Mouthpiece Work / leaving chamber rough
FROM: springermpc (Springer Mouthpieces)
SUBJECT: leaving chamber rough
Hi all, I was wondering if this gives a mpc a certain quality all it's own. I have seen some Lambersons that leave the enlarged chamber in a rough cut state (not smooth). I did it with some of my pieces and it seems to have some effect on the sound... it may be just my imagination. On the other hand, if you are going to charge in excess of $250 for a piece you would think one would take the time to sand it out... Thanks!
FROM: tenorman1952 (Paul Coats)
SUBJECT: Re: leaving chamber rough
I don't think it makes one whit of difference, other than in the mind of the player. The air velocity in the mouthpiece, once you get past the first few mm's of baffle, is very low. Hot rodders used to "polish the ports" in manifolds and heads. Now they know it just does not make a difference. Paul Springer Mouthpieces wrote: > > Hi all, > I was wondering if this gives a mpc a certain quality all it's own. I > have seen some Lambersons that leave the enlarged chamber in a rough > cut state (not smooth). I did it with some of my pieces and it seems > to have some effect on the sound... it may be just my imagination. > On the other hand, if you are going to charge in excess of $250 for a > piece you would think one would take the time to sand it out... > 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 > > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor > ADVERTISEMENT > <http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG94kahqf/M)8184.5639630.6699735.3001176/D=grplch/S05032198:HM/EXP01674642/A$34970/R=0/SIGedksnhv/*http://www.netflix.com/Default?mqso`185402> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Yahoo! Groups Links > > * To visit your group on the web, go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MouthpieceWork/ > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > MouthpieceWork-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com > <mailto:MouthpieceWork-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe> > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>. > >
FROM: kymarto (Toby)
SUBJECT: Re: leaving chamber rough
The smoothness of the walls does make some difference in the bore, as rougher walls cause more velocity loss at the boundary layer. That being said I would imagine that the difference in the mpc would be very small, as that is not a large percentage of the wall area of the overall bore.
Toby
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Coats
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2004 11:18 AM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] leaving chamber rough
I don't think it makes one whit of difference, other than in the mind of the player. The air velocity in the mouthpiece, once you get past the first few mm's of baffle, is very low.
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
Hot rodders used to "polish the ports" in manifolds and heads. Now they know it just does not make a difference.
Paul
Springer Mouthpieces wrote:
Hi all,
I was wondering if this gives a mpc a certain quality all it's own. I
have seen some Lambersons that leave the enlarged chamber in a rough
cut state (not smooth). I did it with some of my pieces and it seems
to have some effect on the sound... it may be just my imagination.
On the other hand, if you are going to charge in excess of $250 for a
piece you would think one would take the time to sand it out...
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
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
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MouthpieceWork/
b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
MouthpieceWork-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
FROM: sjrosner (sjrosner)
SUBJECT: Re: leaving chamber rough
Regarding 'hot rodders'...I spent my formative years in Detroit (it was the 60s), went to school to get an AA in Automotive Trades, and spent a number of years building custom cylinder heads for drag racing cars... Polishing the intake and exhaust ports of a cylinder head produce measurable increases in power, sometimes as much as 15-20%. Primarily this is due to reduced air friction and turbulence wasting energy in the gas stream. Today, FEA designs to improve the aerodynamics are doing even better, along with careful dimpling/texturing (like submarine surfaces) of the port surfaces. This is probably not relevant to our mouthpiece configuration, however, as the velocities are very low, but it may effect the 'standing waves' in the mouthpiece, which are probably important in enriching the harmonic content of the sound (this is speculative). Just by way of observation, the Lamberson baffled pieces (DD and SB) have much richer sound than other high baffle pieces; perhaps the rough texture is part of that... jeff --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Paul Coats <tenorman@t...