volume of mpc chamber as related to intonation (Mouthpiece Work Yahoo Group)

FROM: killer_sax (Glenn Spiegel)

SUBJECT: volume of mpc chamber as related to intonation

I don't understand why the volume of the mouthpiece chamber should determine 
pitch.  It would seem more reasonable to assume that pitch is determined by 
the effective length of the neck and mouthpiece.  I would guess that, for a 
given frequency of sound, the effective length of the mouthpiece would 
depend on some relationship between the wavelength of the sound and the 
dimensions of the chamber at that point.  At some point the cross section of 
the air path determined by the mouthpiece and reed becomes so small compared 
to the wavelength that the standing wave reflects at that point.

Thisis mostly speculation on my part, but the real question that I have is 
why a small-chamber mouthpiece seems to be a problem on older horns but not 
on more modern ones.  Have there been substantial changes in neck design 
(such as a different amount of taper) that would cause a mouthpiece to 
couple differently?  Are the necks on new horns just made longer to allow 
for more pulling out?

Glenn

_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail

FROM: tenorman1952 (Paul Coats)

SUBJECT: Re: volume of mpc chamber as related to intonation

Actually both are correct... however in my experience, the volume, to
tune correctly for the low register, must be of the correct volume...
that is, when it tunes correctly in the low register, the volume past
the end of the neck pipe equals the volume of the missing cone section.
This includes the chamber and the part of the bore behind the chamber up
to the end of the neckpipe.

HOWEVER, in the upper register, length also comes into play.

For example, if a mouthpiece with a very large chamber is placed on the
sax, to tune the middle C to concert Bb, for example, the mouthpiece
will have to be pushed on very far.  BUT, when press the octave key, the
high C# and higher notes go sharp as the mouthpiece is now too short for
those notes.

If you go to the opposite extreme, and make a "peashooter" mouthpiece,
filling in a lot of baffle, the mouthpiece must be pulled out very far.
The mouthpiece was pulled out to allow the chamber to equal the missing
part of the cone and tune to middle C.  You may think this is not so,
but measure the volume.  Sometimes the shank is too short to allow
this.  Some players solder more tubing to the end of the neck to attempt
to make this work.  Or a manufacturer will make the shank longer.  Now
what happens, the length is now too long, and high C and the palm key
notes are flat, even though middle C is in tune.

It is possible to get the correct volume, have a high baffle, and still
get it all to play in tune in all registers.

This experiment can easily be done with a single old mouthpiece.  Find
one that plays reasonably in tune in all registers, esp the palm keys.
Mark the cork where it plays in tune.

Now, hog out the chamber with the Dremel tool.  Make it huge!

Now you will notice you must push it on past the mark to make middle C
tune to concert Bb.

Fill the chamber back in with putty, clay, or wax.  Make it smaller than
it was to begin with... go overboard on filling it.  Now, where does it
tune up?  I will bet you pull out past the original mark.  What is the
intonation like up high?  Yes, they will tend to be flat, unless you
bite it up to pitch, and you run into problems with high notes choking
off.

Don't guess, don't conjecture, don't theorize.  You can do this
experiment yourself.

Paul

Glenn Spiegel wrote:

>  I don't understand why the volume of the mouthpiece chamber should
> determine
> pitch.  It would seem more reasonable to assume that pitch is
> determined by
> the effective length of the neck and mouthpiece.  I would guess that,
> for a
> given frequency of sound, the effective length of the mouthpiece would
>
> depend on some relationship between the wavelength of the sound and
> the
> dimensions of the chamber at that point.  At some point the cross
> section of
> the air path determined by the mouthpiece and reed becomes so small
> compared
> to the wavelength that the standing wave reflects at that point.
>
> Thisis mostly speculation on my part, but the real question that I
> have is
> why a small-chamber mouthpiece seems to be a problem on older horns
> but not
> on more modern ones.  Have there been substantial changes in neck
> design
> (such as a different amount of taper) that would cause a mouthpiece to
>
> couple differently?  Are the necks on new horns just made longer to
> allow
> for more pulling out?
>
> Glenn
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
>
>
> 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.

--
Link to Paul's articles from Home page of "Sax on the Web":

  http://www.saxontheweb.net

or directly to Paul's articles at:

  http://www.saxontheweb.net/Coats/

Listen to Paul's MP3's at:

                http://briefcase.yahoo.com/tenorman1952

and view photos.

FROM: kymarto (Toby)

SUBJECT: Re: volume of mpc chamber as related to intonation

It appears to be a bit more complex than just that the mpc volume should mimic the volume of the truncated apex of the cone--that's only half of it. . Here's a quote form "The Physics of Musical Instruments" by Fletcher and Rossing:

"While the saxophone has a single reed like the clarinet, the mouthpiece effectively truncates the conical taper of the main bore and introduces significant changes in tone color. In order that the horn modes be as nearly harmonic as possible, it is desirable that the mouthpiece mimic the acoustic behavior of the missing apex of the cone. This can be done at two frequencies, and then fits reasonably well over the whole range. At low frequencies, the matching is achieved if the internal volume of the mouthpiece is equal to that of the missing conical apex, which requires that the mouthpiece have a slightly bulbous internal shape so that it acutally constitutes a sort of Helmholtz resonator. The high-frequency match can then be achieved by arranging the shape of the constriction where it joins the main part of the instrument so that the Helmholtz resonance frequency of the mouthpiece is the same as the first resonance of the missing conical apex, at which it is half a wavelength long."

So actually it is not only the volume but the shape of the interiro of the mpc--especially the dimensions at the throat--that determine the tuning, or non-tuning...

In addition it should be noted that a mismatch--meaning that the mpc volume does not mimic that of the missing apex, only becomes significant when the length of the truncation equals or exceeds 1/4 the wavelength of the note being played. This clearly means that a "bad fit" will really only become noticeable on notes near the top end of the tube. That might go some way in explaining why it is always from B on up that generally seems so wild.

My personal experience (possibly in contradistinction to that of Paul) bears this out. I have, for instance, various alto mpcs, from some old large-chambered pieces up through a Beechler with a monster baffle and miniscule chamber. The notes at the lower end of the tube seem fine with all of them; the parting of the ways definitely starts around A.

Toby

Toby
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Coats
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 6:02 AM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] volume of mpc chamber as related to intonation

Actually both are correct... however in my experience, the volume, to tune correctly for the low register, must be of the correct volume... that is, when it tunes correctly in the low register, the volume past the end of the neck pipe equals the volume of the missing cone section. This includes the chamber and the part of the bore behind the chamber up to the end of the neckpipe.
HOWEVER, in the upper register, length also comes into play.

For example, if a mouthpiece with a very large chamber is placed on the sax, to tune the middle C to concert Bb, for example, the mouthpiece will have to be pushed on very far. BUT, when press the octave key, the high C# and higher notes go sharp as the mouthpiece is now too short for those notes.

If you go to the opposite extreme, and make a "peashooter" mouthpiece, filling in a lot of baffle, the mouthpiece must be pulled out very far. The mouthpiece was pulled out to allow the chamber to equal the missing part of the cone and tune to middle C. You may think this is not so, but measure the volume. Sometimes the shank is too short to allow this. Some players solder more tubing to the end of the neck to attempt to make this work. Or a manufacturer will make the shank longer. Now what happens, the length is now too long, and high C and the palm key notes are flat, even though middle C is in tune.

It is possible to get the correct volume, have a high baffle, and still get it all to play in tune in all registers.

This experiment can easily be done with a single old mouthpiece. Find one that plays reasonably in tune in all registers, esp the palm keys. Mark the cork where it plays in tune.

Now, hog out the chamber with the Dremel tool. Make it huge!

Now you will notice you must push it on past the mark to make middle C tune to concert Bb.

Fill the chamber back in with putty, clay, or wax. Make it smaller than it was to begin with... go overboard on filling it. Now, where does it tune up? I will bet you pull out past the original mark. What is the intonation like up high? Yes, they will tend to be flat, unless you bite it up to pitch, and you run into problems with high notes choking off.

Don't guess, don't conjecture, don't theorize. You can do this experiment yourself.

