Mouthpiece Work / Goal = eveness of arc
FROM: spr1ng64 (Patrick)
SUBJECT: Goal = eveness of arc
Hi Keith and others, First off, let me say that this forum is GREAT!!! The way I see it (please correct me if I am wrong) the lay schedule goal is to create as perfect arc as possible from said tip opening to the "break". It is my understanding that this will allow the reed to speak freely in any register it needs to because of the precise gradual curve. If this is true, I should be able to plug in the facing length and tip opening of any given mpc (into Keith's great Excel tool) and it should be able to tell me the lay schedule at given points (.002,.005,.010,etc...) Have I got it!?? Has anyone found this to be contrary to results? Thanks
FROM: tenorman1952 (Paul Coats)
SUBJECT: Re: Goal = eveness of arc
Yes. Patrick, Santy Runyon wrote a nice series for a magazine back in
the early 60's, where he discusses various types of facings, baffles,
chambers, etc, and how all these factors affect playing and tone of
clarinet mouthpieces. This also applies equally well to sax
mouthpieces. This series has been reproduced on this site, but I will
email it directly to you.
He describes various facings and tells what the problems are, and why a
curve which is a portion of a perfect circle is best. He carried this
over to his manufacturing, where his facing machine (which he also
designed) ran the milling tool in a straight line to cut the facing,
then hit a stop, and pivoted on a (adjustable!) radius to cut the facing
itself. By adjusting the radius and position of the mouthpiece in the
machine, the facing length and tip opening could be infinitely variable.
Paul Coats
Patrick wrote:
> Hi Keith and others,
> First off, let me say that this forum is GREAT!!!
>
> The way I see it (please correct me if I am wrong) the lay schedule
> goal is to create as perfect arc as possible from said tip opening to
> the "break". It is my understanding that this will allow the reed to
> speak freely in any register it needs to because of the precise
> gradual curve.
> If this is true, I should be able to plug in the facing length and tip
>
> opening of any given mpc (into Keith's great Excel tool) and it should
>
> be able to tell me the lay schedule at given points
> (.002,.005,.010,etc...)
>
> Have I got it!??
> Has anyone found this to be contrary to results?
> Thanks
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
[click here]
>
> Got a Mouthpiece Work question? Send it to
> MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>
> Visit the site at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MouthpieceWork to see
> the Files, Photos and Bookmarks relating to Mouthpiece Work.
>
> To see and modify your groups, go to http://groups.yahoo.com/mygroups
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
--
Link to Paul's articles from Home page of "Sax on the Web":
http://www.saxontheweb.net
or directly to Paul's articles at:
http://www.saxontheweb.net/Coats/
Listen to Paul's MP3's at:
http://briefcase.yahoo.com/tenorman1952
and view photos.
FROM: tenorman1952 (Paul Coats)
SUBJECT: Re: Goal = eveness of arc
Duh, sorry... I had a brain glitch...
I meant to say, "where his facing machine (which he also designed) ran
the milling tool in a straight line to cut the TABLE, then hit a stop,
and pivoted on a (adjustable!) radius to cut the facing itself."
Sorry, I hope this clarifies things.
Paul
Paul Coats wrote:
> Yes. Patrick, Santy Runyon wrote a nice series for a magazine back in
> the early 60's, where he discusses various types of facings, baffles,
> chambers, etc, and how all these factors affect playing and tone of
> clarinet mouthpieces. This also applies equally well to sax
> mouthpieces. This series has been reproduced on this site, but I will
> email it directly to you.
>
> He describes various facings and tells what the problems are, and why
> a curve which is a portion of a perfect circle is best. He carried
> this over to his manufacturing, where his facing machine (which he
> also designed) ran the milling tool in a straight line to cut the
> facing, then hit a stop, and pivoted on a (adjustable!) radius to cut
> the facing itself. By adjusting the radius and position of the
> mouthpiece in the machine, the facing length and tip opening could be
> infinitely variable.
>
> Paul Coats
>
>
>
> Patrick wrote:
>
>> Hi Keith and others,
>> First off, let me say that this forum is GREAT!!!
>>
>> The way I see it (please correct me if I am wrong) the lay schedule
>> goal is to create as perfect arc as possible from said tip opening
>> to
>> the "break". It is my understanding that this will allow the reed to
>>
>> speak freely in any register it needs to because of the precise
>> gradual curve.
>> If this is true, I should be able to plug in the facing length and
>> tip
>> opening of any given mpc (into Keith's great Excel tool) and it
>> should
>> be able to tell me the lay schedule at given points
>> (.002,.005,.010,etc...)
>>
>> Have I got it!??
>> Has anyone found this to be contrary to results?
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>
--
Link to Paul's articles from Home page of "Sax on the Web":
http://www.saxontheweb.net
or directly to Paul's articles at:
http://www.saxontheweb.net/Coats/
Listen to Paul's MP3's at:
http://briefcase.yahoo.com/tenorman1952
and view photos.
