave--partial 2, the second octave--partial 4, etc.) can't be produced in a closed tube. So the clarinet produces only odd harmonics, which gives it its characteristic "hollow" sound (especially in the lower register). That means that the first harmonic produced when the speaker vent is opened is the 3rd--the 12th of the fundamental.

Please do not ask me why a closed cone is equivalent to an open tube. No one seems have the math completely worked out--or at least have explained it in any of the books I have read--but it works.

BTW the Buffet "polycylindrical" bore is just what it states--a number of different cylindrical sections smoothly connected. It was apparently empirically worked out and produces a slightly richer tone, but it doesn't really change anything we are talking about here.

Clarinet IMO is not harder to play than the sax, but it is certainly different. The narrower bore makes the low notes much easier to play (especially softly). The firgerings are slightly more complicated since the same fingerings produce different notes in the first two octaves and ther are some extra fingerings high up on the tube to produce the missing notes for the 12th jump. The impedance in the bore is much higher than with sax, giving it a much different feel.

This brings up some interesting things vis-a-vis mpcs. First of all it looks like the chamber size would be less critical in intonation, as with a sax the volume of the mpc should just about equal the volume of the truncated cone (the tip we cut off the end so that we have somewhere to put the mpc) for proper intonation. So why are clarinet mpcs seemingly so much more similar than sax mpcs?

I think the answer lies in the missing clarinet harmonics. The clarinet already has distinctly different timbres in the three registers due to that--much more so than the sax. So a high baffle clarinet mpc that would make the low register bright would probably make the middle register thin and the high register absolutely painful. A very large chamber would most probably produce a very muddy low register. Just my guess. With the difference in impedance I would guess that a very open tip might be difficult to control--and the playing conventions are also very different. Apart from some Greek and Eastern European clarinet playing there is very little pitch bending and no vibrato in the idiom. For conventional playing a rather closed tip (by sax standards) is the norm.

To touch on your point about fipples--the physics of the so called "air reed" are much different than those of the single or double reed mpc--the mechanics of the creation of air oscillation are two different animals.But the air reed creates that pressure antinode instead of a pressue node. So basically if you put a fipple on a clarinet and you get a flute. You put a reed mpc on a flute and you get a clarinet (more or less). You put a fipple on a sax and you get nothing musical. A cone open at both ends doth not a woodwind make.

Toby
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: tomheadly 
  To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 6:15 AM
  Subject: [MouthpieceWork] am sure that a sax or clarinet piece would produce music on a


  I do not play clarinet, however I heard something about overblowing 
  the 12th(?) to change octaves.?  Also I heard something about Buffet's 
  poly cylindrical bore.  I hear talk of delay in vibration. I hear talk 
  of unique clarinet acoustical resonance.

  This makes me think that a clarinet is harder to play than a 
  saxophone.  I feel that a clarinet designed mouthpiece (though dry and 
  unexciting) would work fine on a sax.  A saxophone mouthpiece design 
  would choke up on a clarinet.

  The preceding ramblings are just a figment of my imagination.  Does 
  any one out there care to support these opinions with fact?

  Also while I am at it;  I would like to discuss whistle mouthpieces 
  vs. single reed mouthpieces.  By whistle mouthpieces I mean such like 
  a "recorder," "Flute" or "Piccolo."   These pieces allow air to leak 
  out (besides through) the piece.  If one were to drill a hole in the 
  top of a single reed mouthpiece chamber, so as the air might be able 
  to escape, the clarinet or saxophone would have a nervous breakdown!

  I am sure that one might be able to change mouthpieces on a wooden 18 
  inch long alto recorder.  That is to say placing a sax or clarinet 
  piece on it.

  WW & BW sell a Maui Xaphoon on page 36 of the Fall-Winter 2002 
  catalog.

  I do not think that the recorder mouthpiece would work on a soprano 
  sax though.  Has any one tried it?  Would a High pitch whistle 


  Got a Mouthpiece Work question?  Send it to MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com

  Visit the site at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MouthpieceWork to see the Files, Photos and Bookmarks relating to Mouthpiece Work.

  To see and modify your groups, go to http://groups.yahoo.com/mygroups 

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

Realized that I had those reversed. A flute has pressure nodes (displacement antinodes) at both ends, with a pressure antinode in the center of the tube. The clarinet has a pressure antinode at the mpc (point of most pressure change).

Toby
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Toby 
  To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 1:06 AM
  Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] am sure that a sax or clarinet piece would produce music on a


  There are three musically valid bore shapes for a woodwind instrument--a cylinder open at both ends (such as a flute or fipple flute (recorder), a cylinder closed at one end (clarinet) and cone closed at one end (sax, oboe, etc.). The cone closed at one end, for mathematical reasons, acts like a tube open at both ends, in that it plays the entire overtone series. So essentially there are two modes for the vibrations of the air column in a bore--open tube (and its analogue, cone closed at one end) and closed tube. Any other shape will not play octaves in tune--the whole overtone series will not be integral multiples of the fundamental.