Paul

Glenn Spiegel wrote:

I don't understand why the volume of the mouthpiece chamber should determine
pitch. It would seem more reasonable to assume that pitch is determined by
the effective length of the neck and mouthpiece. I would guess that, for a
given frequency of sound, the effective length of the mouthpiece would
depend on some relationship between the wavelength of the sound and the
dimensions of the chamber at that point. At some point the cross section of
the air path determined by the mouthpiece and reed becomes so small compared
to the wavelength that the standing wave reflects at that point.
Thisis mostly speculation on my part, but the real question that I have is
why a small-chamber mouthpiece seems to be a problem on older horns but not
on more modern ones. Have there been substantial changes in neck design
(such as a different amount of taper) that would cause a mouthpiece to
couple differently? Are the necks on new horns just made longer to allow
for more pulling out?

Glenn

_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail

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.

--
Link to Paul's articles from Home page of "Sax on the Web":

http://www.saxontheweb.net

or directly to Paul's articles at:

http://www.saxontheweb.net/Coats/

Listen to Paul's MP3's at:

http://briefcase.yahoo.com/tenorman1952

and view photos.

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.

FROM: kwbradbury (Keith Bradbury)

SUBJECT: Re: volume of mpc chamber as related to intonation

Thanks, Toby, for citing a reference most of us have not seen.  But does
this phrase:

"In order that the horn modes be as nearly harmonic as possible..."

speak specifically to intonation or clarity in sound?



__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day
http://shopping.yahoo.com

FROM: mikeruhl (Mike Ruhl)

SUBJECT: Re: volume of mpc chamber as related to intonation

Funny, no mention of "air flow" or "turbulence" anywhere...

Just goes to show what a stroke of genius Berg Larsen's bullet chamber was.  
Thanks for that, Toby.

Mike

>From: "Toby" <kymarto@...>
>Reply-To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>To: <MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com>
>Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] volume of mpc chamber as related to 
>intonation
>Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 20:36:43 +0900
>
>It appears to be a bit more complex than just that the mpc volume should 
>mimic the volume of the truncated apex of the cone--that's only half of it. 
>. Here's a quote form "The Physics of Musical Instruments" by Fletcher and 
>Rossing:
>
>"While the saxophone has a single reed like the clarinet, the mouthpiece 
>effectively truncates the conical taper of the main bore and introduces 
>significant changes in tone color. In order that the horn modes be as 
>nearly harmonic as possible, it is desirable that the mouthpiece mimic the 
>acoustic behavior of the missing apex of the cone. This can be done at two 
>frequencies, and then fits reasonably well over the whole range. At low 
>frequencies, the matching is achieved if the internal volume of the 
>mouthpiece is equal to that of the missing conical apex, which requires 
>that the mouthpiece have a slightly bulbous internal shape so that it 
>acutally constitutes a sort of Helmholtz resonator. The high-frequency 
>match can then be achieved by arranging the shape of the constriction where 
>it joins the main part of the instrument so that the Helmholtz resonance 
>frequency of the mouthpiece is the same as the first resonance of the 
>missing conical apex, at which it is half a wavelength long."
>
>So actually it is not only the volume but the shape of the interiro of the 
>mpc--especially the dimensions at the throat--that determine the tuning, or 
>non-tuning...
>
>In addition it should be noted that a mismatch--meaning that the mpc volume 
>does not mimic that of the missing apex, only becomes significant when the 
>length of the truncation equals or exceeds 1/4 the wavelength of the note 
>being played. This clearly means that a "bad fit" will really only become 
>noticeable on notes near the top end of the tube. That might go some way in 
>explaining why it is always from B on up that generally seems so wild.
>
>My personal experience (possibly in contradistinction to that of Paul) 
>bears this out. I have, for instance, various alto mpcs, from some old 
>large-chambered pieces up through a Beechler with a monster baffle and 
>miniscule chamber. The notes at the lower end of the tube seem fine with 
>all of them; the parting of the ways definitely starts around A.
>
>Toby
>
>Toby
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Paul Coats
>   To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 6:02 AM
>   Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] volume of mpc chamber as related to 
>intonation
>
>
>   Actually both are correct... however in my experience, the volume, to 
>tune correctly for the low register, must be of the correct volume... that 
>is, when it tunes correctly in the low register, the volume past the end of 
>the neck pipe equals the volume of the missing cone section.  This includes 
>the chamber and the part of the bore behind the chamber up to the end of 
>the neckpipe.
>   HOWEVER, in the upper register, length also comes into play.
>
>   For example, if a mouthpiece with a very large chamber is placed on the 
>sax, to tune the middle C to concert Bb, for example, the mouthpiece will 
>have to be pushed on very far.  BUT, when press the octave key, the high C# 
>and higher notes go sharp as the mouthpiece is now too short for those 
>notes.
>
>   If you go to the opposite extreme, and make a "peashooter" mouthpiece, 
>filling in a lot of baffle, the mouthpiece must be pulled out very far.  
>The mouthpiece was pulled out to allow the chamber to equal the missing 
>part of the cone and tune to middle C.  You may think this is not so, but 
>measure the volume.  Sometimes the shank is too short to allow this.  Some 
>players solder more tubing to the end of the neck to attempt to make this 
>work.  Or a manufacturer will make the shank longer.  Now what happens, the 
>length is now too long, and high C and the palm key notes are flat, even 
>though middle C is in tune.
>
>   It is possible to get the correct volume, have a high baffle, and still 
>get it all to play in tune in all registers.
>
>   This experiment can easily be done with a single old mouthpiece.  Find 
>one that plays reasonably in tune in all registers, esp the palm keys.  
>Mark the cork where it plays in tune.
>
>   Now, hog out the chamber with the Dremel tool.  Make it huge!
>
>   Now you will notice you must push it on past the mark to make middle C 
>tune to concert Bb.
>
>   Fill the chamber back in with putty, clay, or wax.  Make it smaller than 
>it was to begin with... go overboard on filling it.  Now, where does it 
>tune up?  I will bet you pull out past the original mark.  What is the 
>intonation like up high?  Yes, they will tend to be flat, unless you bite 
>it up to pitch, and you run into problems with high notes choking off.
>
>   Don't guess, don't conjecture, don't theorize.  You can do this 
>experiment yourself.
>
>   Paul
>
>   Glenn Spiegel wrote:
>
>      I don't understand why the volume of the mouthpiece chamber should 
>determine
>     pitch.  It would seem more reasonable to assume that pitch is 
>determined by
>     the effective length of the neck and mouthpiece.  I would guess that, 
>for a
>     given frequency of sound, the effective length of the mouthpiece would
>     depend on some relationship between the wavelength of the sound and 
>the
>     dimensions of the chamber at that point.  At some point the cross 
>section of
>     the air path determined by the mouthpiece and reed becomes so small 
>compared
>     to the wavelength that the standing wave reflects at that point.
>     Thisis mostly speculation on my part, but the real question that I 
>have is
>     why a small-chamber mouthpiece seems to be a problem on older horns 
>but not
>     on more modern ones.  Have there been substantial changes in neck 
>design
>     (such as a different amount of taper) that would cause a mouthpiece to
>     couple differently?  Are the necks on new horns just made longer to 
>allow
>     for more pulling out?
>
>     Glenn
>
>     _________________________________________________________________
>     Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
>     http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
>
>
>     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.
>
>   --
>   Link to Paul's articles from Home page of "Sax on the Web":
>
>     http://www.saxontheweb.net
>
>   or directly to Paul's articles at:
>
>     http://www.saxontheweb.net/Coats/
>
>   Listen to Paul's MP3's at:
>
>                   http://briefcase.yahoo.com/tenorman1952
>
>   and view photos.
>
>   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.
>


_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

FROM: kymarto (Toby)

SUBJECT: Re: volume of mpc chamber as related to intonation

Hi Mike,

To me the whole argument is a bit like building a house. You can make the rooms fancy shapes, put in special windows, etc., but there are very definite physical laws relating to basic structure that need to be understood if you want your house to stand up. You don't put in enough load-bearing members in the right places and your special frills are all going to be on the ground. 

As I understand it the complexities of what happens in the mpc are not easy to model mathematically. Maybe some day there will be enough interest and funding for the acoustical scientists to due more detailed studies. But there are certain basic properties that have been well studied and need to be in place as the foundation for further exploration. Certainly there are considerations besides those which I mentioned. But try putting a bari BL with a nice bullet chamber on your soprano and tell me what you think of the response and tuning.

Toby
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Mike Ruhl 
  To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 10:55 PM
  Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] volume of mpc chamber as related to intonation


  Funny, no mention of "air flow" or "turbulence" anywhere...