FROM: spr1ng64 (Patrick)
SUBJECT: Re: Goal = evenness of arc
I just want to add something I found from Mr. Morgan... 1. We first consider the exacting demands of the reed in itsefforts to vibrate at its normal moments at each finite point along the blade. What that says is that, if you divide the length of the blade into 33 equal slices, then compute the mass, or weight of each slice, and then compute the natural vibrational frequency of each slice, you will have, in relation,the chromatic scale of the particular instrument that reed fits. How about that for a mouthful? 2. Having done that, we now have to determine the actual vibrational movement of each segment of the reed, which will lead us to a series of points along an ever changing curve. By the way, there is no part of the facing curve which constitutes an arc, since the points on an arc are all equidistant from a common point. So my useage of the word 'arc' may be inaccurate, but rather the 'curve' from tip to break. This leads me to the feeler guage widths... Why don't we use equadistant measurements if we do indeed want an even curve.. (i.e. .002,.012,.022,.032,.042,.052,etc) PS - this is going to be as obsessive as golf soon! ;)
FROM: kwbradbury (Keith Bradbury)
SUBJECT: Re: Goal = evenness of arc
I measured many mouthpieces to try to reverse-engineer the facing curves that work best. I looked for better curves for sax mouthpiece than a radial arc, but I did not find any. Santy's articles helped to confirm what I found. Ralph Morgan tried to make an argument against radial arcs on the SOTW forum, but he did not articulate it very well and did not come back for a follow-up clarification on it. The empirical evidence I have shows radial arcs are tough to beat. There are a few variations that work for specific goals, but the raidial arc is the foundation. Sometimes the facing is a intentionally little longer than calculated. Sometimes the tip is more flat or more curved. As for questioning why we use the "standard" set of feelers, with their odd spacing, my answer is I do not use them! I think they made sense at one time but are not the best choice today. I think we should challenge old standards if they do not make sense today. We should defend them if they do. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
FROM: tenorman1952 (Paul Coats)
SUBJECT: Re: Goal = evenness of arc
We use more feelers in the area of the break and pivot point, to make
that portion more accurate, as it is critical to good response. The
rest are pretty spread out.
And they are equadistant from the tip, but we are not dealing with
straight lines, but curves. Those are merely a way to define the curve,
as it breaks away from the plane of the table.
Paul
Patrick wrote:
> I just want to add something I found from Mr. Morgan...
> 1. We first consider the exacting demands of the reed in itsefforts to
>
> vibrate at its normal moments at each finite point along the blade.
> What that says is that, if you divide the length of the blade into 33
> equal slices, then compute the mass, or weight of each slice, and then
>
> compute the natural vibrational frequency of each slice, you will
> have, in relation,the chromatic scale of the particular instrument
> that reed fits. How about that for a mouthful?
> 2. Having done that, we now have to determine the actual vibrational
> movement of each segment of the reed, which will lead us to a series
> of points along an ever changing curve. By the way, there is no part
> of the facing curve which constitutes an arc, since the points on an
> arc are all equidistant from a common point.
>
> So my useage of the word 'arc' may be inaccurate, but rather the
> 'curve' from tip to break. This leads me to the feeler guage widths...
>
> Why don't we use equadistant measurements if we do indeed want an even
>
> curve.. (i.e. .002,.012,.022,.032,.042,.052,etc)
>
> PS - this is going to be as obsessive as golf soon! ;)
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
[click here]
>
> Got a Mouthpiece Work question? Send it to
> MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>
> Visit the site at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MouthpieceWork to see
> the Files, Photos and Bookmarks relating to Mouthpiece Work.
>
> To see and modify your groups, go to http://groups.yahoo.com/mygroups
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
--
Link to Paul's articles from Home page of "Sax on the Web":
http://www.saxontheweb.net
or directly to Paul's articles at:
http://www.saxontheweb.net/Coats/
Listen to Paul's MP3's at:
http://briefcase.yahoo.com/tenorman1952
and view photos.
FROM: tenorman1952 (Paul Coats)
SUBJECT: Re: Goal = evenness of arc
Yes, mouthpiece tip openings for saxophone are MUCH larger than they
were in years past. We need several size feelers larger than .050",
which was fine when alto sax tips were on the order of .055"-060", or
tenor not much larger.
Paul
Keith Bradbury wrote:
> I measured many mouthpieces to try to reverse-engineer the facing
> curves
> that work best. I looked for better curves for sax mouthpiece than a
> radial arc, but I did not find any. Santy's articles helped to
> confirm
> what I found.
>
> Ralph Morgan tried to make an argument against radial arcs on the SOTW
>
> forum, but he did not articulate it very well and did not come back
> for a
> follow-up clarification on it. The empirical evidence I have shows
> radial
> arcs are tough to beat. There are a few variations that work for
> specific
> goals, but the raidial arc is the foundation. Sometimes the facing is
> a
> intentionally little longer than calculated. Sometimes the tip is
> more
> flat or more curved.
>
> As for questioning why we use the "standard" set of feelers, with
> their odd
> spacing, my answer is I do not use them! I think they made sense at
> one
> time but are not the best choice today. I think we should challenge
> old
> standards if they do not make sense today. We should defend them if
> they do.
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
> http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
[click here]
>
> Got a Mouthpiece Work question? Send it to
> MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>
> Visit the site at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MouthpieceWork to see
> the Files, Photos and Bookmarks relating to Mouthpiece Work.
>
> To see and modify your groups, go to http://groups.yahoo.com/mygroups
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
--
Link to Paul's articles from Home page of "Sax on the Web":
http://www.saxontheweb.net
or directly to Paul's articles at:
http://www.saxontheweb.net/Coats/
Listen to Paul's MP3's at:
http://briefcase.yahoo.com/tenorman1952
and view photos.
FROM: spr1ng64 (Patrick)
SUBJECT: Re: Goal = evenness of arc
OK - since I am new to this and have no rules to break yet... I will use .002 .005 .008 .014 .020 .026 .038 .050 .062 .080 and .098 as my feelers. I am using increments of 3,6,12,and 18 (really just 3). Now I should be able to plot these better on your spreadsheet. I am sure these were just used as standard because the lays were written down and once something works humans tend to just copy the old way. Heck it's easier...
FROM: kymarto (Toby)
SUBJECT: Re: Goal = evenness of arc
I think Mr. Morgan may have a bad case of intellecutalitis. I have read this through several times and none of it makes any sense to me: "we first consider the exacting demands of the reed in its efforts to vibrate at its normal moments at each finite pint along the blade." Give me a break...and it gets worse form there... Who do you suppose he is trying to impress with this gobbledygook? Toby ----- Original Message ----- From: "Patrick" <spr1ng64@...> To: <MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 11:35 AM Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Goal = evenness of arc > I just want to add something I found from Mr. Morgan... > 1. We first consider the exacting demands of the reed in itsefforts to > vibrate at its normal moments at each finite point along the blade. > What that says is that, if you divide the length of the blade into 33 > equal slices, then compute the mass, or weight of each slice, and then > compute the natural vibrational frequency of each slice, you will > have, in relation,the chromatic scale of the particular instrument > that reed fits. How about that for a mouthful? > 2. Having done that, we now have to determine the actual vibrational > movement of each segment of the reed, which will lead us to a series > of points along an ever changing curve. By the way, there is no part > of the facing curve which constitutes an arc, since the points on an > arc are all equidistant from a common point. > > So my useage of the word 'arc' may be inaccurate, but rather the > 'curve' from tip to break. This leads me to the feeler guage widths... > Why don't we use equadistant measurements if we do indeed want an even > curve.. (i.e. .002,.012,.022,.032,.042,.052,etc) > > PS - this is going to be as obsessive as golf soon! ;) > > > > 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/ > > >
FROM: kwbradbury (Keith Bradbury)
SUBJECT: Re: Goal = evenness of arc
The set of feelers I use are slightly off the set I was trying to make up. For example, I decided I wanted a .100" feeler. After I assembled my set I measured them with calipers is several spots in the area where they were going to be touching the mouthpiece and glass gage. I then wrote the exact reading on the feeler with a marker. So my .100" feeler turned out to be .0985". I re-measure them every few months. I also flip them around to see if they are even on the left and right rail. If one way I get a low left rail, and flipped I get a low right rail, I conclude that the feeler is tapered too much. I then fix it or get a replacement. One problem when using additional feelers that are closer together is that it is more difficult to adjust one reading by sanding the rails without also affecting the neighboring readings. If the sandpaper does not lay flat, or you do not hold the mouthpiece at a steady and correct angle, you will not adjust the one spot you want to. A good strategy when using close spaced feelers is to sneak up on a range of readings simultaneously rather than going for each goal number one at a time. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
FROM: kwbradbury (Keith Bradbury)
SUBJECT: Techno-babble?
