[ Attachment content not displayed ]

To answer Matthew's questions:
   
  1.  This is sometimes necessary with vintage instruments where modern mouthpieces will not play with good intonation.
   
  2.  There can be problems with SOME vintage instruments and SOME new mouthpieces, and vice versa.  The notes on the top end of the instrument will be affected much more than low Bb.
   
  3.  Vintage mouthpieces are not necessary, but a modern mouthpiece may have to be chosen carefully to work with the vintage instrument.
   
  Paul

Matthew August Stohrer <abadcliche@...> wrote:
          I didn't want to hijack Alan's thread, but it was Paul's answer to him that made me wonder...

If I compare a buescher soprano piece to a modern c*, i can see that the buescher mouthpiece itself is much shorter to make the correct conical volume.  

questions then:

1.  can you just cut off the shank of a modern piece if you have enlarged the chamber to get it to play in tune again?

2.  what effect does the different distance from the vibrating reed have?  for instance, if i play a buescher piece on a modern horn that was built for a modern mouthpiece which is longer with a smaller chamber, will some notes not play as well because the vibrating column for X note doesnt match up with the X  tonehole?  It probably wouldn't make much difference for low Bb, but what about high F? 

3.  What credence does this give to the "play a period mouthpiece" school of thought on playing vintage mouthpieces on vintage horns?  



  On 7/9/06, Paul C. <tenorman1952@...> wrote:              
  Alan, be careful about hogging out mouthpieces, particularly sopranos.  If you get the chamber too large it will cause you to have to push the mouthpiece to far onto the cork to tune the middle C (C2, third space C), as the low register tunes by volume.  
   
  The volume of the chamber, or rather, everything past the end of the neckpipe, must equal the missing conical section of the bore.
   
  But then the mouthpiece is too short.  The upper register tunes by length.  So even though you got C2 in tune, C3 will be sharp in relation to C2. 
   
  Paul
  

planosax <awholley@...> wrote:
  

        I just completed my first effort at mouthpiece work. I took a modern
Otto Link soprano mouthpiece and removed the roll-over, as well as 
opening the chamber up to full-round (the same way the alto and tenor
chambers are), though with some flatness left in the sidewalls. In
the process of reaming it out, I messed up the tip with some careless
strokes of the file. Therefore, I flattened the table, evened out the 
tip rail to a very narrow state (matching the "ruined" part and
proceeded to put a new facing on it.

I guess I had beginner's luck, because the thing plays pretty nicely,
and a new reed will hold a seal. 

The tone it produces is still a bit too hard and focused for my taste,
so I'm wondering where to attack this project next. I want to reduce
the upper partials and make it sound warmer/more spread. Should I go
after the sidewalls more or maybe the baffle? Or might a wider tip
rail do some of that for me?

Alan







  Link to Paul's articles from Main page of "Saxgourmet": 
http://www.saxgourmet.com
Listen to Paul's MP3's and view saxophone photos at:
http://briefcase.yahoo.com/tenorman1952

Paul Coats is the sole US importer of SAXRAX products from 
http://www.saxrax.com 
For SAXRAX products, email Paul at saxraxus@...  

    
---------------------------------
  Do you Yahoo!?
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.
    

  
    


  







-- 
matthew august stohrer
www.stohrerwoodwinds.com   

         


Link to Paul's articles from Main page of "Saxgourmet":
		http://www.saxgourmet.com
Listen to Paul's MP3's and view saxophone photos at:
           http://briefcase.yahoo.com/tenorman1952

Paul Coats is the sole US importer of SAXRAX products from 
http://www.saxrax.com 
For SAXRAX products, email Paul at saxraxus@...
 		
---------------------------------
Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls.  Great rates starting at 1�/min.

I do not have complete answers for these very good questions.

--- Matthew August Stohrer <abadcliche@...> wrote:
> If I compare a buescher soprano piece to a modern c*, i can see that the
> buescher mouthpiece itself is much shorter to make the correct conical
> volume.
> 
> questions then:
> 
> 1.  can you just cut off the shank of a modern piece if you have enlarged
> the chamber to get it to play in tune again?

Yes, if you can get away with using stubby fat mouthpieces.  These tend to
sharpen the high notes compared to the low notes.  If your palm keys are
flat when using long narrow mouthpieces, stubby fat ones are the fix.  Of
course you should make sure your embouchure is in the correct ballpark
before doing and mouthpiece adjustments for intonation.  Read Paul Coats'
articles on sop sax and the mouthpiece alon pitch check.

> 
> 2.  what effect does the different distance from the vibrating reed have?
> for instance, if i play a buescher piece on a modern horn that was built
> for
> a modern mouthpiece which is longer with a smaller chamber, will some
> notes
> not play as well because the vibrating column for X note doesnt match up
> with the X  tonehole?  It probably wouldn't make much difference for low
> Bb,
> but what about high F?

Like I said above, this will make that high F sharper.  This could create
or solve a problem.

> 
> 3.  What credence does this give to the "play a period mouthpiece" school
> of
> thought on playing vintage mouthpieces on vintage horns?

