just a quick theoretical question for the group. I, in the not too
distant past, found myself in the position of having to have my
favorite old selmer longshank  alto piece refaced due to about 30
years of wear.From that point on I started experiencing intonation
difficulties with the piece that had not been there before. The piece
was not altered from the original specs; the intention was to try to
restore it back to what should have been its original facing.Other
than the intonation difficulties, it came back responding and playing
quite well. The intonation problems were not glaring; just seemed that
many notes had to be slightly favored now.Where before the horn had
played a relatively very well in tune scale before, now adjacent notes
were slightly out of tune with each other,.. the second space A
slightly sharp,the B a little flat, the C in tune, the 4th line D,D#
and E very sharp, the F in tune, the F# a bit flat,....etc. It occured
to me that perhaps in the process of refacing a piece, even just a
subtle touch-up, that a certain amount of chamber volume has to be
lost from the original piece and although it may seem an insignificant
amount of the chamber volume percentage-wise, perhaps it doesn't take
much to create these subtle intonation effects. I guess my question is
whether or not most refacers take this into account when refacing and
make attempts to regain the chamber volume by maybe slightly "hogging"
out the back portion of the piece ( so as not to alter the timbre of
the piece)or use some other technique to regain the chamber volume? I
studied as a classically trained player under a student of Mule so
perhaps I'm just a lot more picky about the intonation issue than the
average bear,....    but I thought it would be an interesting question
to pose to the group. Thanks for all the insight this group
provides,...    not only to refacers and those in training, but also
to players who are looking for answers as well.

The amount of chamber volume removed during refacing is very little.  I have never noticed a problem.
   
  Paul

framytuck <framytuck@...> wrote:
          just a quick theoretical question for the group. I, in the not too
distant past, found myself in the position of having to have my
favorite old selmer longshank alto piece refaced due to about 30
years of wear.From that point on I started experiencing intonation
difficulties with the piece that had not been there before. The piece
was not altered from the original specs; the intention was to try to
restore it back to what should have been its original facing.Other
than the intonation difficulties, it came back responding and playing
quite well. The intonation problems were not glaring; just seemed that
many notes had to be slightly favored now.Where before the horn had
played a relatively very well in tune scale before, now adjacent notes
were slightly out of tune with each other,.. the second space A
slightly sharp,the B a little flat, the C in tune, the 4th line D,D#
and E very sharp, the F in tune, the F# a bit flat,....etc. It occured
to me that perhaps in the process of refacing a piece, even just a
subtle touch-up, that a certain amount of chamber volume has to be
lost from the original piece and although it may seem an insignificant
amount of the chamber volume percentage-wise, perhaps it doesn't take
much to create these subtle intonation effects. I guess my question is
whether or not most refacers take this into account when refacing and
make attempts to regain the chamber volume by maybe slightly "hogging"
out the back portion of the piece ( so as not to alter the timbre of
the piece)or use some other technique to regain the chamber volume? I
studied as a classically trained player under a student of Mule so
perhaps I'm just a lot more picky about the intonation issue than the
average bear,.... but I thought it would be an interesting question
to pose to the group. Thanks for all the insight this group
provides,... not only to refacers and those in training, but also
to players who are looking for answers as well.



         


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@...
       
---------------------------------
Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! FareChase.

My first guess (as a player who has had numerous mouthpieces refaced,
not as a refacer), would be that the mouthpiece now has a different
resistance -probably less- and that is affecting how you voice to
compensate for the pitch.  In other words, you are still trying to
control the pitch the way it *used to* play.


--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "framytuck" <framytuck@...> wrote:
>
> just a quick theoretical question for the group. I, in the not too
> distant past, found myself in the position of having to have my
> favorite old selmer longshank  alto piece refaced due to about 30
> years of wear.From that point on I started experiencing intonation
> difficulties with the piece that had not been there before. The piece
> was not altered from the original specs; the intention was to try to
> restore it back to what should have been its original facing.Other
> than the intonation difficulties, it came back responding and playing
> quite well. The intonation problems were not glaring; just seemed that
> many notes had to be slightly favored now.Where before the horn had
> played a relatively very well in tune scale before, now adjacent notes
> were slightly out of tune with each other,.. the second space A
> slightly sharp,the B a little flat, the C in tune, the 4th line D,D#
> and E very sharp, the F in tune, the F# a bit flat,....etc. It occured
> to me that perhaps in the process of refacing a piece, even just a
> subtle touch-up, that a certain amount of chamber volume has to be
> lost from the original piece and although it may seem an insignificant
> amount of the chamber volume percentage-wise, perhaps it doesn't take
> much to create these subtle intonation effects. I guess my question is
> whether or not most refacers take this into account when refacing and
> make attempts to regain the chamber volume by maybe slightly "hogging"
> out the back portion of the piece ( so as not to alter the timbre of
> the piece)or use some other technique to regain the chamber volume? I
> studied as a classically trained player under a student of Mule so
> perhaps I'm just a lot more picky about the intonation issue than the
> average bear,....    but I thought it would be an interesting question
> to pose to the group. Thanks for all the insight this group
> provides,...    not only to refacers and those in training, but also
> to players who are looking for answers as well.
>

--- planosax <awholley@...> wrote:

> My first guess (as a player who has had numerous mouthpieces refaced,
> not as a refacer), would be that the mouthpiece now has a different
> resistance -probably less- and that is affecting how you voice to
> compensate for the pitch.  In other words, you are still trying to
> control the pitch the way it *used to* play.
> 
> 

This is my thought too.  You may have 30 years of subtle muscle memory to
overcome in your embouchure.

As a test you can put a pea-sized amouth of temporary putty inside the
mouthpiece to get a feel for what a small amount of chamber volume change
does to the intonation.  The change, if any, should make the high notes
flatter and the low notes sharper.  Chamber volume can not target one or
several notes in the middle of the range.


       
____________________________________________________________________________________Sick sense of humor? Visit Yahoo! TV's 
Comedy with an Edge to see what's on, when. 
http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/222