I think Ralph is using the results of a detailed analysis that was done many years ago. He does not come across as fully understanding what he is using. The first step that needs to be done before applying the results of an analysis is to review the underlying assumptions that the analysis is based on. You need to evaluate if the assumptions still are, or ever were, valid. The best I can tell, the analysis Ralph uses calculates an optimal facing curve from the properties of the reed. Using the results today assumes that the properties of reeds have not changed (significantly) in 60+ years. That is, the cut of reeds are basically the same as they have always been. One also needs to consider if the analysis used captures the basic physics of reed vibration. The real test is: how well do his pieces play? The answer is: they are very, very good. But so are pieces that have radial arc facings. I've only measured one Morgan piece, a Bilger-Morgan sop sax MP. I can not conclude anything about what kind of facing he uses after measuring one piece. It looks radial to me. I think so many mouthpieces have been made with radial facings over the years, that reed manufactures have evolved their reed cuts to work well with them. What do you think they have been using to test their reeds? __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
FROM: petersax999 (Peter Rawlings)
SUBJECT: Re: Goal = evenness of arc
In an article i read recently by Clark Fobes (on his web site, and on woodwind.org), he describes the facing curve thusly: "It is not actually a full arc to the tip. The area just below the tip is flat. The length of the curve is measured from the tip to the point where the arc breaks away from flat. Always decribed in millimeters." I found this last sentence interesting, too... :-) (Link to full article: http://www.woodwind.org/clarinet/Equipment/MBL/Mouthpiece.html) -Peter --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Paul Coats <tenorman@t...> wrote: > Yes, mouthpiece tip openings for saxophone are MUCH larger than they > were in years past. We need several size feelers larger than .050", > which was fine when alto sax tips were on the order of .055"-060", or > tenor not much larger. > > Paul > > Keith Bradbury wrote: > > > I measured many mouthpieces to try to reverse-engineer the facing > > curves > > that work best. I looked for better curves for sax mouthpiece than a > > radial arc, but I did not find any. Santy's articles helped to > > confirm > > what I found. > > > > Ralph Morgan tried to make an argument against radial arcs on the SOTW > > > > forum, but he did not articulate it very well and did not come back > > for a > > follow-up clarification on it. The empirical evidence I have shows > > radial > > arcs are tough to beat. There are a few variations that work for > > specific > > goals, but the raidial arc is the foundation. Sometimes the facing is > > a > > intentionally little longer than calculated. Sometimes the tip is > > more > > flat or more curved. > > > > As for questioning why we use the "standard" set of feelers, with > > their odd > > spacing, my answer is I do not use them! I think they made sense at > > one > > time but are not the best choice today. I think we should challenge > > old > > standards if they do not make sense today. We should defend them if > > they do. > > > > __________________________________ > > Do you Yahoo!? > > Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software > > http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com > > > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor > ADVERTISEMENT > [click here] > > > > > Got a Mouthpiece Work question? Send it to > > MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com > > > > Visit the site at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MouthpieceWork to see > > the Files, Photos and Bookmarks relating to Mouthpiece Work. > > > > To see and modify your groups, go to http://groups.yahoo.com/mygroups > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. > > -- > Link to Paul's articles from Home page of "Sax on the Web": > > http://www.saxontheweb.net > > or directly to Paul's articles at: > > http://www.saxontheweb.net/Coats/ > > Listen to Paul's MP3's at: > > http://briefcase.yahoo.com/tenorman1952 > > and view photos.
FROM: tenorman1952 (Paul Coats)
SUBJECT: Re: Goal = evenness of arc
Peter: The "glass gauge" is placed on the table of the mouthpiece, held in place by the thumb, and the tip and glass pressed gently to a vertical surface (edge of the workbench), with the table of the mouthpiece horizontal, thus aligning the edge of the glass with the tip of the mouthpiece. The edge of the glass guage is "zero". Then the .0015" feeler, 0.04 mm, (the standard for measuring facing length, but .002", 0.05 mm, works as well) is slid in until it stops, to measure facing length. While this does not find the exact spot where the curve meets the plane of the table, it is close enough! The area where Mr. Fobes describes as becoming flat is the area right at the tip rail. The facing between where the .0015" feeler touches, and the tip rail, should be a smooth curve, or arc of a circle. Any sudden change in radius results in more resistance or other response quirks, the reed has difficulty smoothly wrapping around the facing. Paul Peter Rawlings wrote: > In an article i read recently by Clark Fobes (on his web site, and on > woodwind.org), he describes the facing curve thusly: > > "It is not actually a full arc to the tip. The area just below the > tip is flat. The length of the curve is measured from the tip to the > point where the arc breaks away from flat. Always decribed in > millimeters." > > I found this last sentence interesting, too... :-) > > (Link to full article: > http://www.woodwind.org/clarinet/Equipment/MBL/Mouthpiece.html) > <http://www.woodwind.org/clarinet/Equipment/MBL/Mouthpiece.html%29> > > > > -Peter > > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Paul Coats <tenorman@t...> > wrote: > > Yes, mouthpiece tip openings for saxophone are MUCH larger than they > > were in years past. We need several size feelers larger than .050", > > which was fine when alto sax tips were on the order of .055"-060", > or > > tenor not much larger. > > > > Paul > > > > Keith Bradbury wrote: > > > > > I measured many mouthpieces to try to reverse-engineer the facing > > > curves > > > that work best. I looked for better curves for sax mouthpiece > than a > > > radial arc, but I did not find any. Santy's articles helped to > > > confirm > > > what I found. > > > > > > Ralph Morgan tried to make an argument against radial arcs on the > SOTW > > > > > > forum, but he did not articulate it very well and did not come > back > > > for a > > > follow-up clarification on it. The empirical evidence I have > shows > > > radial > > > arcs are tough to beat. There are a few variations that work for > > > specific > > > goals, but the raidial arc is the foundation. Sometimes the > facing is > > > a > > > intentionally little longer than calculated. Sometimes the tip is > > > more > > > flat or more curved. > > > > > > As for questioning why we use the "standard" set of feelers, with > > > their odd > > > spacing, my answer is I do not use them! I think they made sense > at > > > one > > > time but are not the best choice today. I think we should > challenge > > > old > > > standards if they do not make sense today. We should defend them > if > > > they do. > > > > > > __________________________________ > > > Do you Yahoo!? > > > Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software > > > http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor > > ADVERTISEMENT > > [click here] > > > > > > > > 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. > > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor > ADVERTISEMENT > <http://rd.yahoo.com/M4081.4074964.5287182.1261774/D=egroupweb/S05032198:HM/A06996/R=0/SIGp5b9ris/*http://www.ediets.com/start.cfm?code0509&media=atkins> > > > > 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 > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
FROM: petersax999 (Rawlings, Peter)
SUBJECT: Re: Goal = evenness of arc
Paul, Yes, I understand - I've been measuring mouthpiece facings for a while now (thanks to your tips - and keiths', and many others on this group). I included this description from Mr. Fobes in light of the recent thread on facing curves, and the "ideal" curve being a radial arc. Mr. Fobes said that - at least his facings - have a flat area right at the tip. I found that interesting. That, and the fact that he said that facings are always measured in mm (most - if not all - the facings I've seen are 2*mm - using the usual glass gauge.) (Oh, BTW - my glass gauge has an offset zero, so I don't align the edge of the glass gauge with the tip - I have to "eyeball" the tip to the "zero" - but I get pretty consistent results this way) Thanks -Peter -----Original Message----- From: Paul Coats [mailto:tenorman@...] Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 9:08 AM To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Goal = evenness of arc Peter: The "glass gauge" is placed on the table of the mouthpiece, held in place by the thumb, and the tip and glass pressed gently to a vertical surface (edge of the workbench), with the table of the mouthpiece horizontal, thus aligning the edge of the glass with the tip of the mouthpiece. The edge of the glass guage is "zero". Then the .0015" feeler, 0.04 mm, (the standard for measuring facing length, but .002", 0.05 mm, works as well) is slid in until it stops, to measure facing length. While this does not find the exact spot where the curve meets the plane of the table, it is close enough! The area where Mr. Fobes describes as becoming flat is the area right at the tip rail. The facing between where the .0015" feeler touches, and the tip rail, should be a smooth curve, or arc of a circle. Any sudden change in radius results in more resistance or other response quirks, the reed has difficulty smoothly wrapping around the facing. Paul Peter Rawlings wrote: In an article i read recently by Clark Fobes (on his web site, and on woodwind.org), he describes the facing curve thusly: "It is not actually a full arc to the tip. The area just below the tip is flat. The length of the curve is measured from the tip to the point where the arc breaks away from flat. Always decribed in millimeters." I found this last sentence interesting, too... :-) (Link to full article: http://www.woodwind.org/clarinet/Equipment/MBL/Mouthpiece.html) <http://www.woodwind.org/clarinet/Equipment/MBL/Mouthpiece.html%29> -Peter --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com <mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com> , Paul Coats <mailto:tenorman@t...> <tenorman@t...> wrote: > Yes, mouthpiece tip openings for saxophone are MUCH larger than they > were in years past. We need several size feelers larger than .050", > which was fine when alto sax tips were on the order of .055"-060", or > tenor not much larger. > > Paul > > Keith Bradbury wrote: > > > I measured many mouthpieces to try to reverse-engineer the facing > > curves > > that work best. I looked for better curves for sax mouthpiece than a > > radial arc, but I did not find any. Santy's articles helped to > > confirm > > what I found. > > > > Ralph Morgan tried to make an argument against radial arcs on the SOTW > > > > forum, but he did not articulate it very well and did not come back > > for a > > follow-up clarification on it. The empirical evidence I have shows > > radial > > arcs are tough to beat. There are a few variations that work for > > specific > > goals, but the raidial arc is the foundation. Sometimes the facing is > > a > > intentionally little longer than calculated. Sometimes the tip is > > more > > flat or more curved. > > > > As for questioning why we use the "standard" set of feelers, with > > their odd > > spacing, my answer is I do not use them! I think they made sense at > > one > > time but are not the best choice today. I think we should challenge > > old > > standards if they do not make sense today. We should defend them if > > they do. > > > > __________________________________ > > Do you Yahoo!? > > Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software > > http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com <http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com> > > > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor > ADVERTISEMENT > [click here] > > > > > Got a Mouthpiece Work question? Send it to > > MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com <mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com> > > > > Visit the site at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MouthpieceWork <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 <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 <http://www.saxontheweb.net> > > or directly to Paul's articles at: > > http://www.saxontheweb.net/Coats/ <http://www.saxontheweb.net/Coats/> > > Listen to Paul's MP3's at: > > http://briefcase.yahoo.com/tenorman1952 <http://briefcase.yahoo.com/tenorman1952> > > and view photos. Got a Mouthpiece Work question? Send it to MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com <mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com> Visit the site at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MouthpieceWork <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 <http://groups.yahoo.com/mygroups> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> . Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT <http://rd.yahoo.com/M4081.4074964.5287182.1261774/D=egroupweb/S05032198:HM/A54016/R=0/SIGpv1u2ju/*http://www.ediets.com/start.cfm?code0529&media=atkins> click here <http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M4081.4074964.5287182.1261774/D=egroupmail/S=:HM/A54016/randc4144469> Got a Mouthpiece Work question? Send it to MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com Visit the site at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MouthpieceWork <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 <http://groups.yahoo.com/mygroups> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
FROM: tenorman1952 (Paul Coats)
SUBJECT: Re: Goal = evenness of arc
Peter: I wanted to know that we were talking about the same thing here, and to explain to other readers, to remove any confusion on which flat area (the table or tip rail) described by Mr. Fobes was being spoken of. Yes, facings are always measured in mm's, OR in half mm's (Eric Brand system). Eric Brand felt that it was necessary to measure the curve, with feelers, to the nearest half millimeter (and I agree), but he did not want to use decimals. So, he doubled the numbers... a facing length of 22.5 mm on his guages would have a reading of 45. Actually, my Winslow glass gauge is not true mm's, but .04" per increment. The difference is so little as to be meaningless. Paul Rawlings, Peter wrote: > Paul, > > Yes, I understand - I've been measuring mouthpiece facings for a while > now (thanks to your tips - and keiths', and many others on this group). > I included this description from Mr. Fobes in light of the recent > thread on facing curves, and the "ideal" curve being a radial arc. Mr. > Fobes said that - at least his facings - have a flat area right at the > tip. I found that interesting. > > That, and the fact that he said that facings are always measured in mm > (most - if not all - the facings I've seen are 2*mm - using the usual > glass gauge.) > > (Oh, BTW - my glass gauge has an offset zero, so I don't align the > edge of the glass gauge with the tip - I have to "eyeball" the tip to > the "zero" - but I get pretty consistent results this way) > > Thanks > -Peter > > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Coats [mailto:tenorman@...] > Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 9:08 AM > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Goal = evenness of arc > > Peter: The "glass gauge" is placed on the table of the > mouthpiece, held in place by the thumb, and the tip and glass > pressed gently to a vertical surface (edge of the workbench), with > the table of the mouthpiece horizontal, thus aligning the edge of > the glass with the tip of the mouthpiece. The edge of the glass > guage is "zero". > > Then the .0015" feeler, 0.04 mm, (the standard for measuring > facing length, but .002", 0.05 mm, works as well) is slid in until > it stops, to measure facing length. > > While this does not find the exact spot where the curve meets the > plane of the table, it is close enough! > > The area where Mr. Fobes describes as becoming flat is the area > right at the tip rail. The facing between where the .0015" feeler > touches, and the tip rail, should be a smooth curve, or arc of a > circle. > > Any sudden change in radius results in more resistance or other > response quirks, the reed has difficulty smoothly wrapping around > the facing. > > Paul > > Peter Rawlings wrote: > >> In an article i read recently by Clark Fobes (on his web site, >> and on >> woodwind.org), he describes the facing curve thusly: >> >> "It is not actually a full arc to the tip. The area just below the >> tip is flat. The length of the curve is measured from the tip to the >> point where the arc breaks away from flat. Always decribed in >> millimeters." >> >> I found this last sentence interesting, too... :-) >> >> (Link to full article: >> http://www.woodwind.org/clarinet/Equipment/MBL/Mouthpiece.html) >> <http://www.woodwind.org/clarinet/Equipment/MBL/Mouthpiece.html%29> >> >> >> >> -Peter >> >> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Paul Coats <tenorman@t...> >> wrote: >> > Yes, mouthpiece tip openings for saxophone are MUCH larger than >> they >> > were in years past. We need several size feelers larger than >> .050", >> > which was fine when alto sax tips were on the order of .055"-060", >> or >> > tenor not much larger. >> > >> > Paul >> > >> > Keith Bradbury wrote: >> > >> > > I measured many mouthpieces to try to reverse-engineer the >> facing >> > > curves >> > > that work best. I looked for better curves for sax mouthpiece >> than a >> > > radial arc, but I did not find any. Santy's articles helped to >> > > confirm >> > > what I found. >> > > >> > > Ralph Morgan tried to make an argument against radial arcs on >> the >> SOTW >> > > >> > > forum, but he did not articulate it very well and did not come >> back >> > > for a >> > > follow-up clarification on it. The empirical evidence I have >> shows >> > > radial >> > > arcs are tough to beat. There are a few variations that work for >> > > specific >> > > goals, but the raidial arc is the foundation. Sometimes the >> facing is >> > > a >> > > intentionally little longer than calculated. Sometimes the >> tip is >> > > more >> > > flat or more curved. >> > > >> > > As for questioning why we use the "standard" set of feelers, with >> > > their odd >> > > spacing, my answer is I do not use them! I think they made >> sense >> at >> > > one >> > > time but are not the best choice today. I think we should >> challenge >> > > old >> > > standards if they do not make sense today. We should defend >> them >> if >> > > they do. >> > > >> > > __________________________________ >> > > Do you Yahoo!? >> > > Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software >> > > http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com >> > > >> > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor >> > ADVERTISEMENT >> > [click here] >> > >> > > >> > > Got a Mouthpiece Work question? Send it to >> > > MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com >> > > >> > > Visit the site at >> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MouthpieceWork to >> see >> > > the Files, Photos and Bookmarks relating to Mouthpiece Work. >> > > >> > > To see and modify your groups, go to >> http://groups.yahoo.com/mygroups >> > > >> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of >> Service. >> > >> > -- >> > Link to Paul's articles from Home page of "Sax on the Web": >> > >> > http://www.saxontheweb.net >> > >> > or directly to Paul's articles at: >> > >> > http://www.saxontheweb.net/Coats/ >> > >> > Listen to Paul's MP3's at: >> > >> > http://briefcase.yahoo.com/tenorman1952 >> > >> > and view photos. >> >> >> >> Got a Mouthpiece Work question? Send it to >> MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com >> >> Visit the site at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MouthpieceWork to >> see the Files, Photos and Bookmarks relating to Mouthpiece Work. >> >> To see and modify your groups, go to >> http://groups.yahoo.com/mygroups >> >> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of >> Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>. > > > > 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 <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>. > > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor > ADVERTISEMENT > <http://rd.yahoo.com/M4081.4074964.5287182.1261774/D=egroupweb/S05032198:HM/A32163/R=0/SIGn0nglqg/*http://www.ediets.com/start.cfm?code0510&media=zone> > > > > 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 > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
FROM: kwbradbury (Keith Bradbury)
SUBJECT: Re: Goal = evenness of arc
> ...Eric Brand felt that it was necessary to measure the curve, > with feelers, to the nearest half millimeter (and I agree), but he did > not want to use decimals. So, he doubled the numbers... a facing length > of 22.5 mm on his guages would have a reading of 45. In practice, to do good work you need to measure to the nearest .5 on the Eric Brand scale anyhow. I even split hairs and measure to the nearest .25 (=.125 mm). If a reading is between 45 and 45.5, I dont agonize over which is better, I just call it 45+ or 45.5- (whichever I think of writing first). Sometimes a reading looks like its 1/3 or 2/3 between the lines on the glass gage. Heck, if that is what it looks like, write it down! So between 44 and 46 on the gage, 1/3 = 44.66 and 2/3 = 45.33. Generally, there is not much to be gained in correcting flaws that measure .25. You also need to be concerned that those small differences are not just gaging errors (human and/or hardware).
FROM: reidalf (Alf Reid (AST VDB))
SUBJECT: Re: Goal = evenness of arc
Have never seen a FOBES mouthpiece but I believe the flat section is wider than just the width of the tip rail.
I found mouthpieces with a couple MM of flat area at the tip end to be real easy players with little resistance.
To me the most gain is when playing softly. This is especialy true with small mouthpieces like soprano sax .
On tenor sax I would only try to get a "flat" tip if it is a really huge tip opening.
I like to follow a radial arc facing then leave the last couple of millimeters "flat" . Thus, leaving the tip opening a
fraction smaller than the radial arc facing would suggest.
If the flat section is to long the mouthpiece will close up to easily.
-----Original Message-----
From: Rawlings, Peter [mailto:Peter.Rawlings@...]
Sent: 23 October 2003 15:24
To: 'MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com'
Subject: RE: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Goal = evenness of arc
Paul,
Yes, I understand - I've been measuring mouthpiece facings for a while now (thanks to your tips - and keiths', and many others on this group).
I included this description from Mr. Fobes in light of the recent thread on facing curves, and the "ideal" curve being a radial arc. Mr. Fobes said that - at least his facings - have a flat area right at the tip. I found that interesting.
