I've had a blast working with this Rico Graftonite soprano piece. 
Now, I'm trying to see how close I can get it to the sound of the 
Dukoff D8. The Dukoff's have a distinctive buzz that I haven't seen 
in any other mouthpiece. Is there one particular feature that gives 
the Dukoff that sound? I figured it was a combination of the baffle 
(rollover into elongated step baffle) and the bullet chamber that 
gave it its sound. 

Last night, I tried putting a rolover baffle on the Rico. Not an easy 
feat but I think I'm there. Its got a good buzz but not as pronounced 
as the Dukoff.  The highest part of my baffle is about 2.5mm behind 
the tip - I couldn't get it any closer without it interfering with 
the reed. When I looked at the Dukoff again, it didn't really seem to 
have a rollover baffle but the baffle is very close to the reed for 
about 2mm behind the tip. As a matter of fact, the tip rail isn't 
very well defined because it blends in with the baffle. Is this 
typical of all recent Dukoff D-series mouthpieces?

I think I've done a good job at duplicating the chamber, ramp and 
main part of the baffle. All have dimensions very close to the 
Dukoff. It is the tip that seems very hard to do.   

This is the third Dukoff that I tried and I do have trouble with the 
occasional reed chirp that I don't get with other mouthpieces. I 
tried two other Dukoffs that were much worse with the chirping 
(unplayable) and the folks who sold them to me took them back. Is it 
possible that that this one has a defect as well?

Last of all, what qualities in a ligature do I look for? I've had 
trouble with ligatures in the past and so I've always stuck a thin 
rubber pad in between the lig and the reed to help balance out the 
pressure applied to the reed. Right now, I don't even use a real 
ligature but am using cold shrink wrap tape to hold the reed in 
place. I wash the mouthpiece out with the reed on it after I play and 
leave the reed on it all the time. This works amazingly better than 
the ligs that came with my mouthpieces. It makes it difficult to 
change out reeds but I'm heading towards synthetic reeds anyway. What 
do you think of using the shrink wrap?

Thanks for tollerating new old newbie's questions!

Now that I think about the chirps, I seem to only have
trouble when I'm using the stock ligature. Could the
lig cause the chirping?

There are several factors that cause chirping.  First, if there is a lot of
resistance in the piece, this causes the player to build up a lot more
pressure to get the reed to speak.  The additional pressure is fuel for
generating chirps.  Making a piece more free blowing reduces the need to
force it to make it play.  Related to this is uneveness in the tip rail and
where the side rails meet the tip rail.  This adds resistance and a place
for the reed to vibrate at those high chirp frequencies.  High roll-over
baffles near the tip rail are also prone to chirps.  Relieving just a
little off the baffle near the tip rail can do wonders here.

I have not seen and Dukoff sopranos, but they probably vary a lot like the
tenors do.  The Tenor Dukoff Ds do not typically have a high roll-over
baffle.  They just have the step baffle or dual-action wedge.

A ligature that allows the reed to respond quickly might help reduce
chirps.  Again, less pressure needed to drive the reed.  If your piece is
very sensitive to ligature placement, this could be an indication that the
table has a high spot.      

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
http://platinum.yahoo.com

Just a note to add to what Keith says. Apparently chirps and squeaks are caused by the reed twisting around its longitudinal axis. You want the reed to move up and down as a unit and stay parallel to the tip rail. In addition to what Keith mentioned, uneven side rails tend to impart a twist to the reed as it rolls along them to close the tip. This increases the chance that the reed will go into a flexing mode where each side touches the tip rail alternately and causes a squeak or chirp. So even side and tip rails are very important to help prevent them.

Keith, I am interested in what you mean by a lig that allows the reed to respond quickly. I'm of the school that says that the lig is just a clamp as long as it does that its purpose is served. End of story.

Toby
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Keith Bradbury 
  To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 10:30 AM
  Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Dukoffs, rollover baffles and ligatures (long)


  There are several factors that cause chirping.  First, if there is a lot of
  resistance in the piece, this causes the player to build up a lot more
  pressure to get the reed to speak.  The additional pressure is fuel for
  generating chirps.  Making a piece more free blowing reduces the need to
  force it to make it play.  Related to this is uneveness in the tip rail and
  where the side rails meet the tip rail.  This adds resistance and a place
  for the reed to vibrate at those high chirp frequencies.  High roll-over
  baffles near the tip rail are also prone to chirps.  Relieving just a
  little off the baffle near the tip rail can do wonders here.

  I have not seen and Dukoff sopranos, but they probably vary a lot like the
  tenors do.  The Tenor Dukoff Ds do not typically have a high roll-over
  baffle.  They just have the step baffle or dual-action wedge.

  A ligature that allows the reed to respond quickly might help reduce
  chirps.  Again, less pressure needed to drive the reed.  If your piece is
  very sensitive to ligature placement, this could be an indication that the
  table has a high spot.      

  __________________________________________________
  Do you Yahoo!?
  Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
  http://platinum.yahoo.com

        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
       
       

  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. 

Thanks, Keith, that helps. What do you think about
using the cold shrink wrap tape to hold the reed on?
This stuff holds the reed very tightly across the
entire table without crushing the reed. Would this
dampen the vibrations of the reed?

I once took lessons from an elder gentleman that used
a couple feet of wax string to hold down the reed.
That's where I got the idea for the shrink tape.

I think everyone is in the camp that ligatures do not make a difference
until they find some that do.  Some never find them.  But once you do, you
can not go back to believing they do not make a difference.

As for home made ligatures, they are fine as long as they work for you and
you can get repeatable results.

I like Winslows, but you need to want to spend a couple of hours
experimenting with the different arrangements.  I like Rovner Lights and
Mark IIIs for their low cost and simple usage.  If a Winslow is my 10, the
Rovners are a 9.5.  I have a Vandoren Optimum that also works great on
alto.
I have not tried them all.  I'm happy enough with what I have I do not plan to.

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
http://platinum.yahoo.com

Traditionally clarinet mpcs in Europe are designed to be used not with ligs but with string which is wrapped around the body and across the reed. Some people use velcro because it is quicker.

John Backus from USC--one of the top researchers in the field and an accomplished clarinetist himself--wrote that the part of the reed past the player's mouth does not vibrate more than the clarinet body itself. This would signify that if we are dealing with a flat table upon which different ligs do not position the reed differently vis-a-vis the tip the lig would make no difference to the response of the reed.

I realize that this is a totally contentious subject, and I suppose by now everyone in the group could have guessed what my opinion on the subject would be ;-)

The best thing is to try out different options for yourself--try your shrink wrap (how do you get it on and off???), try string and rubber bands (also very good) and duct tape and Rovners and whatever and see what differences you find. Be sure to position the reed the same each time. I personally have found the differences between these methods of reed clamping miniscule at best, but some people swear by one method or another.

FWIW,

Toby
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Jon Lloyd 
  To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 1:23 PM
  Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Dukoffs, rollover baffles and ligatures (long)


  Thanks, Keith, that helps. What do you think about
  using the cold shrink wrap tape to hold the reed on?
  This stuff holds the reed very tightly across the
  entire table without crushing the reed. Would this
  dampen the vibrations of the reed?

  I once took lessons from an elder gentleman that used
  a couple feet of wax string to hold down the reed.
  That's where I got the idea for the shrink tape.

        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. 

Thanks Keith and Toby for the info on ligatures. I've
always been of the opinion that anything that holds
the reed secure and flat to the table makes a good
lig. But then I've read people who say "this lig is
dark" or "this lig is much brighter sounding" -- it
has made me wonder.

My second attempt at dup[licating the Dukoff baffle
was successful. I am so pleased with my "Dukoff
replica" that I made from the Rico Graftonite that I
just ordered Rico's for both my alto and tenor (only
14.95 each from www.muscistoreinc.com). These
mouthpieces are great for experimenting with baffles
and chambers. You have to be careful because the
plastic is a bit soft and doesn't like heat at all.

"stencilmann" <jg_lloyd@...> wrote:

>When I looked at the Dukoff again, it didn't really seem to 
>have a rollover baffle but the baffle is very close to the reed for 
>about 2mm behind the tip. As a matter of fact, the tip rail isn't 
>very well defined because it blends in with the baffle. Is this 
>typical of all recent Dukoff D-series mouthpieces?

FWIW, I have a Dukoff P8 on which the tip rail is more-or-less inferred, like
they simply polished the end of the baffle to make it look like a tip rail.  But
that could be from wear.

I can't play on it -- somehow I used it (prob. due to overeagerness) when I
started playing the sax again, but I don't know how I got any useful sound out
of it.  Come to think of it I only used it for a few months.

--Joe C.
----
Joe Castleman       --     gyrofrog@...
Gyrofrog Communications -- http://www.gyrofrog.com

If you were to get a good little file and get rid of the rollover leaving a well-defined and thin tip rail with some breathing space behind it you might find that your Dukoff becomes suddenly very well behaved. This will take a bit of the very high edge off but will also smooth and deepen the timbre (in my experience). I have seen/played a few Dukoffs and while I think they have a great sound--very characteristic and loud--the quality control leaves something to be desired. You should check out the evenness of the side and tip rails too.

Toby
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Joe Castleman 
  To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 12:34 AM
  Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Dukoffs, rollover baffles and ligatures (long)


  "stencilmann" <jg_lloyd@...> wrote:

  >When I looked at the Dukoff again, it didn't really seem to 
  >have a rollover baffle but the baffle is very close to the reed for 
  >about 2mm behind the tip. As a matter of fact, the tip rail isn't 
  >very well defined because it blends in with the baffle. Is this 
  >typical of all recent Dukoff D-series mouthpieces?

  FWIW, I have a Dukoff P8 on which the tip rail is more-or-less inferred, like
  they simply polished the end of the baffle to make it look like a tip rail.  But
  that could be from wear.

  I can't play on it -- somehow I used it (prob. due to overeagerness) when I
  started playing the sax again, but I don't know how I got any useful sound out
  of it.  Come to think of it I only used it for a few months.

  --Joe C.
  ----
  Joe Castleman       --     gyrofrog@...
  Gyrofrog Communications -- http://www.gyrofrog.com

        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. 

 >>I am interested in what you mean by a lig that allows the reed to respond quickly. I'm of the school that says that the lig is just a clamp as long as it does that its purpose is served<<
My experience is that there is a LOT of difference between the standard two-screw metal band ligature and the type which is composed of flexible composite rubber  which supports the reed, wraps around the mouthpiece and is held together with a single screw (e.g. Rovner). 
This particular Rovner ligature causes the reed to respond in a much different fashion from the way in which the standard two-screw metal band ligature does. FOR ME (individuals' experiences may vary), the Rovner allows for a faster response and demands a much looser, dropped-jaw embouchure. FOR ME, this ligature allows for fewer variations in embouchure. This ligature makes me prone to producing squeaks. Why this is, I have no idea. This characteristic is evident on every mouthpiece I have ever used it on.
I started out as a clarinetist, then picked up the also sax and played it with a double embouchure (upper and lower lips covering the upper and lower teeth). Then I took up the oboe (another instrument which required an ungodly kind of double embouchure). Simultaneously, I took up the bari sax and played that with a pretty tight double embouchure. ( ! ) (When I began playing professionally, I dropped the oboe from my repertoire and concentrated upon the tenor and soprano)
Once, I too regarded the ligature as something which merely held the reed in place. I bought a couple of Rovners and used them on several different mouthpieces (some stock, some customized) and found their effects upon response  to be quite different from the standard two- screw ligature.
Which ligature do I play on now? The standard two screw metal ligature. Why? Because I find that although it causes the reed to respond more slowly and with a bit more effort, it DOES allow me to change my embouchure while playing, which IMHO, is necessary for playing the saxophone. I couldn't relate to the unevenness of scale issues until I tried the Rovner which FOR ME requires a very consistent, unchanging embouchure. I couldn't compensate for the inherent unevenness of scale of the saxophone except by resorting to exotic (and sometimes experimental) alternate fingerings. 
Rovners are quite popular, and apparently quite good for lots of folks. They just don't work for me. Now, whenever I get a mouthpiece that "comes with" a Rovner, I either throw it in a drawer, or (if it's a store-bought mouthpiece) I ask for the stock two-screw ligature that is usually supplied with most mouthpieces. I can usually talk the store into a sixteen dollar credit for the Rovner.



 

Some more comments on ligatures.  

To me, ligatures are more significant that what material a mouthpiece is
made out of (except for Delrin Quantum vs Metal Quantum).  

They are less significant than your choice of reed.  

They are less significant than a choice of sax (but are less expensive, so
try ligs before switching saxes).  

They are more significant than the difference between a decent Runyon
Custom and Jody Jazz.

They are far less significant than the difference between a good and bad
Dukoff. 

So, you get an idea where I'm splitting my hairs here.

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
http://platinum.yahoo.com

Basically, some ligs darken the sound, others allow the reed to vibrate
with more freedom. Certain mpcs work better or differently with a
different lig. As for string ligs, they work but wether they are any
better or not is entirely dependant upon the player and what they
believe.

Personally, I use Rovner lites or Bonade two screw metal ligs, standard
ligs on other mpcs. It doesn't matter which lig it is provided it holds
the reed on properly and doesn't force embouchure movements to play the
given set-up. Altering your embouchure whilst playing will slow you
down, stuff up your intonation and not allow you to play two or three
octave leaps with ease. Also altering the embouchure whilst playing is
indicative of a lack of of air support.

Dukoffs are highly inconsistent but a good Dukoff can be a very, very
nice mpc but finding or creating one is a great challenge.

Later
God Bless
Bootman
Richard Booth
www.bootmanmusic.com


-----Original Message-----
From: Keith Bradbury [mailto:kwbradbury@...] 
Sent: Thursday, 27 March 2003 5:22 AM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] ligatures

Some more comments on ligatures.  

To me, ligatures are more significant that what material a mouthpiece is
made out of (except for Delrin Quantum vs Metal Quantum).  

They are less significant than your choice of reed.  

They are less significant than a choice of sax (but are less expensive,
so
try ligs before switching saxes).  

They are more significant than the difference between a decent Runyon
Custom and Jody Jazz.

They are far less significant than the difference between a good and bad
Dukoff. 

So, you get an idea where I'm splitting my hairs here.

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
http://platinum.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
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

Man, I really dislike Rovner ligatures. It must just be me. For me, the difference between a Rovner and a traditional, metal two-screw ligature is quite a lot. I've never been one for trendy stuff, and I am skeptical about the relative advantages of x horn over y horn and that kind of thing. Mouthpiece problems, however, can set me off as fast as a leaky pad can.
 Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:Some more comments on ligatures.  

To me, ligatures are more significant that what material a mouthpiece is
made out of (except for Delrin Quantum vs Metal Quantum).  

They are less significant than your choice of reed.  

They are less significant than a choice of sax (but are less expensive, so
try ligs before switching saxes).  

They are more significant than the difference between a decent Runyon
Custom and Jody Jazz.

They are far less significant than the difference between a good and bad
Dukoff. 

So, you get an idea where I'm splitting my hairs here.

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
http://platinum.yahoo.com

Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
var lrec_target="_top";var lrec_URL = new Array();lrec_URL[1] = "http://rd.yahoo.com/M$6920.2960106.4328965.2848452/D=egroupweb/S05032198:HM/A08984/R=0/id=flashurl/*http://www.gotomypc.com/u/tr/yh/cpm/grp/300_02F/g22lp?Target=mm/g22lp.tmpl";var link="javascript:LRECopenWindow(1)";var lrec_flashfile = 'http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/1-/flash/expert_city/093002_weather300x250_02f.swf?clickTAG='+link+'';var lrec_altURL = "http://rd.yahoo.com/M$6920.2960106.4328965.2848452/D=egroupweb/S05032198:HM/A08984/R=1/id=altimgurl/*http://www.gotomypc.com/u/tr/yh/cpm/grp/300_02F/g22lp?Target=mm/g22lp.tmpl";var lrec_altimg = "http://us.yimg.com/a/ex/expert_city/300x250_yh1.gif";var lrec_width = 300;var lrec_height = 250;
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. 



 

Ahh, yes, the old string ligature.  I remember them from my college
days, popular with clarinetists.  They play fine, but have one problem�
changing reeds quickly!!!  A Rovner is surely quick and easy when it
comes to switching reeds.

For oddball size mouthpieces I have also used a common, ordinary, nylon
Ty-wrap� a brand name for electrical cable ties.  Since the mouthpiece
is conical in the area where a ligature will fit, tighten the Ty-wrap
near the upper end of that range, then slip it down the mouthpiece until
snug.  Position the �knot� of the tywrap on top, so that the reed is
supported evenly by the nylon strap.  The excess may be cut off, and
this lig may be reused.

If I were a band director, I would keep half a dozen Ty-wraps in my
repair kit.  I usually have a few in my goodie bag for gigs.

Yes, once our bari player dropped his lig while assembling his sax, and
someone else came along and stepped on it.  Ty-wrap to the rescue!

Paul


Toby wrote:

> Traditionally clarinet mpcs in Europe are designed to be used not with
> ligs but with string which is wrapped around the body and across the
> reed. Some people use velcro because it is quicker. John Backus from
> USC--one of the top researchers in the field and an accomplished
> clarinetist himself--wrote that the part of the reed past the player's
> mouth does not vibrate more than the clarinet body itself. This would
> signify that if we are dealing with a flat table upon which different
> ligs do not position the reed differently vis-a-vis the tip the lig
> would make no difference to the response of the reed. I realize that
> this is a totally contentious subject, and I suppose by now everyone
> in the group could have guessed what my opinion on the subject would
> be ;-) The best thing is to try out different options for
> yourself--try your shrink wrap (how do you get it on and off???), try
> string and rubber bands (also very good) and duct tape and Rovners and
> whatever and see what differences you find. Be sure to position the
> reed the same each time. I personally have found the differences
> between these methods of reed clamping miniscule at best, but some
> people swear by one method or another. FWIW, Toby
>
>      ----- Original Message -----
>      From: Jon Lloyd
>      To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>      Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 1:23 PM
>      Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Dukoffs, rollover baffles and
>      ligatures (long)
>       Thanks, Keith, that helps. What do you think about
>      using the cold shrink wrap tape to hold the reed on?
>      This stuff holds the reed very tightly across the
>      entire table without crushing the reed. Would this
>      dampen the vibrations of the reed?
>
>      I once took lessons from an elder gentleman that used
>      a couple feet of wax string to hold down the reed.
>      That's where I got the idea for the shrink tape.
>
>
>      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.
>
>
>                    Yahoo! Groups Sponsor


>
> 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.

I have to admit to formerly being a ligature skeptic� until I tried a
Winslow.  Yes, response seemed quicker, high notes a little freer.  Not
a lot, and maybe not audible to others� but it does seem to play better.

I don�t notice any playing improvement with Rovners, but what I do like
with them is their easy and fast use.  They support the reed evenly,
without slipping, and are fast with reed changes.  That is all I could
want from a ligature.

But the playing improvements I found in the Winslow are an unexpected
bonus.  I agree with others, ligatures as far as playing improvement
might be mouthpiece/reed specific.

Paul


Jon Lloyd wrote:

>  Thanks Keith and Toby for the info on ligatures. I've
> always been of the opinion that anything that holds
> the reed secure and flat to the table makes a good
> lig. But then I've read people who say "this lig is
> dark" or "this lig is much brighter sounding" -- it
> has made me wonder.
>
> My second attempt at dup[licating the Dukoff baffle
> was successful. I am so pleased with my "Dukoff
> replica" that I made from the Rico Graftonite that I
> just ordered Rico's for both my alto and tenor (only
> 14.95 each from www.muscistoreinc.com). These
> mouthpieces are great for experimenting with baffles
> and chambers. You have to be careful because the
> plastic is a bit soft and doesn't like heat at all.
>
>                    Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                        ADVERTISEMENT
                            [Image]

>
> 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.

I agree with all above�

And one more thing� If I get ONE MORE letter from a high school kid,
wondering if a gold plated lig will cure all of his problems� and
magically make his horn respond better, tone warmer, he can run faster
and jump higher�.  Well, calm down, Paul!

My experience is that finish and color of the lig make no difference.

Paul


Keith Bradbury wrote:

>  Some more comments on ligatures.
>
> To me, ligatures are more significant that what material a mouthpiece
> is
> made out of (except for Delrin Quantum vs Metal Quantum).
>
> They are less significant than your choice of reed.
>
> They are less significant than a choice of sax (but are less
> expensive, so
> try ligs before switching saxes).
>
> They are more significant than the difference between a decent Runyon
> Custom and Jody Jazz.
>
> They are far less significant than the difference between a good and
> bad
> Dukoff.
>
> So, you get an idea where I'm splitting my hairs here.
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
>
> http://platinum.yahoo.com
>
>                    Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                        ADVERTISEMENT
                            [Image]

>
> 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.

I am interested in what you mean by a lig that allows the reed to respond quickly. I'm of the school that says that the lig is just a clamp as long as it does that its purpose is served<<
My experience is that there is a LOT of difference between the standard two-screw metal band ligature and the type which is composed of flexible composite rubber  which supports the reed, wraps around the mouthpiece and is held together with a single screw (e.g. Rovner). 
This particular Rovner ligature causes the reed to respond in a much different fashion from the way in which the standard two-screw metal band ligature does. FOR ME (individuals' experiences may vary), the Rovner allows for a faster response and demands a much looser, dropped-jaw embouchure. FOR ME, this ligature allows for fewer variations in embouchure. This ligature makes me prone to producing squeaks. Why this is, I have no idea. This characteristic is evident on every mouthpiece I have ever used it on.
I started out as a clarinetist, then picked up the also sax and played it with a double embouchure (upper and lower lips covering the upper and lower teeth). Then I took up the oboe (another instrument which required an ungodly kind of double embouchure). Simultaneously, I took up the bari sax and played that with a pretty tight double embouchure. ( ! ) (When I began playing professionally, I dropped the oboe from my repertoire and concentrated upon the tenor and soprano)
Once, I too regarded the ligature as something which merely held the reed in place. I bought a couple of Rovners and used them on several different mouthpieces (some stock, some customized) and found their effects upon response  to be quite different from the standard two- screw ligature.
Which ligature do I play on now? The standard two screw metal ligature. Why? Because I find that although it causes the reed to respond more slowly and with a bit more effort, it DOES allow me to change my embouchure while playing, which IMHO, is necessary for playing the saxophone. I couldn't relate to the unevenness of scale issues until I tried the Rovner which FOR ME requires a very consistent, unchanging embouchure. I couldn't compensate for the inherent unevenness of scale of the saxophone except by resorting to exotic (and sometimes experimental) alternate fingerings. 
Rovners are quite popular, and apparently quite good for lots of folks. They just don't work for me. Now, whenever I get a mouthpiece that "comes with" a Rovner, I either throw it in a drawer, or (if it's a store-bought mouthpiece) I ask for the stock two-screw ligature that is usually supplied with most mouthpieces. I can usually talk the store into a sixteen dollar credit for the Rovner.
---------------------------

Hi! I came to the same conclusion..Rovners or Winslows make the sound really fat, but I feel not the hights created by a normal two screw metall ligature any more..This is a problem, then I start to change embouchure to adjust.. I think I need this high frequencies for microtuning, I cannot controll this so good on the Winslow/rovner etc... I own an old Brilhart lig on alto and Tenor, it´s already better, especially while putting it inverse on the mouthpiece (same thing on alto and tenor). Has anybody the same impression?
Any good advice how to adjust the winslow for creating a maximum of brillance?
I´m interested in the Vandoren optimum and the Francois Louis ligatures, any advice? 
This discussion is great, I recorded me last week with a bunch of ligs on the same mouthpiece, the difference is overhelming...

Many greetings,Chriss
 

I keep going back and forth on this issue. I'm not convinced the ligature
makes a vast amount of difference. I've tried pretty much all of the exotic
varieties at one time or another, and just don't find there to be a real
significant advantage to one style or another, so long as it holds the reed
securely in place. I use three different styles on my mouthpieces that we
manufacture, and I can't tell the difference when using the same mouthpiece
and reed, changing only the ligature. I'd be interested in any real data on
this topic, not anecdotal comments or pseudo-science. Is anyone aware of any
real research? There seems to be a great deal of snake oil being sold along
with ligatures, or maybe I'm missing something.