> wrote: > I don't think it makes one whit of difference, other than in the mind of > the player. The air velocity in the mouthpiece, once you get past the > first few mm's of baffle, is very low. > > Hot rodders used to "polish the ports" in manifolds and heads. Now they > know it just does not make a difference. > > Paul > > Springer Mouthpieces wrote: > > > > > Hi all, > > I was wondering if this gives a mpc a certain quality all it's own. I > > have seen some Lambersons that leave the enlarged chamber in a rough > > cut state (not smooth). I did it with some of my pieces and it seems > > to have some effect on the sound... it may be just my imagination. > > On the other hand, if you are going to charge in excess of $250 for a > > piece you would think one would take the time to sand it out... > > 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 > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor > > ADVERTISEMENT > > <http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG94kahqf/M)8184.5639630.6699735.3001176/D=grplch/S05032198:HM/EXP01674642/A$34970/R=0/SIGedksnhv/*http://www.netflix.com/Default?mqso`185402> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > * To visit your group on the web, go to: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MouthpieceWork/ > > > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > > MouthpieceWork-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com > > <mailto:MouthpieceWork-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe> > > > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of > > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>. > > > >
FROM: jgoeckermann (Jim Goeckermann)
SUBJECT: leaving chamber rough
Interesting discussion on the chambering texture. I wonder if one of you pros with a seasoned ear and a sand blasting setup couldn't take a couple of inexpensive plastic mouthpieces and by sandblasting one, come up with an answer that we would all be interested in. I only have about 10 mouthpieces on hand, and they are so diverse that I think the chamber is more critical than the texture. An earlier post mentioned playing with the chamber dimensions using modeling clay. That would seem to be less acoustically resilient than either metal or plastic, but then I had to encounter my 40 year old prejudices when recently someone posted the lack of discernible difference between a metal and a plastic piece. The old ad copy that claims a brilliant sound from a polished surface may not bear out, and makes me wonder if it doesn't go one step further. We have all heard the (repeated, so it must be true!) advice about not relacquering a horn. The old roadie horns that have the finish worn off are given as proof of this. Here is a hypothesis: perhaps it is not the lacquer at all, but the acid etched INTERIOR of the horn that is no longer smooth that contributes to the revered tone. What do you think? JimG
FROM: kymarto (Toby)
SUBJECT: Re: leaving chamber rough
Actually the only difference it would make in the air stream is at the boundary layer--about .1 mm from the wall surface. A rougher surface creates more impedance for the air molecules up to that distance. You usually find roughness effects are only significant in very small-bored instruments such as recorders and oboes, and/or when the wall surface area is significant in relation to the total volume of the bore, as in flutes and clarinets (and of course brasswinds.) It would seem that slightly rough walls would have much less effect in wide-bore instruments such as the sax (at least in the main body--there could be some significant differences in the neck.) The mpc surface area is so small compared to the bore as a whole, and the fact that the mpc is a pressure node where the air doesn't move much at all, make me think that a rough mpc bore wouldn't have a significant impact on the sound or response.
And any material hard enough not to be deformed by the pressure waves in the bore would work to make a baffle--it doesn't have to be very hard.
Toby
----- Original Message -----
From: aniewood
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 8:56 AM
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: leaving chamber rough
JVW used to use crushed-up Sea-Shell paste that he got somewhere...
I don't know??? He used that on a paper towel wrapped around a
long narrow pillar file - to buff of scratches. This after
polishing the facing and inside with 1500 grit paper.
I remember thinking... "OK, is this truly necessary...?"
I can honestly say there was a total difference in the way the
mouthpiece played before and after the final polish with the paste.
With all that said and done... Leaving the chamber rough would
create a certain type of turbulence in the air stream. It would
also create places for saliva to collect or bubble-up making a
gurgling sound.
If you want the air-stream to flow evenly and seamlessly - you
want a smooth surface. If you want to slow down the air stream -
leave it rough.
It all comes down to what is more important... Time, or
finished product. The way the finished product looks, is to some
people - more important than the way it plays. I know it sounds
stupid - but that's been my experience thus far.