  The vibrating air column of the flute is open to the surrounding air at both ends, therefore the pressure is at ambient pressure at both ends, making both ends pressure antinodes, or displacement nodes. There is one pressure node in the middle of the air column. The clarinet has a pressure node at the mpc (closed) end. The open end is obviously a pressure antinode. This creates a wave twice as long as for the open tube. It's easy to demonstrate--just take a pipe and blow across the top, alternately opening and closing the bottom. You may not get a pure note with the open pipe but you will hear that it is an octave higher than with the end closed.

  Therefore the clarinet plays an octave lower for its comparable length than a sax. It also means that the even overtones (the first octave--partial 2, the second octave--partial 4, etc.) can't be produced in a closed tube. So the clarinet produces only odd harmonics, which gives it its characteristic "hollow" sound (especially in the lower register). That means that the first harmonic produced when the speaker vent is opened is the 3rd--the 12th of the fundamental.

  Please do not ask me why a closed cone is equivalent to an open tube. No one seems have the math completely worked out--or at least have explained it in any of the books I have read--but it works.

  BTW the Buffet "polycylindrical" bore is just what it states--a number of different cylindrical sections smoothly connected. It was apparently empirically worked out and produces a slightly richer tone, but it doesn't really change anything we are talking about here.

  Clarinet IMO is not harder to play than the sax, but it is certainly different. The narrower bore makes the low notes much easier to play (especially softly). The firgerings are slightly more complicated since the same fingerings produce different notes in the first two octaves and ther are some extra fingerings high up on the tube to produce the missing notes for the 12th jump. The impedance in the bore is much higher than with sax, giving it a much different feel.

  This brings up some interesting things vis-a-vis mpcs. First of all it looks like the chamber size would be less critical in intonation, as with a sax the volume of the mpc should just about equal the volume of the truncated cone (the tip we cut off the end so that we have somewhere to put the mpc) for proper intonation. So why are clarinet mpcs seemingly so much more similar than sax mpcs?

  I think the answer lies in the missing clarinet harmonics. The clarinet already has distinctly different timbres in the three registers due to that--much more so than the sax. So a high baffle clarinet mpc that would make the low register bright would probably make the middle register thin and the high register absolutely painful. A very large chamber would most probably produce a very muddy low register. Just my guess. With the difference in impedance I would guess that a very open tip might be difficult to control--and the playing conventions are also very different. Apart from some Greek and Eastern European clarinet playing there is very little pitch bending and no vibrato in the idiom. For conventional playing a rather closed tip (by sax standards) is the norm.

  To touch on your point about fipples--the physics of the so called "air reed" are much different than those of the single or double reed mpc--the mechanics of the creation of air oscillation are two different animals.But the air reed creates that pressure antinode instead of a pressue node. So basically if you put a fipple on a clarinet and you get a flute. You put a reed mpc on a flute and you get a clarinet (more or less). You put a fipple on a sax and you get nothing musical. A cone open at both ends doth not a woodwind make.

  Toby
    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: tomheadly 
    To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
    Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 6:15 AM
    Subject: [MouthpieceWork] am sure that a sax or clarinet piece would produce music on a


    I do not play clarinet, however I heard something about overblowing 
    the 12th(?) to change octaves.?  Also I heard something about Buffet's 
    poly cylindrical bore.  I hear talk of delay in vibration. I hear talk 
    of unique clarinet acoustical resonance.

    This makes me think that a clarinet is harder to play than a 
    saxophone.  I feel that a clarinet designed mouthpiece (though dry and 
    unexciting) would work fine on a sax.  A saxophone mouthpiece design 
    would choke up on a clarinet.

    The preceding ramblings are just a figment of my imagination.  Does 
    any one out there care to support these opinions with fact?

    Also while I am at it;  I would like to discuss whistle mouthpieces 
    vs. single reed mouthpieces.  By whistle mouthpieces I mean such like 
    a "recorder," "Flute" or "Piccolo."   These pieces allow air to leak 
    out (besides through) the piece.  If one were to drill a hole in the 
    top of a single reed mouthpiece chamber, so as the air might be able 
    to escape, the clarinet or saxophone would have a nervous breakdown!

    I am sure that one might be able to change mouthpieces on a wooden 18 
    inch long alto recorder.  That is to say placing a sax or clarinet 
    piece on it.

    WW & BW sell a Maui Xaphoon on page 36 of the Fall-Winter 2002 
    catalog.

    I do not think that the recorder mouthpiece would work on a soprano 
    sax though.  Has any one tried it?  Would a High pitch whistle 


    Got a Mouthpiece Work question?  Send it to MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com

    Visit the site at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MouthpieceWork to see the Files, Photos and Bookmarks relating to Mouthpiece Work.

    To see and modify your groups, go to http://groups.yahoo.com/mygroups 

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


  Got a Mouthpiece Work question?  Send it to MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com

  Visit the site at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MouthpieceWork to see the Files, Photos and Bookmarks relating to Mouthpiece Work.

  To see and modify your groups, go to http://groups.yahoo.com/mygroups 

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