 

STEVE GOODSON

SAXOPHONE DESIGNER TO THE STARS

 

our products are ALL rated 

 

cid:339191121@25022009-09F4

 

Steve is a member of

hd_logo NAMMbelieve2napbirt_logo_color_thumb

 

 

PLEASE VISIT MY WEBSITES
 <http://www.nationofmusic.com/> http://www.nationofmusic.com/ (retail sales
and discussion forum)
 <http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/SaxophoneRepair/>
http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/SaxophoneRepair/  (discussion group)
 <http://www.saxgourmet.com/> http://www.saxgourmet.com/  (saxophone history
and information)
 <http://saxophonethoughts.blogspot.com/>
http://saxophonethoughts.blogspot.com/  (my personal saxophone blog)

 

READ MY ARTICLES ON SAXOPHONE DESIGN IN EACH ISSUE OF THE SAXOPHONE JOURNAL
The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic
hallway where thieves

BASIC SHOP RATE................$100/HR

IF YOU WATCH.....................$125/HR

IF YOU ASK QUESTIONS......$150/HR

IF I HAVE TO LISTEN TO A CONCERT 

LONGER THAN FIVE MINUTES WHEN

YOU PICK UP YOUR HORN....$250/HR

 

The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic
hallway where thieves and pimps run free and good men die like dogs. There's
also a negative side." Hunter S. Thompson

 

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is
for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential
and privileged information or otherwise protected by law. Any unauthorized
review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy
all copies of the original message.

 

I only have anecdotal comments.  I would be interested in any real data you have.




________________________________
From: STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 9:33:57 PM
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Ligatures

  
I keep going back and forth on this issue. I’m not convinced the ligature makes a vast amount of difference. I’ve tried pretty much all of the exotic varieties at one time or another, and just don’t find there to be a real significant advantage to one style or another, so long as it holds the reed securely in place. I use three different styles on my mouthpieces that we manufacture, and I can’t tell the difference when using the same mouthpiece and reed, changing only the ligature. I’d be interested in any real data on this topic, not anecdotal comments or pseudo-science. Is anyone aware of any real research? There seems to be a great deal of snake oil being sold along with ligatures, or maybe I’m missing something.
 
STEVE GOODSON
SAXOPHONE DESIGNER TO THE STARS
 
our products are ALL rated 
 
 
Steve is a member of
 
 
 
PLEASE VISIT MY WEBSITES
http://www.nationof music.com/ (retail sales and discussion forum)
http://launch. groups.yahoo. com/group/ SaxophoneRepair/  (discussion group)
http://www.saxgourm et.com/  (saxophone history and information)
http://saxophonetho ughts.blogspot. com/  (my personal saxophone blog)
 
READ MY ARTICLES ON SAXOPHONE DESIGN IN EACH ISSUE OF THE SAXOPHONE JOURNAL
The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves
BASIC SHOP RATE........ ........$ 100/HR
IF YOU WATCH....... ......... .....$125/ HR
IF YOU ASK QUESTIONS... ...$150/HR
IF I HAVE TO LISTEN TO A CONCERT 
LONGER THAN FIVE MINUTES WHEN
YOU PICK UP YOUR HORN....$250/ HR
 
The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side." Hunter S. Thompson
 
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information or otherwise protected by law. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
 



      

The physics certain suggest that the lig should make no difference, as long as the reed is clamped securely, which actually does not take so much pressure. The reed does not vibrate past the lay, so what happens further south should not be of consequence. 

The lig could make a difference if the table is not flat, or if it compresses the fibers of the reed butt or if it otherwise alters the relationship of the reed tip to the rails where the action is. 

This is a hard proposition to test, however, since a tiny change in the reed position can have large effects on response, and it is next to impossible to put the reed on in exactly the same position when changing ligs. Also, since it is very easy to change response with the embouchure, even when
 trying very hard to maintain it constant, there is a tendency to find the response one expects or hopes to find.

Perhaps someone should do a series of experiments using an artificial embouchure. Repeated trials should take care of small variations in placement (and a control test could be run to see just the range of variation from one re-placement of the reed to the next using a single lig). The artificial
 embouchure would take care of player variability. 

Until such a test is run there is really no way of saying what causes the reported differences from one lig to the next.

Toby

STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...> wrote:                                          
  I keep going back and forth on this issue. I$B!G(Bm not convinced the ligature makes a vast amount of difference. I$B!G(Bve tried pretty much all of the exotic varieties at one time or another, and just don$B!G(Bt find there to be a real significant advantage to one style or another, so long as it holds the
 reed securely in place. I use three different styles on my mouthpieces that we manufacture, and I can$B!G(Bt tell the difference when using the same mouthpiece and reed, changing only the ligature. I$B!G(Bd be interested in any real data on this topic, not anecdotal comments or pseudo-science. Is anyone
 aware of any real research? There seems to be a great deal of snake oil being sold along with ligatures, or maybe I$B!G(Bm missing something.
   
  STEVE GOODSON
  SAXOPHONE DESIGNER TO THE STARS
   
  our products are ALL rated 
   
  
   
  Steve is a member of
   
   
   
  PLEASE VISIT MY WEBSITES
 http://www.nationofmusic.com/ (retail sales and discussion forum)
 http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/SaxophoneRepair/  (discussion group)
 http://www.saxgourmet.com/  (saxophone history and information)
 http://saxophonethoughts.blogspot.com/  (my personal saxophone blog)
   
  READ MY ARTICLES ON SAXOPHONE DESIGN IN EACH ISSUE OF THE SAXOPHONE JOURNAL
 The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves
  BASIC SHOP RATE................$100/HR
  IF YOU WATCH.....................$125/HR
  IF YOU ASK QUESTIONS......$150/HR
  IF I HAVE TO LISTEN TO A CONCERT 
  LONGER THAN FIVE MINUTES WHEN
  YOU PICK UP YOUR HORN....$250/HR
   
  The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side." Hunter S. Thompson
   
  CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information or otherwise protected by law. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not
 the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
   
  
     
        
             
                          
 

I find that the position of the ligature, forward or back. does affect the sound and control.
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: kymarto123@ybb.ne.jp 
  To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 10:35 PM
  Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Ligatures


    The physics certain suggest that the lig should make no difference, as long as the reed is clamped securely, which actually does not take so much pressure. The reed does not vibrate past the lay, so what happens further south should not be of consequence. 

  The lig could make a difference if the table is not flat, or if it compresses the fibers of the reed butt or if it otherwise alters the relationship of the reed tip to the rails where the action is. 

  This is a hard proposition to test, however, since a tiny change in the reed position can have large effects on response, and it is next to impossible to put the reed on in exactly the same position when changing ligs. Also, since it is very easy to change response with the embouchure, even when trying very hard to maintain it constant, there is a tendency to find the response one expects or hopes to find.

  Perhaps someone should do a series of experiments using an artificial embouchure. Repeated trials should take care of small variations in placement (and a control test could be run to see just the range of variation from one re-placement of the reed to the next using a single lig). The artificial embouchure would take care of player variability. 

  Until such a test is run there is really no way of saying what causes the reported differences from one lig to the next.

  Toby

  STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...> wrote:

      
    I keep going back and forth on this issue. I’m not convinced the ligature makes a vast amount of difference. I’ve tried pretty much all of the exotic varieties at one time or another, and just don’t find there to be a real significant advantage to one style or another, so long as it holds the reed securely in place. I use three different styles on my mouthpieces that we manufacture, and I can’t tell the difference when using the same mouthpiece and reed, changing only the ligature. I’d be interested in any real data on this topic, not anecdotal comments or pseudo-science. Is anyone aware of any real research? There seems to be a great deal of snake oil being sold along with ligatures, or maybe I’m missing something.

    STEVE GOODSON
    SAXOPHONE DESIGNER TO THE STARS

    our products are ALL rated 



    Steve is a member of
     


    PLEASE VISIT MY WEBSITES
    http://www.nationofmusic.com/ (retail sales and discussion forum)
    http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/SaxophoneRepair/  (discussion group)
    http://www.saxgourmet.com/  (saxophone history and information)
    http://saxophonethoughts.blogspot.com/  (my personal saxophone blog)

    READ MY ARTICLES ON SAXOPHONE DESIGN IN EACH ISSUE OF THE SAXOPHONE JOURNAL
    The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves
    BASIC SHOP RATE................$100/HR
    IF YOU WATCH.....................$125/HR
    IF YOU ASK QUESTIONS......$150/HR
    IF I HAVE TO LISTEN TO A CONCERT 
    LONGER THAN FIVE MINUTES WHEN
    YOU PICK UP YOUR HORN....$250/HR

    The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side." Hunter S. Thompson

    CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information or otherwise protected by law. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.




  

Hi Dave,

If you look closely, you'll probably notice that the position of the lig changes the clearance between the tip of the reed and the tip rail. This is due to a number of possible factors. Often the table is not perfectly even and the reed can rock forward and back depending on the pressure point(s)
 of the lig. Also, the reed itself is often not perfectly flat, and the reed itself can compress somewhat. All these things can change the relationship of the reed to the tip--basically they can change the effective facing of the mpc and the tip opening.

dave bermes <dlbermes@...> wrote:                                       
I find that the position of the ligature,  forward or back. does affect the sound and control.
    ----- Original Message ----- 
   From:    kymarto123@... 
   To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com    
   Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 10:35    PM
   Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork]    Ligatures
   

        The physics certain suggest that the lig should make no difference, as long    as the reed is clamped securely, which actually does not take so much    pressure. The reed does not vibrate past the lay, so what happens further    south should not be of consequence. 

The lig could make a difference if    the table is not flat, or if it compresses the fibers of the reed butt or if    it otherwise alters the relationship of the reed tip to the rails where the    action is. 

This is a hard proposition to test, however, since a tiny    change in the reed position can have large effects on response, and it is next    to impossible to put the reed on in exactly the same position when changing    ligs. Also, since it is very easy to change response with the embouchure,
 even    when trying very hard to maintain it constant, there is a tendency to find the    response one expects or hopes to find.

Perhaps someone should do a    series of experiments using an artificial embouchure. Repeated trials should    take care of small variations in placement (and a control test could be run to    see just the range of variation from one re-placement of the reed to the next    using a single lig). The
 artificial embouchure would take care of player    variability. 

Until such a test is run there is really no way of saying    what causes the reported differences from one lig to the    next.

Toby

STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...>    wrote:   
            
          I      keep going back and forth on this issue. I$B!G(Bm not convinced the ligature      makes a vast amount of difference. I$B!G(Bve tried pretty much all of the exotic      varieties at one time or another, and just don$B!G(Bt find there to be a real      significant advantage to one style or
 another, so long as it holds the reed      securely in place. I use three different styles on my mouthpieces that we      manufacture, and I can$B!G(Bt tell the difference when using the same mouthpiece      and reed, changing only the ligature. I$B!G(Bd be interested in any real data on      this topic,
 not anecdotal comments or pseudo-science. Is anyone aware of any      real research? There seems to be a great deal of snake oil being sold along      with ligatures, or maybe I$B!G(Bm missing something.
     
     STEVE      GOODSON
     SAXOPHONE DESIGNER TO THE      STARS
     
     our products are ALL rated      
     
     
     
     Steve is a member      of
      
     
     
     PLEASE VISIT MY      WEBSITES
http://www.nationofmusic.com/      (retail sales and discussion forum)
http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/SaxophoneRepair/       (discussion group)
http://www.saxgourmet.com/       (saxophone history and information)
http://saxophonethoughts.blogspot.com/       (my personal saxophone blog)
     
     READ MY ARTICLES ON SAXOPHONE      DESIGN IN EACH ISSUE OF THE SAXOPHONE      JOURNAL
The      Music Business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway      where thieves
     BASIC SHOP      RATE................$100/HR
     IF YOU      WATCH.....................$125/HR
     IF YOU ASK      QUESTIONS......$150/HR
     IF I HAVE TO LISTEN TO A      CONCERT 
     LONGER THAN FIVE MINUTES      WHEN
     YOU PICK UP YOUR      HORN....$250/HR
     
     The      Music Business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway      where thieves and pimps run free and good men die like dogs. There's also a      negative side." Hunter S. Thompson
     
     CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This      e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the      intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged      information or otherwise protected by law. Any unauthorized review, use,      disclosure or distribution is
 prohibited. If you are not the intended      recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies      of the original message.
     

     


   
   

 
        
             
                          
 

Actually, I think that if one were to put a little block at the butt of the reed after the first ligature was installed, this would act as a stop to set the position of the reed for subsequent ligatures.  That being said, it would be difficult to stop skew, or, side-to-side positioning of the reed.  If the reed were only as wide as the table, I wonder if the minute skewing from eyeballing the side-to-side position would make that much difference.

David

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
>
> The physics certain suggest that the lig should make no difference, as long as the reed is clamped securely, which actually does not take so much pressure. The reed does not vibrate past the lay, so what happens further south should not be of consequence. 
> 
> The lig could make a difference if the table is not flat, or if it compresses the fibers of the reed butt or if it otherwise alters the relationship of the reed tip to the rails where the action is. 
> 
> This is a hard proposition to test, however, since a tiny change in the reed position can have large effects on response, and it is next to impossible to put the reed on in exactly the same position when changing ligs. Also, since it is very easy to change response with the embouchure, even when
>  trying very hard to maintain it constant, there is a tendency to find the response one expects or hopes to find.
> 
> Perhaps someone should do a series of experiments using an artificial embouchure. Repeated trials should take care of small variations in placement (and a control test could be run to see just the range of variation from one re-placement of the reed to the next using a single lig). The artificial
>  embouchure would take care of player variability. 
> 
> Until such a test is run there is really no way of saying what causes the reported differences from one lig to the next.
> 
> Toby
> 
> STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...> wrote:                                          
>   I keep going back and forth on this issue. I¡Çm not convinced the ligature makes a vast amount of difference. I¡Çve tried pretty much all of the exotic varieties at one time or another, and just don¡Çt find there to be a real significant advantage to one style or another, so long as it holds the
>  reed securely in place. I use three different styles on my mouthpieces that we manufacture, and I can¡Çt tell the difference when using the same mouthpiece and reed, changing only the ligature. I¡Çd be interested in any real data on this topic, not anecdotal comments or pseudo-science. Is anyone
>  aware of any real research? There seems to be a great deal of snake oil being sold along with ligatures, or maybe I¡Çm missing something.
>    
>   STEVE GOODSON
>   SAXOPHONE DESIGNER TO THE STARS
>    
>   our products are ALL rated 
>    
>   
>    
>   Steve is a member of
>    
>    
>    
>   PLEASE VISIT MY WEBSITES
>  http://www.nationofmusic.com/ (retail sales and discussion forum)
>  http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/SaxophoneRepair/  (discussion group)
>  http://www.saxgourmet.com/  (saxophone history and information)
>  http://saxophonethoughts.blogspot.com/  (my personal saxophone blog)
>    
>   READ MY ARTICLES ON SAXOPHONE DESIGN IN EACH ISSUE OF THE SAXOPHONE JOURNAL
>  The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves
>   BASIC SHOP RATE................$100/HR
>   IF YOU WATCH.....................$125/HR
>   IF YOU ASK QUESTIONS......$150/HR
>   IF I HAVE TO LISTEN TO A CONCERT 
>   LONGER THAN FIVE MINUTES WHEN
>   YOU PICK UP YOUR HORN....$250/HR
>    
>   The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side." Hunter S. Thompson
>    
>   CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information or otherwise protected by law. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not
>  the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
>

  Hello,
  I don't see how research in this area would benefit anything. It is so impirical, every mouthpiece aand ligature combination is different, without even considering the reed. I have never liked a Rovner on a metal Link and yet Rovners are great on other pieces. We should be grateful that there is so much choice in ligatures so that we can always find something that works.
   The reed comes into play as well. One of the first things Larry Combs showed me was how he experimented with  reed position, moving it around on the table and play-testing it until he found the sweet  spot. Then he would mark the reed with an arrow or two as a guide for the next time.    Peter

 --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "dkulcinski" <dkulcinski@...> wrote:
>
> Actually, I think that if one were to put a little block at the butt of the reed after the first ligature was installed, this would act as a stop to set the position of the reed for subsequent ligatures.  That being said, it would be difficult to stop skew, or, side-to-side positioning of the reed.  If the reed were only as wide as the table, I wonder if the minute skewing from eyeballing the side-to-side position would make that much difference.
> 
> David
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@> wrote:
> >
> > The physics certain suggest that the lig should make no difference, as long as the reed is clamped securely, which actually does not take so much pressure. The reed does not vibrate past the lay, so what happens further south should not be of consequence. 
> > 
> > The lig could make a difference if the table is not flat, or if it compresses the fibers of the reed butt or if it otherwise alters the relationship of the reed tip to the rails where the action is. 
> > 
> > This is a hard proposition to test, however, since a tiny change in the reed position can have large effects on response, and it is next to impossible to put the reed on in exactly the same position when changing ligs. Also, since it is very easy to change response with the embouchure, even when
> >  trying very hard to maintain it constant, there is a tendency to find the response one expects or hopes to find.
> > 
> > Perhaps someone should do a series of experiments using an artificial embouchure. Repeated trials should take care of small variations in placement (and a control test could be run to see just the range of variation from one re-placement of the reed to the next using a single lig). The artificial
> >  embouchure would take care of player variability. 
> > 
> > Until such a test is run there is really no way of saying what causes the reported differences from one lig to the next.
> > 
> > Toby
> > 
> > STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@> wrote:                                          
> >   I keep going back and forth on this issue. I¡Çm not convinced the ligature makes a vast amount of difference. I¡Çve tried pretty much all of the exotic varieties at one time or another, and just don¡Çt find there to be a real significant advantage to one style or another, so long as it holds the
> >  reed securely in place. I use three different styles on my mouthpieces that we manufacture, and I can¡Çt tell the difference when using the same mouthpiece and reed, changing only the ligature. I¡Çd be interested in any real data on this topic, not anecdotal comments or pseudo-science. Is anyone
> >  aware of any real research? There seems to be a great deal of snake oil being sold along with ligatures, or maybe I¡Çm missing something.
> >    
> >   STEVE GOODSON
> >   SAXOPHONE DESIGNER TO THE STARS
> >    
> >   our products are ALL rated 
> >    
> >   
> >    
> >   Steve is a member of
> >    
> >    
> >    
> >   PLEASE VISIT MY WEBSITES
> >  http://www.nationofmusic.com/ (retail sales and discussion forum)
> >  http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/SaxophoneRepair/  (discussion group)
> >  http://www.saxgourmet.com/  (saxophone history and information)
> >  http://saxophonethoughts.blogspot.com/  (my personal saxophone blog)
> >    
> >   READ MY ARTICLES ON SAXOPHONE DESIGN IN EACH ISSUE OF THE SAXOPHONE JOURNAL
> >  The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves
> >   BASIC SHOP RATE................$100/HR
> >   IF YOU WATCH.....................$125/HR
> >   IF YOU ASK QUESTIONS......$150/HR
> >   IF I HAVE TO LISTEN TO A CONCERT 
> >   LONGER THAN FIVE MINUTES WHEN
> >   YOU PICK UP YOUR HORN....$250/HR
> >    
> >   The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side." Hunter S. Thompson
> >    
> >   CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information or otherwise protected by law. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not
> >  the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
> >
>

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "STEVE GOODSON" <saxgourmet@...> wrote:
>
(trimmed)
 I've tried pretty much all of the exotic
> varieties at one time or another, and just don't find there to be a real
> significant advantage to one style or another, so long as it holds the reed
> securely in place. 
(trimmed) 
> STEVE GOODSON
> 

I've actually had people ask me if they should go with a gold plated ligature, rather than a silver one, in order to get a warmer, darker tone.  

My main concerns with ligatures are that they hold the reed securely, not slip, and be easy to put on.  

Paul

A friend in the group that I play with just got a Bois ligature.  They are interesting; just a ring that slide on.  Talk about simple . . . .  Their web site is:  http://www.boisligatures.com/

David

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "tenorman1952" <tenorman1952@...> wrote:
>
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "STEVE GOODSON" <saxgourmet@> wrote:
> >
> (trimmed)
>  I've tried pretty much all of the exotic
> > varieties at one time or another, and just don't find there to be a real
> > significant advantage to one style or another, so long as it holds the reed
> > securely in place. 
> (trimmed) 
> > STEVE GOODSON
> > 
> 
> I've actually had people ask me if they should go with a gold plated ligature, rather than a silver one, in order to get a warmer, darker tone.  
> 
> My main concerns with ligatures are that they hold the reed securely, not slip, and be easy to put on.  
> 
> Paul
>

As a person who took 83 graduate credits and finished 1/2 a thesis in theoretical physics at NYU I have not looked into lig biz.  As a saxophonist-full time for 40 yrs  I feel the ligature makes a big difference in reponse and sound.  It may only be in the ease that you deal with mouthpiece imperfections i.e. adjusting front and back screw pressure on all mouthpieces I own on all saxophones ( don't have a contra bass ). changes my perception, at least,  of harmonic spectrum and response.  Some ligs e.g. Oleg,Rovner,and string seem to have much more control in this way.   Countless numbers of time I have A-B 'd  traditional ligs with these and always feel and hear the difference.  I agree this is not magic. it is about controlling the reed-table relationship with or without anomalies.  If it even only  improves ones perception soundwise  and helps articulation I would call it real.   No Physics questions please.     John Z



--- In MouthpieceWork@...m, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Dave,
> 
> If you look closely, you'll probably notice that the position of the lig changes the clearance between the tip of the reed and the tip rail. This is due to a number of possible factors. Often the table is not perfectly even and the reed can rock forward and back depending on the pressure point(s)
>  of the lig. Also, the reed itself is often not perfectly flat, and the reed itself can compress somewhat. All these things can change the relationship of the reed to the tip--basically they can change the effective facing of the mpc and the tip opening.
> 
> dave bermes <dlbermes@...> wrote:                                       
> I find that the position of the ligature,  forward or back. does affect the sound and control.
>     ----- Original Message ----- 
>    From:    kymarto123@... 
>    To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com    
>    Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 10:35    PM
>    Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork]    Ligatures
>    
> 
>         The physics certain suggest that the lig should make no difference, as long    as the reed is clamped securely, which actually does not take so much    pressure. The reed does not vibrate past the lay, so what happens further    south should not be of consequence. 
> 
> The lig could make a difference if    the table is not flat, or if it compresses the fibers of the reed butt or if    it otherwise alters the relationship of the reed tip to the rails where the    action is. 
> 
> This is a hard proposition to test, however, since a tiny    change in the reed position can have large effects on response, and it is next    to impossible to put the reed on in exactly the same position when changing    ligs. Also, since it is very easy to change response with the embouchure,
>  even    when trying very hard to maintain it constant, there is a tendency to find the    response one expects or hopes to find.
> 
> Perhaps someone should do a    series of experiments using an artificial embouchure. Repeated trials should    take care of small variations in placement (and a control test could be run to    see just the range of variation from one re-placement of the reed to the next    using a single lig). The
>  artificial embouchure would take care of player    variability. 
> 
> Until such a test is run there is really no way of saying    what causes the reported differences from one lig to the    next.
> 
> Toby
> 
> STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...>    wrote:   
>             
>           I      keep going back and forth on this issue. I¡Çm not convinced the ligature      makes a vast amount of difference. I¡Çve tried pretty much all of the exotic      varieties at one time or another, and just don¡Çt find there to be a real      significant advantage to one style or
>  another, so long as it holds the reed      securely in place. I use three different styles on my mouthpieces that we      manufacture, and I can¡Çt tell the difference when using the same mouthpiece      and reed, changing only the ligature. I¡Çd be interested in any real data on      this topic,
>  not anecdotal comments or pseudo-science. Is anyone aware of any      real research? There seems to be a great deal of snake oil being sold along      with ligatures, or maybe I¡Çm missing something.
>      
>      STEVE      GOODSON
>      SAXOPHONE DESIGNER TO THE      STARS
>      
>      our products are ALL rated      
>      
>      
>      
>      Steve is a member      of
>       
>      
>      
>      PLEASE VISIT MY      WEBSITES
> http://www.nationofmusic.com/      (retail sales and discussion forum)
> http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/SaxophoneRepair/       (discussion group)
> http://www.saxgourmet.com/       (saxophone history and information)
> http://saxophonethoughts.blogspot.com/       (my personal saxophone blog)
>      
>      READ MY ARTICLES ON SAXOPHONE      DESIGN IN EACH ISSUE OF THE SAXOPHONE      JOURNAL
> The      Music Business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway      where thieves
>      BASIC SHOP      RATE................$100/HR
>      IF YOU      WATCH.....................$125/HR
>      IF YOU ASK      QUESTIONS......$150/HR
>      IF I HAVE TO LISTEN TO A      CONCERT 
>      LONGER THAN FIVE MINUTES      WHEN
>      YOU PICK UP YOUR      HORN....$250/HR
>      
>      The      Music Business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway      where thieves and pimps run free and good men die like dogs. There's also a      negative side." Hunter S. Thompson
>      
>      CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This      e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the      intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged      information or otherwise protected by law. Any unauthorized review, use,      disclosure or distribution is
>  prohibited. If you are not the intended      recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies      of the original message.
>

I can supply data in the form of sound clips.  Sometimes it matters, sometimes it doesn't; for all the reasons stated.  But the magnetude of the response and feel is not captured well in sound clips.  Just dark/light differences.