  Just goes to show what a stroke of genius Berg Larsen's bullet chamber was.  
  Thanks for that, Toby.

  Mike

  >From: "Toby" <kymarto@...>
  >Reply-To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
  >To: <MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com>
  >Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] volume of mpc chamber as related to 
  >intonation
  >Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 20:36:43 +0900
  >
  >It appears to be a bit more complex than just that the mpc volume should 
  >mimic the volume of the truncated apex of the cone--that's only half of it. 
  >. Here's a quote form "The Physics of Musical Instruments" by Fletcher and 
  >Rossing:
  >
  >"While the saxophone has a single reed like the clarinet, the mouthpiece 
  >effectively truncates the conical taper of the main bore and introduces 
  >significant changes in tone color. In order that the horn modes be as 
  >nearly harmonic as possible, it is desirable that the mouthpiece mimic the 
  >acoustic behavior of the missing apex of the cone. This can be done at two 
  >frequencies, and then fits reasonably well over the whole range. At low 
  >frequencies, the matching is achieved if the internal volume of the 
  >mouthpiece is equal to that of the missing conical apex, which requires 
  >that the mouthpiece have a slightly bulbous internal shape so that it 
  >acutally constitutes a sort of Helmholtz resonator. The high-frequency 
  >match can then be achieved by arranging the shape of the constriction where 
  >it joins the main part of the instrument so that the Helmholtz resonance 
  >frequency of the mouthpiece is the same as the first resonance of the 
  >missing conical apex, at which it is half a wavelength long."
  >
  >So actually it is not only the volume but the shape of the interiro of the 
  >mpc--especially the dimensions at the throat--that determine the tuning, or 
  >non-tuning...
  >
  >In addition it should be noted that a mismatch--meaning that the mpc volume 
  >does not mimic that of the missing apex, only becomes significant when the 
  >length of the truncation equals or exceeds 1/4 the wavelength of the note 
  >being played. This clearly means that a "bad fit" will really only become 
  >noticeable on notes near the top end of the tube. That might go some way in 
  >explaining why it is always from B on up that generally seems so wild.
  >
  >My personal experience (possibly in contradistinction to that of Paul) 
  >bears this out. I have, for instance, various alto mpcs, from some old 
  >large-chambered pieces up through a Beechler with a monster baffle and 
  >miniscule chamber. The notes at the lower end of the tube seem fine with 
  >all of them; the parting of the ways definitely starts around A.
  >
  >Toby
  >
  >Toby
  >   ----- Original Message -----
  >   From: Paul Coats
  >   To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
  >   Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 6:02 AM
  >   Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] volume of mpc chamber as related to 
  >intonation
  >
  >
  >   Actually both are correct... however in my experience, the volume, to 
  >tune correctly for the low register, must be of the correct volume... that 
  >is, when it tunes correctly in the low register, the volume past the end of 
  >the neck pipe equals the volume of the missing cone section.  This includes 
  >the chamber and the part of the bore behind the chamber up to the end of 
  >the neckpipe.
  >   HOWEVER, in the upper register, length also comes into play.
  >
  >   For example, if a mouthpiece with a very large chamber is placed on the 
  >sax, to tune the middle C to concert Bb, for example, the mouthpiece will 
  >have to be pushed on very far.  BUT, when press the octave key, the high C# 
  >and higher notes go sharp as the mouthpiece is now too short for those 
  >notes.
  >
  >   If you go to the opposite extreme, and make a "peashooter" mouthpiece, 
  >filling in a lot of baffle, the mouthpiece must be pulled out very far.  
  >The mouthpiece was pulled out to allow the chamber to equal the missing 
  >part of the cone and tune to middle C.  You may think this is not so, but 
  >measure the volume.  Sometimes the shank is too short to allow this.  Some 
  >players solder more tubing to the end of the neck to attempt to make this 
  >work.  Or a manufacturer will make the shank longer.  Now what happens, the 
  >length is now too long, and high C and the palm key notes are flat, even 
  >though middle C is in tune.
  >
  >   It is possible to get the correct volume, have a high baffle, and still 
  >get it all to play in tune in all registers.
  >
  >   This experiment can easily be done with a single old mouthpiece.  Find 
  >one that plays reasonably in tune in all registers, esp the palm keys.  
  >Mark the cork where it plays in tune.
  >
  >   Now, hog out the chamber with the Dremel tool.  Make it huge!
  >
  >   Now you will notice you must push it on past the mark to make middle C 
  >tune to concert Bb.
  >
  >   Fill the chamber back in with putty, clay, or wax.  Make it smaller than 
  >it was to begin with... go overboard on filling it.  Now, where does it 
  >tune up?  I will bet you pull out past the original mark.  What is the 
  >intonation like up high?  Yes, they will tend to be flat, unless you bite 
  >it up to pitch, and you run into problems with high notes choking off.
  >
  >   Don't guess, don't conjecture, don't theorize.  You can do this 
  >experiment yourself.
  >
  >   Paul
  >
  >   Glenn Spiegel wrote:
  >
  >      I don't understand why the volume of the mouthpiece chamber should 
  >determine
  >     pitch.  It would seem more reasonable to assume that pitch is 
  >determined by
  >     the effective length of the neck and mouthpiece.  I would guess that, 
  >for a
  >     given frequency of sound, the effective length of the mouthpiece would
  >     depend on some relationship between the wavelength of the sound and 
  >the
  >     dimensions of the chamber at that point.  At some point the cross 
  >section of
  >     the air path determined by the mouthpiece and reed becomes so small 
  >compared
  >     to the wavelength that the standing wave reflects at that point.
  >     Thisis mostly speculation on my part, but the real question that I 
  >have is
  >     why a small-chamber mouthpiece seems to be a problem on older horns 
  >but not
  >     on more modern ones.  Have there been substantial changes in neck 
  >design
  >     (such as a different amount of taper) that would cause a mouthpiece to
  >     couple differently?  Are the necks on new horns just made longer to 
  >allow
  >     for more pulling out?
  >
  >     Glenn
  >
  >     _________________________________________________________________
  >     Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
  >     http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
  >
  >
  >     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.
  >
  >   --
  >   Link to Paul's articles from Home page of "Sax on the Web":
  >
  >     http://www.saxontheweb.net
  >
  >   or directly to Paul's articles at:
  >
  >     http://www.saxontheweb.net/Coats/
  >
  >   Listen to Paul's MP3's at:
  >
  >                   http://briefcase.yahoo.com/tenorman1952
  >
  >   and view photos.
  >
  >   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.
  >


  _________________________________________________________________
  Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*  
  http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail


  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.

FROM: kymarto (Toby)

SUBJECT: Re: volume of mpc chamber as related to intonation

That's an excellent question Keith, and I don't know enough about the subject to answer it. My guess is that it would affect both considerations depending on the note being played.

I do know from building shakuhachi flutes that any deviation from a cylinder with to some extent affect the octaves. A couple of flutes I built had a difference of as much as two semitones when the octave was overblown until the bore shape was corrected, but this was in the area of the flute that would correspond to the neck and upper tube on the sax, so that doesn't correlate exactly to a discussion of mpcs.

My guess is that this line: "While the saxophone has a single reed like the clarinet, the mouthpiece effectively truncates the conical taper of the main bore and introduces significant changes in tone color...." indicates that the authors are speaking primarily of "clarity of sound" in this case (and response) rather than intonation per se. I didn't give the whole quote but you might find it interesting and I will post it later.

The part about the tuning effects only being significant when the wavelength of the air colum is equal to or longer than 4x the length of the truncation comes from Nederveen, and has a lot of fancy math to back it up. In this case we are definitely talking about intonation.

Toby

----- Original Message -----
From: Keith Bradbury
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 10:31 PM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] volume of mpc chamber as related to intonation

Thanks, Toby, for citing a reference most of us have not seen. But does
this phrase:

"In order that the horn modes be as nearly harmonic as possible..."

speak specifically to intonation or clarity in sound?

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day
http://shopping.yahoo.com

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.

FROM: mikeruhl (Mike Ruhl)

SUBJECT: Re: volume of mpc chamber as related to intonation

Hi Toby,

I think you misunderstood me.  I was trying to thank you for what you posted 
from Fletcher and Rossing's work.  I was not familiar with it, and was 
impressed with how well it was written.  I've added it to my "must read" 
list.

"Air flow" is just one of my pretty well-documented pet peeves.  It seems 
that some folks can't make the distinction between the movement of air as a 
result of the player blowing into the mpc, and the vibration of the air 
column.  Some mpc manufacturers perpetuate this misconception with their 
deceptive advertising, and it gripes me no end.  As Mojo once said, "Air 
flow is irrelevant beyond the tip of the reed.  After that, it's all about 
sound waves bouncing around in 3D".

And my reference to the Berg Larsen bullet chamber was sincere.  I'm no 
acoustical engineer, but it's fairly obvious to me that the bullet chamber 
was born of a keen, intuitive grasp of the acoustics of the sax mouthpiece 
chamber.  I've read that, back in the day, players recognized that the best 
Bergs were the ones Old Man Larsen set up himself.  It seems to me that the 
bullet chamber, moreso than any other chamber design, needs to be "dialed 
in" just right to maximize its potential.

I appreciate those of you who have devoted time to studying the vagaries of 
all this.

Mike


>From: "Toby" <kymarto@...>
>Reply-To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>To: <MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com>
>Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] volume of mpc chamber as related to 
>intonation
>Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 10:43:04 +0900
>
>Hi Mike,
>
>To me the whole argument is a bit like building a house. You can make the 
>rooms fancy shapes, put in special windows, etc., but there are very 
>definite physical laws relating to basic structure that need to be 
>understood if you want your house to stand up. You don't put in enough 
>load-bearing members in the right places and your special frills are all 
>going to be on the ground.
>
>As I understand it the complexities of what happens in the mpc are not easy 
>to model mathematically. Maybe some day there will be enough interest and 
>funding for the acoustical scientists to due more detailed studies. But 
>there are certain basic properties that have been well studied and need to 
>be in place as the foundation for further exploration. Certainly there are 
>considerations besides those which I mentioned. But try putting a bari BL 
>with a nice bullet chamber on your soprano and tell me what you think of 
>the response and tuning.
>
>Toby
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Mike Ruhl
>   To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 10:55 PM
>   Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] volume of mpc chamber as related to 
>intonation
>
>
>   Funny, no mention of "air flow" or "turbulence" anywhere...
>
>   Just goes to show what a stroke of genius Berg Larsen's bullet chamber 
>was.
>   Thanks for that, Toby.
>
>   Mike
>
>   >From: "Toby" <kymarto@...>
>   >Reply-To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>   >To: <MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com>
>   >Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] volume of mpc chamber as related to
>   >intonation
>   >Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 20:36:43 +0900
>   >
>   >It appears to be a bit more complex than just that the mpc volume 
>should
>   >mimic the volume of the truncated apex of the cone--that's only half of 
>it.
>   >. Here's a quote form "The Physics of Musical Instruments" by Fletcher 
>and
>   >Rossing:
>   >
>   >"While the saxophone has a single reed like the clarinet, the 
>mouthpiece
>   >effectively truncates the conical taper of the main bore and introduces
>   >significant changes in tone color. In order that the horn modes be as
>   >nearly harmonic as possible, it is desirable that the mouthpiece mimic 
>the
>   >acoustic behavior of the missing apex of the cone. This can be done at 
>two
>   >frequencies, and then fits reasonably well over the whole range. At low
>   >frequencies, the matching is achieved if the internal volume of the
>   >mouthpiece is equal to that of the missing conical apex, which requires
>   >that the mouthpiece have a slightly bulbous internal shape so that it
>   >acutally constitutes a sort of Helmholtz resonator. The high-frequency
>   >match can then be achieved by arranging the shape of the constriction 
>where
>   >it joins the main part of the instrument so that the Helmholtz 
>resonance
>   >frequency of the mouthpiece is the same as the first resonance of the
>   >missing conical apex, at which it is half a wavelength long."
>   >
>   >So actually it is not only the volume but the shape of the interiro of 
>the
>   >mpc--especially the dimensions at the throat--that determine the 
>tuning, or
>   >non-tuning...
>   >
>   >In addition it should be noted that a mismatch--meaning that the mpc 
>volume
>   >does not mimic that of the missing apex, only becomes significant when 
>the
>   >length of the truncation equals or exceeds 1/4 the wavelength of the 
>note
>   >being played. This clearly means that a "bad fit" will really only 
>become
>   >noticeable on notes near the top end of the tube. That might go some 
>way in
>   >explaining why it is always from B on up that generally seems so wild.
>   >
>   >My personal experience (possibly in contradistinction to that of Paul)
>   >bears this out. I have, for instance, various alto mpcs, from some old
>   >large-chambered pieces up through a Beechler with a monster baffle and
>   >miniscule chamber. The notes at the lower end of the tube seem fine 
>with
>   >all of them; the parting of the ways definitely starts around A.
>   >
>   >Toby
>   >
>   >Toby
>   >   ----- Original Message -----
>   >   From: Paul Coats
>   >   To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>   >   Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 6:02 AM
>   >   Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] volume of mpc chamber as related to
>   >intonation
>   >
>   >
>   >   Actually both are correct... however in my experience, the volume, 
>to
>   >tune correctly for the low register, must be of the correct volume... 
>that
>   >is, when it tunes correctly in the low register, the volume past the 
>end of
>   >the neck pipe equals the volume of the missing cone section.  This 
>includes
>   >the chamber and the part of the bore behind the chamber up to the end 
>of
>   >the neckpipe.
>   >   HOWEVER, in the upper register, length also comes into play.
>   >
>   >   For example, if a mouthpiece with a very large chamber is placed on 
>the
>   >sax, to tune the middle C to concert Bb, for example, the mouthpiece 
>will
>   >have to be pushed on very far.  BUT, when press the octave key, the 
>high C#
>   >and higher notes go sharp as the mouthpiece is now too short for those
>   >notes.
>   >
>   >   If you go to the opposite extreme, and make a "peashooter" 
>mouthpiece,
>   >filling in a lot of baffle, the mouthpiece must be pulled out very far.
>   >The mouthpiece was pulled out to allow the chamber to equal the missing
>   >part of the cone and tune to middle C.  You may think this is not so, 
>but
>   >measure the volume.  Sometimes the shank is too short to allow this.  
>Some
>   >players solder more tubing to the end of the neck to attempt to make 
>this
>   >work.  Or a manufacturer will make the shank longer.  Now what happens, 
>the
>   >length is now too long, and high C and the palm key notes are flat, 
>even
>   >though middle C is in tune.
>   >
>   >   It is possible to get the correct volume, have a high baffle, and 
>still
>   >get it all to play in tune in all registers.
>   >
>   >   This experiment can easily be done with a single old mouthpiece.  
>Find
>   >one that plays reasonably in tune in all registers, esp the palm keys.
>   >Mark the cork where it plays in tune.
>   >
>   >   Now, hog out the chamber with the Dremel tool.  Make it huge!
>   >
>   >   Now you will notice you must push it on past the mark to make middle 
>C
>   >tune to concert Bb.
>   >
>   >   Fill the chamber back in with putty, clay, or wax.  Make it smaller 
>than
>   >it was to begin with... go overboard on filling it.  Now, where does it
>   >tune up?  I will bet you pull out past the original mark.  What is the
>   >intonation like up high?  Yes, they will tend to be flat, unless you 
>bite
>   >it up to pitch, and you run into problems with high notes choking off.
>   >
>   >   Don't guess, don't conjecture, don't theorize.  You can do this
>   >experiment yourself.
>   >
>   >   Paul
>   >
>   >   Glenn Spiegel wrote:
>   >
>   >      I don't understand why the volume of the mouthpiece chamber 
>should
>   >determine
>   >     pitch.  It would seem more reasonable to assume that pitch is
>   >determined by
>   >     the effective length of the neck and mouthpiece.  I would guess 
>that,
>   >for a
>   >     given frequency of sound, the effective length of the mouthpiece 
>would
>   >     depend on some relationship between the wavelength of the sound 
>and
>   >the
>   >     dimensions of the chamber at that point.  At some point the cross
>   >section of
>   >     the air path determined by the mouthpiece and reed becomes so 
>small
>   >compared
>   >     to the wavelength that the standing wave reflects at that point.
>   >     Thisis mostly speculation on my part, but the real question that I
>   >have is
>   >     why a small-chamber mouthpiece seems to be a problem on older 
>horns
>   >but not
>   >     on more modern ones.  Have there been substantial changes in neck
>   >design
>   >     (such as a different amount of taper) that would cause a 
>mouthpiece to
>   >     couple differently?  Are the necks on new horns just made longer 
>to
>   >allow
>   >     for more pulling out?
>   >
>   >     Glenn
>   >
>   >     _________________________________________________________________
>   >     Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
>   >     http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
>   >
>   >
>   >     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.
>   >
>   >   --
>   >   Link to Paul's articles from Home page of "Sax on the Web":
>   >
>   >     http://www.saxontheweb.net
>   >
>   >   or directly to Paul's articles at:
>   >
>   >     http://www.saxontheweb.net/Coats/
>   >
>   >   Listen to Paul's MP3's at:
>   >
>   >                   http://briefcase.yahoo.com/tenorman1952
>   >
>   >   and view photos.
>   >
>   >   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.
>   >
>
>
>   _________________________________________________________________
>   Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
>   http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
>
>
>   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.


_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

FROM: kymarto (Toby)

SUBJECT: Re: volume of mpc chamber as related to intonation

Hi Mike,

My sincere apologies for thinking you were being sarcastic. I shouldn't jump to conclusions.

I also love the bullet chamber. I have an ancient BL hard rubber sop piece that made me get rid of all my other sop mpcs. None of them could hold a candle to it. I find BLs to have great presence and projection without being overly shrill or bright. Just the sound I like.

I bought an old stainless BL tenor piece in bad shape and remade the tip--took off about 2 mm where there was a humongous dent, recut the baffle at the tip rail and at the same time I decided to see what would happen if I rounded the edges of the bullet chamber and extended and smoothed the cut up into the baffle. I was thinking that any edge is going to cause some turbulence, and perhaps I would get better "coupling" if I eliminated any areas of rapid geometrical change.

It did alter the sound--it is smoother and rounder now, but it lost a bit of the airy edge that characterizes the BL. I'm not unhappy with the sound and the response is good but I'm not sure I would do it again.

After pondering the Fletcher and Rossing quote I am thinking about playing with the chamber volume to see how that affects tone and response as compared to the baffle. For all my fancy reading I am basically an empirical guy, and I've ruined more than one mouthpiece with my "experiments".

Fun to play though.

Toby




  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Mike Ruhl 
  To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 9:56 PM
  Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] volume of mpc chamber as related to intonation


  Hi Toby,

  I think you misunderstood me.  I was trying to thank you for what you posted 
  from Fletcher and Rossing's work.  I was not familiar with it, and was 
  impressed with how well it was written.  I've added it to my "must read" 
  list.

  "Air flow" is just one of my pretty well-documented pet peeves.  It seems 
  that some folks can't make the distinction between the movement of air as a 
  result of the player blowing into the mpc, and the vibration of the air 
  column.  Some mpc manufacturers perpetuate this misconception with their 
  deceptive advertising, and it gripes me no end.  As Mojo once said, "Air 
  flow is irrelevant beyond the tip of the reed.  After that, it's all about 
  sound waves bouncing around in 3D".

  And my reference to the Berg Larsen bullet chamber was sincere.  I'm no 
  acoustical engineer, but it's fairly obvious to me that the bullet chamber 
  was born of a keen, intuitive grasp of the acoustics of the sax mouthpiece 
  chamber.  I've read that, back in the day, players recognized that the best 
  Bergs were the ones Old Man Larsen set up himself.  It seems to me that the 
  bullet chamber, moreso than any other chamber design, needs to be "dialed 
  in" just right to maximize its potential.

  I appreciate those of you who have devoted time to studying the vagaries of 
  all this.

  Mike


  >From: "Toby" <kymarto@....ne.jp>
  >Reply-To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
  >To: <MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com>
  >Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] volume of mpc chamber as related to 
  >intonation
  >Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 10:43:04 +0900
  >
  >Hi Mike,
  >
  >To me the whole argument is a bit like building a house. You can make the 
  >rooms fancy shapes, put in special windows, etc., but there are very 
  >definite physical laws relating to basic structure that need to be 
  >understood if you want your house to stand up. You don't put in enough 
  >load-bearing members in the right places and your special frills are all 
  >going to be on the ground.
  >
  >As I understand it the complexities of what happens in the mpc are not easy 
  >to model mathematically. Maybe some day there will be enough interest and 
  >funding for the acoustical scientists to due more detailed studies. But 
  >there are certain basic properties that have been well studied and need to 
  >be in place as the foundation for further exploration. Certainly there are 
  >considerations besides those which I mentioned. But try putting a bari BL 
  >with a nice bullet chamber on your soprano and tell me what you think of 
  >the response and tuning.
  >
  >Toby
  >   ----- Original Message -----
  >   From: Mike Ruhl
  >   To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
  >   Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 10:55 PM
  >   Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] volume of mpc chamber as related to 
  >intonation
  >
  >
  >   Funny, no mention of "air flow" or "turbulence" anywhere...
  >
  >   Just goes to show what a stroke of genius Berg Larsen's bullet chamber 
  >was.
  >   Thanks for that, Toby.
  >
  >   Mike
  >
  >   >From: "Toby" <kymarto@...>
  >   >Reply-To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
  >   >To: <MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com>
  >   >Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] volume of mpc chamber as related to
  >   >intonation
  >   >Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 20:36:43 +0900
  >   >
  >   >It appears to be a bit more complex than just that the mpc volume 
  >should
  >   >mimic the volume of the truncated apex of the cone--that's only half of 
  >it.
  >   >. Here's a quote form "The Physics of Musical Instruments" by Fletcher 
  >and
  >   >Rossing:
  >   >
  >   >"While the saxophone has a single reed like the clarinet, the 
  >mouthpiece
  >   >effectively truncates the conical taper of the main bore and introduces
  >   >significant changes in tone color. In order that the horn modes be as
  >   >nearly harmonic as possible, it is desirable that the mouthpiece mimic 
  >the
  >   >acoustic behavior of the missing apex of the cone. This can be done at 
  >two
  >   >frequencies, and then fits reasonably well over the whole range. At low
  >   >frequencies, the matching is achieved if the internal volume of the
  >   >mouthpiece is equal to that of the missing conical apex, which requires
  >   >that the mouthpiece have a slightly bulbous internal shape so that it
  >   >acutally constitutes a sort of Helmholtz resonator. The high-frequency
  >   >match can then be achieved by arranging the shape of the constriction 
  >where
  >   >it joins the main part of the instrument so that the Helmholtz 
  >resonance
  >   >frequency of the mouthpiece is the same as the first resonance of the
  >   >missing conical apex, at which it is half a wavelength long."
  >   >
  >   >So actually it is not only the volume but the shape of the interiro of 
  >the
  >   >mpc--especially the dimensions at the throat--that determine the 
  >tuning, or
  >   >non-tuning...
  >   >
  >   >In addition it should be noted that a mismatch--meaning that the mpc 
  >volume
  >   >does not mimic that of the missing apex, only becomes significant when 
  >the
  >   >length of the truncation equals or exceeds 1/4 the wavelength of the 
  >note
  >   >being played. This clearly means that a "bad fit" will really only 
  >become
  >   >noticeable on notes near the top end of the tube. That might go some 
  >way in
  >   >explaining why it is always from B on up that generally seems so wild.
  >   >
  >   >My personal experience (possibly in contradistinction to that of Paul)
  >   >bears this out. I have, for instance, various alto mpcs, from some old
  >   >large-chambered pieces up through a Beechler with a monster baffle and
  >   >miniscule chamber. The notes at the lower end of the tube seem fine 
  >with
  >   >all of them; the parting of the ways definitely starts around A.
  >   >
  >   >Toby
  >   >
  >   >Toby
  >   >   ----- Original Message -----
  >   >   From: Paul Coats
  >   >   To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
  >   >   Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 6:02 AM
  >   >   Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] volume of mpc chamber as related to
  >   >intonation
  >   >
  >   >
  >   >   Actually both are correct... however in my experience, the volume, 
  >to
  >   >tune correctly for the low register, must be of the correct volume... 
  >that
  >   >is, when it tunes correctly in the low register, the volume past the 
  >end of
  >   >the neck pipe equals the volume of the missing cone section.  This 
  >includes
  >   >the chamber and the part of the bore behind the chamber up to the end 
  >of
  >   >the neckpipe.
  >   >   HOWEVER, in the upper register, length also comes into play.
  >   >
  >   >   For example, if a mouthpiece with a very large chamber is placed on 
  >the
  >   >sax, to tune the middle C to concert Bb, for example, the mouthpiece 
  >will
  >   >have to be pushed on very far.  BUT, when press the octave key, the 
  >high C#
  >   >and higher notes go sharp as the mouthpiece is now too short for those
  >   >notes.
  >   >
  >   >   If you go to the opposite extreme, and make a "peashooter" 
  >mouthpiece,
  >   >filling in a lot of baffle, the mouthpiece must be pulled out very far.
  >   >The mouthpiece was pulled out to allow the chamber to equal the missing
  >   >part of the cone and tune to middle C.  You may think this is not so, 
  >but
  >   >measure the volume.  Sometimes the shank is too short to allow this.  
  >Some
  >   >players solder more tubing to the end of the neck to attempt to make 
  >this
  >   >work.  Or a manufacturer will make the shank longer.  Now what happens, 
  >the
  >   >length is now too long, and high C and the palm key notes are flat, 
  >even
  >   >though middle C is in tune.
  >   >
  >   >   It is possible to get the correct volume, have a high baffle, and 
  >still
  >   >get it all to play in tune in all registers.
  >   >
  >   >   This experiment can easily be done with a single old mouthpiece.  
  >Find
  >   >one that plays reasonably in tune in all registers, esp the palm keys.
  >   >Mark the cork where it plays in tune.
  >   >
  >   >   Now, hog out the chamber with the Dremel tool.  Make it huge!
  >   >
  >   >   Now you will notice you must push it on past the mark to make middle 
  >C
  >   >tune to concert Bb.
  >   >
  >   >   Fill the chamber back in with putty, clay, or wax.  Make it smaller 
  >than
  >   >it was to begin with... go overboard on filling it.  Now, where does it
  >   >tune up?  I will bet you pull out past the original mark.  What is the
  >   >intonation like up high?  Yes, they will tend to be flat, unless you 
  >bite
  >   >it up to pitch, and you run into problems with high notes choking off.
  >   >
  >   >   Don't guess, don't conjecture, don't theorize.  You can do this
  >   >experiment yourself.
  >   >
  >   >   Paul
  >   >
  >   >   Glenn Spiegel wrote:
  >   >
  >   >      I don't understand why the volume of the mouthpiece chamber 
  >should
  >   >determine
  >   >     pitch.  It would seem more reasonable to assume that pitch is
  >   >determined by
  >   >     the effective length of the neck and mouthpiece.  I would guess 
  >that,
  >   >for a
  >   >     given frequency of sound, the effective length of the mouthpiece 
  >would
  >   >     depend on some relationship between the wavelength of the sound 
  >and
  >   >the
  >   >     dimensions of the chamber at that point.  At some point the cross
  >   >section of
  >   >     the air path determined by the mouthpiece and reed becomes so 
  >small
  >   >compared
  >   >     to the wavelength that the standing wave reflects at that point.
  >   >     Thisis mostly speculation on my part, but the real question that I
  >   >have is
  >   >     why a small-chamber mouthpiece seems to be a problem on older 
  >horns
  >   >but not
  >   >     on more modern ones.  Have there been substantial changes in neck
  >   >design
  >   >     (such as a different amount of taper) that would cause a 
  >mouthpiece to
  >   >     couple differently?  Are the necks on new horns just made longer 
  >to
  >   >allow
  >   >     for more pulling out?
  >   >
  >   >     Glenn
  >   >
  >   >     _________________________________________________________________
  >   >     Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
  >   >     http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
  >   >
  >   >
  >   >     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.
  >   >
  >   >   --
  >   >   Link to Paul's articles from Home page of "Sax on the Web":
  >   >
  >   >     http://www.saxontheweb.net
  >   >
  >   >   or directly to Paul's articles at:
  >   >
  >   >     http://www.saxontheweb.net/Coats/
  >   >
  >   >   Listen to Paul's MP3's at:
  >   >
  >   >                   http://briefcase.yahoo.com/tenorman1952
  >   >
  >   >   and view photos.
  >   >
  >   >   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.
  >   >
  >
  >
  >   _________________________________________________________________
  >   Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
  >   http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
  >
  >
  >   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.