In my opinion this is dogma.  You need to access your own sound concept and
intonation situation and decide which way you should go.  


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

According to theory, it all has to do with the internal volume of the mpc and nothing to do with length. Forget about the external dimensions as well. If you want to do a little test, take a piece of tape and seal the window of the two mpcs in question. Fill them with water to the level where you usually put them on the cork and measure the liquid volume.

Toby

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Keith Bradbury 
  To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 2:36 AM
  Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] chamber sizes


  I do not have complete answers for these very good questions.

  --- Matthew August Stohrer <abadcliche@...> wrote:
  > If I compare a buescher soprano piece to a modern c*, i can see that the
  > buescher mouthpiece itself is much shorter to make the correct conical
  > volume.
  > 
  > questions then:
  > 
  > 1. can you just cut off the shank of a modern piece if you have enlarged
  > the chamber to get it to play in tune again?

  Yes, if you can get away with using stubby fat mouthpieces. These tend to
  sharpen the high notes compared to the low notes. If your palm keys are
  flat when using long narrow mouthpieces, stubby fat ones are the fix. Of
  course you should make sure your embouchure is in the correct ballpark
  before doing and mouthpiece adjustments for intonation. Read Paul Coats'
  articles on sop sax and the mouthpiece alon pitch check.

  > 
  > 2. what effect does the different distance from the vibrating reed have?
  > for instance, if i play a buescher piece on a modern horn that was built
  > for
  > a modern mouthpiece which is longer with a smaller chamber, will some
  > notes
  > not play as well because the vibrating column for X note doesnt match up
  > with the X tonehole? It probably wouldn't make much difference for low
  > Bb,
  > but what about high F?

  Like I said above, this will make that high F sharper. This could create
  or solve a problem.

  > 
  > 3. What credence does this give to the "play a period mouthpiece" school
  > of
  > thought on playing vintage mouthpieces on vintage horns?

  In my opinion this is dogma. You need to access your own sound concept and
  intonation situation and decide which way you should go. 

  __________________________________________________
  Do You Yahoo!?
  Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
  http://mail.yahoo.com 


   

This html message parsed with html2text ---------------------------What are ballpark volumes for soprano/alto/tenor/bari mpcs? I'd like to get
some graduated cylinders and do some chamber measuring. I'd guess a 50-ml
cylinder would be about right, but I have no idea.  
  
Dan T  
  
Toby wrote:  

> According to theory, it all has to do with the internal volume of the mpc
> and nothing to do with length. Forget about the external dimensions as well.
> If you want to do a little test, take a piece of tape and seal the window of
> the two mpcs in question. Fill them with water to the level where you
> usually put them on the cork and measure the liquid volume.
>
> Toby
>

>> \\----- Original Message -----

>>

>> **From:** [Keith Bradbury](mailto:kwbradbury@... "kwbradbury@...")

>>

>> **To:**
[MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com](mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
"MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com")

>>

>> **Sent:** Monday, July 17, 2006 2:36 AM

>>

>> **Subject:** Re: [MouthpieceWork] chamber sizes

>>

>>  
>
>>

>> I do not have complete answers for these very good questions.  
>  
>  \\--- Matthew August Stohrer
> <[abadcliche@gmail.com](mailto:abadcliche@...)> wrote:  
>  > If I compare a buescher soprano piece to a modern c*, i can see that the  
>  > buescher mouthpiece itself is much shorter to make the correct conical  
>  > volume.  
>  >  
>  > questions then:  
>  >  
>  > 1\\. can you just cut off the shank of a modern piece if you have
> enlarged  
>  > the chamber to get it to play in tune again?  
>  
>  Yes, if you can get away with using stubby fat mouthpieces. These tend to  
>  sharpen the high notes compared to the low notes. If your palm keys are  
>  flat when using long narrow mouthpieces, stubby fat ones are the fix. Of  
>  course you should make sure your embouchure is in the correct ballpark  
>  before doing and mouthpiece adjustments for intonation. Read Paul Coats'  
>  articles on sop sax and the mouthpiece alon pitch check.  
>  
>  >  
>  > 2\\. what effect does the different distance from the vibrating reed
> have?  
>  > for instance, if i play a buescher piece on a modern horn that was built  
>  > for  
>  > a modern mouthpiece which is longer with a smaller chamber, will some  
>  > notes  
>  > not play as well because the vibrating column for X note doesnt match up  
>  > with the X tonehole? It probably wouldn't make much difference for low  
>  > Bb,  
>  > but what about high F?  
>  
>  Like I said above, this will make that high F sharper. This could create  
>  or solve a problem.  
>  
>  >  
>  > 3\\. What credence does this give to the "play a period mouthpiece"
> school  
>  > of  
>  > thought on playing vintage mouthpieces on vintage horns?  
>  
>  In my opinion this is dogma. You need to access your own sound concept and  
>  intonation situation and decide which way you should go.  
>  
>  __________________________________________________  
>  Do You Yahoo!?  
>  Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around  
>  [http://mail.yahoo.com](http://mail.yahoo.com)  
>
>  
>  
>  
>  
>     * * *
>  
>      No virus found in this
>     incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus
>     Database: 268.10.1/389 - Release Date: 7/14/2006

Toby is correct.  This theory does not hold water (So sorry, I just had to say that) because the only volume that counts is that which is beyond the cork when the mouthpiece is positioned so that it plays in tune.
   
