Well...THAT was interesting. However, almost all of it was well over my head.

Keith's point is well taken. A lot of the time, what makes sense theoretically fails 
miserably when put into practice, and quite often the seat-of-the-pants approach 
works once in a million tries. Too many variables!

But either way represents a good starting point, so here's the plan:

I'll find and try a larger chamber mouthpiece and see what happens with the tuning. I 
may also get the neck recorked and retest some of my small-chamber pieces which 
normally play too sharp to use in public, just to compare them once again with my 
Meyers.

Steve's comment about different octave pips was interesting, but I don't care to invest 
in something that may or may not work. Perhaps it would be worth a bit just to pull 
the pips off and have them thoroughly cleaned and reinstalled. Maybe I'll also revisit 
the tone hole crescents idea. When I used them before, they covered only the upper 
edges of the tone holes as was suggested.

The crook on this horn has perhaps one or two very shallow quarter-inch dings, so 
maybe they're not affecting intonation at all. I'm just looking for any and all 
possibilities.

Interesting that these particular notes seem to be troublesome on most Martins, and 
that Martin never changed the original design to correct the problem. Maybe the 
design engineers were too stubborn to listen to the seat-of-the-pants guys. Or vice 
versa!

Thanks to all for the input. If some of these things work, I'll spread the word.

Happy New Year!
Matso Limtiaco
Everett WA

>>>Perhaps it would be worth a bit just to pull 
the pips off and have them thoroughly cleaned and reinstalled.<<<

Just run a pipe cleaner through them.



		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. 
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

I had an old Handcraft that had excellent intonation except for the side C, which was a good 30 cents sharp. Now you would think that somebody would have noticed and moved the tonehole a bit, but no...

Bottom line is that there is a lot of inertia in manufacturing, and as long as sales are OK nobody wants the expense of retooling. 

Seat-of-the-pants has worked pretty well in instrument design--amazingly well in the case of the violin. As Nederveen points out however, science has a few suggestions to make regarding woodwinds, which have yet to be implemented.

Toby
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: zrspilot 
  To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2004 3:00 AM
  Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Large chambers & Martin bari tuning



  Well...THAT was interesting. However, almost all of it was well over my head.

  Keith's point is well taken. A lot of the time, what makes sense theoretically fails 
  miserably when put into practice, and quite often the seat-of-the-pants approach 
  works once in a million tries. Too many variables!

  But either way represents a good starting point, so here's the plan:

  I'll find and try a larger chamber mouthpiece and see what happens with the tuning. I 
  may also get the neck recorked and retest some of my small-chamber pieces which 
  normally play too sharp to use in public, just to compare them once again with my 
  Meyers.

  Steve's comment about different octave pips was interesting, but I don't care to invest 
  in something that may or may not work. Perhaps it would be worth a bit just to pull 
  the pips off and have them thoroughly cleaned and reinstalled. Maybe I'll also revisit 
  the tone hole crescents idea. When I used them before, they covered only the upper 
  edges of the tone holes as was suggested.

  The crook on this horn has perhaps one or two very shallow quarter-inch dings, so 
  maybe they're not affecting intonation at all. I'm just looking for any and all 
  possibilities.

  Interesting that these particular notes seem to be troublesome on most Martins, and 
  that Martin never changed the original design to correct the problem. Maybe the 
  design engineers were too stubborn to listen to the seat-of-the-pants guys. Or vice 
  versa!

  Thanks to all for the input. If some of these things work, I'll spread the word.

  Happy New Year!
  Matso Limtiaco
  Everett WA





  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. 

One more idea for your checklist:
You may want to check to if some tone hole covers open much wider now 
than they used to do 40 years ago? What if replaced pads are not so 
thick now as original ones and the maximum clearance is wider? 

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "zrspilot" <zrspilot@y...> 
wrote:
> 
> Well...THAT was interesting. However, almost all of it was well 
over my head.
> 
> Keith's point is well taken. A lot of the time, what makes sense 
theoretically fails 
> miserably when put into practice, and quite often the seat-of-the-
pants approach 
> works once in a million tries. Too many variables!
> 
> But either way represents a good starting point, so here's the plan:
> 
> I'll find and try a larger chamber mouthpiece and see what happens 
with the tuning. I 
> may also get the neck recorked and retest some of my small-chamber 
pieces which 
> normally play too sharp to use in public, just to compare them once 
again with my 
> Meyers.
> 
> Steve's comment about different octave pips was interesting, but I 
don't care to invest 
> in something that may or may not work. Perhaps it would be worth a 
bit just to pull 
> the pips off and have them thoroughly cleaned and reinstalled. 
Maybe I'll also revisit 
> the tone hole crescents idea. When I used them before, they covered 
only the upper 
> edges of the tone holes as was suggested.
> 
> The crook on this horn has perhaps one or two very shallow quarter-
inch dings, so 
> maybe they're not affecting intonation at all. I'm just looking for 
any and all 
> possibilities.
> 
> Interesting that these particular notes seem to be troublesome on 
most Martins, and 
> that Martin never changed the original design to correct the 
problem. Maybe the 
> design engineers were too stubborn to listen to the seat-of-the-
pants guys. Or vice 
> versa!
> 
> Thanks to all for the input. If some of these things work, I'll 
spread the word.
> 
> Happy New Year!
> Matso Limtiaco
> Everett WA

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "axakov" <axakov@y...> wrote:
> 
> One more idea for your checklist:
> You may want to check to if some tone hole covers open much wider 
now 
> than they used to do 40 years ago? What if replaced pads are not so 
> thick now as original ones and the maximum clearance is wider? 

That's a good question. Most of the info I've seen is that the 
original pads on Martin horns were quite thin...so you would think 
that a thicker pad would actually lower the pitch a bit. Not a 
problem on this horn, as it's got kangaroo pads with flat metal 
resos. We've tried lowering the key heights but all that does is make 
those notes stuffy.

I've got a large chamber mouthpiece coming in this week and we'll see 
if that has any effect at all. Thanks for the idea!