  _________________________________________________________________
  The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*  
  http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail


  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.

FROM: kwbradbury (Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...>)

SUBJECT: Re: volume of mpc chamber as related to intonation

>>>For all my fancy reading I am basically an empirical guy...<<<

I love theoretical science.  Great discoveries come from trying to 
understand the basic physics of any process.

"Trying" is a key word.  I have observed that some of the greatest 
mouthpiece designs were inspired by mis-applied physics.  Hey, a win 
is a win.  Like Mike alluded to, a lot of mouthpiece shapes have been 
developed to "reduce turbulence" and do other aerodynamic things.  
You wont find anything in the literature about the importance of 
this, because it really isn't.  (Maybe a little for air noise up 
close).

Even the basic physics of matching the volume of the missing part of 
the cone does not work consistently well for me.  I have tested 
several mouthpieces on several saxes and the volumes I get, when 
tuned, are in the ball park, but differ by more than a few percent 
either way.

Emperical is the way to go.  It is a lot easier to make up a bunch of 
test mouthpieces than it is to theoretically design one.  You need to 
test your ideas anyhow.  I think the state-of-the-art will be this 
way for a long, long time.

The volume-length relationship for tuning Paul has described can be 
explained theoretically, and anyone can test them for themselves.

FROM: killer_sax (killer_sax <Effective_websites@hotmail.c)

SUBJECT: Re: volume of mpc chamber as related to intonation

Thank you for bringing in additional research.  

If we're talking about 1/4 wavelength, though, that's a lot.  On the 
bari, a high f is roughly 420hz, making its wavelength about 2.5 
feet! I'd estimate that the imaginary cone from the neck would add 
about a foot to the length of the neckpipe, so even if I'm off on the 
numbers, you'd be in the high altissimo before you reached the 
quarter wave threshold.

Glenn

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "Toby" <kymarto@y...> wrote:
> 
> In addition it should be noted that a mismatch--meaning that the 
mpc volume does not mimic that of the missing apex, only becomes 
significant when the length of the truncation equals or exceeds 1/4 
the wavelength of the note being played. This clearly means that 
a "bad fit" will really only become noticeable on notes near the top 
end of the tube. That might go some way in explaining why it is 
always from B on up that generally seems so wild. 
> 
> My personal experience (possibly in contradistinction to that of 
Paul) bears this out. I have, for instance, various alto mpcs, from 
some old large-chambered pieces up through a Beechler with a monster 
baffle and miniscule chamber. The notes at the lower end of the tube 
seem fine with all of them; the parting of the ways definitely starts 
around A.
> 
.

FROM: kymarto (Toby)

SUBJECT: Re: volume of mpc chamber as related to intonation

Hi Glenn,

I never tried to fill in the numbers, but I think you got it backwards. Taking your numbers the mismatch would begin to affect any notes whose wavelengths were 4x the truncation--four feet. Your high F would fall well within that at 2.5 feet.

Toby

----- Original Message ----- 
  From: killer_sax <Effective_websites@...> 
  To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2003 1:07 AM
  Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: volume of mpc chamber as related to intonation

  Thank you for bringing in additional research.  

  If we're talking about 1/4 wavelength, though, that's a lot.  On the 
  bari, a high f is roughly 420hz, making its wavelength about 2.5 
  feet! I'd estimate that the imaginary cone from the neck would add 
  about a foot to the length of the neckpipe, so even if I'm off on the 
  numbers, you'd be in the high altissimo before you reached the 
  quarter wave threshold.

  Glenn

  --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "Toby" <kymarto@y...> wrote:
  > 
  > In addition it should be noted that a mismatch--meaning that the 
  mpc volume does not mimic that of the missing apex, only becomes 
  significant when the length of the truncation equals or exceeds 1/4 
  the wavelength of the note being played. This clearly means that 
  a "bad fit" will really only become noticeable on notes near the top 
  end of the tube. That might go some way in explaining why it is 
  always from B on up that generally seems so wild. 
  > 
  > My personal experience (possibly in contradistinction to that of 
  Paul) bears this out. I have, for instance, various alto mpcs, from 
  some old large-chambered pieces up through a Beechler with a monster 
  baffle and miniscule chamber. The notes at the lower end of the tube 
  seem fine with all of them; the parting of the ways definitely starts 
  around A.
  > 
  .

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

  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.