  Paul

Toby <kymarto123@...> wrote:
            According to theory, it all has to do with the internal volume of the mpc and nothing to do with length. Forget about the external dimensions as well. If you want to do a little test, take a piece of tape and seal the window of the two mpcs in question. Fill them with water to the level where you usually put them on the cork and measure the liquid volume.
   
  Toby
   
    ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Keith Bradbury 
  To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 2:36 AM
  Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] chamber sizes
  

    I do not have complete answers for these very good questions.

--- Matthew August Stohrer <abadcliche@...> wrote:
> If I compare a buescher soprano piece to a modern c*, i can see that the
> buescher mouthpiece itself is much shorter to make the correct conical
> volume.
> 
> questions then:
> 
> 1. can you just cut off the shank of a modern piece if you have enlarged
> the chamber to get it to play in tune again?

Yes, if you can get away with using stubby fat mouthpieces. These tend to
sharpen the high notes compared to the low notes. If your palm keys are
flat when using long narrow mouthpieces, stubby fat ones are the fix. Of
course you should make sure your embouchure is in the correct ballpark
before doing and mouthpiece adjustments for intonation. Read Paul Coats'
articles on sop sax and the mouthpiece alon pitch check.

> 
> 2. what effect does the different distance from the vibrating reed have?
> for instance, if i play a buescher piece on a modern horn that was built
> for
> a modern mouthpiece which is longer with a smaller chamber, will some
> notes
> not play as well because the vibrating column for X note doesnt match up
> with the X tonehole? It probably wouldn't make much difference for low
> Bb,
> but what about high F?

Like I said above, this will make that high F sharper. This could create
or solve a problem.

> 
> 3. What credence does this give to the "play a period mouthpiece" school
> of
> thought on playing vintage mouthpieces on vintage horns?

In my opinion this is dogma. You need to access your own sound concept and
intonation situation and decide which way you should go. 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 


  

         


Link to Paul's articles from Main page of "Saxgourmet":
		http://www.saxgourmet.com
Listen to Paul's MP3's and view saxophone photos at:
           http://briefcase.yahoo.com/tenorman1952

Paul Coats is the sole US importer of SAXRAX products from 
http://www.saxrax.com 
For SAXRAX products, email Paul at saxraxus@...
 		
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
 Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail Beta.

Where the theory falls apart ("all has to do with internal volume and nothing to do with length") is that the upper register functions differently from the low register.  Volume alone affects tuning in the low register.  But we can easily demonstrate that this is not true in the upper register.
   
  First, EVERYTHING internally past the end of the neck is chamber volume.
   
  Take two mouthpieces, one with a small chamber, one with a very large chamber.  Place them on the cork so that C2 (3rd space C) tunes correctly.  Make careful measurements externally so that you know where the end of the neckpipe is, and mark the mouthpieces.  Tape the window, fill with water to that mark, and then measure the water volume.  The volume for both mouthpieces will be the same.  I and many others have done this.
   
  The mouthpiece with the "large chamber" will have a shorter length from the end of the neck to the tip of the mouthpiece than the "small chamber" mouthpiece.
   
  And the "large chamber" mouthpiece will play sharp in the top notes of the upper register, C3 on up into the palm key notes.
   
  The "small chamber" mouthpiece will play flat in the top notes.
   
  A mouthpiece with the correct volume with have good intonation.
   
  DO NOT CONFUSE a high baffle with a small chamber.  A mouthpiece can have a small chamber and a low baffle.  It can also have a high "wedge" baffle, and a large chamber... which is actually the bore extending up into the window area.
   
  All BORE volume past the end of the neckpipe is chamber volume.
   
  So, how do we make a bright or dark sounding mouthpiece, and keep all of this working correctly?  Easy... if you make a high baffle, adding material up in near the tip, you must remove some material further along, making the sidewalls further apart, or the throat a little larger.  If you remove material from the baffle area, you need to make the throat area a little longer, filling in further back in the mouthpiece by the same amount of volume removed from the baffle.
   
  For very small baffle changes, this is not necessary.  But for large changes, some other adjustments need to be made.
   
  Paul 

         
   
  According to theory, it all has to do with the internal volume of the mpc and nothing to do with length. Forget about the external dimensions as well. If you want to do a little test, take a piece of tape and seal the window of the two mpcs in question. Fill them with water to the level where you usually put them on the cork and measure the liquid volume.
   
  Toby
   
    ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Keith Bradbury 
  To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 2:36 AM
  Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] chamber sizes
  

    I do not have complete answers for these very good questions.