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
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MouthpieceWork/
b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
MouthpieceWork-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
FROM: sjrosner (sjrosner)
SUBJECT: Re: leaving chamber rough
I think that any of us familiar with fluid dynamics should remember
that the air is moving real slow down the throat of the piece, but
right at the tip and early baffle, for the first mm is moving pretty
fast in a thin sheet. I only have one JVW piece, an old Meyer NY that
is my main alto piece, and I have noticed that it is a mirror finish
on the baffle for the first 5-6 mm, then polished but not so much. I
also notice when I pull it apart to clean it after playing, that there
is no condensation on the really shiny part, but little beads stuck
everywhere else...never thought about it, but that might be part of
the 'magic' ("...anything sufficiently sophisticated is
indistinguishable from magic...")...also, my favorite bari piece is a
reworked STM that I personally polished the baffle excessively (or so
I thought at the time)
jeff
\--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "Toby" <kymarto123@y...> wrote:
> Actually the only difference it would make in the air stream is at
the boundary layer--about .1 mm from the wall surface. A rougher
surface creates more impedance for the air molecules up to that
distance. You usually find roughness effects are only significant in
very small-bored instruments such as recorders and oboes, and/or when
the wall surface area is significant in relation to the total volume
of the bore, as in flutes and clarinets (and of course brasswinds.) It
would seem that slightly rough walls would have much less effect in
wide-bore instruments such as the sax (at least in the main
body--there could be some significant differences in the neck.) The
mpc surface area is so small compared to the bore as a whole, and the
fact that the mpc is a pressure node where the air doesn't move much
at all, make me think that a rough mpc bore wouldn't have a
significant impact on the sound or response.
>
> And any material hard enough not to be deformed by the pressure
waves in the bore would work to make a baffle--it doesn't have to be
very hard.
>
> Toby
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: aniewood
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 8:56 AM
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: leaving chamber rough
>
>
>
>
>
> JVW used to use crushed-up Sea-Shell paste that he got somewhere...
> I don't know??? He used that on a paper towel wrapped around a
> long narrow pillar file - to buff of scratches. This after
> polishing the facing and inside with 1500 grit paper.
>
> I remember thinking... "OK, is this truly necessary...?"
>
> I can honestly say there was a total difference in the way the
> mouthpiece played before and after the final polish with the paste.
>
> With all that said and done... Leaving the chamber rough would
> create a certain type of turbulence in the air stream. It would
> also create places for saliva to collect or bubble-up making a
> gurgling sound.
>
> If you want the air-stream to flow evenly and seamlessly - you
> want a smooth surface. If you want to slow down the air stream -
> leave it rough.
>
> It all comes down to what is more important... Time, or
> finished product. The way the finished product looks, is to some
> people - more important than the way it plays. I know it sounds
> stupid - but that's been my experience thus far.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MouthpieceWork/
>
> b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> MouthpieceWork-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
FROM: tenorman1952 (Paul Coats)
SUBJECT: Re: leaving chamber rough
I will soon be marketing a way to MEASURE and GRAPH the tone with your home computer. So, does a silver ligature make the tone brighter, a gold one warmer? Let's see! Does Sax A with gold lacquer sound different from Sax B, identical but for silver plate? You and I will soon be able to find out, and have a printout, a graph. Show all the overtones, their relative strengths. Paul Jim Goeckermann wrote: > Interesting discussion on the chambering texture. I wonder if one of you > pros with a seasoned ear and a sand blasting setup couldn't take a > couple of inexpensive plastic mouthpieces and by sandblasting one, > come up with an answer that we would all be interested in. I only have > about 10 mouthpieces on hand, and they are so diverse that I think the > chamber is more critical than the texture. An earlier post mentioned > playing with the chamber dimensions using modeling clay. That would seem > to be less acoustically resilient than either metal or plastic, but then > I had to encounter my 40 year old prejudices when recently someone > posted the lack of discernible difference between a metal and a plastic > piece. The old ad copy that claims a brilliant sound from a polished > surface may not bear out, and makes me wonder if it doesn't go one step > further. We have all heard the (repeated, so it must be true!) advice > about not relacquering a horn. The old roadie horns that have the > finish worn off are given as proof of this. Here is a hypothesis: > perhaps it is not the lacquer at all, but the acid etched INTERIOR of > the horn that is no longer smooth that contributes