________________________________
From: zangsax <sjohn@zangsax.com>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 2:11:20 PM
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Ligatures

  
As a person who took 83 graduate credits and finished 1/2 a thesis in theoretical physics at NYU I have not looked into lig biz. As a saxophonist- full time for 40 yrs I feel the ligature makes a big difference in reponse and sound. It may only be in the ease that you deal with mouthpiece imperfections i.e. adjusting front and back screw pressure on all mouthpieces I own on all saxophones ( don't have a contra bass ). changes my perception, at least, of harmonic spectrum and response. Some ligs e.g. Oleg,Rovner, and string seem to have much more control in this way. Countless numbers of time I have A-B 'd traditional ligs with these and always feel and hear the difference. I agree this is not magic. it is about controlling the reed-table relationship with or without anomalies. If it even only improves ones perception soundwise and helps articulation I would call it real. No Physics questions please. John Z

--- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, <kymarto123@ ...> wrote:
>
> Hi Dave,
> 
> If you look closely, you'll probably notice that the position of the lig changes the clearance between the tip of the reed and the tip rail. This is due to a number of possible factors. Often the table is not perfectly even and the reed can rock forward and back depending on the pressure point(s)
> of the lig. Also, the reed itself is often not perfectly flat, and the reed itself can compress somewhat. All these things can change the relationship of the reed to the tip--basically they can change the effective facing of the mpc and the tip opening.
> 
> dave bermes <dlbermes@.. .> wrote: 
> I find that the position of the ligature, forward or back. does affect the sound and control.
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: kymarto123@. .. 
> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com 
> Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 10:35 PM
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Ligatures
> 
> 
> The physics certain suggest that the lig should make no difference, as long as the reed is clamped securely, which actually does not take so much pressure. The reed does not vibrate past the lay, so what happens further south should not be of consequence. 
> 
> The lig could make a difference if the table is not flat, or if it compresses the fibers of the reed butt or if it otherwise alters the relationship of the reed tip to the rails where the action is. 
> 
> This is a hard proposition to test, however, since a tiny change in the reed position can have large effects on response, and it is next to impossible to put the reed on in exactly the same position when changing ligs. Also, since it is very easy to change response with the embouchure,
> even when trying very hard to maintain it constant, there is a tendency to find the response one expects or hopes to find.
> 
> Perhaps someone should do a series of experiments using an artificial embouchure. Repeated trials should take care of small variations in placement (and a control test could be run to see just the range of variation from one re-placement of the reed to the next using a single lig). The
> artificial embouchure would take care of player variability. 
> 
> Until such a test is run there is really no way of saying what causes the reported differences from one lig to the next.
> 
> Toby
> 
> STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@ ...> wrote: 
> 
> I keep going back and forth on this issue. I¡Çm not convinced the ligature makes a vast amount of difference. I¡Çve tried pretty much all of the exotic varieties at one time or another, and just don¡Çt find there to be a real significant advantage to one style or
> another, so long as it holds the reed securely in place. I use three different styles on my mouthpieces that we manufacture, and I can¡Çt tell the difference when using the same mouthpiece and reed, changing only the ligature. I¡Çd be interested in any real data on this topic,
> not anecdotal comments or pseudo-science. Is anyone aware of any real research? There seems to be a great deal of snake oil being sold along with ligatures, or maybe I¡Çm missing something.
> 
> STEVE GOODSON
> SAXOPHONE DESIGNER TO THE STARS
> 
> our products are ALL rated 
> 
> 
> 
> Steve is a member of
> 
> 
> 
> PLEASE VISIT MY WEBSITES
> http://www.nationofmusic.com/ (retail sales and discussion forum)
> http://launch. groups.yahoo. com/group/ SaxophoneRepair/ (discussion group)
> http://www.saxgourmet.com/ (saxophone history and information)
> http://saxophonetho ughts.blogspot. com/ (my personal saxophone blog)
> 
> READ MY ARTICLES ON SAXOPHONE DESIGN IN EACH ISSUE OF THE SAXOPHONE JOURNAL
> The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves
> BASIC SHOP RATE........ ........$ 100/HR
> IF YOU WATCH....... ......... .....$125/ HR
> IF YOU ASK QUESTIONS... ...$150/HR
> IF I HAVE TO LISTEN TO A CONCERT 
> LONGER THAN FIVE MINUTES WHEN
> YOU PICK UP YOUR HORN....$250/ HR
> 
> The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side." Hunter S. Thompson
> 
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information or otherwise protected by law. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is
> prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
>





      

After you put the stop block on, use a tone analyzer or oscilloscope program like tenorman 1952 posted for the Runyon Spoiler demo. That will lower the level of pseudo-science from any results related to tone.

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "dkulcinski" <dkulcinski@...> wrote:
>
> Actually, I think that if one were to put a little block at the butt of the reed after the first ligature was installed, this would act as a stop to set the position of the reed for subsequent ligatures.  That being said, it would be difficult to stop skew, or, side-to-side positioning of the reed.  If the reed were only as wide as the table, I wonder if the minute skewing from eyeballing the side-to-side position would make that much difference.
> 
> David
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@> wrote:
> >
> > The physics certain suggest that the lig should make no difference, as long as the reed is clamped securely, which actually does not take so much pressure. The reed does not vibrate past the lay, so what happens further south should not be of consequence. 
> > 
> > The lig could make a difference if the table is not flat, or if it compresses the fibers of the reed butt or if it otherwise alters the relationship of the reed tip to the rails where the action is. 
> > 
> > This is a hard proposition to test, however, since a tiny change in the reed position can have large effects on response, and it is next to impossible to put the reed on in exactly the same position when changing ligs. Also, since it is very easy to change response with the embouchure, even when
> >  trying very hard to maintain it constant, there is a tendency to find the response one expects or hopes to find.
> > 
> > Perhaps someone should do a series of experiments using an artificial embouchure. Repeated trials should take care of small variations in placement (and a control test could be run to see just the range of variation from one re-placement of the reed to the next using a single lig). The artificial
> >  embouchure would take care of player variability. 
> > 
> > Until such a test is run there is really no way of saying what causes the reported differences from one lig to the next.
> > 
> > Toby
> > 
> > STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@> wrote:                                          
> >   I keep going back and forth on this issue. I¡Çm not convinced the ligature makes a vast amount of difference. I¡Çve tried pretty much all of the exotic varieties at one time or another, and just don¡Çt find there to be a real significant advantage to one style or another, so long as it holds the
> >  reed securely in place. I use three different styles on my mouthpieces that we manufacture, and I can¡Çt tell the difference when using the same mouthpiece and reed, changing only the ligature. I¡Çd be interested in any real data on this topic, not anecdotal comments or pseudo-science. Is anyone
> >  aware of any real research? There seems to be a great deal of snake oil being sold along with ligatures, or maybe I¡Çm missing something.
> >    
> >   STEVE GOODSON
> >   SAXOPHONE DESIGNER TO THE STARS
> >    
> >   our products are ALL rated 
> >    
> >   
> >    
> >   Steve is a member of
> >    
> >    
> >    
> >   PLEASE VISIT MY WEBSITES
> >  http://www.nationofmusic.com/ (retail sales and discussion forum)
> >  http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/SaxophoneRepair/  (discussion group)
> >  http://www.saxgourmet.com/  (saxophone history and information)
> >  http://saxophonethoughts.blogspot.com/  (my personal saxophone blog)
> >    
> >   READ MY ARTICLES ON SAXOPHONE DESIGN IN EACH ISSUE OF THE SAXOPHONE JOURNAL
> >  The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves
> >   BASIC SHOP RATE................$100/HR
> >   IF YOU WATCH.....................$125/HR
> >   IF YOU ASK QUESTIONS......$150/HR
> >   IF I HAVE TO LISTEN TO A CONCERT 
> >   LONGER THAN FIVE MINUTES WHEN
> >   YOU PICK UP YOUR HORN....$250/HR
> >    
> >   The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side." Hunter S. Thompson
> >    
> >   CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information or otherwise protected by law. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not
> >  the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
> >
>

Yeah,

Perceptive chops.

This difference that ligatures make on open mpc's is nothing short of amazing.  Rovenor's Eddie Daniels are what I use exclusively and I've done some blind tests and everyone says the sound is better on the Daniels.

I think you guys down south need to come up here to Michigan and here some REAL sax men play.  We got George Benson (Motown), Diego Rivera(MSU),  Chris Collins.  Those guys you got demoing can't hold a candle to the chops we got up here.  You need to spend sometime in Ann Arbor, MI and find out what real sax guys can play.

You're a good marketing guy, I'm not impressed with your sound.

Ted Maciag


--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "STEVE GOODSON" <saxgourmet@...> wrote:
>
> I keep going back and forth on this issue. I'm not convinced the ligature
> makes a vast amount of difference. I've tried pretty much all of the exotic
> varieties at one time or another, and just don't find there to be a real
> significant advantage to one style or another, so long as it holds the reed
> securely in place. I use three different styles on my mouthpieces that we
> manufacture, and I can't tell the difference when using the same mouthpiece
> and reed, changing only the ligature. I'd be interested in any real data on
> this topic, not anecdotal comments or pseudo-science. Is anyone aware of any
> real research? There seems to be a great deal of snake oil being sold along
> with ligatures, or maybe I'm missing something.
> 
>  
> 
> STEVE GOODSON
> 
> SAXOPHONE DESIGNER TO THE STARS
> 
>  
> 
> our products are ALL rated 
> 
>  
> 
> cid:339191121@25022009-09F4
> 
>  
> 
> Steve is a member of
> 
> hd_logo NAMMbelieve2napbirt_logo_color_thumb
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> PLEASE VISIT MY WEBSITES
>  <http://www.nationofmusic.com/> http://www.nationofmusic.com/ (retail sales
> and discussion forum)
>  <http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/SaxophoneRepair/>
> http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/SaxophoneRepair/  (discussion group)
>  <http://www.saxgourmet.com/> http://www.saxgourmet.com/  (saxophone history
> and information)
>  <http://saxophonethoughts.blogspot.com/>
> http://saxophonethoughts.blogspot.com/  (my personal saxophone blog)
> 
>  
> 
> READ MY ARTICLES ON SAXOPHONE DESIGN IN EACH ISSUE OF THE SAXOPHONE JOURNAL
> The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic
> hallway where thieves
> 
> BASIC SHOP RATE................$100/HR
> 
> IF YOU WATCH.....................$125/HR
> 
> IF YOU ASK QUESTIONS......$150/HR
> 
> IF I HAVE TO LISTEN TO A CONCERT 
> 
> LONGER THAN FIVE MINUTES WHEN
> 
> YOU PICK UP YOUR HORN....$250/HR
> 
>  
> 
> The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic
> hallway where thieves and pimps run free and good men die like dogs. There's
> also a negative side." Hunter S. Thompson
> 
>  
> 
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is
> for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential
> and privileged information or otherwise protected by law. Any unauthorized
> review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
> intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy
> all copies of the original message.
>

THANK YOU.-)

Ted


--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "zangsax" <sjohn@...> wrote:
>
> As a person who took 83 graduate credits and finished 1/2 a thesis in theoretical physics at NYU I have not looked into lig biz.  As a saxophonist-full time for 40 yrs  I feel the ligature makes a big difference in reponse and sound.  It may only be in the ease that you deal with mouthpiece imperfections i.e. adjusting front and back screw pressure on all mouthpieces I own on all saxophones ( don't have a contra bass ). changes my perception, at least,  of harmonic spectrum and response.  Some ligs e.g. Oleg,Rovner,and string seem to have much more control in this way.   Countless numbers of time I have A-B 'd  traditional ligs with these and always feel and hear the difference.  I agree this is not magic. it is about controlling the reed-table relationship with or without anomalies.  If it even only  improves ones perception soundwise  and helps articulation I would call it real.   No Physics questions please.     John Z
> 
> 
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Dave,
> > 
> > If you look closely, you'll probably notice that the position of the lig changes the clearance between the tip of the reed and the tip rail. This is due to a number of possible factors. Often the table is not perfectly even and the reed can rock forward and back depending on the pressure point(s)
> >  of the lig. Also, the reed itself is often not perfectly flat, and the reed itself can compress somewhat. All these things can change the relationship of the reed to the tip--basically they can change the effective facing of the mpc and the tip opening.
> > 
> > dave bermes <dlbermes@> wrote:                                       
> > I find that the position of the ligature,  forward or back. does affect the sound and control.
> >     ----- Original Message ----- 
> >    From:    kymarto123@ 
> >    To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com    
> >    Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 10:35    PM
> >    Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork]    Ligatures
> >    
> > 
> >         The physics certain suggest that the lig should make no difference, as long    as the reed is clamped securely, which actually does not take so much    pressure. The reed does not vibrate past the lay, so what happens further    south should not be of consequence. 
> > 
> > The lig could make a difference if    the table is not flat, or if it compresses the fibers of the reed butt or if    it otherwise alters the relationship of the reed tip to the rails where the    action is. 
> > 
> > This is a hard proposition to test, however, since a tiny    change in the reed position can have large effects on response, and it is next    to impossible to put the reed on in exactly the same position when changing    ligs. Also, since it is very easy to change response with the embouchure,
> >  even    when trying very hard to maintain it constant, there is a tendency to find the    response one expects or hopes to find.
> > 
> > Perhaps someone should do a    series of experiments using an artificial embouchure. Repeated trials should    take care of small variations in placement (and a control test could be run to    see just the range of variation from one re-placement of the reed to the next    using a single lig). The
> >  artificial embouchure would take care of player    variability. 
> > 
> > Until such a test is run there is really no way of saying    what causes the reported differences from one lig to the    next.
> > 
> > Toby
> > 
> > STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@>    wrote:   
> >             
> >           I      keep going back and forth on this issue. I¡Çm not convinced the ligature      makes a vast amount of difference. I¡Çve tried pretty much all of the exotic      varieties at one time or another, and just don¡Çt find there to be a real      significant advantage to one style or
> >  another, so long as it holds the reed      securely in place. I use three different styles on my mouthpieces that we      manufacture, and I can¡Çt tell the difference when using the same mouthpiece      and reed, changing only the ligature. I¡Çd be interested in any real data on      this topic,
> >  not anecdotal comments or pseudo-science. Is anyone aware of any      real research? There seems to be a great deal of snake oil being sold along      with ligatures, or maybe I¡Çm missing something.
> >      
> >      STEVE      GOODSON
> >      SAXOPHONE DESIGNER TO THE      STARS
> >      
> >      our products are ALL rated      
> >      
> >      
> >      
> >      Steve is a member      of
> >       
> >      
> >      
> >      PLEASE VISIT MY      WEBSITES
> > http://www.nationofmusic.com/      (retail sales and discussion forum)
> > http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/SaxophoneRepair/       (discussion group)
> > http://www.saxgourmet.com/       (saxophone history and information)
> > http://saxophonethoughts.blogspot.com/       (my personal saxophone blog)
> >      
> >      READ MY ARTICLES ON SAXOPHONE      DESIGN IN EACH ISSUE OF THE SAXOPHONE      JOURNAL
> > The      Music Business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway      where thieves
> >      BASIC SHOP      RATE................$100/HR
> >      IF YOU      WATCH.....................$125/HR
> >      IF YOU ASK      QUESTIONS......$150/HR
> >      IF I HAVE TO LISTEN TO A      CONCERT 
> >      LONGER THAN FIVE MINUTES      WHEN
> >      YOU PICK UP YOUR      HORN....$250/HR
> >      
> >      The      Music Business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway      where thieves and pimps run free and good men die like dogs. There's also a      negative side." Hunter S. Thompson
> >      
> >      CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This      e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the      intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged      information or otherwise protected by law. Any unauthorized review, use,      disclosure or distribution is
> >  prohibited. If you are not the intended      recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies      of the original message.
> >
>

Try a Rovner Eddie Daniels lig on the metal Link.
------Original Message------
From: pfdeley
Sender: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
ReplyTo: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Ligatures
Sent: Sep 22, 2009 8:35 AM

  Hello,
  I don't see how research in this area would benefit anything. It is so impirical, every mouthpiece aand ligature combination is different, without even considering the reed. I have never liked a Rovner on a metal Link and yet Rovners are great on other pieces. We should be grateful that there is so much choice in ligatures so that we can always find something that works.
   The reed comes into play as well. One of the first things Larry Combs showed me was how he experimented with  reed position, moving it around on the table and play-testing it until he found the sweet  spot. Then he would mark the reed with an arrow or two as a guide for the next time.    Peter

 --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "dkulcinski"  wrote:
>
> Actually, I think that if one were to put a little block at the butt of the reed after the first ligature was installed, this would act as a stop to set the position of the reed for subsequent ligatures.  That being said, it would be difficult to stop skew, or, side-to-side positioning of the reed.  If the reed were only as wide as the table, I wonder if the minute skewing from eyeballing the side-to-side position would make that much difference.
> 
> David
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:
> >
> > The physics certain suggest that the lig should make no difference, as long as the reed is clamped securely, which actually does not take so much pressure. The reed does not vibrate past the lay, so what happens further south should not be of consequence. 
> > 
> > The lig could make a difference if the table is not flat, or if it compresses the fibers of the reed butt or if it otherwise alters the relationship of the reed tip to the rails where the action is. 
> > 
> > This is a hard proposition to test, however, since a tiny change in the reed position can have large effects on response, and it is next to impossible to put the reed on in exactly the same position when changing ligs. Also, since it is very easy to change response with the embouchure, even when
> >  trying very hard to maintain it constant, there is a tendency to find the response one expects or hopes to find.
> > 
> > Perhaps someone should do a series of experiments using an artificial embouchure. Repeated trials should take care of small variations in placement (and a control test could be run to see just the range of variation from one re-placement of the reed to the next using a single lig). The artificial
> >  embouchure would take care of player variability. 
> > 
> > Until such a test is run there is really no way of saying what causes the reported differences from one lig to the next.
> > 
> > Toby
> > 
> > STEVE GOODSON  wrote:                                          
> >   I keep going back and forth on this issue. I¡Çm not convinced the ligature makes a vast amount of difference. I¡Çve tried pretty much all of the exotic varieties at one time or another, and just don¡Çt find there to be a real significant advantage to one style or another, so long as it holds the
> >  reed securely in place. I use three different styles on my mouthpieces that we manufacture, and I can¡Çt tell the difference when using the same mouthpiece and reed, changing only the ligature. I¡Çd be interested in any real data on this topic, not anecdotal comments or pseudo-science. Is anyone
> >  aware of any real research? There seems to be a great deal of snake oil being sold along with ligatures, or maybe I¡Çm missing something.
> >    
> >   STEVE GOODSON
> >   SAXOPHONE DESIGNER TO THE STARS
> >    
> >   our products are ALL rated 
> >    
> >   
> >    
> >   Steve is a member of
> >    
> >    
> >    
> >   PLEASE VISIT MY WEBSITES
> >  http://www.nationofmusic.com/ (retail sales and discussion forum)
> >  http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/SaxophoneRepair/  (discussion group)
> >  http://www.saxgourmet.com/  (saxophone history and information)
> >  http://saxophonethoughts.blogspot.com/  (my personal saxophone blog)
> >    
> >

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

At the recent NAMM show, I had my ears filled by Jody Espina, Theo Wanne,
Oleg Garbozov, and others about the relative merits of various ligature
designs, and the effects of alternative plates and materials. Honestly, I'm
a little skeptical about this. I've tried various brands over the years, but
am not totally convinced I can tell a difference or that I can find a
scientific basis for understanding why a ligature might make a difference
once it accomplishes its job of holding the reed securely in its proper
position. Other than anecdotal stories, does anyone know of any real study
of this topic?

 

 

sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc

STEVE GOODSON

SAXOPHONE DESIGNER TO THE STARS         

 

our products are ALL rated 

 

cid:339191121@25022009-09F4

 

Steve is a member of

hd_logo NAMMbelieve2nasaconf_GIF

 

 

PLEASE VISIT MY WEBSITES
 <http://www.nationofmusic.com/> http://www.nationofmusic.com/ (retail sales
and discussion forum)
 <http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/SaxophoneRepair/>
http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/SaxophoneRepair/  (discussion group)
 <http://www.saxgourmet.com/> http://www.saxgourmet.com/  (saxophone history
and information)
 <http://saxophonethoughts.blogspot.com/>
http://saxophonethoughts.blogspot.com/  (my personal saxophone blog)

 

READ MY ARTICLES ON SAXOPHONE DESIGN IN EACH ISSUE OF THE SAXOPHONE JOURNAL
The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic
hallway where thieves

BASIC SHOP RATE................$100/HR

IF YOU WATCH.....................$125/HR

IF YOU ASK QUESTIONS......$150/HR

IF I HAVE TO LISTEN TO A CONCERT 

LONGER THAN FIVE MINUTES WHEN

YOU PICK UP YOUR HORN....$250/HR

 

The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic
hallway where thieves and pimps run free and good men die like dogs. There's
also a negative side." Hunter S. Thompson

 

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is
for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential
and privileged information or otherwise protected by law. Any unauthorized
review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy
all copies of the original message.

 

Hi Steve,

You say "why a ligature might make a difference once it accomplishes its job of holding the reed securely in its proper position."

The answer is this (IMHO):  Most ligatures don't actually do that.  I have modified every ligature I have owned so that it does, and once  they a) fit the mouthpiece properly and b) provide even, reasonably firm and adjustable pressure at the correct points on the reed, they all sound and feel the same to me.

Modifications I have done in the past, to good effect:

* Inverting ligatures (so that the screws don't pinch the reed)
* Adding padding or filling to the areas that touch the reed
* Creating rails or pressure points out of epoxy or dental acrylic (so that the lig is more like a Bonade inverted)

Actually, the best mod I have ever done is to put 2 or 3 layers of pad leather on a link screw lig - this creates a good surface to hold the reed with, without having to crank the sucker down and mashing the reed fibers.  I also bend the plates so they are symmetrical before putting the leather pad on.

BTW, I don't much like the Rovner ligs because I think that they don't actually hold the reed on firmly enough.  (The "lights" are better in this regard.)  I notice a lot of saliva leakage onto the table when I use these ligs.