--- Matthew August Stohrer <abadcliche@...> wrote:
> If I compare a buescher soprano piece to a modern c*, i can see that the
> buescher mouthpiece itself is much shorter to make the correct conical
> volume.
> 
> questions then:
> 
> 1. can you just cut off the shank of a modern piece if you have enlarged
> the chamber to get it to play in tune again?

Yes, if you can get away with using stubby fat mouthpieces. These tend to
sharpen the high notes compared to the low notes. If your palm keys are
flat when using long narrow mouthpieces, stubby fat ones are the fix. Of
course you should make sure your embouchure is in the correct ballpark
before doing and mouthpiece adjustments for intonation. Read Paul Coats'
articles on sop sax and the mouthpiece alon pitch check.

> 
> 2. what effect does the different distance from the vibrating reed have?
> for instance, if i play a buescher piece on a modern horn that was built
> for
> a modern mouthpiece which is longer with a smaller chamber, will some
> notes
> not play as well because the vibrating column for X note doesnt match up
> with the X tonehole? It probably wouldn't make much difference for low
> Bb,
> but what about high F?

Like I said above, this will make that high F sharper. This could create
or solve a problem.

> 
> 3. What credence does this give to the "play a period mouthpiece" school
> of
> thought on playing vintage mouthpieces on vintage horns?

In my opinion this is dogma. You need to access your own sound concept and
intonation situation and decide which way you should go. 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 


  

         


Link to Paul's articles from Main page of "Saxgourmet":
		http://www.saxgourmet.com
Listen to Paul's MP3's and view saxophone photos at:
           http://briefcase.yahoo.com/tenorman1952

Paul Coats is the sole US importer of SAXRAX products from 
http://www.saxrax.com 
For SAXRAX products, email Paul at saxraxus@...
 		
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
 Next-gen email? Have it all with the  all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.

--- Toby <kymarto123@...> wrote:

> According to theory, it all has to do with the internal volume of the mpc
> and nothing to do with length. 

This is a common interpretation.  But I have not seen in print that it has
nothing to do with length.  Talking about length is just avoided.

Usually a text states that the mouthpiece volume (not including the shank
on the cork) needs to match the volume of the missing part of the sax cone.
 I've often wondered if it should come as close as possible to matching the
length of the missing cone too.  

Including the shank, sop sax MP volumes are in the 6-8 ml range or so. 
Bari sax is 24-27 ml.  I did not have great results in comparing measured
volumes when tuned well on my saxes to calculated volumes.  I concluded
that emperical testing is more usefull than calculating volumes.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

"I concluded that emperical testing is more usefull than calculating volumes."
   
  I am a big believer in the "cut and try" method, too.
   
  Paul

Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:
          --- Toby <kymarto123@...> wrote:

> According to theory, it all has to do with the internal volume of the mpc
> and nothing to do with length. 

This is a common interpretation. But I have not seen in print that it has
nothing to do with length. Talking about length is just avoided.

Usually a text states that the mouthpiece volume (not including the shank
on the cork) needs to match the volume of the missing part of the sax cone.
I've often wondered if it should come as close as possible to matching the
length of the missing cone too. 

Including the shank, sop sax MP volumes are in the 6-8 ml range or so. 
Bari sax is 24-27 ml. I did not have great results in comparing measured
volumes when tuned well on my saxes to calculated volumes. I concluded
that emperical testing is more usefull than calculating volumes.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 


         


Link to Paul's articles from Main page of "Saxgourmet":
		http://www.saxgourmet.com
Listen to Paul's MP3's and view saxophone photos at:
           http://briefcase.yahoo.com/tenorman1952

Paul Coats is the sole US importer of SAXRAX products from 
http://www.saxrax.com 
For SAXRAX products, email Paul at saxraxus@...
 		
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs.Try it free. 

Well, I didn't want to tote out the big theory guns, but there is a second-order requirement to get the top notes in tune, which has to do with the relationship between the throat diameter and the chamber volume, as reflected in the Helmholtz resonance. Basically all modern mpcs have chambers that are too small to fulfill that requirement. 

The larger the bore, the bigger the truncation, and the larger the chamber volume would need to be for good intonation, both because there is more volume that needs to be mimiced by the overall interior volume of the mpc, and because the end of the neck is larger in diameter, making the restriction at the throat less, meaning that the chamber would have to be larger to satifsy the second-order condition.

I can be more precise when I get to work and get my hands back on my copy of Fletcher and Rossing, where it is detailed.

Toby


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Paul C. 
  To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 10:44 AM
  Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] chamber sizes



  Where the theory falls apart ("all has to do with internal volume and nothing to do with length") is that the upper register functions differently from the low register.  Volume alone affects tuning in the low register.  But we can easily demonstrate that this is not true in the upper register.

  First, EVERYTHING internally past the end of the neck is chamber volume.

  Take two mouthpieces, one with a small chamber, one with a very large chamber.  Place them on the cork so that C2 (3rd space C) tunes correctly.  Make careful measurements externally so that you know where the end of the neckpipe is, and mark the mouthpieces.  Tape the window, fill with water to that mark, and then measure the water volume.  The volume for both mouthpieces will be the same.  I and many others have done this.