That, and the fact that he said that facings are always measured in mm (most - if not all - the facings I've seen are 2*mm - using the usual glass gauge.)
(Oh, BTW - my glass gauge has an offset zero, so I don't align the edge of the glass gauge with the tip - I have to "eyeball" the tip to the "zero" - but I get pretty consistent results this way)
Thanks
-Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Coats [mailto:tenorman@teche.net]
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 9:08 AM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Goal = evenness of arc
Peter: The "glass gauge" is placed on the table of the mouthpiece, held in place by the thumb, and the tip and glass pressed gently to a vertical surface (edge of the workbench), with the table of the mouthpiece horizontal, thus aligning the edge of the glass with the tip of the mouthpiece. The edge of the glass guage is "zero".
Then the .0015" feeler, 0.04 mm, (the standard for measuring facing length, but .002", 0.05 mm, works as well) is slid in until it stops, to measure facing length.
While this does not find the exact spot where the curve meets the plane of the table, it is close enough!
The area where Mr. Fobes describes as becoming flat is the area right at the tip rail. The facing between where the .0015" feeler touches, and the tip rail, should be a smooth curve, or arc of a circle.
Any sudden change in radius results in more resistance or other response quirks, the reed has difficulty smoothly wrapping around the facing.
Paul
Peter Rawlings wrote:
In an article i read recently by Clark Fobes (on his web site, and on
woodwind.org), he describes the facing curve thusly:
"It is not actually a full arc to the tip. The area just below the
tip is flat. The length of the curve is measured from the tip to the
point where the arc breaks away from flat. Always decribed in
millimeters."
I found this last sentence interesting, too... :-)
(Link to full article:
http://www.woodwind.org/clarinet/Equipment/MBL/Mouthpiece.html) <http://www.woodwind.org/clarinet/Equipment/MBL/Mouthpiece.html%29>
-Peter
--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Paul Coats <mailto:tenorman@t...> <tenorman@t...>
wrote:
> Yes, mouthpiece tip openings for saxophone are MUCH larger than they
> were in years past. We need several size feelers larger than .050",
> which was fine when alto sax tips were on the order of .055"-060",
or
> tenor not much larger.
>
> Paul
>
> Keith Bradbury wrote:
>
> > I measured many mouthpieces to try to reverse-engineer the facing
> > curves
> > that work best. I looked for better curves for sax mouthpiece
than a
> > radial arc, but I did not find any. Santy's articles helped to
> > confirm
> > what I found.
> >
> > Ralph Morgan tried to make an argument against radial arcs on the
SOTW
> >
> > forum, but he did not articulate it very well and did not come
back
> > for a
> > follow-up clarification on it. The empirical evidence I have
shows
> > radial
> > arcs are tough to beat. There are a few variations that work for
> > specific
> > goals, but the raidial arc is the foundation. Sometimes the
facing is
> > a
> > intentionally little longer than calculated. Sometimes the tip is
> > more
> > flat or more curved.
> >
> > As for questioning why we use the "standard" set of feelers, with
> > their odd
> > spacing, my answer is I do not use them! I think they made sense
at
> > one
> > time but are not the best choice today. I think we should
challenge
> > old
> > standards if they do not make sense today. We should defend them
if
> > they do.
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
> > http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
> [click here]
>
> >
> > Got a Mouthpiece Work question? Send it to
> > MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > Visit the site at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MouthpieceWork to
see
> > the Files, Photos and Bookmarks relating to Mouthpiece Work.
> >
> > To see and modify your groups, go to
http://groups.yahoo.com/mygroups
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
> --
> Link to Paul's articles from Home page of "Sax on the Web":
>
> http://www.saxontheweb.net
>
> or directly to Paul's articles at:
>
> http://www.saxontheweb.net/Coats/
>
> Listen to Paul's MP3's at:
>
> http://briefcase.yahoo.com/tenorman1952
>
> and view photos.
Got a Mouthpiece Work question? Send it to MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Visit the site at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MouthpieceWork to see the Files, Photos and Bookmarks relating to Mouthpiece Work.
To see and modify your groups, go to http://groups.yahoo.com/mygroups
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
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 <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M4081.4074964.5287182.1261774/D=egroupweb/S05032198:HM/A32163/R=0/SIGn0nglqg/*http://www.ediets.com/start.cfm?code0510&media=zone> click here
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M4081.4074964.5287182.1261774/D=egroupmail/S=:HM/A32163/rand66083279>
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 <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
______________________________________________
"This information is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and
may contain private, confidential, proprietary and/or privileged material and may be subject
to confidentiality agreements.
Any review, retransmission, dissemination, or any other use of or taking of any action in
reliance upon this information, by persons or entities other than the intended recipient,
is prohibited.
If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all
storage media.
The company is neither liable for proper, complete transmission of the information contained
in this communication, any delay in its receipt or that the mail is virus-free"