HTH
-Steve Keller

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "STEVE GOODSON" <saxgourmet@...> wrote:
>
> At the recent NAMM show, I had my ears filled by Jody Espina, Theo Wanne,
> Oleg Garbozov, and others about the relative merits of various ligature
> designs, and the effects of alternative plates and materials. Honestly, I'm
> a little skeptical about this. I've tried various brands over the years, but
> am not totally convinced I can tell a difference or that I can find a
> scientific basis for understanding why a ligature might make a difference
> once it accomplishes its job of holding the reed securely in its proper
> position. Other than anecdotal stories, does anyone know of any real study
> of this topic?
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
> 
> STEVE GOODSON
> 
> SAXOPHONE DESIGNER TO THE STARS         
> 
>  
> 
> our products are ALL rated 
> 
>  
> 
> cid:339191121@25022009-09F4
> 
>  
> 
> Steve is a member of
> 
> hd_logo NAMMbelieve2nasaconf_GIF
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> PLEASE VISIT MY WEBSITES
>  <http://www.nationofmusic.com/> http://www.nationofmusic.com/ (retail sales
> and discussion forum)
>  <http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/SaxophoneRepair/>
> http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/SaxophoneRepair/  (discussion group)
>  <http://www.saxgourmet.com/> http://www.saxgourmet.com/  (saxophone history
> and information)
>  <http://saxophonethoughts.blogspot.com/>
> http://saxophonethoughts.blogspot.com/  (my personal saxophone blog)
> 
>  
> 
> READ MY ARTICLES ON SAXOPHONE DESIGN IN EACH ISSUE OF THE SAXOPHONE JOURNAL
> The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic
> hallway where thieves
> 
> BASIC SHOP RATE................$100/HR
> 
> IF YOU WATCH.....................$125/HR
> 
> IF YOU ASK QUESTIONS......$150/HR
> 
> IF I HAVE TO LISTEN TO A CONCERT 
> 
> LONGER THAN FIVE MINUTES WHEN
> 
> YOU PICK UP YOUR HORN....$250/HR
> 
>  
> 
> The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic
> hallway where thieves and pimps run free and good men die like dogs. There's
> also a negative side." Hunter S. Thompson
> 
>  
> 
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is
> for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential
> and privileged information or otherwise protected by law. Any unauthorized
> review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
> intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy
> all copies of the original message.
>

I've fooled around with different modifications, including some of the same
ones you reference. I'm using a single screw "Link" style with Sorbothane on
the contact plate on most of my mouthpieces right now, and I've convinced
myself that it plays better than other types....

 

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Steve Keller
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 4:09 PM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Ligatures

 

  


Hi Steve,

You say "why a ligature might make a difference once it accomplishes its job
of holding the reed securely in its proper position."

The answer is this (IMHO): Most ligatures don't actually do that. I have
modified every ligature I have owned so that it does, and once they a) fit
the mouthpiece properly and b) provide even, reasonably firm and adjustable
pressure at the correct points on the reed, they all sound and feel the same
to me.

Modifications I have done in the past, to good effect:

* Inverting ligatures (so that the screws don't pinch the reed)
* Adding padding or filling to the areas that touch the reed
* Creating rails or pressure points out of epoxy or dental acrylic (so that
the lig is more like a Bonade inverted)

Actually, the best mod I have ever done is to put 2 or 3 layers of pad
leather on a link screw lig - this creates a good surface to hold the reed
with, without having to crank the sucker down and mashing the reed fibers. I
also bend the plates so they are symmetrical before putting the leather pad
on.

BTW, I don't much like the Rovner ligs because I think that they don't
actually hold the reed on firmly enough. (The "lights" are better in this
regard.) I notice a lot of saliva leakage onto the table when I use these
ligs.

HTH
-Steve Keller

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> , "STEVE GOODSON" <saxgourmet@...>
wrote:
>
> At the recent NAMM show, I had my ears filled by Jody Espina, Theo Wanne,
> Oleg Garbozov, and others about the relative merits of various ligature
> designs, and the effects of alternative plates and materials. Honestly,
I'm
> a little skeptical about this. I've tried various brands over the years,
but
> am not totally convinced I can tell a difference or that I can find a
> scientific basis for understanding why a ligature might make a difference
> once it accomplishes its job of holding the reed securely in its proper
> position. Other than anecdotal stories, does anyone know of any real study
> of this topic?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
> 
> STEVE GOODSON
> 
> SAXOPHONE DESIGNER TO THE STARS 
> 
> 
> 
> our products are ALL rated 
> 
> 
> 
> cid:339191121@25022009-09F4
> 
> 
> 
> Steve is a member of
> 
> hd_logo NAMMbelieve2nasaconf_GIF
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLEASE VISIT MY WEBSITES
> <http://www.nationofmusic.com/> http://www.nationofmusic.com/ (retail
sales
> and discussion forum)
> <http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/SaxophoneRepair/>
> http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/SaxophoneRepair/ (discussion group)
> <http://www.saxgourmet.com/> http://www.saxgourmet.com/ (saxophone history
> and information)
> <http://saxophonethoughts.blogspot.com/>
> http://saxophonethoughts.blogspot.com/ (my personal saxophone blog)
> 
> 
> 
> READ MY ARTICLES ON SAXOPHONE DESIGN IN EACH ISSUE OF THE SAXOPHONE
JOURNAL
> The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic
> hallway where thieves
> 
> BASIC SHOP RATE................$100/HR
> 
> IF YOU WATCH.....................$125/HR
> 
> IF YOU ASK QUESTIONS......$150/HR
> 
> IF I HAVE TO LISTEN TO A CONCERT 
> 
> LONGER THAN FIVE MINUTES WHEN
> 
> YOU PICK UP YOUR HORN....$250/HR
> 
> 
> 
> The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic
> hallway where thieves and pimps run free and good men die like dogs.
There's
> also a negative side." Hunter S. Thompson
> 
> 
> 
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is
> for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential
> and privileged information or otherwise protected by law. Any unauthorized
> review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
> intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy
> all copies of the original message.
>

You are not the only one skeptical about all this. I have never found any formal study of ligs, but I have done a lot of informal investigation myself. My conclusion is that lig materials make no difference, IF the lig does not change the relationship of the reed to the table and lay, but that is a big if.

Some years ago I spent a fair amount of time in LA at Oleg's with him trying to "help" me feel the difference using his lig with different back/front screw tensions. I admit that I must be pretty dense, because it didn't really seem to make a big difference, but anyway I bought one (they are not cheap) to experiment with. 

After more testing I decided that there was a bit of a difference depending on how the front/back tension was set, but that that depended on the fact that when the front screw was tight the reed tip was closer to the tip rail and vice versa. This was easy to measure with calipers. The deal seems to be that a lig can make a very perceptible difference because tables are rarely flat and reeds do compress somewhat. So depending on where the lig tension is highest, it can shift the angle of the reed to the mpc. 

As to one or another lig allowing the reed to"vibrate freely" or some other such crap, there are a few things you should think about.

First, just how freely can a reed vibrate? The tip certainly vibrates, but by the break the reed hardly moves at all, and where the lig holds the reed the vibrations are miniscule. Some people think that a soft lig can allow some movement between the reed stock and the table. This seems like a fine idea at first, but think a bit deeper: if you hold a free reed onto the tip with one hand, and use the other hand to push the reed stock flush with the table, just how much pressure does it take? Not much at all. 

So actually the softest lig, tightened enough to hold the reed to the table without a lot of lateral shifting, is already exerting at least an order of magnitude more pressure than it takes to keep the reed stock from moving on the table in reaction to the vibration of the tip.

Another little test that I did was to play the sax one handed while holding the reed on the mpc with the other hand. That way I could continuously vary the pressure holding the reed on while playing. Did I feel any difference in response between clamping the reed as hard as I could and holding it so loosely that it was almost ready to fall off? Not a bit, until the pressure was so small that the stock actually did begin to vibrate on the table, and that positively did NOT help the sound.

I have tried velcro, string, rubber bands, soft fabric ligs, plastic ligs, Olegatures, hard ligs with two screws, one screw, Harrisons, etc. I think ligs are the biggest scam out there. 

I know that many disagree with me, and seem to find great differences between different ligs. I would really love to do some blind tests with ligs and see if people could actually tell the difference if they didn't know what lig they were playing. This is a test that would be quite easy to do, as the only thing that would need to be done is change the lig randomly a number of times, cover it up so that it could not be visually identified, and let people try to guess which is what, say, 25 times. I have a strong suspicion that like Coltman with flutes, people would be surprised to find out that they suddenly couldn't tell any difference.

Another thing that people who really do find a difference between different ligs can try is to use vernier calipers to check the tip clearance with the ligs they are comparing. In my case, it was pretty clear that the different ligs were clamping the reed at different points on the table, or compressing the cane at different points on the table, changing the reed clearance (and thus changing the feel).

John, if you are reading this, there is another test for your artificial embouchure.

Toby
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: STEVE GOODSON 
  To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 12:16 AM
  Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Ligatures


    

  At the recent NAMM show, I had my ears filled by Jody Espina, Theo Wanne, Oleg Garbozov, and others about the relative merits of various ligature designs, and the effects of alternative plates and materials. Honestly, I'm a little skeptical about this. I've tried various brands over the years, but am not totally convinced I can tell a difference or that I can find a scientific basis for understanding why a ligature might make a difference once it accomplishes its job of holding the reed securely in its proper position. Other than anecdotal stories, does anyone know of any real study of this topic?





  sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc

  STEVE GOODSON

  SAXOPHONE DESIGNER TO THE STARS         



  our products are ALL rated 







  Steve is a member of

   





  PLEASE VISIT MY WEBSITES
  http://www.nationofmusic.com/ (retail sales and discussion forum)
  http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/SaxophoneRepair/  (discussion group)
  http://www.saxgourmet.com/  (saxophone history and information)
  http://saxophonethoughts.blogspot.com/  (my personal saxophone blog)



  READ MY ARTICLES ON SAXOPHONE DESIGN IN EACH ISSUE OF THE SAXOPHONE JOURNAL
  The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves

  BASIC SHOP RATE................$100/HR

  IF YOU WATCH.....................$125/HR

  IF YOU ASK QUESTIONS......$150/HR

  IF I HAVE TO LISTEN TO A CONCERT 

  LONGER THAN FIVE MINUTES WHEN

  YOU PICK UP YOUR HORN....$250/HR



  The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side." Hunter S. Thompson



  CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information or otherwise protected by law. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.




  

I agree with you for the most part, although I DO hear some tiny differences between radical extremes such as metal vs. fabric.  I still can't figure out how people can hear a difference between gold-plated vs. silver-plated Harrison ligs, though, and many claim they can.  I can only assume the lig or reed must move slightly between trials.
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: "Toby" 
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 22:29:16 
To: 
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Ligatures

You are not the only one skeptical about all this. I have never found any formal study of ligs, but I have done a lot of informal investigation myself. My conclusion is that lig materials make no difference, IF the lig does not change the relationship of the reed to the table and lay, but that is a big if.

Some years ago I spent a fair amount of time in LA at Oleg's with him trying to "help" me feel the difference using his lig with different back/front screw tensions. I admit that I must be pretty dense, because it didn't really seem to make a big difference, but anyway I bought one (they are not cheap) to experiment with. 

After more testing I decided that there was a bit of a difference depending on how the front/back tension was set, but that that depended on the fact that when the front screw was tight the reed tip was closer to the tip rail and vice versa. This was easy to measure with calipers. The deal seems to be that a lig can make a very perceptible difference because tables are rarely flat and reeds do compress somewhat. So depending on where the lig tension is highest, it can shift the angle of the reed to the mpc. 

As to one or another lig allowing the reed to"vibrate freely" or some other such crap, there are a few things you should think about.

First, just how freely can a reed vibrate? The tip certainly vibrates, but by the break the reed hardly moves at all, and where the lig holds the reed the vibrations are miniscule. Some people think that a soft lig can allow some movement between the reed stock and the table. This seems like a fine idea at first, but think a bit deeper: if you hold a free reed onto the tip with one hand, and use the other hand to push the reed stock flush with the table, just how much pressure does it take? Not much at all. 

So actually the softest lig, tightened enough to hold the reed to the table without a lot of lateral shifting, is already exerting at least an order of magnitude more pressure than it takes to keep the reed stock from moving on the table in reaction to the vibration of the tip.

Another little test that I did was to play the sax one handed while holding the reed on the mpc with the other hand. That way I could continuously vary the pressure holding the reed on while playing. Did I feel any difference in response between clamping the reed as hard as I could and holding it so loosely that it was almost ready to fall off? Not a bit, until the pressure was so small that the stock actually did begin to vibrate on the table, and that positively did NOT help the sound.

I have tried velcro, string, rubber bands, soft fabric ligs, plastic ligs, Olegatures, hard ligs with two screws, one screw, Harrisons, etc. I think ligs are the biggest scam out there. 

I know that many disagree with me, and seem to find great differences between different ligs. I would really love to do some blind tests with ligs and see if people could actually tell the difference if they didn't know what lig they were playing. This is a test that would be quite easy to do, as the only thing that would need to be done is change the lig randomly a number of times, cover it up so that it could not be visually identified, and let people try to guess which is what, say, 25 times. I have a strong suspicion that like Coltman with flutes, people would be surprised to find out that they suddenly couldn't tell any difference.

Another thing that people who really do find a difference between different ligs can try is to use vernier calipers to check the tip clearance with the ligs they are comparing. In my case, it was pretty clear that the different ligs were clamping the reed at different points on the table, or compressing the cane at different points on the table, changing the reed clearance (and thus changing the feel).

John, if you are reading this, there is another test for your artificial embouchure.

Toby
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: STEVE GOODSON 
  To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 12:16 AM
  Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Ligatures


    

  At the recent NAMM show, I had my ears filled by Jody Espina, Theo Wanne, Oleg Garbozov, and others about the relative merits of various ligature designs, and the effects of alternative plates and materials. Honestly, I'm a little skeptical about this. I've tried various brands over the years, but am not totally convinced I can tell a difference or that I can find a scientific basis for understanding why a ligature might make a difference once it accomplishes its job of holding the reed securely in its proper position. Other than anecdotal stories, does anyone know of any real study of this topic?





  sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc

  STEVE GOODSON

  SAXOPHONE DESIGNER TO THE STARS         



  our products are ALL rated 







  Steve is a member of

   





  PLEASE VISIT MY WEBSITES
  http://www.nationofmusic.com/ (retail sales and discussion forum)
  http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/SaxophoneRepair/  (discussion group)
  http://www.saxgourmet.com/  (saxophone history and information)
  http://saxophonethoughts.blogspot.com/  (my personal saxophone blog)



  READ MY ARTICLES ON SAXOPHONE DESIGN IN EACH ISSUE OF THE SAXOPHONE JOURNAL
  The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves

  BASIC SHOP RATE................$100/HR

  IF YOU WATCH.....................$125/HR

  IF YOU ASK QUESTIONS......$150/HR

  IF I HAVE TO LISTEN TO A CONCERT 

  LONGER THAN FIVE MINUTES WHEN

  YOU PICK UP YOUR HORN....$250/HR



  The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side." Hunter S. Thompson



  CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information or otherwise protected by law. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.




  

I agree with all of this, but here is something that happened to me some years ago.

I was playing with the Vandoren Optimum ligature for a couple of years. I felt a lot of resistance, like when you are out of practice or you have a bad (but not too hard) reed. I never considered the problem was the ligature, so I tried many reeds, practiced, etc. etc. and nothing really helped. After a couple of months of this I had a rehearsal with another player and for no reason at all we tried each other's ligatures. From the first note I played with his ligature, the problem was gone. I couldn't believe it at first, but it wasn't just me, several other people in the room imedaitely heard how much better it sounded. His ligature happened to be the Oleg.

I found the Oleg lig on ebay for $20 and ordered it. I also tried a bunch of other ligatures I had but haven't used ever since I got the Optimum. None had the problem of the Optimum! I had no problem when I first tried the Optimum so I guess something happened, but whatever it was, it affected response so much. I still use the Oleg but I can use most others I have and it is ok, except that Optimum which still has the response problem.




________________________________
From: Toby <kymarto123@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, January 28, 2010 3:29:16 PM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Ligatures

  
You are not the only one skeptical about all this. I have never found any formal study of ligs, but I have done a lot of informal investigation myself. My conclusion is that lig materials make no difference, IF the lig does not change the relationship of the reed to the table and lay, but that is a big if.
 
Some years ago I spent a fair amount of time in LA at Oleg's with him trying to "help" me feel the difference using his lig with different back/front screw tensions. I admit that I must be pretty dense, because it didn't really seem to make a big difference, but anyway I bought one (they are not cheap) to experiment with. 
 
After more testing I decided that there was a bit of a difference depending on how the front/back tension was set, but that that depended on the fact that when the front screw was tight the reed tip was closer to the tip rail and vice versa. This was easy to measure with calipers. The deal seems to be that a lig can make a very perceptible difference because tables are rarely flat and reeds do compress somewhat. So depending on where the lig tension is highest, it can shift the angle of the reed to the mpc. 
 
As to one or another lig allowing the reed to"vibrate freely" or some other such crap, there are a few things you should think about.
 
First, just how freely can a reed vibrate? The tip certainly vibrates, but by the break the reed hardly moves at all, and where the lig holds the reed the vibrations are miniscule. Some people think that a soft lig can allow some movement between the reed stock and the table. This seems like a fine idea at first, but think a bit deeper: if you hold a free reed onto the tip with one hand, and use the other hand to push the reed stock flush with the table, just how much pressure does it take? Not much at all. 
 
So actually the softest lig, tightened enough to hold the reed to the table without a lot of lateral shifting, is already exerting at least an order of magnitude more pressure than it takes to keep the reed stock from moving on the table in reaction to the vibration of the tip.
 
Another little test that I did was to play the sax one handed while holding the reed on the mpc with the other hand. That way I could continuously vary the pressure holding the reed on while playing. Did I feel any difference in response between clamping the reed as hard as I could and holding it so loosely that it was almost ready to fall off? Not a bit, until the pressure was so small that the stock actually did begin to vibrate on the table, and that positively did NOT help the sound.
 
I have tried velcro, string, rubber bands, soft fabric ligs, plastic ligs, Olegatures, hard ligs with two screws, one screw, Harrisons, etc. I think ligs are the biggest scam out there. 
 
I know that many disagree with me, and seem to find great differences between different ligs. I would really love to do some blind tests with ligs and see if people could actually tell the difference if they didn't know what lig they were playing. This is a test that would be quite easy to do, as the only thing that would need to be done is change the lig randomly a number of times, cover it up so that it could not be visually identified, and let people try to guess which is what, say, 25 times. I have a strong suspicion that like Coltman with flutes, people would be surprised to find out that they suddenly couldn't tell any difference.
 
Another thing that people who really do find a difference between different ligs can try is to use vernier calipers to check the tip clearance with the ligs they are comparing. In my case, it was pretty clear that the different ligs were clamping the reed at different points on the table, or compressing the cane at different points on the table, changing the reed clearance (and thus changing the feel).
 
John, if you are reading this, there is another test for your artificial embouchure.
 
Toby
----- Original Message ----- 
>From: STEVE GOODSON 
>To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com 
>Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 12:16 AM
>Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Ligatures
>
>  
>At the recent NAMM show, I had my ears filled by Jody Espina, Theo Wanne, Oleg Garbozov, and others about the relative merits of various ligature designs, and the effects of alternative plates and materials. Honestly, I’m a little skeptical about this. I’ve tried various brands over the years, but am not totally convinced I can tell a difference or that I can find a scientific basis for understanding why a ligature might make a difference once it accomplishes its job of holding the reed securely in its proper position. Other than anecdotal stories, does anyone know of any real study of this topic?
>sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
>STEVE GOODSON
>SAXOPHONE DESIGNER TO THE STARS         
>our products are ALL rated 
>Steve is a member of
> 
>PLEASE VISIT MY WEBSITES
>http://www.nationof music.com/ (retail sales and discussion forum)
>http://launch. groups.yahoo. com/group/ SaxophoneRepair/  (discussion group)
>http://www.saxgourm et.com/  (saxophone history and information)
>http://saxophonetho ughts.blogspot. com/  (my personal saxophone blog)
>READ MY ARTICLES ON SAXOPHONE DESIGN IN EACH ISSUE OF THE SAXOPHONE JOURNAL
>The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves
>BASIC SHOP RATE........ ........$ 100/HR
>IF YOU WATCH....... ......... .....$125/ HR
>IF YOU ASK QUESTIONS... ...$150/HR
>IF I HAVE TO LISTEN TO A CONCERT 
>LONGER THAN FIVE MINUTES WHEN
>YOU PICK UP YOUR HORN....$250/ HR
>The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side." Hunter S. Thompson
>CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information or otherwise protected by law. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.



      

The not-so-flat table and flex in a cloth/synthetic ligature can explain why a Rover type ligature can make many more reeds in a box work better for some people. But it would make poor marketing to be truthful and say "Our ligature can help more reeds work on your warped, piece of junk mouthpiece"

At a music convention 20+ years ago, a store had a box full of assorted size, tarnished, inverted ligatures shaped like a funky X on the reed side, minus the screws. They were selling for not much each. I picked one up for a sturdy spare. Later I wished I would have got the whole box of Harrisons for me and Ebay sales!!!!

E v e r e t t  F i d l e r 

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "Toby" <kymarto123@...> wrote:
>
> You are not the only one skeptical about all this. I have never found any formal study of ligs, but I have done a lot of informal investigation myself. My conclusion is that lig materials make no difference, IF the lig does not change the relationship of the reed to the table and lay, but that is a big if.
> 

Toby wrote: "...John, if you are reading this, there is another test for your artificial embouchure...."
 
I like your blind test ideas but I do not think this a good fit for John's apparatus as it is currently designed.  His embouchure clamp is mounted off (connected to) the ligature.
 
I think most players are reporting their experiences truthfully.  Sometimes a ligature design, position, tension matters a lot, sometimes it does not.  I think the reason it may matter a lot is if the table is not flat.  The table may be concave, convex or wavy in many different ways.  The various contact points of the ligatures will play off these points.  Cane reeds swell a little, synths do not.  Cane and some synths get softer after 20 minutes of play.  
 
Years ago I spent many hours testing different contact point arrangements with Winslow ligatures.  The process of removing and re-installing the snap rings for each post is tedious.  Out of 8-10 arrangements, I would find 2 that were bad, 2 that were good (responsive was my criterion) and rest were like any plain ligature design to me.  On a tapered mouthpiece, like the Runyon Custom Alto that I use, the Winslow can be a pain to seat.  It wants to slide off while tightening.  I find a Rovner L-6 much easier to put on and almost as good.  I give my Winslow a 10 and the Rovner a 9.5.  But if the Winslow is not centered just right, the Rovner plays better.  So in a blind test, the Rovner may win (or I could not tell the diff).
 
On Meyer-like alto mouthpieces, I find the Optimum a great design.  One screw, nice an secure, floating plate(s).  But again, the Rovner Lights are a great low-cost go-to ligature that I keep in all sizes for mouthpiece play-testing.  I was not that impressed with Oleg ligatures.  They are a fuss to get on for me and I did not get a sonic "wow" from them.  But for those that do, great!.
 
I'm sure there is a lot of pre-conceived opinions about ligatures.  We like shiny things.  The mesh of the Oleg looks classy to many.  The piston look of the Winslow looks tech-y and appeals to some for that reason.  The Optimum has a little of each IMO.  Most Rovners are not pretty.  But a few are and most of them do not mark up your mouthpiece.  
 
Ligatures are fairly low cost.  I do not think you can create a test that the results will apply to all sax players and their set-ups.  But you can test what they think they know with their eyes open vs with them closed.  


      

Yes, Olegs mark up mouthpieces. Someone selling an Oleg (I played it but
didn't buy) showed me this a few years ago - he had applied a protective
tape on his metal mouthpiece to minimize this.  The mouthpiece was, IIRC, a
Van Wie'd tenor Link.

--> An interesting thing worth mentioning here in this group, now that I
think about it, is this: The player told me his Link originally had a very
narrow facing, such that, in order to get to a wider facing, Van Wie
actually physically *bent* the tip of the mouthpiece open a bit as part of
his process, rather than remove too much material from the piece.

> I'm sure there is a lot of pre-conceived opinions about ligatures.  We like
> shiny things.  The mesh of the Oleg looks classy to many.  The piston look of
> the Winslow looks tech-y and appeals to some for that reason.  The Optimum has
> a little of each IMO.  Most Rovners are not pretty.  But a few are and most of
> them do not mark up your mouthpiece.
> 

Hi,   I think Olegs, despite their beautiful appearance, have a design flaw. The screws are much too high up and tend to bend  upwards after prolonged use, so that the two bars no longer pull at right angles on the mesh and you end up with poor sealage of the reed.   I read an article recently in The Clarinet about tying your mouthpiece with string as in the old days. I tried it and it worked great. Then I sewed the string coils together so that I no longer have to tie it each time.  It is a permanent wrap around string ligature.  It works so well that I am going to try it on  my tenor mouthpiece, perhaps incorporating a small metal bar in the string to make it like an Eddie Daniels Rovner.   With the right string, this could also be a rather esthetically pleasing ligature too. Peter

--- On Thu, 1/28/10, Barry Levine <barrylevine@...> wrote:

From: Barry Levine <barrylevine@norwoodlight.com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Ligatures
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, January 28, 2010, 12:31 PM















 
 



  


    
      
      
      


Yes, Olegs mark up mouthpieces. Someone selling an Oleg (I played it but didn't buy) showed me this a few years ago - he had applied a protective tape on his metal mouthpiece to minimize this.  The mouthpiece was, IIRC, a Van Wie'd tenor Link. 