  The mouthpiece with the "large chamber" will have a shorter length from the end of the neck to the tip of the mouthpiece than the "small chamber" mouthpiece.

  And the "large chamber" mouthpiece will play sharp in the top notes of the upper register, C3 on up into the palm key notes.

  The "small chamber" mouthpiece will play flat in the top notes.

  A mouthpiece with the correct volume with have good intonation.

  DO NOT CONFUSE a high baffle with a small chamber.  A mouthpiece can have a small chamber and a low baffle.  It can also have a high "wedge" baffle, and a large chamber... which is actually the bore extending up into the window area.

  All BORE volume past the end of the neckpipe is chamber volume.

  So, how do we make a bright or dark sounding mouthpiece, and keep all of this working correctly?  Easy... if you make a high baffle, adding material up in near the tip, you must remove some material further along, making the sidewalls further apart, or the throat a little larger.  If you remove material from the baffle area, you need to make the throat area a little longer, filling in further back in the mouthpiece by the same amount of volume removed from the baffle.

  For very small baffle changes, this is not necessary.  But for large changes, some other adjustments need to be made.

  Paul 



  According to theory, it all has to do with the internal volume of the mpc and nothing to do with length. Forget about the external dimensions as well. If you want to do a little test, take a piece of tape and seal the window of the two mpcs in question. Fill them with water to the level where you usually put them on the cork and measure the liquid volume.

  Toby

    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Keith Bradbury 
    To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
    Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 2:36 AM
    Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] chamber sizes


    I do not have complete answers for these very good questions.

    --- Matthew August Stohrer <abadcliche@...> wrote:
    > If I compare a buescher soprano piece to a modern c*, i can see that the
    > buescher mouthpiece itself is much shorter to make the correct conical
    > volume.
    > 
    > questions then:
    > 
    > 1. can you just cut off the shank of a modern piece if you have enlarged
    > the chamber to get it to play in tune again?

    Yes, if you can get away with using stubby fat mouthpieces. These tend to
    sharpen the high notes compared to the low notes. If your palm keys are
    flat when using long narrow mouthpieces, stubby fat ones are the fix. Of
    course you should make sure your embouchure is in the correct ballpark
    before doing and mouthpiece adjustments for intonation. Read Paul Coats'
    articles on sop sax and the mouthpiece alon pitch check.

    > 
    > 2. what effect does the different distance from the vibrating reed have?
    > for instance, if i play a buescher piece on a modern horn that was built
    > for
    > a modern mouthpiece which is longer with a smaller chamber, will some
    > notes
    > not play as well because the vibrating column for X note doesnt match up
    > with the X tonehole? It probably wouldn't make much difference for low
    > Bb,
    > but what about high F?

    Like I said above, this will make that high F sharper. This could create
    or solve a problem.

    > 
    > 3. What credence does this give to the "play a period mouthpiece" school
    > of
    > thought on playing vintage mouthpieces on vintage horns?

    In my opinion this is dogma. You need to access your own sound concept and
    intonation situation and decide which way you should go. 

    __________________________________________________
    Do You Yahoo!?
    Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
    http://mail.yahoo.com 




  Link to Paul's articles from Main page of "Saxgourmet":
  http://www.saxgourmet.com
  Listen to Paul's MP3's and view saxophone photos at:
  http://briefcase.yahoo.com/tenorman1952

  Paul Coats is the sole US importer of SAXRAX products from 
  http://www.saxrax.com 
  For SAXRAX products, email Paul at saxraxus@...


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Do you Yahoo!?
  Next-gen email? Have it all with the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.

   

--- Toby <kymarto123@...> wrote:
> 
> I can be more precise when I get to work and get my hands back on my copy
> of Fletcher and Rossing, where it is detailed.
> 

Please do.  I do not have a copy of F & R.  I stopped buying theory books
after getting Benade's text.  I like theory... I just wish it applied
better to what actually works on a sax.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

In the past some manufacturers have "reamed the neck" to make it more "free blowing".  And made the upper octave sharp in relation to the lower octave.
   
  I participated in blind tests with one manufacturer, charting intonation tendencies with various mouthpieces.  And end the end I said, neck B was the better neck with nearly every mouthpiece.  I asked, which is the new style, which is the original neck, etc.
   
  Turns out that B was the original neck, and the others were "opened up".
   
  They did not blow any more free, but had intonation difficulties.
   
  Paul

Toby <kymarto123@...> wrote:
            Well, I didn't want to tote out the big theory guns, but there is a second-order requirement to get the top notes in tune, which has to do with the relationship between the throat diameter and the chamber volume, as reflected in the Helmholtz resonance. Basically all modern mpcs have chambers that are too small to fulfill that requirement. 
   
  The larger the bore, the bigger the truncation, and the larger the chamber volume would need to be for good intonation, both because there is more volume that needs to be mimiced by the overall interior volume of the mpc, and because the end of the neck is larger in diameter, making the restriction at the throat less, meaning that the chamber would have to be larger to satifsy the second-order condition.
   