FROM: kymarto (Toby)

SUBJECT: Re: volume of mpc chamber as related to intonation

Hi Keith,

I agree with all this. First of all the science is not far nenough advanced to fill in anything but the broadest strokes. I do think the broad strokes are an important starting point, but past there begins the real art. I think there is something--call it intuition--where we "know" something that we can't quantify. Allowing that free reign is vital to any art, or to advance any science.

My personal opinion.

Toby
----- Original Message -----
From: Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 11:21 PM
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: volume of mpc chamber as related to intonation

>>>For all my fancy reading I am basically an empirical guy...<<<

I love theoretical science. Great discoveries come from trying to
understand the basic physics of any process.

"Trying" is a key word. I have observed that some of the greatest
mouthpiece designs were inspired by mis-applied physics. Hey, a win
is a win. Like Mike alluded to, a lot of mouthpiece shapes have been
developed to "reduce turbulence" and do other aerodynamic things.
You wont find anything in the literature about the importance of
this, because it really isn't. (Maybe a little for air noise up
close).

Even the basic physics of matching the volume of the missing part of
the cone does not work consistently well for me. I have tested
several mouthpieces on several saxes and the volumes I get, when
tuned, are in the ball park, but differ by more than a few percent
either way.

Emperical is the way to go. It is a lot easier to make up a bunch of
test mouthpieces than it is to theoretically design one. You need to
test your ideas anyhow. I think the state-of-the-art will be this
way for a long, long time.

The volume-length relationship for tuning Paul has described can be
explained theoretically, and anyone can test them for themselves.

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT

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.

FROM: mikeruhl (Mike Ruhl)

SUBJECT: Re: volume of mpc chamber as related to intonation

Hear, hear!  ;-)

Well said, Toby.

Have a great weekend, everyone.
Mike

----- Original Message -----
From: "Toby" <kymarto@...>
To: <MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 7:55 PM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: volume of mpc chamber as related to
intonation

Hi Keith,

I agree with all this. First of all the science is not far nenough advanced
to fill in anything but the broadest strokes. I do think the broad strokes
are an important starting point, but past there begins the real art. I think
there is something--call it intuition--where we "know" something that we
can't quantify. Allowing that free reign is vital to any art, or to advance
any science.

My personal opinion.

Toby
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...>
  To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 11:21 PM
  Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: volume of mpc chamber as related to
intonation

  >>>For all my fancy reading I am basically an empirical guy...<<<

  I love theoretical science.  Great discoveries come from trying to
  understand the basic physics of any process.

  "Trying" is a key word.  I have observed that some of the greatest
  mouthpiece designs were inspired by mis-applied physics.  Hey, a win
  is a win.  Like Mike alluded to, a lot of mouthpiece shapes have been
  developed to "reduce turbulence" and do other aerodynamic things.
  You wont find anything in the literature about the importance of
  this, because it really isn't.  (Maybe a little for air noise up
  close).

  Even the basic physics of matching the volume of the missing part of
  the cone does not work consistently well for me.  I have tested
  several mouthpieces on several saxes and the volumes I get, when
  tuned, are in the ball park, but differ by more than a few percent
  either way.

  Emperical is the way to go.  It is a lot easier to make up a bunch of
  test mouthpieces than it is to theoretically design one.  You need to
  test your ideas anyhow.  I think the state-of-the-art will be this
  way for a long, long time.

  The volume-length relationship for tuning Paul has described can be
  explained theoretically, and anyone can test them for themselves.

        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
              ADVERTISEMENT

  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.

FROM: tenorman1952 (Paul Coats)

SUBJECT: Re: volume of mpc chamber as related to intonation

>  At low frequencies, the matching is achieved if the internal volume
> of the mouthpiece is equal to that of the missing conical apex, which
> requires that the mouthpiece have a slightly bulbous internal shape so
> that it acutally constitutes a sort of Helmholtz resonator. The
> high-frequency match can then be achieved by arranging the shape of
> the constriction where it joins the main part of the instrument so
> that the Helmholtz resonance frequency of the mouthpiece is the same
> as the first resonance of the missing conical apex, at which it is
> half a wavelength long."
>
> I think this is what I said... hah!  Paul
>
>  This clearly means that a "bad fit" will really only become
> noticeable on notes near the top end of the tube.
>
> Again, what I said.  Paul

FROM: tenorman1952 (Paul Coats)

SUBJECT: Re: volume of mpc chamber as related to intonation

Actually, the air velocity is so low once past the first few mm's of
baffle that turbulence does not occur.  The air is vibrating as a
standing wave.  It just so happens that the air can only leak into the
bore with most woodwinds... except the flute.  Most of the air goes
across the embouchure hole, very little enters the bore of the flute.
At any rate, turbulence is not a problem... certainly those great big
tone hole chimneys would upset the air if airflow were a problem.

Paul

Mike Ruhl wrote:

>  Funny, no mention of "air flow" or "turbulence" anywhere...
>
> Just goes to show what a stroke of genius Berg Larsen's bullet chamber
> was.
> Thanks for that, Toby.
>
> Mike
>
> >From: "Toby" <kymarto@...>
> >Reply-To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> >To: <MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com>
> >Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] volume of mpc chamber as related to
> >intonation
> >Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 20:36:43 +0900
> >
> >It appears to be a bit more complex than just that the mpc volume
> should
> >mimic the volume of the truncated apex of the cone--that's only half
> of it.
> >. Here's a quote form "The Physics of Musical Instruments" by
> Fletcher and
> >Rossing:
> >
> >"While the saxophone has a single reed like the clarinet, the
> mouthpiece
> >effectively truncates the conical taper of the main bore and
> introduces
> >significant changes in tone color. In order that the horn modes be as
>
> >nearly harmonic as possible, it is desirable that the mouthpiece
> mimic the
> >acoustic behavior of the missing apex of the cone. This can be done
> at two
> >frequencies, and then fits reasonably well over the whole range. At
> low
> >frequencies, the matching is achieved if the internal volume of the
> >mouthpiece is equal to that of the missing conical apex, which
> requires
> >that the mouthpiece have a slightly bulbous internal shape so that it
>
> >acutally constitutes a sort of Helmholtz resonator. The
> high-frequency
> >match can then be achieved by arranging the shape of the constriction
> where
> >it joins the main part of the instrument so that the Helmholtz
> resonance
> >frequency of the mouthpiece is the same as the first resonance of the
>
> >missing conical apex, at which it is half a wavelength long."
> >
> >So actually it is not only the volume but the shape of the interiro
> of the
> >mpc--especially the dimensions at the throat--that determine the
> tuning, or
> >non-tuning...
> >
> >In addition it should be noted that a mismatch--meaning that the mpc
> volume
> >does not mimic that of the missing apex, only becomes significant
> when the
> >length of the truncation equals or exceeds 1/4 the wavelength of the
> note
> >being played. This clearly means that a "bad fit" will really only
> become
> >noticeable on notes near the top end of the tube. That might go some
> way in
> >explaining why it is always from B on up that generally seems so
> wild.
> >
> >My personal experience (possibly in contradistinction to that of
> Paul)
> >bears this out. I have, for instance, various alto mpcs, from some
> old
> >large-chambered pieces up through a Beechler with a monster baffle
> and
> >miniscule chamber. The notes at the lower end of the tube seem fine
> with
> >all of them; the parting of the ways definitely starts around A.
> >
> >Toby
> >
> >Toby
> >   ----- Original Message -----
> >   From: Paul Coats
> >   To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> >   Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 6:02 AM
> >   Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] volume of mpc chamber as related to
> >intonation
> >
> >
> >   Actually both are correct... however in my experience, the volume,
> to
> >tune correctly for the low register, must be of the correct volume...
> that
> >is, when it tunes correctly in the low register, the volume past the
> end of
> >the neck pipe equals the volume of the missing cone section.  This
> includes
> >the chamber and the part of the bore behind the chamber up to the end
> of
> >the neckpipe.
> >   HOWEVER, in the upper register, length also comes into play.
> >
> >   For example, if a mouthpiece with a very large chamber is placed
> on the
> >sax, to tune the middle C to concert Bb, for example, the mouthpiece
> will
> >have to be pushed on very far.  BUT, when press the octave key, the
> high C#
> >and higher notes go sharp as the mouthpiece is now too short for
> those
> >notes.
> >
> >   If you go to the opposite extreme, and make a "peashooter"
> mouthpiece,
> >filling in a lot of baffle, the mouthpiece must be pulled out very
> far.
> >The mouthpiece was pulled out to allow the chamber to equal the
> missing
> >part of the cone and tune to middle C.  You may think this is not so,
> but
> >measure the volume.  Sometimes the shank is too short to allow this.
> Some
> >players solder more tubing to the end of the neck to attempt to make
> this
> >work.  Or a manufacturer will make the shank longer.  Now what
> happens, the
> >length is now too long, and high C and the palm key notes are flat,
> even
> >though middle C is in tune.
> >
> >   It is possible to get the correct volume, have a high baffle, and
> still
> >get it all to play in tune in all registers.
> >
> >   This experiment can easily be done with a single old mouthpiece.
> Find
> >one that plays reasonably in tune in all registers, esp the palm
> keys.
> >Mark the cork where it plays in tune.
> >
> >   Now, hog out the chamber with the Dremel tool.  Make it huge!
> >
> >   Now you will notice you must push it on past the mark to make
> middle C
> >tune to concert Bb.
> >
> >   Fill the chamber back in with putty, clay, or wax.  Make it
> smaller than
> >it was to begin with... go overboard on filling it.  Now, where does
> it
> >tune up?  I will bet you pull out past the original mark.  What is
> the
> >intonation like up high?  Yes, they will tend to be flat, unless you
> bite
> >it up to pitch, and you run into problems with high notes choking
> off.
> >
> >   Don't guess, don't conjecture, don't theorize.  You can do this
> >experiment yourself.
> >
> >   Paul
> >
> >   Glenn Spiegel wrote:
> >
> >      I don't understand why the volume of the mouthpiece chamber
> should
> >determine
> >     pitch.  It would seem more reasonable to assume that pitch is
> >determined by
> >     the effective length of the neck and mouthpiece.  I would guess
> that,
> >for a
> >     given frequency of sound, the effective length of the mouthpiece
> would
> >     depend on some relationship between the wavelength of the sound
> and
> >the
> >     dimensions of the chamber at that point.  At some point the
> cross
> >section of
> >     the air path determined by the mouthpiece and reed becomes so
> small
> >compared
> >     to the wavelength that the standing wave reflects at that point.
>
> >     Thisis mostly speculation on my part, but the real question that
> I
> >have is
> >     why a small-chamber mouthpiece seems to be a problem on older
> horns
> >but not
> >     on more modern ones.  Have there been substantial changes in
> neck
> >design
> >     (such as a different amount of taper) that would cause a
> mouthpiece to
> >     couple differently?  Are the necks on new horns just made longer
> to
> >allow
> >     for more pulling out?
> >
> >     Glenn
> >
> >
> _________________________________________________________________
> >     Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
> >     http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
> >
> >
> >     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.
> >
> >   --
> >   Link to Paul's articles from Home page of "Sax on the Web":
> >
> >     http://www.saxontheweb.net
> >
> >   or directly to Paul's articles at:
> >
> >     http://www.saxontheweb.net/Coats/
> >
> >   Listen to Paul's MP3's at:
> >
> >                   http://briefcase.yahoo.com/tenorman1952
> >
> >   and view photos.
> >
> >   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.
> >
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
>
>
> 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.

--
Link to Paul's articles from Home page of "Sax on the Web":

  http://www.saxontheweb.net

or directly to Paul's articles at:

  http://www.saxontheweb.net/Coats/

Listen to Paul's MP3's at:

                http://briefcase.yahoo.com/tenorman1952

and view photos.

FROM: tenorman1952 (Paul Coats)

SUBJECT: Re: volume of mpc chamber as related to intonation

Cut and try (empirical) is certainly faster and easier.

Yes, the science is too far away from us... the problem is, it seems,
there are few musicians, instrument designers, and mouthpiece makers
with the science background needed, and few scientists (except Benade)
with the musical background and interest, to ever solve this.

But if you put a bunch of monkeys together with a bunch of typewriters,
given enough time, they will someday type the Encylopedia Brittanica...
or something like that.

So, let's keep monkeying around and we will figure it out.

Paul

Toby wrote:

> Hi Keith, I agree with all this. First of all the science is not far
> nenough advanced to fill in anything but the broadest strokes. I do
> think the broad strokes are an important starting point, but past
> there begins the real art. I think there is something--call it
> intuition--where we "know" something that we can't quantify. Allowing
> that free reign is vital to any art, or to advance any science. My
> personal opinion. Toby
>
>      ----- Original Message -----
>      From: Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...>
>      To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>      Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 11:21 PM
>      Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: volume of mpc chamber as
>      related to intonation
>       >>>For all my fancy reading I am basically an empirical
>      guy...<<<
>
>      I love theoretical science.  Great discoveries come from
>      trying to
>      understand the basic physics of any process.
>
>      "Trying" is a key word.  I have observed that some of the
>      greatest
>      mouthpiece designs were inspired by mis-applied physics.
>      Hey, a win
>      is a win.  Like Mike alluded to, a lot of mouthpiece shapes
>      have been
>      developed to "reduce turbulence" and do other aerodynamic
>      things.
>      You wont find anything in the literature about the
>      importance of
>      this, because it really isn't.  (Maybe a little for air
>      noise up
>      close).
>
>      Even the basic physics of matching the volume of the missing
>      part of
>      the cone does not work consistently well for me.  I have
>      tested
>      several mouthpieces on several saxes and the volumes I get,
>      when
>      tuned, are in the ball park, but differ by more than a few
>      percent
>      either way.
>
>      Emperical is the way to go.  It is a lot easier to make up a
>      bunch of
>      test mouthpieces than it is to theoretically design one.
>      You need to
>      test your ideas anyhow.  I think the state-of-the-art will
>      be this
>      way for a long, long time.
>
>      The volume-length relationship for tuning Paul has described
>      can be
>      explained theoretically, and anyone can test them for
>      themselves.
>
>
>
>
>
>      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.

--
Link to Paul's articles from Home page of "Sax on the Web":

  http://www.saxontheweb.net

or directly to Paul's articles at:

  http://www.saxontheweb.net/Coats/

Listen to Paul's MP3's at:

                http://briefcase.yahoo.com/tenorman1952

and view photos.

FROM: kymarto (Toby)

SUBJECT: Re: volume of mpc chamber as related to intonation

Actually Paul there are quite a few scientist/musicians--Backus, Nederveen, Coltman--all play(ed) decently well. I think the real problem is exploring the nuances in some orderly, scientific manner. The first-order approximations are easy, then it gets tougher and tougher. Nothing a little infusion of money couldn't solve, but this ain't weapons research. Who is gonna pay? The instrument makers are selling horns and no one seems to be complaining (much). There are no great untapped markets. So we dawdle along...

I personally believe that research has a lot to offer us musicians/techs. When we work empirically it is almost a black art--we are unconsciously juggling lots of factors without controls until we come up with something that works. If we had more knowledge of what does what we could apply our art from a higher baseline and with more consistent results. I have some scientific background and I am not allergic to numbers and theory, but I know that they will never be enough. As long as we are free to depart from there they provide a valuable platform from which to work and can save us lots of time.

Empiricism is great but it is slow and there is lots of extra effort involved. Science is like a labor-saving device--does the drudge work so we can get on with using our skills where they count.

Toby
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Coats
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2003 2:52 AM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: volume of mpc chamber as related to intonation

Cut and try (empirical) is certainly faster and easier.
Yes, the science is too far away from us... the problem is, it seems, there are few musicians, instrument designers, and mouthpiece makers with the science background needed, and few scientists (except Benade) with the musical background and interest, to ever solve this.

But if you put a bunch of monkeys together with a bunch of typewriters, given enough time, they will someday type the Encylopedia Brittanica... or something like that.

So, let's keep monkeying around and we will figure it out.

Paul

Toby wrote:

Hi Keith, I agree with all this. First of all the science is not far nenough advanced to fill in anything but the broadest strokes. I do think the broad strokes are an important starting point, but past there begins the real art. I think there is something--call it intuition--where we "know" something that we can't quantify. Allowing that free reign is vital to any art, or to advance any science. My personal opinion. Toby
----- Original Message -----
From: Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 11:21 PM
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: volume of mpc chamber as related to intonation
>>>For all my fancy reading I am basically an empirical guy...<<<
I love theoretical science. Great discoveries come from trying to
understand the basic physics of any process.