--> An interesting thing worth mentioning here in this group, now that I think about it, is this: The player told me his Link originally had a very narrow facing, such that, in order to get to a wider facing, Van Wie actually physically *bent* the tip of the mouthpiece open a bit as part of his process, rather than remove too much material from the piece.



I'm sure there is a lot of pre-conceived opinions about ligatures.  We like shiny things.  The mesh of the Oleg looks classy to many.  The piston look of the Winslow looks tech-y and appeals to some for that reason.  The Optimum has a little of each IMO.  Most Rovners are not pretty.  But a few are and most of them do not mark up your mouthpiece.  









    
     

    
    


 



  











      

The tape if because the metal mesh of the Oleg slips if it is not there. The mesh is pretty but because it is so flexible trying to put it on the mpc while holding the reed to the table risks damaging the reed. I love Rovners. Cheap and well made, they stay put on the mpc when you tune and you can
 sit on them with no damage to yourself or the lig.

Toby

Barry Levine <barrylevine@...> wrote:                                              Yes, Olegs mark up mouthpieces. Someone selling an Oleg (I played it but didn't buy) showed me this a few years ago - he had applied a protective tape on his metal mouthpiece to minimize this.  The
 mouthpiece was, IIRC, a Van Wie'd tenor Link. 
 
 --> An interesting thing worth mentioning here in this group, now that I think about it, is this: The player told me his Link originally had a very narrow facing, such that, in order to get to a wider facing, Van Wie actually physically *bent* the tip of the mouthpiece open a bit as part of his
 process, rather than remove too much material from the piece.
 

 I'm sure there is a lot of pre-conceived opinions about ligatures.  We like shiny things.  The mesh of the Oleg looks classy to many.  The piston look of the Winslow looks tech-y and appeals to some for that reason.  The Optimum has a little of each IMO.  Most Rovners are not pretty.  But a few
 are and most of them do not mark up your mouthpiece.  
 
     
      
                 
                 
 

>>  I was not that impressed with Oleg ligatures.  They are a fuss to
get on for me and I did not get a sonic "wow" from them.  But for those
that do, great!.
I'm sure there is a lot of pre-conceived opinions about ligatures.  We
like shiny things.  The mesh of the Oleg looks classy to many. <<   I
use an Oleg ligature. I really don't like its too-fancy look. At least I
have the silver colour one and not the even-more-fancy-looking gold one.
Still looks too fancy to me and I don't like it when it draws attention
from others who ask me about it. But I like it enough to use it in spite
of all that. I don't have a problem putting it on because I have a
mouthpiece patch on the back of the mouthpiece so the lig doesn't slip.
I also keep the reed on the mouthpiece a lot of the time for other
reasons anyway.

Toby, since I tend to agree with you, maybe you have an explanation or a
guess to what can cause the problem I had with the Optimum ligature I
described above? It wasn't a small problem, but a very obvious problem
in response.

By the way, AFAIK most clarinet mouthpiece in Europe have a regular
design similar the mouthpiece in other places. Most players in Europe
use thos emouthpieces. Only some players, mainly in Germany, Austria and
some other countries use the mouthpiece with grooves for the string.
Even in those countries not all players use them.


--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "Toby" <kymarto@...> wrote:
>
> Traditionally clarinet mpcs in Europe are designed to be used not with
ligs but with string which is wrapped around the body and across the
reed. Some people use velcro because it is quicker.
>
> John Backus from USC--one of the top researchers in the field and an
accomplished clarinetist himself--wrote that the part of the reed past
the player's mouth does not vibrate more than the clarinet body itself.
This would signify that if we are dealing with a flat table upon which
different ligs do not position the reed differently vis-a-vis the tip
the lig would make no difference to the response of the reed.
>
> I realize that this is a totally contentious subject, and I suppose by
now everyone in the group could have guessed what my opinion on the
subject would be ;-)
>
> The best thing is to try out different options for yourself--try your
shrink wrap (how do you get it on and off???), try string and rubber
bands (also very good) and duct tape and Rovners and whatever and see
what differences you find. Be sure to position the reed the same each
time. I personally have found the differences between these methods of
reed clamping miniscule at best, but some people swear by one method or
another.
>
> FWIW,
>
> Toby

Regarding Rovners, I agree about the cheap part.  Well made is another story.  I find the material they are made of too stiff to work properly in holding the reed to the mouthpiece well.  You can easily move the reed even though the lig is tight.  An exception is the "light" model where the center of the lig is relieved.

Maybe it's because of the mouthpiece shape.  If a one-screw ligature doesn't exactly match the profile of the mouthpiece body, then one or the other end of the lig will be holding tighter, and the optimum pressure is not put on the reed.  As I mentioned before, I often find a wet area on the table after playing with a Rovner lig.  

Maybe putting a little extra flexible pad inside would help.  Like a couple sections of wide rubber band, with some pad leather on top.  I'll try that this weekend and let folks know.

-Steve Keller
--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
>
> The tape if because the metal mesh of the Oleg slips if it is not there. The mesh is pretty but because it is so flexible trying to put it on the mpc while holding the reed to the table risks damaging the reed. I love Rovners. Cheap and well made, they stay put on the mpc when you tune and you can
>  sit on them with no damage to yourself or the lig.
> 
> Toby
> 
> Barry Levine <barrylevine@...> wrote:                                              Yes, Olegs mark up mouthpieces. Someone selling an Oleg (I played it but didn't buy) showed me this a few years ago - he had applied a protective tape on his metal mouthpiece to minimize this.  The
>  mouthpiece was, IIRC, a Van Wie'd tenor Link. 
>  
>  --> An interesting thing worth mentioning here in this group, now that I think about it, is this: The player told me his Link originally had a very narrow facing, such that, in order to get to a wider facing, Van Wie actually physically *bent* the tip of the mouthpiece open a bit as part of his
>  process, rather than remove too much material from the piece.
>  
> 
>  I'm sure there is a lot of pre-conceived opinions about ligatures.  We like shiny things.  The mesh of the Oleg looks classy to many.  The piston look of the Winslow looks tech-y and appeals to some for that reason.  The Optimum has a little of each IMO.  Most Rovners are not pretty.  But a few
>  are and most of them do not mark up your mouthpiece.
>

The older Rovners could really stick to your mouthpiece if you left it on in the case too long. It would tick me off, so I got the newer, textured, non stick ones. After a year using the new style, I like the older ones better. They seem more flexible and better clamping to me. Let us know how the experiment works.

Paul told me he liked the old ones beter, and I am glad I saved them.
E v e r e t t  F i d l e r

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Keller" <esteban_cadenza@...> wrote:
>
> 
> Regarding Rovners, I agree about the cheap part.  Well made is another story.  I find the material they are made of too stiff to work properly in holding the reed to the mouthpiece well.  You can easily move the reed even though the lig is tight.  An exception is the "light" model where the center of the lig is relieved.
> 
> Maybe it's because of the mouthpiece shape.  If a one-screw ligature doesn't exactly match the profile of the mouthpiece body, then one or the other end of the lig will be holding tighter, and the optimum pressure is not put on the reed.  As I mentioned before, I often find a wet area on the table after playing with a Rovner lig.  
> 
> Maybe putting a little extra flexible pad inside would help.  Like a couple sections of wide rubber band, with some pad leather on top.  I'll try that this weekend and let folks know.
> 
> -Steve Keller
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@> wrote:
> >
>

I really don't have an explanation for your experience with the Optimum. One thing to check is the tip clearance with the Optimum and then with another lig that you like. Use a vernier caliper and just measure the tip opening with both and see if they are the same. 

Toby

clarnibass <clarnibass@...> wrote:                                           
 Toby, since I tend to agree with you, maybe you have an explanation or a
 guess to what can cause the problem I had with the Optimum ligature I
 described above? It wasn't a small problem, but a very obvious problem
 in response.
 
 By the way, AFAIK most clarinet mouthpiece in Europe have a regular
 design similar the mouthpiece in other places. Most players in Europe
 use thos emouthpieces. Only some players, mainly in Germany, Austria and
 some other countries use the mouthpiece with grooves for the string.
 Even in those countries not all players use them.
 
 --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "Toby" <kymarto@...> wrote:
 >
 > Traditionally clarinet mpcs in Europe are designed to be used not with
 ligs but with string which is wrapped around the body and across the
 reed. Some people use velcro because it is quicker.
 >
 > John Backus from USC--one of the top researchers in the field and an
 accomplished clarinetist himself--wrote that the part of the reed past
 the player's mouth does not vibrate more than the clarinet body itself.
 This would signify that if we are dealing with a flat table upon which
 different ligs do not position the reed differently vis-a-vis the tip
 the lig would make no difference to the response of the reed.
 >
 > I realize that this is a totally contentious subject, and I suppose by
 now everyone in the group could have guessed what my opinion on the
 subject would be ;-)
 >
 > The best thing is to try out different options for yourself--try your
 shrink wrap (how do you get it on and off???), try string and rubber
 bands (also very good) and duct tape and Rovners and whatever and see
 what differences you find. Be sure to position the reed the same each
 time. I personally have found the differences between these methods of
 reed clamping miniscule at best, but some people swear by one method or
 another.
 >
 > FWIW,
 >
 > Toby
 
 
      
                 
                 
 

I had the same sticking problem with my older style rovner.  I cut off the part of the material that wrapped around onto the inside of the ligature and that solved the problem.  I never really cared much for rovners so i took a new style link ligature (which are garbage) and cut off the plate that contacts the reed.  I glued that plate to the inside of the rovner lig where it would make contact with the reed and its essentially like an eddie daniels rovner.  It actually works very well.  

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "fidlershorns" <grassinospam@...> wrote:
>
> The older Rovners could really stick to your mouthpiece if you left it on in the case too long. It would tick me off, so I got the newer, textured, non stick ones. After a year using the new style, I like the older ones better. They seem more flexible and better clamping to me. Let us know how the experiment works.
> 
> Paul told me he liked the old ones beter, and I am glad I saved them.
> E v e r e t t  F i d l e r
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Keller" <esteban_cadenza@> wrote:
> >
> > 
> > Regarding Rovners, I agree about the cheap part.  Well made is another story.  I find the material they are made of too stiff to work properly in holding the reed to the mouthpiece well.  You can easily move the reed even though the lig is tight.  An exception is the "light" model where the center of the lig is relieved.
> > 
> > Maybe it's because of the mouthpiece shape.  If a one-screw ligature doesn't exactly match the profile of the mouthpiece body, then one or the other end of the lig will be holding tighter, and the optimum pressure is not put on the reed.  As I mentioned before, I often find a wet area on the table after playing with a Rovner lig.  
> > 
> > Maybe putting a little extra flexible pad inside would help.  Like a couple sections of wide rubber band, with some pad leather on top.  I'll try that this weekend and let folks know.
> > 
> > -Steve Keller
> > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@> wrote:
> > >
> >
>

Based upon my measurements of a Gloger bass neck, and a Martin baritone
neck (and these results will be conservative, since more accurate
calculations would be from the main body tube taper, and add the missing volume due to the increased neck taper) here are the
mouthpiece/reed compliance volume requirements for a bass and baritone saxophone:

baritone: 24,753 mm3
bass: 33,070 mm3
difference: 8,317 mm3 (just over .5 cubic inch)


      

I only calculated 17.7 ml from my YBS-52 neck measurements. ~29% smaller.




________________________________
From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, February 2, 2010 1:58:42 PM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Bass/Bari Sax Mouthpiece Volume Comparison

  
Based upon my measurements of a Gloger bass neck, and a Martin baritone neck (and these results will be conservative, since more accurate calculations would be from the main body tube taper, and add the missing volume due to the increased neck taper) here are the mouthpiece/reed compliance volume requirements for a bass and baritone saxophone:

baritone: 24,753 mm3
bass: 33,070 mm3
difference: 8,317 mm3 (just over .5 cubic inch)




      

Bari necks are far from standard.  Many are long enough to include the octave key, like Martins and Bueschers.  The Yamaha is much shorter.
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: Keith Bradbury 
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 12:17:40 
To: 
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Bass/Bari Sax Mouthpiece Volume Comparison

I only calculated 17.7 ml from my YBS-52 neck measurements. ~29% smaller.




________________________________
From: MartinMods 
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, February 2, 2010 1:58:42 PM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Bass/Bari Sax Mouthpiece Volume Comparison

  
Based upon my measurements of a Gloger bass neck, and a Martin baritone neck (and these results will be conservative, since more accurate calculations would be from the main body tube taper, and add the missing volume due to the increased neck taper) here are the mouthpiece/reed compliance volume requirements for a bass and baritone saxophone:

baritone: 24,753 mm3
bass: 33,070 mm3
difference: 8,317 mm3 (just over .5 cubic inch)




      

"I only calculated 17.7 ml from my YBS-52 neck measurements. ~29% smaller."

How did you take your measurements?  I removed the tenon on both necks and measured the inside of the neck tube, and the length along the center line.



      

I used inside caliper measurements of each end of my bari neck to get their inside diametrers.  I used a drafting rubber flexible ruler to get the centerline length.

I did not mean to imply there was an issue here.  I think bari neck tapers might vary a lot.  




________________________________
From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, February 2, 2010 4:18:41 PM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Bass/Bari Sax Mouthpiece Volume Comparison

  
"I only calculated 17.7 ml from my YBS-52 neck measurements. ~29% smaller."

How did you take your measurements?  I removed the tenon on both necks and measured the inside of the neck tube, and the length along the center line.





      

I understand.  The 52 is an intermediate model as well, which may mean something.  The reason I asked is, the standard 6" caliper like most people use, doesn't have internal feelers long enough to reach all the way inside the tenon to the neck tube. Measuring the inside of the tenon is meaningless.




________________________________
From: Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@yahoo.com>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, February 2, 2010 6:34:44 PM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Bass/Bari Sax Mouthpiece Volume Comparison

  
I used inside caliper measurements of each end of my bari neck to get their inside diametrers.  I used a drafting rubber flexible ruler to get the centerline length.
 
I did not mean to imply there was an issue here.  I think bari neck tapers might vary a lot.  




________________________________
 From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Tue, February 2, 2010 4:18:41 PM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Bass/Bari Sax Mouthpiece Volume Comparison

  
"I only calculated 17.7 ml from my YBS-52 neck measurements. ~29% smaller."

How did you take your measurements?  I removed the tenon on both necks and measured the inside of the neck tube, and the length along the center line.



 


      

OK, using a T-shaped telescopic bore gauge, I determined my bari neck tenon is cylindrical for the last 1".  Where it joins the neck tube, it is fairly flush.  The neck tube may be .010-.015" larger in dia there.  So if I shorten the neck by this 1" and open the end dia by .010" I now calculate the missing cone at 14.7 ml.  (Even smaller.)

The 52 and 62 saxes all have the same physical dimensions as far as I know.  




________________________________
From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@yahoo.com>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, February 2, 2010 7:24:09 PM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Bass/Bari Sax Mouthpiece Volume Comparison

  
I understand.  The 52 is an intermediate model as well, which may mean something.  The reason I asked is, the standard 6" caliper like most people use, doesn't have internal feelers long enough to reach all the way inside the tenon to the neck tube. Measuring the inside of the tenon is meaningless.




________________________________
From: Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@yahoo. com>
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Tue, February 2, 2010 6:34:44 PM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Bass/Bari Sax Mouthpiece Volume Comparison

  
I used inside caliper measurements of each end of my bari neck to get their inside diametrers.  I used a drafting rubber flexible ruler to get the centerline length.

I did not mean to imply there was an issue here.  I think bari neck tapers might vary a lot.  




________________________________
From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Tue, February 2, 2010 4:18:41 PM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Bass/Bari Sax Mouthpiece Volume Comparison

  
"I only calculated 17.7 ml from my YBS-52 neck measurements. ~29% smaller."

How did you take your measurements?  I removed the tenon on both necks and measured the inside of the neck tube, and the length along the center line.







      

I have a few more Martin bari necks here, as well as some Conn necks to measure for comparison.




________________________________
From: Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, February 2, 2010 9:43:39 PM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Bass/Bari Sax Mouthpiece Volume Comparison

  
OK, using a T-shaped telescopic bore gauge, I determined my bari neck tenon is cylindrical for the last 1".  Where it joins the neck tube, it is fairly flush.  The neck tube may be .010-.015" larger in dia there.  So if I shorten the neck by this 1" and open the end dia by .010" I now calculate the missing cone at 14.7 ml.  (Even smaller.)
 
The 52 and 62 saxes all have the same physical dimensions as far as I know.  




________________________________
 From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Tue, February 2, 2010 7:24:09 PM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Bass/Bari Sax Mouthpiece Volume Comparison

  
I understand.  The 52 is an intermediate model as well, which may mean something.  The reason I asked is, the standard 6" caliper like most people use, doesn't have internal feelers long enough to reach all the way inside the tenon to the neck tube. Measuring the inside of the tenon is meaningless.




________________________________
 From: Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@yahoo. com>
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Tue, February 2, 2010 6:34:44 PM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Bass/Bari Sax Mouthpiece Volume Comparison

  
I used inside caliper measurements of each end of my bari neck to get their inside diametrers.  I used a drafting rubber flexible ruler to get the centerline length.
 
I did not mean to imply there was an issue here.  I think bari neck tapers might vary a lot.  




________________________________
 From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Tue, February 2, 2010 4:18:41 PM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Bass/Bari Sax Mouthpiece Volume Comparison

  
"I only calculated 17.7 ml from my YBS-52 neck measurements. ~29% smaller."

How did you take your measurements?  I removed the tenon on both necks and measured the inside of the neck tube, and the length along the center line.





 


      

One rainy day I decided to take bore measurements of my sax collection; sop, alto and tenor.  In each case, I found that the neck had a significantly different taper from the body.  Also, none of necks were a true cone.  On the two tenors I measured the neck was slightly convex.  On two altos the neck taper was concave.  On my Yanagisawa sop neck there is a cylindrical insert at the mouthpiece end.  The bore of all saxes was cylindrical over the length neck tenon.  However, the main body tube was close to a true cone on each horn (except for the flair at the bell).

So how is the missing cone supposed to be measured to arrive at the ideal mp volume?  Is the average cone over the whole bore, or just the neck?  It seems to me that you get a different result depending on where you measure from . . .

I have my measurements as Excel spreadsheets with graphs, if anyone is interested . . .

Regards,
Andrew

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
>
> I have a few more Martin bari necks here, as well as some Conn necks to measure for comparison.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...>
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tue, February 2, 2010 9:43:39 PM
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Bass/Bari Sax Mouthpiece Volume Comparison
> 
>   
> OK, using a T-shaped telescopic bore gauge, I determined my bari neck tenon is cylindrical for the last 1".  Where it joins the neck tube, it is fairly flush.  The neck tube may be .010-.015" larger in dia there.  So if I shorten the neck by this 1" and open the end dia by .010" I now calculate the missing cone at 14.7 ml.  (Even smaller.)
>  
> The 52 and 62 saxes all have the same physical dimensions as far as I know.  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
>  From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Tue, February 2, 2010 7:24:09 PM
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Bass/Bari Sax Mouthpiece Volume Comparison
> 
>   
> I understand.  The 52 is an intermediate model as well, which may mean something.  The reason I asked is, the standard 6" caliper like most people use, doesn't have internal feelers long enough to reach all the way inside the tenon to the neck tube. Measuring the inside of the tenon is meaningless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
>  From: Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@yahoo. com>
> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Tue, February 2, 2010 6:34:44 PM
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Bass/Bari Sax Mouthpiece Volume Comparison
> 
>   
> I used inside caliper measurements of each end of my bari neck to get their inside diametrers.  I used a drafting rubber flexible ruler to get the centerline length.
>  
> I did not mean to imply there was an issue here.  I think bari neck tapers might vary a lot.  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
>  From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Tue, February 2, 2010 4:18:41 PM
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Bass/Bari Sax Mouthpiece Volume Comparison
> 
>   
> "I only calculated 17.7 ml from my YBS-52 neck measurements. ~29% smaller."
> 
> How did you take your measurements?  I removed the tenon on both necks and measured the inside of the neck tube, and the length along the center line.
>

There are different views, depending on who's definition of "the substitution for the missing cone" you adhere to.  Benade says mouthpiece + neck.  Dr. J Wolfe, says mouthpiece + reed compliance.  Ferron says mouthpiece.  I'm inclined to go with Dr. Wolfe.   As the mouthpiece/reed compliance is supposed to fool the main body into believing that it is complete, and the neck has an altered taper to compensate for the flattening effect of the reed, etc., then the mouthpiece/reed compliance must compensate for the volume of the missing cone, based upon the main body taper, from the beginning of the new neck taper, minus the volume of the neck itself.  Nederveen discusses this in later chapters of his book.  

As I mentioned earlier, my measurements were only conservative approximations, since I only measured the necks.




________________________________
From: crunchie_nuts <andrewhdonaldson@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, February 3, 2010 1:10:44 AM
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Bass/Bari Sax Mouthpiece Volume Comparison

  
One rainy day I decided to take bore measurements of my sax collection; sop, alto and tenor.  In each case, I found that the neck had a significantly different taper from the body.  Also, none of necks were a true cone.  On the two tenors I measured the neck was slightly convex.  On two altos the neck taper was concave.  On my Yanagisawa sop neck there is a cylindrical insert at the mouthpiece end.  The bore of all saxes was cylindrical over the length neck tenon.  However, the main body tube was close to a true cone on each horn (except for the flair at the bell).

So how is the missing cone supposed to be measured to arrive at the ideal mp volume?  Is the average cone over the whole bore, or just the neck?  It seems to me that you get a different result depending on where you measure from . . .

I have my measurements as Excel spreadsheets with graphs, if anyone is interested . . .

Regards,
Andrew

--- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ ...> wrote:
>
> I have a few more Martin bari necks here, as well as some Conn necks to measure for comparison.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________ _________ _________ __
> From: Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@ ...>
> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Tue, February 2, 2010 9:43:39 PM
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Bass/Bari Sax Mouthpiece Volume Comparison
> 
> 
> OK, using a T-shaped telescopic bore gauge, I determined my bari neck tenon is cylindrical for the last 1".  Where it joins the neck tube, it is fairly flush.  The neck tube may be .010-.015" larger in dia there.  So if I shorten the neck by this 1" and open the end dia by .010" I now calculate the missing cone at 14.7 ml.  (Even smaller.)
> 
> The 52 and 62 saxes all have the same physical dimensions as far as I know. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________ _________ _________ __
>  From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Tue, February 2, 2010 7:24:09 PM
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Bass/Bari Sax Mouthpiece Volume Comparison
> 
> 
> I understand.  The 52 is an intermediate model as well, which may mean something.  The reason I asked is, the standard 6" caliper like most people use, doesn't have internal feelers long enough to reach all the way inside the tenon to the neck tube. Measuring the inside of the tenon is meaningless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________ _________ _________ __
>  From: Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@ yahoo. com>
> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Tue, February 2, 2010 6:34:44 PM
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Bass/Bari Sax Mouthpiece Volume Comparison
> 
> 
> I used inside caliper measurements of each end of my bari neck to get their inside diametrers.  I used a drafting rubber flexible ruler to get the centerline length.
> 
> I did not mean to imply there was an issue here.  I think bari neck tapers might vary a lot. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________ _________ _________ __
>  From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Tue, February 2, 2010 4:18:41 PM
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Bass/Bari Sax Mouthpiece Volume Comparison
> 
> 
> "I only calculated 17.7 ml from my YBS-52 neck measurements. ~29% smaller."
> 
> How did you take your measurements?  I removed the tenon on both necks and measured the inside of the neck tube, and the length along the center line.
>


 


      

And please, do upload your Excel spreadsheets to the file folder.




________________________________
From: crunchie_nuts <andrewhdonaldson@hotmail.com>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, February 3, 2010 1:10:44 AM
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Bass/Bari Sax Mouthpiece Volume Comparison

  
One rainy day I decided to take bore measurements of my sax collection; sop, alto and tenor.  In each case, I found that the neck had a significantly different taper from the body.  Also, none of necks were a true cone.  On the two tenors I measured the neck was slightly convex.  On two altos the neck taper was concave.  On my Yanagisawa sop neck there is a cylindrical insert at the mouthpiece end.  The bore of all saxes was cylindrical over the length neck tenon.  However, the main body tube was close to a true cone on each horn (except for the flair at the bell).

So how is the missing cone supposed to be measured to arrive at the ideal mp volume?  Is the average cone over the whole bore, or just the neck?  It seems to me that you get a different result depending on where you measure from . . .

I have my measurements as Excel spreadsheets with graphs, if anyone is interested . . .

Regards,
Andrew

--- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ ...> wrote:
>
> I have a few more Martin bari necks here, as well as some Conn necks to measure for comparison.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________ _________ _________ __
> From: Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@ ...>
> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Tue, February 2, 2010 9:43:39 PM
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Bass/Bari Sax Mouthpiece Volume Comparison
> 
> 
> OK, using a T-shaped telescopic bore gauge, I determined my bari neck tenon is cylindrical for the last 1".  Where it joins the neck tube, it is fairly flush.  The neck tube may be .010-.015" larger in dia there.  So if I shorten the neck by this 1" and open the end dia by .010" I now calculate the missing cone at 14.7 ml.  (Even smaller.)
> 
> The 52 and 62 saxes all have the same physical dimensions as far as I know. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________ _________ _________ __
>  From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Tue, February 2, 2010 7:24:09 PM
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Bass/Bari Sax Mouthpiece Volume Comparison
> 
> 
> I understand.  The 52 is an intermediate model as well, which may mean something.  The reason I asked is, the standard 6" caliper like most people use, doesn't have internal feelers long enough to reach all the way inside the tenon to the neck tube. Measuring the inside of the tenon is meaningless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________ _________ _________ __
>  From: Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@ yahoo. com>
> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Tue, February 2, 2010 6:34:44 PM
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Bass/Bari Sax Mouthpiece Volume Comparison
> 
> 
> I used inside caliper measurements of each end of my bari neck to get their inside diametrers.  I used a drafting rubber flexible ruler to get the centerline length.
> 
> I did not mean to imply there was an issue here.  I think bari neck tapers might vary a lot. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________ _________ _________ __
>  From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Tue, February 2, 2010 4:18:41 PM
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Bass/Bari Sax Mouthpiece Volume Comparison
> 
> 
> "I only calculated 17.7 ml from my YBS-52 neck measurements. ~29% smaller."
> 
> How did you take your measurements?  I removed the tenon on both necks and measured the inside of the neck tube, and the length along the center line.
>


 


      

Benade's discussion centers mainly around the natural resonant frequency
produced by the the saxophone mouthpiece plus neck which he calls
Frs----the frequency of the reed on its staple (oboe), the reed on its
bocal (bassoon), mouthpiece on its neck (saxophone).   Whether the
"missing cone" is treated as the extension of the cone truncated at the
neck or at the tenon receiver in the body should make no difference  in
the acoustic principle inolved.

An interesting exercise would be to measure the physical volume of the
mouthpiece plus neck and compare that to the mathematically computed
volume of the missing cone from the end of the body, and then do the
same with the portion of the mouthpiece that extends beyond the neck.

In an earlier study,  I found that the Frs  of the alto saxophone
mouthpiece and neck to be close to Ab concert (as taught by Rousseau). 
It would be an easy step to measure the physical volume of the
mouthpiece, subtract the portion that goes on the neck, and compare that
volume with the computed volume of the "missing cone".  The difference
should effectively show the volume added by the vibration of the reed
and the player's oral cavity to the geometric volume of the mouthpiece
to create the effective volume.  I will run these numbers and get back
to the discussion.

John

Lance wrote:

"then the mouthpiece/reed compliance must compensate for the volume of
the missing cone, based upon the main body taper, from the beginning of
the new neck taper, minus the volume of the neck itself. Nederveen
discusses this in later chapters of his book."

I would be interested if you could give a more specific reference to the
source of this information from Nederveen---a chapter or a page number
would be most helpful.


--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
wrote:
>
> There are different views, depending on who's definition of "the
substitution for the missing cone" you adhere to.  Benade says
mouthpiece + neck.  Dr. J Wolfe, says mouthpiece + reed compliance. 
Ferron says mouthpiece.  I'm inclined to go with Dr. Wolfe.   As the
mouthpiece/reed compliance is supposed to fool the main body into
believing that it is complete, and the neck has an altered taper to
compensate for the flattening effect of the reed, etc., then the
mouthpiece/reed compliance must compensate for the volume of the missing
cone, based upon the main body taper, from the beginning of the new neck
taper, minus the volume of the neck itself.  Nederveen discusses this in
later chapters of his book.
>
> As I mentioned earlier, my measurements were only conservative
approximations, since I only measured the necks.
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: crunchie_nuts andrewhdonaldson@...
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wed, February 3, 2010 1:10:44 AM
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Bass/Bari Sax Mouthpiece Volume
Comparison
>
>
> One rainy day I decided to take bore measurements of my sax
collection; sop, alto and tenor.  In each case, I found that the neck
had a significantly different taper from the body.  Also, none of necks
were a true cone.  On the two tenors I measured the neck was slightly
convex.  On two altos the neck taper was concave.  On my Yanagisawa sop
neck there is a cylindrical insert at the mouthpiece end.  The bore of
all saxes was cylindrical over the length neck tenon.  However, the main
body tube was close to a true cone on each horn (except for the flair at
the bell).
>
> So how is the missing cone supposed to be measured to arrive at the
ideal mp volume?  Is the average cone over the whole bore, or just the
neck?  It seems to me that you get a different result depending on where
you measure from . . .
>
> I have my measurements as Excel spreadsheets with graphs, if anyone is
interested . . .
>
> Regards,
> Andrew
>
> --- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@
...> wrote:
> >
> > I have a few more Martin bari necks here, as well as some Conn necks
to measure for comparison.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ____________ _________ _________ __
> > From: Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@ ...>
> > To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> > Sent: Tue, February 2, 2010 9:43:39 PM
> > Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Bass/Bari Sax Mouthpiece Volume
Comparison
> >
> >
> > OK, using a T-shaped telescopic bore gauge, I determined my bari
neck tenon is cylindrical for the last 1".  Where it joins the neck
tube, it is fairly flush.  The neck tube may be .010-.015" larger in dia
there.  So if I shorten the neck by this 1" and open the end dia by
.010" I now calculate the missing cone at 14.7 ml.  (Even smaller.)
> >
> > The 52 and 62 saxes all have the same physical dimensions as far as
I know.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ____________ _________ _________ __
> >  From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
> > To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> > Sent: Tue, February 2, 2010 7:24:09 PM
> > Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Bass/Bari Sax Mouthpiece Volume
Comparison
> >
> >
> > I understand.  The 52 is an intermediate model as well, which may
mean something.  The reason I asked is, the standard 6" caliper like
most people use, doesn't have internal feelers long enough to reach all
the way inside the tenon to the neck tube. Measuring the inside of the
tenon is meaningless.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ____________ _________ _________ __
> >  From: Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@ yahoo. com>
> > To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> > Sent: Tue, February 2, 2010 6:34:44 PM
> > Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Bass/Bari Sax Mouthpiece Volume
Comparison
> >
> >
> > I used inside caliper measurements of each end of my bari neck to
get their inside diametrers.  I used a drafting rubber flexible ruler to
get the centerline length.
> >
> > I did not mean to imply there was an issue here.  I think bari neck
tapers might vary a lot.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ____________ _________ _________ __
> >  From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
> > To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> > Sent: Tue, February 2, 2010 4:18:41 PM
> > Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Bass/Bari Sax Mouthpiece Volume
Comparison
> >
> >
> > "I only calculated 17.7 ml from my YBS-52 neck measurements. ~29%
smaller."
> >
> > How did you take your measurements?  I removed the tenon on both
necks and measured the inside of the neck tube, and the length along the
center line.
> >
>

...There are different views, depending on who's definition of "the substitution for the missing cone" you adhere to.  Benade says mouthpiece + neck....

What if the neck taper is not right?  In Benade's case, he uses the body taper as the cone.  So if the neck tapers too much, the mouthpiece volume would need to be larger to compensate.  If the others are just using the neck as the cone, then if it tapers too much you will calculate a small missing cone volume on the end. 

I think both can only give a similar MP volume answer if the neck taper is the same as the body taper (?).  



      

I'd agree.  Calculating using the body taper, from the beginning of the neck section, and then subtracting the total neck volume, would give the most accurate results.  




________________________________
From: Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, February 3, 2010 12:52:03 PM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Bass/Bari Sax Mouthpiece Volume Comparison

  

...There are different views, depending on who's definition of "the substitution for the missing cone" you adhere to.  Benade says mouthpiece + neck....
 
What if the neck taper is not right?  In Benade's case, he uses the body taper as the cone.  So if the neck tapers too much, the mouthpiece volume would need to be larger to compensate.  If the others are just using the neck as the cone, then if it tapers too much you will calculate a small missing cone volume on the end. 
 
I think both can only give a similar MP volume answer if the neck taper is the same as the body taper (?).  

 


      

Low Bb Baris have much longer necks than Low A baris.  They are apples and oranges.  It has nothing to do with the YBS52 being an "intermediate" instrument.  The 52 is very similar in dimensions to any modern Low A bari including the Yanis and Selmers (including Low A mark VIs).


--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
>
> I have a few more Martin bari necks here, as well as some Conn necks to measure for comparison.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...>
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tue, February 2, 2010 9:43:39 PM
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Bass/Bari Sax Mouthpiece Volume Comparison
> 
>   
> OK, using a T-shaped telescopic bore gauge, I determined my bari neck tenon is cylindrical for the last 1".  Where it joins the neck tube, it is fairly flush.  The neck tube may be .010-.015" larger in dia there.  So if I shorten the neck by this 1" and open the end dia by .010" I now calculate the missing cone at 14.7 ml.  (Even smaller.)
>  
> The 52 and 62 saxes all have the same physical dimensions as far as I know.  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
>  From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Tue, February 2, 2010 7:24:09 PM
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Bass/Bari Sax Mouthpiece Volume Comparison
> 
>   
> I understand.  The 52 is an intermediate model as well, which may mean something.  The reason I asked is, the standard 6" caliper like most people use, doesn't have internal feelers long enough to reach all the way inside the tenon to the neck tube. Measuring the inside of the tenon is meaningless.
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
>  From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Tue, February 2, 2010 4:18:41 PM
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Bass/Bari Sax Mouthpiece Volume Comparison
> 
>   
> "I only calculated 17.7 ml from my YBS-52 neck measurements. ~29% smaller."
> 
> How did you take your measurements?  I removed the tenon on both necks and measured the inside of the neck tube, and the length along the center line.
>

Having a stripped down Mark VI alto body and neck made it easy to crunch
some numbers.

The volume of the missing cone from the end of the saxophone using the
1.51 body taper is 68.63 cc
The measured volume of the neck is 48.2  cc (using Ferron's formula
48.5)  The difference (volume of missing cone) is 20.43 cc

The volume of the missing cone using the dimensions and the 1.61 slope
of the neck is only 8.04 cc ----61% less.

The computed volume of the neck plus the missing cone minus the measured
volume of the neck is 8.34 cc

This of course begs the question of which taper determines the missing
cone length and volume that satisfies the truncated cone's acoustic
requirements.  My thinking is that the Frs  of the mouthpiece plus the
neck answers at least part of this question.  That resonant frequency is
easily determined  by the formula Frs = v/2xo  where v is the speed of
sound and xo  is the length of the cone segment.  My reasoning is that
the length of the missing cone is a part of the formula that determines
its volume along with the radius of the open end.

In other words the Frs  of the saxophone mouthpiece (missing cone) on
its neck is determined by the slope, therefore length, therefore volume
of the neck and not the different slope of the saxophone body.

John




--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
wrote:
>
> I'd agree.  Calculating using the body taper, from the beginning of
the neck section, and then subtracting the total neck volume, would give
the most accurate results.
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Keith Bradbury kwbradbury@...
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wed, February 3, 2010 12:52:03 PM
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Bass/Bari Sax Mouthpiece Volume
Comparison
>
>
>
> ...There are different views, depending on who's definition of "the
substitution for the missing cone" you adhere to.  Benade says
mouthpiece + neck....
>
> What if the neck taper is not right?  In Benade's case, he uses the
body taper as the cone.  So if the neck tapers too much, the mouthpiece
volume would need to be larger to compensate.  If the others are just
using the neck as the cone, then if it tapers too much you will
calculate a small missing cone volume on the end.
>
> I think both can only give a similar MP volume answer if the neck
taper is the same as the body taper (?).
>

"In other words the Frs  of the saxophone mouthpiece
(missing cone) on its neck is determined by the slope, therefore
length, therefore volume of the neck and not the different slope of the
saxophone body."

John,

I have to disagree with you on this.  Nederveen discusses the use of successive cones in conical woodwinds, in order to improve mode purity - help the higher resonances remain harmonic at high frequencies.  It is clearly illustrated.  With the incorporation of a narrower taper at the upper end of the tube (equivalent to a saxophone neck), the volume of the missing cone is determined by the main body taper, from the point of the onset of the narrower taper (neck tenon - alto and tenor).  The volume of the mouthpiece, reed compliance, and neck, must then equal this missing cone volume.  

To fulfill the higher mode requirements then, the substitution must have the same playing frequency as that of the theoretical missing cone - the exact same theoretical cone used for the volume measurement, based upon the main body taper, measured from the onset of the narrower taper, to the theoretical apex, and according to Benade's formula. This is why Benade insisted upon "the mouthpiece on it's neck".  

The Frs of the mouthpiece on the neck is not purely determined by the mechanical length of the section (taper of the neck), as it is not a pure cone nor a pure cylinder.  Volume distribution at the mouthpiece compression anti-node and the diameter of the neck's displacement anti-node dramatically affect the playing frequency.  Benade's formula applies only to the theoretical cone, not the mouthpiece + neck.

Remember, it's about a truncated body, not a truncated neck. 


      

It seems to me that the neck taper is instrumental (pardon the pun) in determining the intonation of the shorter-tube notes, in which that taper plays a larger role, and is less important for the long-tube notes. We need to keep in mind that there has been all kinds of tweaking of the sax cone over the decades in response to all the factors that go into compromising harmonics in a real-world instrument. I'm guessing that the neck is a more accurate representation of the realistic cone angle of the instrument, due to all the extra compliance of the toneholes.

Toby
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: John 
  To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 6:58 AM
  Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Bass/Bari Sax Mouthpiece Volume Comparison


    
  Having a stripped down Mark VI alto body and neck made it easy to crunch some numbers.

  The volume of the missing cone from the end of the saxophone using the 1.51 body taper is 68.63 cc
  The measured volume of the neck is 48.2  cc (using Ferron's formula 48.5)  The difference (volume of missing cone) is 20.43 cc

  The volume of the missing cone using the dimensions and the 1.61 slope of the neck is only 8.04 cc ----61% less.

  The computed volume of the neck plus the missing cone minus the measured volume of the neck is 8.34 cc

  This of course begs the question of which taper determines the missing cone length and volume that satisfies the truncated cone's acoustic requirements.  My thinking is that the Frs  of the mouthpiece plus the neck answers at least part of this question.  That resonant frequency is easily determined  by the formula Frs = v/2xo  where v is the speed of sound and xo  is the length of the cone segment.  My reasoning is that the length of the missing cone is a part of the formula that determines its volume along with the radius of the open end.

  In other words the Frs  of the saxophone mouthpiece (missing cone) on its neck is determined by the slope, therefore length, therefore volume of the neck and not the different slope of the saxophone body.

  John




  --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
  >
  > I'd agree. Calculating using the body taper, from the beginning of the neck section, and then subtracting the total neck volume, would give the most accurate results. 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > ________________________________
  > From: Keith Bradbury kwbradbury@...
  > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
  > Sent: Wed, February 3, 2010 12:52:03 PM
  > Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Bass/Bari Sax Mouthpiece Volume Comparison
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > ...There are different views, depending on who's definition of "the substitution for the missing cone" you adhere to. Benade says mouthpiece + neck....
  > 
  > What if the neck taper is not right? In Benade's case, he uses the body taper as the cone. So if the neck tapers too much, the mouthpiece volume would need to be larger to compensate. If the others are just using the neck as the cone, then if it tapers too much you will calculate a small missing cone volume on the end. 
  > 
  > I think both can only give a similar MP volume answer if the neck taper is the same as the body taper (?).
  >


  

When Benade talks about Frs being the resonant frequency of the substitution plus constriction, he is using the shortcut of mpc + neck as a conveneint demarcation, but actually, it is the substitution plus ANY portion of the cone after the truncation, the limit being the mpc plus an infinitely short section of cone the diameter of the truncated end. The longer the portion of cone, the less effect the actual volume of the the mpc has on the Frs.

Therefore, it would be best to simply cut off the mpc at the point of the neck insertion and make the diameter there that of the end of the neck. This, however is not ideal for the mpc...so the next easiest step is to remove the neck and calculate the Frs of the neck + mpc, which should then equal that of a complete cone of that length and angle. In the real world, this is good enough for jazz...

Toby
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: John 
  To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 2:42 AM
  Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Bass/Bari Sax Mouthpiece Volume Comparison


    
  Benade's discussion centers mainly around the natural resonant frequency produced by the the saxophone mouthpiece plus neck which he calls Frs----the frequency of the reed on its staple (oboe), the reed on its bocal (bassoon), mouthpiece on its neck (saxophone).   Whether the "missing cone" is treated as the extension of the cone truncated at the neck or at the tenon receiver in the body should make no difference  in the acoustic principle inolved.

  An interesting exercise would be to measure the physical volume of the mouthpiece plus neck and compare that to the mathematically computed volume of the missing cone from the end of the body, and then do the same with the portion of the mouthpiece that extends beyond the neck.

  In an earlier study,  I found that the Frs  of the alto saxophone mouthpiece and neck to be close to Ab concert (as taught by Rousseau).  It would be an easy step to measure the physical volume of the mouthpiece, subtract the portion that goes on the neck, and compare that volume with the computed volume of the "missing cone".  The difference should effectively show the volume added by the vibration of the reed and the player's oral cavity to the geometric volume of the mouthpiece to create the effective volume.  I will run these numbers and get back to the discussion.

  John

  Lance wrote: 

  "then the mouthpiece/reed compliance must compensate for the volume of the missing cone, based upon the main body taper, from the beginning of the new neck taper, minus the volume of the neck itself. Nederveen discusses this in later chapters of his book."

  I would be interested if you could give a more specific reference to the source of this information from Nederveen---a chapter or a page number would be most helpful.


  --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
  >
  > There are different views, depending on who's definition of "the substitution for the missing cone" you adhere to. Benade says mouthpiece + neck. Dr. J Wolfe, says mouthpiece + reed compliance. Ferron says mouthpiece. I'm inclined to go with Dr. Wolfe. As the mouthpiece/reed compliance is supposed to fool the main body into believing that it is complete, and the neck has an altered taper to compensate for the flattening effect of the reed, etc., then the mouthpiece/reed compliance must compensate for the volume of the missing cone, based upon the main body taper, from the beginning of the new neck taper, minus the volume of the neck itself. Nederveen discusses this in later chapters of his book. 
  > 
  > As I mentioned earlier, my measurements were only conservative approximations, since I only measured the necks.
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > ________________________________
  > From: crunchie_nuts andrewhdonaldson@...
  > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
  > Sent: Wed, February 3, 2010 1:10:44 AM
  > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Bass/Bari Sax Mouthpiece Volume Comparison
  > 
  > 
  > One rainy day I decided to take bore measurements of my sax collection; sop, alto and tenor. In each case, I found that the neck had a significantly different taper from the body. Also, none of necks were a true cone. On the two tenors I measured the neck was slightly convex. On two altos the neck taper was concave. On my Yanagisawa sop neck there is a cylindrical insert at the mouthpiece end. The bore of all saxes was cylindrical over the length neck tenon. However, the main body tube was close to a true cone on each horn (except for the flair at the bell).
  > 
  > So how is the missing cone supposed to be measured to arrive at the ideal mp volume? Is the average cone over the whole bore, or just the neck? It seems to me that you get a different result depending on where you measure from . . .
  > 
  > I have my measurements as Excel spreadsheets with graphs, if anyone is interested . . .
  > 
  > Regards,
  > Andrew
  > 
  > --- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ ...> wrote:
  > >
  > > I have a few more Martin bari necks here, as well as some Conn necks to measure for comparison.
  > > 
  > > 
  > > 
  > > 
  > > ____________ _________ _________ __
  > > From: Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@ ...>
  > > To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
  > > Sent: Tue, February 2, 2010 9:43:39 PM
  > > Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Bass/Bari Sax Mouthpiece Volume Comparison
  > > 
  > > 
  > > OK, using a T-shaped telescopic bore gauge, I determined my bari neck tenon is cylindrical for the last 1". Where it joins the neck tube, it is fairly flush. The neck tube may be .010-.015" larger in dia there. So if I shorten the neck by this 1" and open the end dia by .010" I now calculate the missing cone at 14.7 ml. (Even smaller.)
  > > 
  > > The 52 and 62 saxes all have the same physical dimensions as far as I know. 
  > > 
  > > 
  > > 
  > > 
  > > ____________ _________ _________ __
  > > From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
  > > To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
  > > Sent: Tue, February 2, 2010 7:24:09 PM
  > > Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Bass/Bari Sax Mouthpiece Volume Comparison
  > > 
  > > 
  > > I understand. The 52 is an intermediate model as well, which may mean something. The reason I asked is, the standard 6" caliper like most people use, doesn't have internal feelers long enough to reach all the way inside the tenon to the neck tube. Measuring the inside of the tenon is meaningless.
  > > 
  > > 
  > > 
  > > 
  > > ____________ _________ _________ __
  > > From: Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@ yahoo. com>
  > > To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
  > > Sent: Tue, February 2, 2010 6:34:44 PM
  > > Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Bass/Bari Sax Mouthpiece Volume Comparison
  > > 
  > > 
  > > I used inside caliper measurements of each end of my bari neck to get their inside diametrers. I used a drafting rubber flexible ruler to get the centerline length.
  > > 
  > > I did not mean to imply there was an issue here. I think bari neck tapers might vary a lot. 
  > > 
  > > 
  > > 
  > > 
  > > ____________ _________ _________ __
  > > From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
  > > To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
  > > Sent: Tue, February 2, 2010 4:18:41 PM
  > > Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Bass/Bari Sax Mouthpiece Volume Comparison
  > > 
  > > 
  > > "I only calculated 17.7 ml from my YBS-52 neck measurements. ~29% smaller."
  > > 
  > > How did you take your measurements? I removed the tenon on both necks and measured the inside of the neck tube, and the length along the center line.
  > >
  >


  

I think the difference is not the low A but the modern design.  The low A Martin has a long neck with octave key, as does the Conn 13M, I think.  Modern designs have the key below the neck, mostly to make regulation more consistent, I'd guess.
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: "Naoki" 
Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 18:21:17 
To: 
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Bass/Bari Sax Mouthpiece Volume Comparison



Low Bb Baris have much longer necks than Low A baris.  They are apples and oranges.  It has nothing to do with the YBS52 being an "intermediate" instrument.  The 52 is very similar in dimensions to any modern Low A bari including the Yanis and Selmers (including Low A mark VIs).


--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods  wrote:
>
> I have a few more Martin bari necks here, as well as some Conn necks to measure for comparison.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: Keith Bradbury 
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tue, February 2, 2010 9:43:39 PM
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Bass/Bari Sax Mouthpiece Volume Comparison
> 
>   
> OK, using a T-shaped telescopic bore gauge, I determined my bari neck tenon is cylindrical for the last 1".  Where it joins the neck tube, it is fairly flush.  The neck tube may be .010-.015" larger in dia there.  So if I shorten the neck by this 1" and open the end dia by .010" I now calculate the missing cone at 14.7 ml.  (Even smaller.)
>  
> The 52 and 62 saxes all have the same physical dimensions as far as I know.  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
>  From: MartinMods 
> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Tue, February 2, 2010 7:24:09 PM
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Bass/Bari Sax Mouthpiece Volume Comparison
> 
>   
> I understand.  The 52 is an intermediate model as well, which may mean something.  The reason I asked is, the standard 6" caliper like most people use, doesn't have internal feelers long enough to reach all the way inside the tenon to the neck tube. Measuring the inside of the tenon is meaningless.
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
>  From: MartinMods 
> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Tue, February 2, 2010 4:18:41 PM
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Bass/Bari Sax Mouthpiece Volume Comparison
> 
>   
> "I only calculated 17.7 ml from my YBS-52 neck measurements. ~29% smaller."
> 
> How did you take your measurements?  I removed the tenon on both necks and measured the inside of the neck tube, and the length along the center line.
>




------------------------------------

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/mygroupsYahoo! Groups Links

"It seems to me that the neck taper is instrumental 
(pardon the pun) in determining the intonation of the shorter-tube notes, in 
which that taper plays a larger role, and is less important for the long-tube 
notes."

I must disagree Toby. Everything above C# 3, is meant to be played as an overblown 2nd mode exclusively, and each note has it's own unique tone hole.  Size and tone hole placement alone are responsible for the initial tuning of the short-tube notes.  As mentioned, the narrower neck taper helps higher resonances remain close to a harmonic integral relationship, so that the overblown middle register notes - D2 to C#3 are in tune with their lower octave relatives

Benade and Nederveen were both very clear in text and illustration, in multiple instances: "For a conical woodwind instrument to work properly, the equivalent volume of the reed cavity added to the mechanical volume of it's staple (or bocal, or neck) must closely match the volume of the missing part of the cone."  That would mean the main body cone, not the neck cone.  



      

If the bore taper is the same, and the neck opening is the same, the length of the neck doesn't matter.  It just means they put the tenon in a different place.  The air columns are the same, except for the bell section.




________________________________
From: "zoot51@..." <zoot51@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, February 4, 2010 12:21:34 AM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Bass/Bari Sax Mouthpiece Volume Comparison

  
I think the difference is not the low A but the modern design.  The low A Martin has a long neck with octave key, as does the Conn 13M, I think.  Modern designs have the key below the neck, mostly to make regulation more consistent, I'd guess.
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: "Naoki" <naokiman@yahoo. com>
Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 18:21:17 
To: <MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Bass/Bari Sax Mouthpiece Volume Comparison



Low Bb Baris have much longer necks than Low A baris.  They are apples and oranges.  It has nothing to do with the YBS52 being an "intermediate" instrument.  The 52 is very similar in dimensions to any modern Low A bari including the Yanis and Selmers (including Low A mark VIs).


--- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ ...> wrote:
>
> I have a few more Martin bari necks here, as well as some Conn necks to measure for comparison.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________ _________ _________ __
> From: Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@ ...>
> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Tue, February 2, 2010 9:43:39 PM
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Bass/Bari Sax Mouthpiece Volume Comparison
> 
> 
> OK, using a T-shaped telescopic bore gauge, I determined my bari neck tenon is cylindrical for the last 1".  Where it joins the neck tube, it is fairly flush.  The neck tube may be .010-.015" larger in dia there.  So if I shorten the neck by this 1" and open the end dia by .010" I now calculate the missing cone at 14.7 ml.  (Even smaller.)
> 
> The 52 and 62 saxes all have the same physical dimensions as far as I know. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________ _________ _________ __
>  From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Tue, February 2, 2010 7:24:09 PM
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Bass/Bari Sax Mouthpiece Volume Comparison
> 
> 
> I understand.  The 52 is an intermediate model as well, which may mean something.  The reason I asked is, the standard 6" caliper like most people use, doesn't have internal feelers long enough to reach all the way inside the tenon to the neck tube. Measuring the inside of the tenon is meaningless.
> 
> 
> 
> ____________ _________ _________ __
>  From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Tue, February 2, 2010 4:18:41 PM
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Bass/Bari Sax Mouthpiece Volume Comparison
> 
> 
> "I only calculated 17.7 ml from my YBS-52 neck measurements. ~29% smaller."
> 
> How did you take your measurements?  I removed the tenon on both necks and measured the inside of the neck tube, and the length along the center line.
>




------------ --------- --------- ------

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

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

To see and modify your groups, go to http://groups. yahoo.com/ mygroupsYahoo! Groups Links




 


      

"We need to keep in mind that there has been all kinds of tweaking of the 
sax cone over the decades in response to all the factors that go into 
compromising harmonics in a real-world instrument. I'm guessing that the neck is 
a more accurate representation of the realistic cone angle of the instrument, 
due to all the extra compliance of the toneholes."

I don't think there was that much dramatic tweaking done since Benade and Nederveen published their papers.  They had it pretty much figured out, tone holes and all.  I'm gonna have to go with the published experts on this.



      

OK, spreadsheet uploaded "Sax Bore Measurements" in the "Misc" folder under Files.  Bore sizes are all OD, Outer Diameter since that was easier to measure.  For ID, Inner Diameter the wall thickness x 2 would need to be subtracted.

I reckon the bore sizes are accurate to about + or - 0.1mm and the bore lengths accurate to + or - 1mm.  Bore length of 0mm is at cork end of neck.

Regards,
Andrew



--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
>
> And please, do upload your Excel spreadsheets to the file folder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: crunchie_nuts <andrewhdonaldson@...>
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wed, February 3, 2010 1:10:44 AM
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Bass/Bari Sax Mouthpiece Volume Comparison
> 
>   
> One rainy day I decided to take bore measurements of my sax collection; sop, alto and tenor.  In each case, I found that the neck had a significantly different taper from the body.  Also, none of necks were a true cone.  On the two tenors I measured the neck was slightly convex.  On two altos the neck taper was concave.  On my Yanagisawa sop neck there is a cylindrical insert at the mouthpiece end.  The bore of all saxes was cylindrical over the length neck tenon.  However, the main body tube was close to a true cone on each horn (except for the flair at the bell).
> 
> So how is the missing cone supposed to be measured to arrive at the ideal mp volume?  Is the average cone over the whole bore, or just the neck?  It seems to me that you get a different result depending on where you measure from . . .
> 
> I have my measurements as Excel spreadsheets with graphs, if anyone is interested . . .
> 
> Regards,
> Andrew
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ ...> wrote:
> >
> > I have a few more Martin bari necks here, as well as some Conn necks to measure for comparison.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ____________ _________ _________ __
> > From: Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@ ...>
> > To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> > Sent: Tue, February 2, 2010 9:43:39 PM
> > Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Bass/Bari Sax Mouthpiece Volume Comparison
> > 
> > 
> > OK, using a T-shaped telescopic bore gauge, I determined my bari neck tenon is cylindrical for the last 1".  Where it joins the neck tube, it is fairly flush.  The neck tube may be .010-.015" larger in dia there.  So if I shorten the neck by this 1" and open the end dia by .010" I now calculate the missing cone at 14.7 ml.  (Even smaller.)
> > 
> > The 52 and 62 saxes all have the same physical dimensions as far as I know. 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ____________ _________ _________ __
> >  From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
> > To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> > Sent: Tue, February 2, 2010 7:24:09 PM
> > Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Bass/Bari Sax Mouthpiece Volume Comparison
> > 
> > 
> > I understand.  The 52 is an intermediate model as well, which may mean something.  The reason I asked is, the standard 6" caliper like most people use, doesn't have internal feelers long enough to reach all the way inside the tenon to the neck tube. Measuring the inside of the tenon is meaningless.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ____________ _________ _________ __
> >  From: Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@ yahoo. com>
> > To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> > Sent: Tue, February 2, 2010 6:34:44 PM
> > Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Bass/Bari Sax Mouthpiece Volume Comparison
> > 
> > 
> > I used inside caliper measurements of each end of my bari neck to get their inside diametrers.  I used a drafting rubber flexible ruler to get the centerline length.
> > 
> > I did not mean to imply there was an issue here.  I think bari neck tapers might vary a lot. 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ____________ _________ _________ __
> >  From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
> > To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> > Sent: Tue, February 2, 2010 4:18:41 PM
> > Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Bass/Bari Sax Mouthpiece Volume Comparison
> > 
> > 
> > "I only calculated 17.7 ml from my YBS-52 neck measurements. ~29% smaller."
> > 
> > How did you take your measurements?  I removed the tenon on both necks and measured the inside of the neck tube, and the length along the center line.
> >
>

MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:                                           "It seems to me that the neck taper is instrumental  (pardon the pun) in determining the intonation of the shorter-tube notes, in  which that taper plays a larger role, and is less important for the long-tube 
 notes."

I must disagree Toby. Everything above C# 3, is meant to be played as an overblown 2nd mode exclusively, and each note has it's own unique tone hole.  Size and tone hole placement alone are responsible for the initial tuning of the short-tube notes.  As mentioned, the narrower neck taper helps
 higher resonances remain close to a harmonic integral relationship, so that the overblown middle register notes - D2 to C#3 are in tune with their lower octave relatives

Toby--Certainly it is true that the palm notes have their own holes and thus don't need to worry about taper, but I meant that if you have, say, two different tapers, you would need a composite volume based on the amount of each taper involved in the active air colum.

 So just to simply to the point of absurdity, let's say that you have an air column in which the top half has a taper of 2 degrees and the bottom half a taper of 1 degree. You would need to figure the substitution volume for a note using the whole length for a cone with a 1.5 degree taper. But if
 you were playing a note using 3/4 of the air column, it would be a composite cone of 1.75 degrees, and for a note half the length of the air column (since in that case only the top half of the cone is involved) you need to figure on a cone of 2 degrees.

 Of course all the waters are muddied by the facts of a real air column--that the modes are all lowered by the reed, that the compliance is increased due to the volume under the closed toneholes, etc. Nor am I at all certain that a simple average of the lengths and their tapers is anywhere near
 accurate, but obviously you need to take different tapers into account in figuring the substitution volume, it seems to me.
  
Benade and Nederveen were both very clear in text and illustration, in multiple instances: "For a conical woodwind instrument to work properly, the equivalent volume of the reed cavity added to the mechanical volume of it's staple (or bocal, or neck) must closely match the volume of the missing
 part of the cone."  That would mean the main body cone, not the neck cone.  

Toby--Again, the definition of the constriction is not set in stone. A bari neck is a far different proportion of the total tube than the tenor neck, and some sops have no neck at all. "Neck" is just a convenient demarcation of the constriction plus some part of the cone. And a change in angle
 near the top of the cone will certainly affect the short-tube notes more than the longer-tube notes. As an analog, take the "parabolic" head of the Boehm flute. It sharpens the notes progressively as you go up the tube, to compensate for the increasing end correction as the flute player moves his
 lips to cover more of the hole in adjusting the jet length (which flattens the notes progressively as you ascend the tube). Don't forget also that the tuning of the modes is affected not only by the substitution volume, but by the truncation ratio--which changes each time a tonehole is covered or
 uncovered. The larger the truncation ratio the more the modes are affected by whatever is used as the substitution.




        
      
            


 

MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:                                           
" We need to keep in mind that there has been all kinds of tweaking of the  sax cone over the decades in response to all the factors that go into  compromising harmonics in a real-world instrument. I'm guessing that the neck is  a more accurate representation of the realistic cone angle of the
 instrument,  due to all the extra compliance of the toneholes."

I don't think there was that much dramatic tweaking done since Benade and Nederveen published their papers.  They had it pretty much figured out, tone holes and all.  I'm gonna have to go with the published experts on this.

--What I meant was that the sax cone is far from the ideal straight cone so beloved of simple theory. I may well be wrong about the neck being the more accurate representation of real-world cone angle (for the purpose of figuring the volume of the mpc), but there can be no doubt that spherical
 waves change their behavior at any point where there is an effective change of cone angle, whether at the "necking in" point under the cork, the neck, the tenon, in the main tube under toneholes, the bow or in the bell. Each of these factors changes mode relationships and will have some effect on
 the "ideal" mpc volume.

Toby


        
      
                 
                 
 

"but there can be no doubt that spherical
waves change their behavior at any point where there is an effective
change of cone angle, whether at the "necking in" point under the cork,
the neck, the tenon, in the main tube under tone holes, the bow or in
the bell."

Nederveen disagrees with you:  "The cones of woodwind instruments have little flare, half of the top angle of the cone varies between 0.005 and 0.04 rad.  Therefore it is not unreasonable to consider the wave as spreading uniformly over a cross-section of the tube as it travels outwards.  Then the displacement of the gas molecules all over the surface perpendicular to the axis of the horn will be the same and displacement, pressure, etc., will be functions of time and distance along the tube only.  The difference between spherical wavefronts with their origin at the apex of the cone and plane wavefronts is neglected."

Perhaps you are thinking in terms of lip-valved brass instruments.


      

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: MartinMods 
  To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 11:47 AM
  Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Bass/Bari Sax Mouthpiece Volume Comparison


    

  "In other words the Frs  of the saxophone mouthpiece (missing cone) on its neck is determined by the slope, therefore length, therefore volume of the neck and not the different slope of the saxophone body."

  John,

  I have to disagree with you on this.  Nederveen discusses the use of successive cones in conical woodwinds, in order to improve mode purity - help the higher resonances remain harmonic at high frequencies.  It is clearly illustrated.  With the incorporation of a narrower taper at the upper end of the tube (equivalent to a saxophone neck), the volume of the missing cone is determined by the main body taper, from the point of the onset of the narrower taper (neck tenon - alto and tenor).  The volume of the mouthpiece, reed compliance, and neck, must then equal this missing cone volume.  

  To fulfill the higher mode requirements then, the substitution must have the same playing frequency as that of the theoretical missing cone - the exact same theoretical cone used for the volume measurement, based upon the main body taper, measured from the onset of the narrower taper, to the theoretical apex, and according to Benade's formula. This is why Benade insisted upon "the mouthpiece on it's neck".  

  The Frs of the mouthpiece on the neck is not purely determined by the mechanical length of the section (taper of the neck), as it is not a pure cone nor a pure cylinder.  Volume distribution at the mouthpiece compression anti-node and the diameter of the neck's displacement anti-node dramatically affect the playing frequency.  Benade's formula applies only to the theoretical cone, not the mouthpiece + neck.

  Remember, it's about a truncated body, not a truncated neck. 


  Yes, agreed, but you also need to remember that the truncated neck is part of the truncated body: there is no clear division here, and the more toneholes you open the less the influence of the body cone as compared to the neck cone.

  Also, I question how much the volume under the reed tip affects the Hh resonance of the mpc. In one conversation with Joe Wolfe, in which I was discussing changing the distribution of the volume in the mpc (by adding the same amount of clay at various points in the chamber/baffle) he said only that close to the reed there might be Bernoulli effects. The Hh resonance is about a closed mass of air with a single aperture. The ratio of air mass to aperture diameter determines the resonant frequency. In this equation, there is no compression antinode.

  Toby


  

Flare and taper are two different things. A cone tapers but does not flare. A horn flares, and this is why it is unusable a a musical bore shape. A change of cone angle is effectively like a flare in a cone, which changes mode relationships. Surely you are not suggesting that a conical woodwind is
 cylindrical ?

Toby

MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:                                           
"but there can be no doubt that spherical waves change their behavior at any point where there is an effective change of cone angle, whether at the "necking in" point under the cork, the neck, the tenon, in the main tube under tone holes, the bow or in the bell."

Nederveen disagrees with you:  "The cones of woodwind instruments have little flare, half of the top angle of the cone varies between 0.005 and 0.04 rad.  Therefore it is not unreasonable to consider the wave as spreading uniformly over a cross-section of the tube as it travels outwards.  Then the
 displacement of the gas molecules all over the surface perpendicular to the axis of the horn will be the same and displacement, pressure, etc., will be functions of time and distance along the tube only.  The difference between spherical wavefronts with their origin at the apex of the cone and
 plane wavefronts is neglected."

Perhaps you are thinking in terms of lip-valved brass instruments.




        
      
                 
                 
 

It is important to differentiate between the physical length of the tube which determines the wavelength---hence the frequency AND the degree of conicity of the tube which determines the relationships of the octave and the remaining higher partials.

The length of the "missing cone" from an alto sax neck as calculated from the taper of the neck when added to the length of the neck itself is very close to 1/2 the wavelength of Ab concert which is the note produced when the mouthpiece and neck are played with a normal embouchure.

If the missing cone were calculated from the different taper of the body and then added as an extension beyond the neck, it would be significantly longer and hence produce a considerably lower pitch.

The proof is in the playing as I see it.

John

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "Toby" <kymarto123@...> wrote:
>
> 
>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: MartinMods 
>   To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
>   Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 11:47 AM
>   Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Bass/Bari Sax Mouthpiece Volume Comparison
> 
> 
>     
> 
>   "In other words the Frs  of the saxophone mouthpiece (missing cone) on its neck is determined by the slope, therefore length, therefore volume of the neck and not the different slope of the saxophone body."
> 
>   John,
> 
>   I have to disagree with you on this.  Nederveen discusses the use of successive cones in conical woodwinds, in order to improve mode purity - help the higher resonances remain harmonic at high frequencies.  It is clearly illustrated.  With the incorporation of a narrower taper at the upper end of the tube (equivalent to a saxophone neck), the volume of the missing cone is determined by the main body taper, from the point of the onset of the narrower taper (neck tenon - alto and tenor).  The volume of the mouthpiece, reed compliance, and neck, must then equal this missing cone volume.  
> 
>   To fulfill the higher mode requirements then, the substitution must have the same playing frequency as that of the theoretical missing cone - the exact same theoretical cone used for the volume measurement, based upon the main body taper, measured from the onset of the narrower taper, to the theoretical apex, and according to Benade's formula. This is why Benade insisted upon "the mouthpiece on it's neck".  
> 
>   The Frs of the mouthpiece on the neck is not purely determined by the mechanical length of the section (taper of the neck), as it is not a pure cone nor a pure cylinder.  Volume distribution at the mouthpiece compression anti-node and the diameter of the neck's displacement anti-node dramatically affect the playing frequency.  Benade's formula applies only to the theoretical cone, not the mouthpiece + neck.
> 
>   Remember, it's about a truncated body, not a truncated neck. 
> 
> 
>   Yes, agreed, but you also need to remember that the truncated neck is part of the truncated body: there is no clear division here, and the more toneholes you open the less the influence of the body cone as compared to the neck cone.
> 
>   Also, I question how much the volume under the reed tip affects the Hh resonance of the mpc. In one conversation with Joe Wolfe, in which I was discussing changing the distribution of the volume in the mpc (by adding the same amount of clay at various points in the chamber/baffle) he said only that close to the reed there might be Bernoulli effects. The Hh resonance is about a closed mass of air with a single aperture. The ratio of air mass to aperture diameter determines the resonant frequency. In this equation, there is no compression antinode.
> 
>   Toby
>

My point exactly, but more clearly expressed.
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: MartinMods 
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 21:26:41 
To: 
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Bass/Bari Sax Mouthpiece Volume Comparison

If the bore taper is the same, and the neck opening is the same, the length of the neck doesn't matter.  It just means they put the tenon in a different place.  The air columns are the same, except for the bell section.




________________________________
From: "zoot51@yahoo.com" 
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, February 4, 2010 12:21:34 AM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Bass/Bari Sax Mouthpiece Volume Comparison

  
I think the difference is not the low A but the modern design.  The low A Martin has a long neck with octave key, as does the Conn 13M, I think.  Modern designs have the key below the neck, mostly to make regulation more consistent, I'd guess.
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: "Naoki" 
Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 18:21:17 
To: 
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Bass/Bari Sax Mouthpiece Volume Comparison



Low Bb Baris have much longer necks than Low A baris.  They are apples and oranges.  It has nothing to do with the YBS52 being an "intermediate" instrument.  The 52 is very similar in dimensions to any modern Low A bari including the Yanis and Selmers (including Low A mark VIs).


--- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, MartinMods  wrote:
>
> I have a few more Martin bari necks here, as well as some Conn necks to measure for comparison.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>________________________________
> From: Keith Bradbury 
> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Tue, February 2, 2010 9:43:39 PM
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Bass/Bari Sax Mouthpiece Volume Comparison
> 
> 
> OK, using a T-shaped telescopic bore gauge, I determined my bari neck tenon is cylindrical for the last 1".  Where it joins the neck tube, it is fairly flush.  The neck tube may be .010-.015" larger in dia there.  So if I shorten the neck by this 1" and open the end dia by .010" I now calculate the missing cone at 14.7 ml.  (Even smaller.)
> 
> The 52 and 62 saxes all have the same physical dimensions as far as I know. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>________________________________
>  From: MartinMods 
> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Tue, February 2, 2010 7:24:09 PM
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Bass/Bari Sax Mouthpiece Volume Comparison
> 
> 
> I understand.  The 52 is an intermediate model as well, which may mean something.  The reason I asked is, the standard 6" caliper like most people use, doesn't have internal feelers long enough to reach all the way inside the tenon to the neck tube. Measuring the inside of the tenon is meaningless.
> 
> 
> 
>________________________________
>  From: MartinMods 
> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Tue, February 2, 2010 4:18:41 PM
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Bass/Bari Sax Mouthpiece Volume Comparison
> 
> 
> "I only calculated 17.7 ml from my YBS-52 neck measurements. ~29% smaller."
> 
> How did you take your measurements?  I removed the tenon on both necks and measured the inside of the neck tube, and the length along the center line.
>




------------ --------- --------- ------

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

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

To see and modify your groups, go to http://groups. yahoo.com/ mygroupsYahoo! Groups Links




 


      

Ahh a play test.  Now we are (maybe) getting somewhere.   But the volume of the mouthpiece on the alto neck you tested is really not the missing cone of the sax body cone.  It is the present cone of the mouthpiece and neck.  You verified that this sub-system calculates and plays at Ab.  Is the volume of this sub-system equal to or smaller than the missing body cone volume?

Andrew's Yana sop bore OD mesurements indicate that the neck is tapered steeper than the body.  Otheres have reported similar observations and some reported that the taper does not change.  But Andrew presented some data.  I think the ID profile will be similar.  So unless the mouthpiece volume is larger than the missing cone from the neck taper, it will not be equal to the missing cone volume from the body taper.  

What may be needed is some more play testing of mouthpieces tuned on saxes and measurements of their chamber volumes.  Which calculation method will match the data?  




________________________________
From: John <jtalcott47@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, February 4, 2010 8:08:12 AM
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Bass/Bari Sax Mouthpiece Volume Comparison

  
It is important to differentiate between the physical length of the tube which determines the wavelength-- -hence the frequency AND the degree of conicity of the tube which determines the relationships of the octave and the remaining higher partials.

The length of the "missing cone" from an alto sax neck as calculated from the taper of the neck when added to the length of the neck itself is very close to 1/2 the wavelength of Ab concert which is the note produced when the mouthpiece and neck are played with a normal embouchure.

If the missing cone were calculated from the different taper of the body and then added as an extension beyond the neck, it would be significantly longer and hence produce a considerably lower pitch.

The proof is in the playing as I see it.

John


      

"It is important to differentiate between the physical length of the
tube which determines the wavelength-- -hence the frequency AND the
degree of conicity of the tube which determines the relationships of
the octave and the remaining higher partials."

How does this apply to a saxophone reed chamber/neck combination, which is neither a perfect, straight sided cone nor a cylinder?

"The length of the "missing cone" from an alto sax neck as calculated
from the taper of the neck when added to the length of the neck itself
is very close to 1/2 the wavelength of Ab concert which is the note
produced when the mouthpiece and neck are played with a normal
embouchure."

If this were true, and every type of alto mouthpiece on every brand of alto neck produced an Ab concert, when played by any player, using a normal embouchure, and if getting "close" qualified as "meticulously matching the mouthpiece to the horn", then we would certainly be wasting our time bothering to measure things.

"If the missing cone were calculated from the different taper of the
body and then added as an extension beyond the neck, it would be
significantly longer and hence produce a considerably lower pitch."

Did you actually measure the alto body taper?  My The Martin tenor shows no appreciable difference between the neck and the body taper.  Looking at Nederveen's charts of various saxophone bores, it is more than obvious, from the very, very, very long straight lines of the main body tubes (don't say tone holes), and the very short, irregular lines of the neck sections, that by far (ridiculously even), the main component of the instrument is the body and the neck, by comparison, is nothing more than a small tweak, slightly more tapered in it's very short upper half, and having a gross cylindrical tenon error in it's lower part.  I don't even need Benade's or Nederveen's explanations to see which taper I am going to use to determine the missing cone and Frs.  It's silly.

I'm certain that the vast majority of existing sax players needn't concern themselves in the least with matching mouthpiece chamber volumes in that they will be more than satisfied and challenged by the selection of stock modern saxophones and mouthpieces available, off the shelf.  Of the small minority who care about it, I'm sure most of them will be satisfied measuring from the neck taper.  A small portion of that remainder however, are like me, focusing on the individual, acoustically superior horn, neck, mouthpiece, and player combination, where meticulously fitting the components to one another, really results in noticeable improvements.  The proof lies here. IMO.


      

Most well designed saxophones use a system of FOUR cones of different taper:
neck, body tube, bow, and bell...I am unaware of any major manufacturer who
deviates from this well established practice

 

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Keith Bradbury
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 9:02 AM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Sax Mouthpiece Volume Comparison

 

  

Ahh a play test.  Now we are (maybe) getting somewhere.   But the volume of
the mouthpiece on the alto neck you tested is really not the missing cone of
the sax body cone.  It is the present cone of the mouthpiece and neck.  You
verified that this sub-system calculates and plays at Ab.  Is the volume of
this sub-system equal to or smaller than the missing body cone volume?


Andrew's Yana sop bore OD mesurements indicate that the neck is tapered
steeper than the body.  Otheres have reported similar observations and some
reported that the taper does not change.  But Andrew presented some data.  I
think the ID profile will be similar.  So unless the mouthpiece volume is
larger than the missing cone from the neck taper, it will not be equal to
the missing cone volume from the body taper.  

 

What may be needed is some more play testing of mouthpieces tuned on saxes
and measurements of their chamber volumes.  Which calculation method will
match the data?  

 

 

  _____  

From: John <jtalcott47@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, February 4, 2010 8:08:12 AM
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Bass/Bari Sax Mouthpiece Volume Comparison

  

It is important to differentiate between the physical length of the tube
which determines the wavelength-- -hence the frequency AND the degree of
conicity of the tube which determines the relationships of the octave and
the remaining higher partials.

The length of the "missing cone" from an alto sax neck as calculated from
the taper of the neck when added to the length of the neck itself is very
close to 1/2 the wavelength of Ab concert which is the note produced when
the mouthpiece and neck are played with a normal embouchure.

If the missing cone were calculated from the different taper of the body and
then added as an extension beyond the neck, it would be significantly longer
and hence produce a considerably lower pitch.

The proof is in the playing as I see it.

John

 

In light of previous discussions about low B instability due to the
dimensional issues at the bow (i.e. how throwing in a cork or adding an
insert to reduce the bow volume helps), it's interesting to see your
remark mentioning the bow as a region of separate conic taper.

Have newer horns done away with the B-gargle, then?

I should think that measuring the physical (not to mention the
"effective", ie acoustical behavior of the) taper at the bow is a bit of a
challenge, even if one wanted to look at a bunch of new horns to see
what's being done. Not just the difference of the beginning and ending
diameters (easy enough), but what transpires along the curve.

Barry

> Most well designed saxophones use a system of FOUR cones of different
> taper:
> neck, body tube, bow, and bell...I am unaware of any major manufacturer
> who
> deviates from this well established practice
>
>
>
> From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of Keith Bradbury
> Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 9:02 AM
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Sax Mouthpiece Volume Comparison
>
>
>
>
>
> Ahh a play test.  Now we are (maybe) getting somewhere.   But the volume
> of
> the mouthpiece on the alto neck you tested is really not the missing cone
> of
> the sax body cone.  It is the present cone of the mouthpiece and neck.
> You
> verified that this sub-system calculates and plays at Ab.  Is the volume
> of
> this sub-system equal to or smaller than the missing body cone volume?
>
>
> Andrew's Yana sop bore OD mesurements indicate that the neck is tapered
> steeper than the body.  Otheres have reported similar observations and
> some
> reported that the taper does not change.  But Andrew presented some data.
> I
> think the ID profile will be similar.  So unless the mouthpiece volume is
> larger than the missing cone from the neck taper, it will not be equal to
> the missing cone volume from the body taper.
>
>
>
> What may be needed is some more play testing of mouthpieces tuned on saxes
> and measurements of their chamber volumes.  Which calculation method will
> match the data?
>
>
>
>
>
>   _____
>
> From: John <jtalcott47@...>
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thu, February 4, 2010 8:08:12 AM
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Bass/Bari Sax Mouthpiece Volume Comparison
>
>
>
> It is important to differentiate between the physical length of the tube
> which determines the wavelength-- -hence the frequency AND the degree of
> conicity of the tube which determines the relationships of the octave and
> the remaining higher partials.
>
> The length of the "missing cone" from an alto sax neck as calculated from
> the taper of the neck when added to the length of the neck itself is very
> close to 1/2 the wavelength of Ab concert which is the note produced when
> the mouthpiece and neck are played with a normal embouchure.
>
> If the missing cone were calculated from the different taper of the body
> and
> then added as an extension beyond the neck, it would be significantly
> longer
> and hence produce a considerably lower pitch.
>
> The proof is in the playing as I see it.
>
> John
>
>
>
>
>
>

This may have been discussed but how does the 1 piece saxes like the
soprano, saxello or any other straight sax ( like Steve G.'s) fit in?
Are they a single cone or are there "steps" built in?
Chic

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "Chic Cieslik" <crcieslik@...> wrote:
>
> This may have been discussed but how does the 1 piece saxes like the
> soprano, saxello or any other straight sax ( like Steve G.'s) fit in?
> Are they a single cone or are there "steps" built in?
> Chic
>

Yes, there are.  Examine a Mk VI soprano (OK, not a great soprano, but a one piece soprano) and there is a quite evident "step" in the neck area.  Some call that a "venturi", but it is a change in conical section at that point.

Others I have seen have the same.

There is not a corresponding step where the bow of a larger sax would be, down by low Eb, C, etc.  But rather those tone holes are located to play those notes in tune.  Remember, those low notes do not have to play the octave in tune, only the fundamental.

I had talked to Dave Schottle some years back.  He was the designer of the L A Sax straight alto and straight tenor.  As you know, on the top end the necks are the same as the regular alto and tenor models, as are the main body tubes.

Where these differ is where the bow and bell sections would have been.  Dave told me he thought it would be a simple matter of making a straight section to substitute for the bow, then turn the bell section upside down and ... well, it didn't work out that way at all.  He had to relocated all of those low tone holes.  I don't remember what he said about taper on what would have been the bow.

Paul C.

Hi Barry,

I made some measurements and graphs of various sax bore profiles, which can be seen the Files area under Misc and Other.  I found that of the two alto's  measured, the conical taper continues unchanged through the bow area.  It then starts to flare into the bell around about the low Bb key.

For the two tenors I measured, there is a slight change in taper in the bow; the cone angle reduces slightly.

For the straight soprano, the cone continues unchanged through the low B area.

Another interesting point is that the transition between the body cone and the neck taper does not necessarily begin at the neck tenon.  You can see that it begins after the tenon, ie within the body tube on the soprano and tenor.

Maybe not that relevant to a mouthpiece site, but hopefully interesting anyway.

Regards,
Andrew

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "Barry Levine" <barrylevine@...> wrote:
>
> In light of previous discussions about low B instability due to the
> dimensional issues at the bow (i.e. how throwing in a cork or adding an
> insert to reduce the bow volume helps), it's interesting to see your
> remark mentioning the bow as a region of separate conic taper.
> 
> Have newer horns done away with the B-gargle, then?
> 
> I should think that measuring the physical (not to mention the
> "effective", ie acoustical behavior of the) taper at the bow is a bit of a
> challenge, even if one wanted to look at a bunch of new horns to see
> what's being done. Not just the difference of the beginning and ending
> diameters (easy enough), but what transpires along the curve.
> 
> Barry
> 
> > Most well designed saxophones use a system of FOUR cones of different
> > taper:
> > neck, body tube, bow, and bell...I am unaware of any major manufacturer
> > who
> > deviates from this well established practice
> >
> >
> >
> > From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> > [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
> > On Behalf Of Keith Bradbury
> > Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 9:02 AM
> > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Sax Mouthpiece Volume Comparison
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Ahh a play test.  Now we are (maybe) getting somewhere.   But the volume
> > of
> > the mouthpiece on the alto neck you tested is really not the missing cone
> > of
> > the sax body cone.  It is the present cone of the mouthpiece and neck.
> > You
> > verified that this sub-system calculates and plays at Ab.  Is the volume
> > of
> > this sub-system equal to or smaller than the missing body cone volume?
> >
> >
> > Andrew's Yana sop bore OD mesurements indicate that the neck is tapered
> > steeper than the body.  Otheres have reported similar observations and
> > some
> > reported that the taper does not change.  But Andrew presented some data.
> > I
> > think the ID profile will be similar.  So unless the mouthpiece volume is
> > larger than the missing cone from the neck taper, it will not be equal to
> > the missing cone volume from the body taper.
> >
> >
> >
> > What may be needed is some more play testing of mouthpieces tuned on saxes
> > and measurements of their chamber volumes.  Which calculation method will
> > match the data?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >   _____
> >
> > From: John <jtalcott47@...>
> > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Thu, February 4, 2010 8:08:12 AM
> > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Bass/Bari Sax Mouthpiece Volume Comparison
> >
> >
> >
> > It is important to differentiate between the physical length of the tube
> > which determines the wavelength-- -hence the frequency AND the degree of
> > conicity of the tube which determines the relationships of the octave and
> > the remaining higher partials.
> >
> > The length of the "missing cone" from an alto sax neck as calculated from
> > the taper of the neck when added to the length of the neck itself is very
> > close to 1/2 the wavelength of Ab concert which is the note produced when
> > the mouthpiece and neck are played with a normal embouchure.
> >
> > If the missing cone were calculated from the different taper of the body
> > and
> > then added as an extension beyond the neck, it would be significantly
> > longer
> > and hence produce a considerably lower pitch.
> >
> > The proof is in the playing as I see it.
> >
> > John
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

IME most of the early sops were just a straight cone. Later designs have a wider cone at the top, followed by a straight cone. If you look at a modern one-piece Selmer or Yamaha or Yani, you can see this quite clearly.

Toby

Chic Cieslik <crcieslik@...> wrote:                                                 
This may have been discussed but how does the 1 piece saxes like the soprano, saxello or any other straight sax ( like Steve G.$B!G(Bs) fit in?
  Are they a single cone or are there $B!H(Bsteps$B!I(B built in?
  Chic
   
      
                 
                 
 

The neck has a physical length.  The mouthpiece properly proportioned
and properly placed on the cork becomes a "stand in" for the missing
cone and hence takes on its length and volume as seen by the rest of the
saxophone.  The physical length of the neck plus its missing cone has a
natural resonant frequency found by this formula:

F = V/2Xo

where V is the velocity of sound and Xo is the length of the neck plus
the calculated length of its missing cone.  When the player makes the
necessary adjustments to make the played frequency of the mouthpiece
plus neck combination match this natural resonant frequency of the
"ideal" missing cone, the acoustic requirement of the truncated cone of
the body is met and the saxophone plays its best.   The requirement that
the mouthpiece recreate the volume of the missing cone is closely
related to this Frs  since the volume of the missing cone and its length
(and therefore natural frequency) are proportional.

The carefully measured Mark VI neck taper  in my calculations was 1.8
degrees.  The Mark VI body tube taper was 1.51  They are hardly the
same.  For those who are interested, they can see the scale drawing at
this link:   Saxophone Taper
 
<http://jbtsaxmusic.homestead.com/Selmer_Saxophone_to_scale_revised.pdf>
John




--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
wrote:
>
> "It is important to differentiate between the physical length of the
> tube which determines the wavelength-- -hence the frequency AND the
> degree of conicity of the tube which determines the relationships of
> the octave and the remaining higher partials."
>
> How does this apply to a saxophone reed chamber/neck combination,
which is neither a perfect, straight sided cone nor a cylinder?
>
> "The length of the "missing cone" from an alto sax neck as calculated
> from the taper of the neck when added to the length of the neck itself
> is very close to 1/2 the wavelength of Ab concert which is the note
> produced when the mouthpiece and neck are played with a normal
> embouchure."
>
> If this were true, and every type of alto mouthpiece on every brand of
alto neck produced an Ab concert, when played by any player, using a
normal embouchure, and if getting "close" qualified as "meticulously
matching the mouthpiece to the horn", then we would certainly be wasting
our time bothering to measure things.
>
> "If the missing cone were calculated from the different taper of the
> body and then added as an extension beyond the neck, it would be
> significantly longer and hence produce a considerably lower pitch."
>
> Did you actually measure the alto body taper?  My The Martin tenor
shows no appreciable difference between the neck and the body taper. 
Looking at Nederveen's charts of various saxophone bores, it is more
than obvious, from the very, very, very long straight lines of the main
body tubes (don't say tone holes), and the very short, irregular lines
of the neck sections, that by far (ridiculously even), the main
component of the instrument is the body and the neck, by comparison, is
nothing more than a small tweak, slightly more tapered in it's very
short upper half, and having a gross cylindrical tenon error in it's
lower part.  I don't even need Benade's or Nederveen's explanations to
see which taper I am going to use to determine the missing cone and Frs.
It's silly.
>
> I'm certain that the vast majority of existing sax players needn't
concern themselves in the least with matching mouthpiece chamber volumes
in that they will be more than satisfied and challenged by the selection
of stock modern saxophones and mouthpieces available, off the shelf.  Of
the small minority who care about it, I'm sure most of them will be
satisfied measuring from the neck taper.  A small portion of that
remainder however, are like me, focusing on the individual, acoustically
superior horn, neck, mouthpiece, and player combination, where
meticulously fitting the components to one another, really results in
noticeable improvements.  The proof lies here. IMO.
>

The volume of the "sub system" as you call it is substantially smaller than the missing cone calculated from the taper of the body tube.  The natural resonant frequency of that larger and longer missing cone would be about a whole step lower to Gb concert.  Set your mouthpiece placement and/or embouchure to play Gb concert on your alto mouthpiece plus neck set-up and then do the same with the neck on the sax.  That should answer the question in a hurry.  :)

John



--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:
>
> Ahh a play test.  Now we are (maybe) getting somewhere.   But the volume of the mouthpiece on the alto neck you tested is really not the missing cone of the sax body cone.  It is the present cone of the mouthpiece and neck.  You verified that this sub-system calculates and plays at Ab.  Is the volume of this sub-system equal to or smaller than the missing body cone volume?
> 
> Andrew's Yana sop bore OD mesurements indicate that the neck is tapered steeper than the body.  Otheres have reported similar observations and some reported that the taper does not change.  But Andrew presented some data.  I think the ID profile will be similar.  So unless the mouthpiece volume is larger than the missing cone from the neck taper, it will not be equal to the missing cone volume from the body taper.  
> 
> What may be needed is some more play testing of mouthpieces tuned on saxes and measurements of their chamber volumes.  Which calculation method will match the data?  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: John <jtalcott47@...>
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thu, February 4, 2010 8:08:12 AM
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Bass/Bari Sax Mouthpiece Volume Comparison
> 
>   
> It is important to differentiate between the physical length of the tube which determines the wavelength-- -hence the frequency AND the degree of conicity of the tube which determines the relationships of the octave and the remaining higher partials.
> 
> The length of the "missing cone" from an alto sax neck as calculated from the taper of the neck when added to the length of the neck itself is very close to 1/2 the wavelength of Ab concert which is the note produced when the mouthpiece and neck are played with a normal embouchure.
> 
> If the missing cone were calculated from the different taper of the body and then added as an extension beyond the neck, it would be significantly longer and hence produce a considerably lower pitch.
> 
> The proof is in the playing as I see it.
> 
> John
>

I don't know how John measured the neck, but it is worth mentioning that many saxes are "necked-in", which means that the very end of the neck is substantially narrowed as compared to the rest of the neck. So when measuring the overall neck cone angle it is necessary to measure at a number of
 points along the length of the neck. Measuring ID or OD of the two ends won't give an accurate figure in many cases.

Toby

John <jtalcott47@...> wrote:                                              The neck has a physical length.  The mouthpiece properly proportioned and properly placed on the cork becomes a "stand in" for the missing cone and hence takes on its length and volume as seen by the rest of the
 saxophone.  The physical length of the neck plus its missing cone has a natural resonant frequency found by this formula:  

F = V/2Xo  

where V is the velocity of sound and Xo is the length of the neck plus the calculated length of its missing cone.  When the player makes the necessary adjustments to make the played frequency of the mouthpiece plus neck combination match this natural resonant frequency of the "ideal" missing cone,
 the acoustic requirement of the truncated cone of the body is met and the saxophone plays its best.   The requirement that the mouthpiece recreate the volume of the missing cone is closely related to this Frs  since the volume of the missing cone and its length (and therefore natural frequency)
 are proportional.

The carefully measured Mark VI neck taper  in my calculations was 1.8 degrees.  The Mark VI body tube taper was 1.51  They are hardly the same.  For those who are interested, they can see the scale drawing at this link:   Saxophone Taper 
 
John




--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
>
> "It is important to differentiate between the physical length of the
> tube which determines the wavelength-- -hence the frequency AND the
> degree of conicity of the tube which determines the relationships of
> the octave and the remaining higher partials."
> 
> How does this apply to a saxophone reed chamber/neck combination, which is neither a perfect, straight sided cone nor a cylinder?
> 
> "The length of the "missing cone" from an alto sax neck as calculated
> from the taper of the neck when added to the length of the neck itself
> is very close to 1/2 the wavelength of Ab concert which is the note
> produced when the mouthpiece and neck are played with a normal
> embouchure."
> 
> If this were true, and every type of alto mouthpiece on every brand of alto neck produced an Ab concert, when played by any player, using a normal embouchure, and if getting "close" qualified as "meticulously matching the mouthpiece to the horn", then we would certainly be wasting our time
 bothering to measure things.
> 
> "If the missing cone were calculated from the different taper of the
> body and then added as an extension beyond the neck, it would be
> significantly longer and hence produce a considerably lower pitch."
> 
> Did you actually measure the alto body taper?  My The Martin tenor shows no appreciable difference between the neck and the body taper.  Looking at Nederveen's charts of various saxophone bores, it is more than obvious, from the very, very, very long straight lines of the main body tubes (don't
 say tone holes), and the very short, irregular lines of the neck sections, that by far (ridiculously even), the main component of the instrument is the body and the neck, by comparison, is nothing more than a small tweak, slightly more tapered in it's very short upper half, and having a gross
 cylindrical tenon error in it's lower part.  I don't even need Benade's or Nederveen's explanations to see which taper I am going to use to determine the missing cone and Frs.  It's silly.
> 
> I'm certain that the vast majority of existing sax players needn't concern themselves in the least with matching mouthpiece chamber volumes in that they will be more than satisfied and challenged by the selection of stock modern saxophones and mouthpieces available, off the shelf.  Of the small
 minority who care about it, I'm sure most of them will be satisfied measuring from the neck taper.  A small portion of that remainder however, are like me, focusing on the individual, acoustically superior horn, neck, mouthpiece, and player combination, where meticulously fitting the components
 to one another, really results in noticeable improvements.  The proof lies here. IMO.
>
 
      
                 
                 
 

The frs of the missing cone, based upon the body taper of my Martin Handcraft alto, is a good concert Ab.  




________________________________
From: John <jtalcott47@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, February 7, 2010 10:53:06 PM
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Sax Mouthpiece Volume Comparison

  


The volume of the "sub system" as you call it is substantially smaller than the missing cone calculated from the taper of the body tube.  The natural resonant frequency of that larger and longer missing cone would be about a whole step lower to Gb concert.  Set your mouthpiece placement and/or embouchure to play Gb concert on your alto mouthpiece plus neck set-up and then do the same with the neck on the sax.  That should answer the question in a hurry.  :)

John

--- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@ ...> wrote:
>
> Ahh a play test.  Now we are (maybe) getting somewhere.   But the volume of the mouthpiece on the alto neck you tested is really not the missing cone of the sax body cone.  It is the present cone of the mouthpiece and neck.  You verified that this sub-system calculates and plays at Ab.  Is the volume of this sub-system equal to or smaller than the missing body cone volume?
> 
> Andrew's Yana sop bore OD mesurements indicate that the neck is tapered steeper than the body.  Otheres have reported similar observations and some reported that the taper does not change.  But Andrew presented some data.  I think the ID profile will be similar.  So unless the mouthpiece volume is larger than the missing cone from the neck taper, it will not be equal to the missing cone volume from the body taper.  
> 
> What may be needed is some more play testing of mouthpieces tuned on saxes and measurements of their chamber volumes.  Which calculation method will match the data?  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________ _________ _________ __
> From: John <jtalcott47@ ...>
> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Thu, February 4, 2010 8:08:12 AM
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Bass/Bari Sax Mouthpiece Volume Comparison
> 
>   
> It is important to differentiate between the physical length of the tube which determines the wavelength-- -hence the frequency AND the degree of conicity of the tube which determines the relationships of the octave and the remaining higher partials.
> 
> The length of the "missing cone" from an alto sax neck as calculated from the taper of the neck when added to the length of the neck itself is very close to 1/2 the wavelength of Ab concert which is the note produced when the mouthpiece and neck are played with a normal embouchure.
> 
> If the missing cone were calculated from the different taper of the body and then added as an extension beyond the neck, it would be significantly longer and hence produce a considerably lower pitch.
> 
> The proof is in the playing as I see it.
> 
> John
>


 


      

Do you mean the pitch when the mouthpiece and neck are played without the sax?  What is the taper in degrees of the Martin neck you are using, and what is the taper of the Martin body tube that you indicate is the same?  My Mark VI calculations were 1.8 degrees for the neck and 1.51 degrees for the body.

Knowing the taper of the neck should also allow the calculation of the length of the "missing cone" from the end of the neck.

The wavelength of Ab concert at speed of air 345 m/s(74 deg F) is 3320 mm.  Since the wavelength is equal to 2X the length of the tube  plus the end correction, the length of your missing cone plus the physical length of the neck added to .6 times the radius of the open end times 2 should be approximately 3320 mm.


John

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
>
> The frs of the missing cone, based upon the body taper of my Martin Handcraft alto, is a good concert Ab.  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: John <jtalcott47@...>
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sun, February 7, 2010 10:53:06 PM
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Sax Mouthpiece Volume Comparison
> 
>   
> 
> 
> The volume of the "sub system" as you call it is substantially smaller than the missing cone calculated from the taper of the body tube.  The natural resonant frequency of that larger and longer missing cone would be about a whole step lower to Gb concert.  Set your mouthpiece placement and/or embouchure to play Gb concert on your alto mouthpiece plus neck set-up and then do the same with the neck on the sax.  That should answer the question in a hurry.  :)
> 
> John
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@ ...> wrote:
> >
> > Ahh a play test.  Now we are (maybe) getting somewhere.   But the volume of the mouthpiece on the alto neck you tested is really not the missing cone of the sax body cone.  It is the present cone of the mouthpiece and neck.  You verified that this sub-system calculates and plays at Ab.  Is the volume of this sub-system equal to or smaller than the missing body cone volume?
> > 
> > Andrew's Yana sop bore OD mesurements indicate that the neck is tapered steeper than the body.  Otheres have reported similar observations and some reported that the taper does not change.  But Andrew presented some data.  I think the ID profile will be similar.  So unless the mouthpiece volume is larger than the missing cone from the neck taper, it will not be equal to the missing cone volume from the body taper.  
> > 
> > What may be needed is some more play testing of mouthpieces tuned on saxes and measurements of their chamber volumes.  Which calculation method will match the data?  
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ____________ _________ _________ __
> > From: John <jtalcott47@ ...>
> > To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> > Sent: Thu, February 4, 2010 8:08:12 AM
> > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Bass/Bari Sax Mouthpiece Volume Comparison
> > 
> >   
> > It is important to differentiate between the physical length of the tube which determines the wavelength-- -hence the frequency AND the degree of conicity of the tube which determines the relationships of the octave and the remaining higher partials.
> > 
> > The length of the "missing cone" from an alto sax neck as calculated from the taper of the neck when added to the length of the neck itself is very close to 1/2 the wavelength of Ab concert which is the note produced when the mouthpiece and neck are played with a normal embouchure.
> > 
> > If the missing cone were calculated from the different taper of the body and then added as an extension beyond the neck, it would be significantly longer and hence produce a considerably lower pitch.
> > 
> > The proof is in the playing as I see it.
> > 
> > John
> >
>