  I can be more precise when I get to work and get my hands back on my copy of Fletcher and Rossing, where it is detailed.
   
  Toby
   
   
    ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Paul C. 
  To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 10:44 AM
  Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] chamber sizes
  

      Where the theory falls apart ("all has to do with internal volume and nothing to do with length") is that the upper register functions differently from the low register.  Volume alone affects tuning in the low register.  But we can easily demonstrate that this is not true in the upper register.
   
  First, EVERYTHING internally past the end of the neck is chamber volume.
   
  Take two mouthpieces, one with a small chamber, one with a very large chamber.  Place them on the cork so that C2 (3rd space C) tunes correctly.  Make careful measurements externally so that you know where the end of the neckpipe is, and mark the mouthpieces.  Tape the window, fill with water to that mark, and then measure the water volume.  The volume for both mouthpieces will be the same.  I and many others have done this.
   
  The mouthpiece with the "large chamber" will have a shorter length from the end of the neck to the tip of the mouthpiece than the "small chamber" mouthpiece.
   
  And the "large chamber" mouthpiece will play sharp in the top notes of the upper register, C3 on up into the palm key notes.
   
  The "small chamber" mouthpiece will play flat in the top notes.
   
  A mouthpiece with the correct volume with have good intonation.
   
  DO NOT CONFUSE a high baffle with a small chamber.  A mouthpiece can have a small chamber and a low baffle.  It can also have a high "wedge" baffle, and a large chamber... which is actually the bore extending up into the window area.
   
  All BORE volume past the end of the neckpipe is chamber volume.
   
  So, how do we make a bright or dark sounding mouthpiece, and keep all of this working correctly?  Easy... if you make a high baffle, adding material up in near the tip, you must remove some material further along, making the sidewalls further apart, or the throat a little larger.  If you remove material from the baffle area, you need to make the throat area a little longer, filling in further back in the mouthpiece by the same amount of volume removed from the baffle.
   
  For very small baffle changes, this is not necessary.  But for large changes, some other adjustments need to be made.
   
  Paul 

         
   
  According to theory, it all has to do with the internal volume of the mpc and nothing to do with length. Forget about the external dimensions as well. If you want to do a little test, take a piece of tape and seal the window of the two mpcs in question. Fill them with water to the level where you usually put them on the cork and measure the liquid volume.
   
  Toby
   
    ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Keith Bradbury 
  To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 2:36 AM
  Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] chamber sizes
  

    I do not have complete answers for these very good questions.

--- Matthew August Stohrer <abadcliche@...> wrote:
> If I compare a buescher soprano piece to a modern c*, i can see that the
> buescher mouthpiece itself is much shorter to make the correct conical
> volume.
> 
> questions then:
> 
> 1. can you just cut off the shank of a modern piece if you have enlarged
> the chamber to get it to play in tune again?

Yes, if you can get away with using stubby fat mouthpieces. These tend to
sharpen the high notes compared to the low notes. If your palm keys are
flat when using long narrow mouthpieces, stubby fat ones are the fix. Of
course you should make sure your embouchure is in the correct ballpark
before doing and mouthpiece adjustments for intonation. Read Paul Coats'
articles on sop sax and the mouthpiece alon pitch check.

> 
> 2. what effect does the different distance from the vibrating reed have?
> for instance, if i play a buescher piece on a modern horn that was built
> for
> a modern mouthpiece which is longer with a smaller chamber, will some
> notes
> not play as well because the vibrating column for X note doesnt match up
> with the X tonehole? It probably wouldn't make much difference for low
> Bb,
> but what about high F?

Like I said above, this will make that high F sharper. This could create
or solve a problem.

> 
> 3. What credence does this give to the "play a period mouthpiece" school
> of
> thought on playing vintage mouthpieces on vintage horns?

In my opinion this is dogma. You need to access your own sound concept and
intonation situation and decide which way you should go. 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 


  




Link to Paul's articles from Main page of "Saxgourmet":
http://www.saxgourmet.com
Listen to Paul's MP3's and view saxophone photos at:
http://briefcase.yahoo.com/tenorman1952

Paul Coats is the sole US importer of SAXRAX products from 
http://www.saxrax.com 
For SAXRAX products, email Paul at saxraxus@...     
---------------------------------
  Do you Yahoo!?
Next-gen email? Have it all with the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.

  

  

         


Link to Paul's articles from Main page of "Saxgourmet":
		http://www.saxgourmet.com
Listen to Paul's MP3's and view saxophone photos at:
           http://briefcase.yahoo.com/tenorman1952

Paul Coats is the sole US importer of SAXRAX products from 
http://www.saxrax.com 
For SAXRAX products, email Paul at saxraxus@...
 			
---------------------------------
See the all-new, redesigned Yahoo.com.  Check it out.

"In theory, practice and theory are identical...in practice, they are 
not"--- Yogi Berra

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Keith Bradbury 
<kwbradbury@...> wrote:
>
> --- Toby <kymarto123@...> wrote:
> > 
> > I can be more precise when I get to work and get my hands back on 
my copy
> > of Fletcher and Rossing, where it is detailed.
> > 
> 
> Please do.  I do not have a copy of F & R.  I stopped buying theory 
books
> after getting Benade's text.  I like theory... I just wish it 
applied
> better to what actually works on a sax.
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>

[ Attachment content not displayed ]

[ Attachment content not displayed ]

About the corrective actions for the "pea shooter" intonation problems... don't cut the neck.  Instead, remove material from the mouthpiece, specifically the back of the chamber in the bore area.  This is best done with a large drill bit coming in from the bore end and simply drilling the bore a little deeper.  Take off a small amount, test play, and stop when you can play C2 - C3 with good intonation, by simply operating the octave key.
   
  Paul

Matthew August Stohrer <abadcliche@...> wrote:
          Thanks to all of you for such informative answers!  I am finally starting to get a grip on the whole chamber/volume thing.   which for something so important it astonishes me that most players don't have a clue that these requirements even exist!  in any case- 

question:  how can length not matter?  i am not as practiced in acoustics as i want to be, so pardon my ignorance here.  it seems to me that in order to resonate at a certain frequency, particularly for an overtone (octaves and altissimo), that the length would have to be specific.  that is, for the sound "wave" to travel from the mpiece to the tonehole and back X times, the length would have to be specific for it to be at a certain hertz.  like if i play the overtone Bb above the staff while keeping down the low (pinky) Bb fingering, what determines the intonation?  and then what determines the intonation of a properly fingered Bb (lets say 1-2-side-Bb just for the arguments sake) above the staff?  just volume?  could have a long, pea-shooter like chamber on a longer mpiece and a large excavated chamber on a stubby mpiece and play both perfectly in tune as long as the volumes were the same? 

again, pardon my neanderthal understanding of acoustics, im working on it.  



  On 7/17/06, sjrosner < sjrosner@...> wrote:              "In theory, practice and theory are identical...in practice, they are 
not"--- Yogi Berra

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Keith Bradbury 
<kwbradbury@...> wrote:

  
>
> --- Toby <kymarto123@...> wrote:
> > 
> > I can be more precise when I get to work and get my hands back on 
my copy
> > of Fletcher and Rossing, where it is detailed.
> > 
> 
> Please do. I do not have a copy of F & R. I stopped buying theory 
books
> after getting Benade's text. I like theory... I just wish it 
applied
> better to what actually works on a sax.
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>


    









-- 
matthew august stohrer
www.stohrerwoodwinds.com   

         


Link to Paul's articles from Main page of "Saxgourmet":
		http://www.saxgourmet.com
Listen to Paul's MP3's and view saxophone photos at:
           http://briefcase.yahoo.com/tenorman1952

Paul Coats is the sole US importer of SAXRAX products from 
http://www.saxrax.com 
For SAXRAX products, email Paul at saxraxus@...
 		
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
 Everyone is raving about the  all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.

Matthew, most of my articles are now hosted at www.saxgourmet.com.
   
  http://www.saxgourmet.com/PaulCoatsArticles/soprano_saxophone_and_intonation.htm
   
  http://www.saxgourmet.com/PaulCoatsArticles/beginner03.htm
   
  http://www.saxgourmet.com/PaulCoatsArticles/beginner04.htm

  And one appears to be missing from this list, Tone Production for Beginning Saxophonists and Clarinetists.
   
  I'll email a copy to you. and for Steve to put on the website.
   
  Paul
  
Matthew August Stohrer <abadcliche@...> wrote:
          Thanks to all of you for such informative answers!  I am finally starting to get a grip on the whole chamber/volume thing.   which for something so important it astonishes me that most players don't have a clue that these requirements even exist!  in any case- 

question:  how can length not matter?  i am not as practiced in acoustics as i want to be, so pardon my ignorance here.  it seems to me that in order to resonate at a certain frequency, particularly for an overtone (octaves and altissimo), that the length would have to be specific.  that is, for the sound "wave" to travel from the mpiece to the tonehole and back X times, the length would have to be specific for it to be at a certain hertz.  like if i play the overtone Bb above the staff while keeping down the low (pinky) Bb fingering, what determines the intonation?  and then what determines the intonation of a properly fingered Bb (lets say 1-2-side-Bb just for the arguments sake) above the staff?  just volume?  could have a long, pea-shooter like chamber on a longer mpiece and a large excavated chamber on a stubby mpiece and play both perfectly in tune as long as the volumes were the same? 

again, pardon my neanderthal understanding of acoustics, im working on it.  



  On 7/17/06, sjrosner < sjrosner@...> wrote:              "In theory, practice and theory are identical...in practice, they are 
not"--- Yogi Berra

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Keith Bradbury 
<kwbradbury@...> wrote:

  
>
> --- Toby <kymarto123@...> wrote:
> > 
> > I can be more precise when I get to work and get my hands back on 
my copy
> > of Fletcher and Rossing, where it is detailed.
> > 
> 
> Please do. I do not have a copy of F & R. I stopped buying theory 
books
> after getting Benade's text. I like theory... I just wish it 
applied
> better to what actually works on a sax.
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>


    









-- 
matthew august stohrer
www.stohrerwoodwinds.com   

         


Link to Paul's articles from Main page of "Saxgourmet":
		http://www.saxgourmet.com
Listen to Paul's MP3's and view saxophone photos at:
           http://briefcase.yahoo.com/tenorman1952

Paul Coats is the sole US importer of SAXRAX products from 
http://www.saxrax.com 
For SAXRAX products, email Paul at saxraxus@...
 		
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
 Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail Beta.

Matthew asked " just volume?  could have a long, pea-shooter like chamber on a longer mpiece and a large excavated chamber on a stubby mpiece and play both perfectly in tune as long as the volumes were the same? "
   
  No, this is what I was talking about earlier.
   
  For a particular saxophone, chamber volume of a specific mouthpiece might be too large.  To tune C2 it would have to be pushed on too far to get the volume correct (that amount past the end of the neck pipe).  Then once that condition is satisfied, C2 in tune, C3 would be sharp, because the large chamber is too short in length.
   
  The player would find himself having to relax his embouchure for the high notes, and they might not speak, and would have to tighten his embouchure trying to the some notes in the low register up to pitch.  A difficult way to play the saxophone.
   
  For this player and mouthpiece the neck may be lengthened slightly.  But this is a difficult soldering job that needs a very thin line of solder in a very high stress area.  A better solution would be to make a short sleeve that goes into the mouthpiece, the outer diameter would fit the bore of the mouthpiece, the inner diameter the same as the entrance to the neck.  It would be made however long is necessary to correct the tuning inconsistencies.  It is easy to make this too long, then cut down.
   
  I have made these correcting sleeves from Delrin and from rubber or vinyl tubing.
   
  The opposite case, a particular saxophone, the chamber volume of a specific mouthpiece (a pea shooter type) might be too small.  The mouthpiece would have to be pulled out to tune C2.  But once that is correct, the player might find the "pea shooter" is flat in the palm key notes.  C3 on up into the palm keys is flat.  
   
  But what this player would likely do is push in until the palm key notes could be played by "biting" harder, then relaxing his embouchure in the low register.  He would have a different embouchure for different notes, different registers.
   
  The correction for this would be to shorten the neck slightly.  How much is unknown, trial and error.  Then you may shorten too much, and again, this is damage that is difficult to repair in this area.  We have all seen "vintage" saxes with the necks shortened to enable modern mouthpieces to play.
   
  So, a mouthpiece with a the proper length to volume ratio must be found or made.  And this might be slightly different for different saxes.
   
  Soprano sax is the most sensitive to this effect, but it happens with all sizes from 'Nino to Contrabass.
   
  Paul
   
  

Matthew August Stohrer <abadcliche@...> wrote:
          Thanks to all of you for such informative answers!  I am finally starting to get a grip on the whole chamber/volume thing.   which for something so important it astonishes me that most players don't have a clue that these requirements even exist!  in any case- 

question:  how can length not matter?  i am not as practiced in acoustics as i want to be, so pardon my ignorance here.  it seems to me that in order to resonate at a certain frequency, particularly for an overtone (octaves and altissimo), that the length would have to be specific.  that is, for the sound "wave" to travel from the mpiece to the tonehole and back X times, the length would have to be specific for it to be at a certain hertz.  like if i play the overtone Bb above the staff while keeping down the low (pinky) Bb fingering, what determines the intonation?  and then what determines the intonation of a properly fingered Bb (lets say 1-2-side-Bb just for the arguments sake) above the staff?  just volume?  could have a long, pea-shooter like chamber on a longer mpiece and a large excavated chamber on a stubby mpiece and play both perfectly in tune as long as the volumes were the same? 

again, pardon my neanderthal understanding of acoustics, im working on it.  



  On 7/17/06, sjrosner < sjrosner@...> wrote:              "In theory, practice and theory are identical...in practice, they are 
not"--- Yogi Berra

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Keith Bradbury 
<kwbradbury@...> wrote:

  
>
> --- Toby <kymarto123@...> wrote:
> > 
> > I can be more precise when I get to work and get my hands back on 
my copy
> > of Fletcher and Rossing, where it is detailed.
> > 
> 
> Please do. I do not have a copy of F & R. I stopped buying theory 
books
> after getting Benade's text. I like theory... I just wish it 
applied
> better to what actually works on a sax.
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>


    









-- 
matthew august stohrer
www.stohrerwoodwinds.com   

         


Link to Paul's articles from Main page of "Saxgourmet":
		http://www.saxgourmet.com
Listen to Paul's MP3's and view saxophone photos at:
           http://briefcase.yahoo.com/tenorman1952

Paul Coats is the sole US importer of SAXRAX products from 
http://www.saxrax.com 
For SAXRAX products, email Paul at saxraxus@...
 		
---------------------------------
Groups are talking. We�re listening. Check out the handy changes to Yahoo! Groups.