to the revered tone. > What do you think? JimG > > > > 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 > > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor > ADVERTISEMENT > <http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG9cn1m0k/M)8184.5639630.6699735.3001176/D=grplch/S05032198:HM/EXP01770255/A$34970/R=0/SIGedksnhv/*http://www.netflix.com/Default?mqso`185402> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Yahoo! Groups Links > > * To visit your group on the web, go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MouthpieceWork/ > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > MouthpieceWork-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com > <mailto:MouthpieceWork-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe> > > * 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: leaving chamber rough
"It would also create places for saliva to collect or bubble-up making a gurgling sound." Now THAT is certainly something to consider! Paul aniewood wrote: > > > > JVW used to use crushed-up Sea-Shell paste that he got somewhere... > I don't know??? He used that on a paper towel wrapped around a > long narrow pillar file - to buff of scratches. This after > polishing the facing and inside with 1500 grit paper. > > I remember thinking... "OK, is this truly necessary...?" > > I can honestly say there was a total difference in the way the > mouthpiece played before and after the final polish with the paste. > > With all that said and done... Leaving the chamber rough would > create a certain type of turbulence in the air stream. It would > also create places for saliva to collect or bubble-up making a > gurgling sound. > > If you want the air-stream to flow evenly and seamlessly - you > want a smooth surface. If you want to slow down the air stream - > leave it rough. > > It all comes down to what is more important... Time, or > finished product. The way the finished product looks, is to some > people - more important than the way it plays. I know it sounds > stupid - but that's been my experience thus far. > > > > > > > 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 > > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor > ADVERTISEMENT > <http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG9l9bunk/M)8184.5639630.6699735.3001176/D=grplch/S05032198:HM/EXP01772570/A$34970/R=0/SIGedksnhv/*http://www.netflix.com/Default?mqso`185402> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Yahoo! Groups Links > > * To visit your group on the web, go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MouthpieceWork/ > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > MouthpieceWork-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com > <mailto:MouthpieceWork-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe> > > * 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: leaving chamber rough
Ernest Ferron, in his book The Saxophone Is My Voice, discusses this issue, effects of interior surface texture, boundary area, etc. Well, soon we shall be able to run an A/B experiment and see what is what, on paper. But we are doing some things to make this more user friendly. I once was trying to chose between two soprano mouthpieces for playing with the sax quartet. Strangely, the one I heard (with me playing) was bright, everyone else heard as dark and warm. The one I thought was dark and warm, they all heard as buzzy and bright, edgy. Then I taped myself playing both. The sounded far different from what I thought I heard as a player. Paul Toby wrote: > Actually the only difference it would make in the air stream is at the > boundary layer--about .1 mm from the wall surface. A rougher surface > creates more impedance for the air molecules up to that distance. You > usually find roughness effects are only significant in very > small-bored instruments such as recorders and oboes, and/or when the > wall surface area is significant in relation to the total volume of > the bore, as in flutes and clarinets (and of course brasswinds.) It > would seem that slightly rough walls would have much less effect in > wide-bore instruments such as the sax (at least in the main > body--there could be some significant differences in the neck.) The > mpc surface area is so small compared to the bore as a whole, and the > fact that the mpc is a pressure node where the air doesn't move much > at all, make me think that a rough mpc bore wouldn't have a > significant impact on the sound or response. > > And any material hard enough not to be deformed by the pressure waves > in the bore would work to make a baffle--it doesn't have to be very hard. > > Toby > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: aniewood <mailto:aniewood@...> > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com > <mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com> > Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 8:56 AM > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: leaving chamber rough > > > > > JVW used to use crushed-up Sea-Shell paste that he got somewhere... > I don't know??? He used that on a paper towel wrapped around a > long narrow pillar file - to buff of scratches. This after > polishing the facing and inside with 1500 grit paper. > > I remember thinking... "OK, is this truly necessary...?" > > I can honestly say there was a total difference in the way the > mouthpiece played before and after the final polish with the paste. > > With all that said and done... Leaving the chamber rough would > create a certain type of turbulence in the air stream. It would > also create places for saliva to collect or bubble-up making a > gurgling sound. > > If you want the air-stream to flow evenly and seamlessly - you > want a smooth surface. If you want to slow down the air stream - > leave it rough. > > It all comes down to what is more important... Time, or > finished product. The way the finished product looks, is to some > people - more important than the way it plays. I know it sounds > stupid - but that's been my experience thus far. > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > 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 > > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor > ADVERTISEMENT > <http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG9v3ufb8/M)8184.5639630.6699735.3001176/D=grplch/S05032198:HM/EXP01774455/A$34970/R=0/SIGedksnhv/*http://www.netflix.com/Default?mqso`185402> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Yahoo! Groups Links > > * To visit your group on the web, go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MouthpieceWork/ > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > MouthpieceWork-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com > <mailto:MouthpieceWork-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe> > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>. > >
FROM: kwbradbury (Keith Bradbury)
SUBJECT: Perception
>>> Then I taped myself playing both. The sounded far different from what I thought I heard as a player. Then the question is what is more important? How you think you sound or how others think you sound? How can you shape your own sound when you can not hear what you want to sound like? I place a lot of importance on how I think I sound. However, when I heard some recordings of myself, I initially did not care for the sound. It is like hearing your speaking or singing voice for the first time. Over time, I started to like the recorded sound too. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
FROM: mdc5220 (michael d. collins)
SUBJECT: Re: Perception
When I use to record (many years ago) we use to talk a lot about how a player "printed." The variables we talked about ran from reed to mpc to horn to microphone, effects (EQ compression), to recording room, altitude (recording in lake tahoe, nv is different than los angeles). We also would talk about the "presence" of the sound on tape, not necessarily the captured volume; then there is the related concept of the subjective feel of a mpc which I think involve the amount of energy expended by the musician in connection with mpc/reed resistance; pitch control, articulation, and range; then there is the embouchure and position of the tongue; and the type of music being recorded, i.e., context. I remember working with some real "industrial strength" players who live had tones exactly like Brecker or Sanborn only to "print" quite differently.
I read in a biography that Coltrane was always running a tape recorder when he played or practiced. In the end, the music is in the "ear of behearer." (Dewey Redman)
----- Original Message -----
From: Keith Bradbury
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 3:48 PM
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Perception
>>> Then I taped myself playing both. The sounded far different from what
I thought I heard as a player.
Then the question is what is more important? How you think you sound or
how others think you sound? How can you shape your own sound when you can
not hear what you want to sound like?
I place a lot of importance on how I think I sound. However, when I heard
some recordings of myself, I initially did not care for the sound. It is
like hearing your speaking or singing voice for the first time. Over time,
I started to like the recorded sound too.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
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
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MouthpieceWork/
b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
MouthpieceWork-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
FROM: FritzWhitney (Fritz Whitney)
SUBJECT: Re: leaving chamber rough
Interesting thread... I know that golf balls have dimples on them to increase their flight distance and have often wondered about that sort of thing affecting mouthpieces, necks, trumpet mouthpipes, whatever... Have thought about bead blasting the chamber of a mouthpiece and doing the old "before/after" play test... maybe I will and let y'all know what I think, for wahtever it's worth... Any smart types out there who have an educated guess as to what is really going to happen, other than possibly ruining a mouthpiece?
FROM: kwbradbury (Keith Bradbury)
SUBJECT: Re: leaving chamber rough
Aerodynamics principles and analogies are often incorrectly applied to describe the physics of what is going on in a mouthpiece. Often the results from the misapplication are quite good! Runyon's arched baffle work inspired by an airplane wing is a good example. Standing waves in a sax do not have a lot of concern with lift and drag. Toby's post on the boundary layer effect is all I think is going on here. I do not like to leave a chamber rough (as in Lamberson's). But I do not polish/buff them either. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo