HI!

I joined this forum several months ago thinking that I would
like to work on my own mouthpieces. After reading, here,
how many factors are involved, I decided this strange art is 
best left to the experts. However, I did want to understand
some of the underlying theory and be able to communicate
intelligently with a future mouthpiece technician expert.

I am trying, first, to understand how the CHAMBER affects 
the mouthpiece. So, let's see if I can determine the infamous
"missing-cone-volume" of my horn.

Assumptions:

     1. That I correctly understand the theory that I have read.

     2. That the thickness of my bore-wall is uniform.

     3. That my sax bore, where the inserted-neck-ends (INE)
        to the joint of the elbow, is, physically, a truncated
        cone (EXcluding tone holes). 

     4. That the horn from the INE to the bell (INcluding tone
        holes) acts, acoustically, like a truncated cone.
    
I took a look at my neck. It has a doubly-bent, quasi-conic
section bounded by cylindrical sections. Certainly not a cone!
I decided that I should consider the neck as associated with
my non-conic mouthpiece, rather than with the conic bore. 
Therefore, my neck-plus-mouthpiece would be considered as
providing the missing-volume of what be an imaginary cone 
whose base starts on the bore at the INE.

I made three, erasable, marks on the bore:

     1. At the INE, called: Dt

     2. At a point just above the elbow joint, called: Db

     3. At a point half way between Dt and Db, called Dm.

Measured the outside diameter of the bore at the three marks.

Checked for conicity on that part of the bore: Dm = (Dt + Db)/2. 

Measured the distance from Dt to Db along the bore, called Lb.

Measured the inside diameter of the bottom of my neck, called Dn.

Let La = √ {Lb²- [(Db – Dt)/2]²}     (Pythagoras)

Let the distance from the Db mark and the missing cone apex be Lt.*

Using the sin of the conicity-angle relationships,

  Lt = Db * La/ Db – Dt.

Let the height of the missing volume from the Dt mark = Lv

  Lv = Lt – La

and the missing volume:
 
  Vm = 0.262Dn² * Lv


* Important when determining the placement of octave vents, etc.  


Please point out my errors and express your reservations and 
skepticism.

jim

It gets trickier.
   
  The low register tunes by having the mouthpiece such that the volume of the chamber + bore past the neck cork is equal to the missing conical section.
   
  But the upper register is also tuned by length.
   
  This is why you can have a very large chamber mouthpiece, which must be pushed far onto the cork to tune the tenor's or sopranos middle C that then plays sharp in the top notes of the upper register.
   
  Or if a small chamber mouthpiece is used, it must be pulled far out on the cork, about to fall off, and plays flat in the palm key notes.
   
  Paul

perksjim <mcbop@...> wrote:
          
HI!

I joined this forum several months ago thinking that I would
like to work on my own mouthpieces. After reading, here,
how many factors are involved, I decided this strange art is 
best left to the experts. However, I did want to understand
some of the underlying theory and be able to communicate
intelligently with a future mouthpiece technician expert.

I am trying, first, to understand how the CHAMBER affects 
the mouthpiece. So, let's see if I can determine the infamous
"missing-cone-volume" of my horn.

Assumptions:

1. That I correctly understand the theory that I have read.

2. That the thickness of my bore-wall is uniform.

3. That my sax bore, where the inserted-neck-ends (INE)
to the joint of the elbow, is, physically, a truncated
cone (EXcluding tone holes). 

4. That the horn from the INE to the bell (INcluding tone
holes) acts, acoustically, like a truncated cone.

I took a look at my neck. It has a doubly-bent, quasi-conic
section bounded by cylindrical sections. Certainly not a cone!
I decided that I should consider the neck as associated with
my non-conic mouthpiece, rather than with the conic bore. 
Therefore, my neck-plus-mouthpiece would be considered as
providing the missing-volume of what be an imaginary cone 
whose base starts on the bore at the INE.

I made three, erasable, marks on the bore:

1. At the INE, called: Dt

2. At a point just above the elbow joint, called: Db

3. At a point half way between Dt and Db, called Dm.

Measured the outside diameter of the bore at the three marks.

Checked for conicity on that part of the bore: Dm = (Dt + Db)/2. 

Measured the distance from Dt to Db along the bore, called Lb.

Measured the inside diameter of the bottom of my neck, called Dn.

Let La = √ {Lb�- [(Db � Dt)/2]�} (Pythagoras)

Let the distance from the Db mark and the missing cone apex be Lt.*

Using the sin of the conicity-angle relationships,

Lt = Db * La/ Db � Dt.

Let the height of the missing volume from the Dt mark = Lv

Lv = Lt � La

and the missing volume:

Vm = 0.262Dn� * Lv

* Important when determining the placement of octave vents, etc. 

Please point out my errors and express your reservations and 
skepticism.

jim



         


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@...
       
---------------------------------
Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows.
Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.

so paul are you saying that the chamber is a cone within itself ??

       
---------------------------------
Shape Yahoo! in your own image.  Join our Network Research Panel today!

It's VERY tricky! It's about volume: the cubic capacity of the tone chamber
should equal the cubic capacity of the missing portion of the truncated cone
of the neck. That's an extremely simplistic explanation. The truth of the
matter is that a saxophone is really a series of four cones with different
tapers (neck, body, bow, and bell).

  _____  

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Paul C.
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 1:15 PM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Missing Cone Volume




It gets trickier.
 
The low register tunes by having the mouthpiece such that the volume of the
chamber + bore past the neck cork is equal to the missing conical section.
 
But the upper register is also tuned by length.
 
This is why you can have a very large chamber mouthpiece, which must be
pushed far onto the cork to tune the tenor's or sopranos middle C that then
plays sharp in the top notes of the upper register.
 
Or if a small chamber mouthpiece is used, it must be pulled far out on the
cork, about to fall off, and plays flat in the palm key notes.
 
Paul

perksjim <mcbop@...> wrote:


HI!

I joined this forum several months ago thinking that I would
like to work on my own mouthpieces. After reading, here,
how many factors are involved, I decided this strange art is 
best left to the experts. However, I did want to understand
some of the underlying theory and be able to communicate
intelligently with a future mouthpiece technician expert.

I am trying, first, to understand how the CHAMBER affects 
the mouthpiece. So, let's see if I can determine the infamous
"missing-cone-volume" of my horn.

Assumptions:

1. That I correctly understand the theory that I have read.

2. That the thickness of my bore-wall is uniform.

3. That my sax bore, where the inserted-neck-ends (INE)
to the joint of the elbow, is, physically, a truncated
cone (EXcluding tone holes). 

4. That the horn from the INE to the bell (INcluding tone
holes) acts, acoustically, like a truncated cone.

I took a look at my neck. It has a doubly-bent, quasi-conic
section bounded by cylindrical sections. Certainly not a cone!
I decided that I should consider the neck as associated with
my non-conic mouthpiece, rather than with the conic bore. 
Therefore, my neck-plus-mouthpiece would be considered as
providing the missing-volume of what be an imaginary cone 
whose base starts on the bore at the INE.

I made three, erasable, marks on the bore:

1. At the INE, called: Dt

2. At a point just above the elbow joint, called: Db

3. At a point half way between Dt and Db, called Dm.

Measured the outside diameter of the bore at the three marks.

Checked for conicity on that part of the bore: Dm = (Dt + Db)/2. 

Measured the distance from Dt to Db along the bore, called Lb.

Measured the inside diameter of the bottom of my neck, called Dn.

Let La = √ {Lb²- [(Db – Dt)/2]²} (Pythagoras)

Let the distance from the Db mark and the missing cone apex be Lt.*

Using the sin of the conicity-angle relationships,

Lt = Db * La/ Db – Dt.

Let the height of the missing volume from the Dt mark = Lv

Lv = Lt – La

and the missing volume:

Vm = 0.262Dn² * Lv

* Important when determining the placement of octave vents, etc. 

Please point out my errors and express your reservations and 
skepticism.

jim






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@... 


  _____  

Be a better Globetrotter. Get
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48254/*http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/_ylc=X3oDMTI
5MGx2aThyBF9TAzIxMTU1MDAzNTIEX3MDMzk2NTQ1MTAzBHNlYwNCQUJwaWxsYXJfTklfMzYwBHN
sawNQcm9kdWN0X3F1ZXN0aW9uX3BhZ2U-?link=list&sid=396545469> better travel
answers from someone who knows.
Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. 

 

I was wondering if the size of the chamber exceeding the size of the neck is a problem?  Or, should the size of the chamber (of the mouthpiece) lead conically into the size of the neck?
 
---------------------------------
 Get your own web address.
 Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business.

[ Attachment content not displayed ]

"so paul are you saying that the chamber is a cone within itself ??"
   
   
  Not at all!  
   
  To tune the low register, the volume inside the mouthpiece, not just the chamber, but also any of the bore past the end of the neck cork (which is also part of the chamber volume) must be equal to the volume of the missing conical section.
   
  BUT the nodes and antinodes lay differently for the upper register.  The upper register is also affected by the length of the mouthpiece chamber.
   
  Here is what happens... and this is easily demonstrated.
   
  If you will notice, the old large chamber mouthpieces are almost always "short shank" types.  There is a good reason.  They have so much volume that to tune the low register they must be pushed very far onto the neck cork. 
   
  (I use the example of tuning tenor or soprano saxophones, because they are usually tuned to concert Bb or A in the low register, using the middle C or B of these saxes.  Altos usually tune to their upper register G or F# and have a different set of intonation problems that result)
   
  But with modern saxophones these large chamber mouthpieces are now too short.  The palm key notes in the upper register are very sharp.
   
  Now remove the old large chamber mouthpiece and replace it with a very small chamber mouthpiece.  The opposite effect occurs.  The low register is tuned, but to do that the mouthpiece must be pulled out quite far.  Unless the shank is made long the mouthpiece will be "falling off the neck cork".  The low register is in tune, but the palm key notes, now affected by the long mouthpiece volume, are flat.  A change of length affects the short tubing notes more than the long tubing notes as a percentage of change of tubing length.
   
  So, to fix the first problem, chamber too large, one must fill in some of that bulbous, overlarge chamber.  One way of doing this is to solder an extension to the end of the neckpipe.  Another is to fill in the chamber, with an epoxy putty or other material.
   
  For the second problem, chamber too small, it must be enlarged.  Some manufacturers do this by extending the bore further into the chamber area, so the mouthpiece then takes on the appearance of a high baffle mouthpiece when it really isn't, or a "bullet chamber".  
   
  What about the alto sax?  It is usually tuned to the upper register.  A "large classical chamber" mouthpiece, if too large, will make the palm keys play sharp.  And since it was tuned to the upper register, the low register will play flat.  We have all seen this.  
   
  The Selmer S90 had too large a chamber.  The old Soloist is just right, and plays very well in tune throughout the entire range on most saxes.
   
  A mouthpiece with the correct length to volume ratio is what is needed.  
   
  Hogging out the bore or chamber of a mouthpiece does not make it more "free blowing".  That is done by having an accurate facing curve, good tip rail that is neither too thin or too thick, and well contoured rollover baffle, not concave.
   
  Paul
  

arnold montgomery <ammouthpieces@...> wrote:
            so paul are you saying that the chamber is a cone within itself ??
    
---------------------------------
  Shape Yahoo! in your own image. Join our Network Research Panel today!   

         


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@...
       
---------------------------------
Got a little couch potato? 
Check out fun summer activities for kids.

Yes and yes. The effect is rather small, for instance a tube curving back on itself 180 degrees in a relatively tight curve (like a sax bow) increases the effective diameter by a couple of percent for the length of the curve. Many makers slightly decrease the bore diameter at that point to
 compensate. 
   
  Those effects are so small that they barely affect the question of cone truncation. Almost no modern mouthpiece is even in the ball park in terms of accurately mimicking the cone-truncation volume, as this calls for a rather large chamber, like old mpcs. In addition there is a second-order
 correction needed for high notes, which has to do with the Helmholtz resonance frequency of the mpc. This is governed by the ratio of the internal volume to the throat diameter. Nederveen has a very good section on all this in his book, and says that sops especially could be much improved in
 intonation if the truncation ratio were reduced.
   
  Toby

Matthew August Stohrer <abadcliche@...> wrote:
          Doesn't a curve in the bore have the same effect as enlarging the bore at that curved point?  And doesn't that effect increase as the radius of the curve decreases? 

If that is so, then it is impossible to accurately measure the missing volume of the cone based on measurements of the neck unless this effect is accounted for, because the volume of the neck bore (or bow bore, or to a lesser extent the bell bore) will effectively be greater than the actual
 measurements.  

Does anyone know more about this?



  On 7/5/07, arnold montgomery <ammouthpieces@... > wrote:            
I was wondering if the size of the chamber exceeding the size of the neck is a problem?  Or, should the size of the chamber (of the mouthpiece) lead conically into the size of the neck?
  
  
---------------------------------
  Get your own web address.
Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business.  
  








-- 
matt stohrer
www.stohrerwoodwinds.com   

         
 

You are making a huge mistake. The truncation ratio is the length of the missing section at the top of the neck as a fraction of the total length of the tube, from the end of the neck to the end of the bell. Small discrepancies in conicity can be effectively ignored. You can even make a sax out of
 stepped cylindrical sections that will effectively act as a cone and sound just like a sax, with a slight loss in acoustic efficiency and increase in turbulence.

perksjim <mcbop@...> wrote:          
HI!

I joined this forum several months ago thinking that I would
like to work on my own mouthpieces. After reading, here,
how many factors are involved, I decided this strange art is 
best left to the experts. However, I did want to understand
some of the underlying theory and be able to communicate
intelligently with a future mouthpiece technician expert.

I am trying, first, to understand how the CHAMBER affects 
the mouthpiece. So, let's see if I can determine the infamous
"missing-cone-volume" of my horn.

Assumptions:

1. That I correctly understand the theory that I have read.

2. That the thickness of my bore-wall is uniform.

3. That my sax bore, where the inserted-neck-ends (INE)
to the joint of the elbow, is, physically, a truncated
cone (EXcluding tone holes). 

4. That the horn from the INE to the bell (INcluding tone
holes) acts, acoustically, like a truncated cone.

I took a look at my neck. It has a doubly-bent, quasi-conic
section bounded by cylindrical sections. Certainly not a cone!
I decided that I should consider the neck as associated with
my non-conic mouthpiece, rather than with the conic bore. 
Therefore, my neck-plus-mouthpiece would be considered as
providing the missing-volume of what be an imaginary cone 
whose base starts on the bore at the INE.

I made three, erasable, marks on the bore:

1. At the INE, called: Dt

2. At a point just above the elbow joint, called: Db

3. At a point half way between Dt and Db, called Dm.

Measured the outside diameter of the bore at the three marks.

Checked for conicity on that part of the bore: Dm = (Dt + Db)/2. 

Measured the distance from Dt to Db along the bore, called Lb.

Measured the inside diameter of the bottom of my neck, called Dn.

Let La = √ {Lb$B!&(B [(Db $B!&(BDt)/2]$B1\(B (Pythagoras)

Let the distance from the Db mark and the missing cone apex be Lt.*

Using the sin of the conicity-angle relationships,

Lt = Db * La/ Db $B!&(BDt.

Let the height of the missing volume from the Dt mark = Lv

Lv = Lt $B!&(BLa

and the missing volume:

Vm = 0.262Dn$B!&(B* Lv

* Important when determining the placement of octave vents, etc. 

Please point out my errors and express your reservations and 
skepticism.

jim



         
 

WOW! Paul thanks so much.  That helped out a ton.

       
---------------------------------
Shape Yahoo! in your own image.  Join our Network Research Panel today!

Thanks for the response.

Paul says

   "It gets trickier."

I hope that from the tone of my first paragraph that I acknowledge 
that.


Tony says:

"You are making a huge mistake. The truncation ratio is the length of 
the missing section at the top of the neck as a fraction of the total 
length of the tube, from the end of the neck to the end of the bell. 
Small discrepancies in conicity can be effectively ignored. You can 
even make a sax out of stepped cylindrical sections that will 
effectively act as a cone and sound just like a sax, with a slight 
loss in acoustic efficiency and increase in turbulence."

Is my mistake in the model/math or in the waste of time on something 
that is of no practical importance? For my taste, the quality of the 
sound is largely determined by how close the partials are to 
harmonics; but even if this missing-volume stuff has no perceived 
effect on this, I still want to understand the theory.

I have read here some frustrations with trying to correlate 
calculated missing-volume with reality. I am suggesting that the neck 
is a poor indicator of the horns conicity; that it should be a part 
of the conic missing-volume, and that the bore should be used for 
conic measurements. Oh, and we haven't even mentioned the 
added "acoustical" volume of a vibrating reed!

If preserving conicity (as I believe) is important, then I want my 
reed, my mouthpiece and my neck to participate. Therefore, since they 
are not geometric cones, I want them to imitate an acoustic cone. The 
first requirement is that this geometric volume equals the conic 
missing-volume. At low frequencies, the actual shape of this volume 
is less important than it is at higher frequencies. At higher 
frequencies it becomes more important that the acoustic length should 
match the LENGTH (height) of the missing cone (from the bottom of the 
neck to the missing apex). This length, my calculated Lv, can be used 
to determine the frequency that the mouthpiece and neck should sound 
in order to achieve this requirement. 
         Frs45/2Lv. 

In my original: "√" should be "square root"
 

jim
 
 
 











 

>>>>
I have read here some frustrations with trying to correlate 
calculated missing-volume with reality. I am suggesting that the neck 
is a poor indicator of the horns conicity; that it should be a part 
of the conic missing-volume, and that the bore should be used for 
conic measurements. 
<<<<

Most saxes are not true cones.  They are somewhat parabolic.  So the
missing volume based on the neck taper would be smaller than based on the
body taper.

I tried once to verify if where I tune my mouthpieces on my saxes agrees
with theory.  I could not and the differences were not off in a systematic
direction.  Some were high and some were low.  On the order of +/- 10 mm. 
A few were within 2 mm.

Has anyone else actually measured their mouthpiece volume using water,
subtracted the amount of volume overlapping the cork, and compared it to a
calculation of the missing cone volume?


       
____________________________________________________________________________________
Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games.
http://get.games.yahoo.com/proddesc?gamekey=monopolyherenow  

In case anyone is interested, the fact is that the volume of the mouthpiece doesn't really matter until the length of the truncation is equal to or larger than 1/4 the wavelength of the note being sounded. After that point if the volume of the mpc does not match the volume of the truncated portion
 of the cone nasty things begin to happen to the intonation. There is a further adjustment for the highest notes having to do with the Helmholtz resonance of the mpc. This is adjusted by changing the throat diameter, which unfortunately cannot really be done on saxes since that is fixed so that
 the mpc will fit on the neck. It could be done  with a throat insert if the mpc position did not vary on the cork, but obviously this is not really possible.

Toby 

"Paul C." <tenorman1952@...> wrote:                                  
"so paul are you saying that the chamber is a cone within itself ??"
   
   
  Not at all!  
   
  To tune the low register, the volume inside the mouthpiece, not just the chamber, but also any of the bore past the end of the neck cork (which is also part of the chamber volume) must be equal to the volume of the missing conical section.
   
  BUT the nodes and antinodes lay differently for the upper register.  The upper register is also affected by the length of the mouthpiece chamber.
   
  Here is what happens... and this is easily demonstrated.
   
  If you will notice, the old large chamber mouthpieces are almost always "short shank" types.  There is a good reason.  They have so much volume that to tune the low register they must be pushed very far onto the neck cork. 
   
  (I  use the example of tuning tenor or soprano saxophones, because they are usually tuned to concert Bb or A in the low register, using the middle C or B of these saxes.  Altos usually tune to their upper register G or F# and have a different set of intonation problems that result)
   
  But with modern saxophones these large chamber mouthpieces are now too short.  The palm key notes in the upper register are very sharp.
   
  Now remove the old large chamber mouthpiece and replace it with a very small chamber mouthpiece.  The opposite effect occurs.  The low register is tuned, but to do that the mouthpiece must be pulled out quite far.  Unless the shank is made long the mouthpiece will be "falling off the neck cork".
  The low register is in tune, but the palm key notes, now affected by the long mouthpiece volume, are flat.  A change of length affects the short tubing notes more than the long  tubing notes as a percentage of change of tubing length.
   
  So, to fix the first problem, chamber too large, one must fill in some of that bulbous, overlarge chamber.  One way of doing this is to solder an extension to the end of the neckpipe.  Another is to fill in the chamber, with an epoxy putty or other material.
   
  For the second problem, chamber too small, it must be enlarged.  Some manufacturers do this by extending the bore further into the chamber area, so the mouthpiece then takes on the appearance of a high baffle mouthpiece when it really isn't, or a "bullet chamber".  
   
  What about the alto sax?  It is usually tuned to the upper register.  A "large classical chamber" mouthpiece, if too large, will make the palm keys play sharp.  And since it was tuned to the upper register, the low register will play flat.  We have all seen  this.  
   
  The Selmer S90 had too large a chamber.  The old Soloist is just right, and plays very well in tune throughout the entire range on most saxes.
   
  A mouthpiece with the correct length to volume ratio is what is needed.  
   
  Hogging out the bore or chamber of a mouthpiece does not make it more "free blowing".  That is done by having an accurate facing curve, good tip rail that is neither too thin or too thick, and well contoured rollover baffle, not concave.
   
  Paul
  

arnold montgomery <ammouthpieces@...> wrote:
        so paul are you saying that the chamber is a cone within itself ??
    
---------------------------------
  Shape Yahoo! in your own image. Join our Network Research Panel today!   






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@...        

---------------------------------
Got a little couch potato? 
 Check out fun summer activities for kids.
     
                       
 

What I meant is that you cannot leave the neck out of the equation just because its angle of conicity may be slightly different from the rest of the body or the fact that the tenon is cylindrical. You can forget your ideal cone from the get-go: not only is the end truncated, which throws off the
 harmonics, but the added compliance of all those tonehole chimneys makes things a real mess. By way of example, a concert flute with no toneholes would actually play C# instead of C--the tonehole compliances effectively lengthen the bore by a semitone! 

By the time you get a mpc and keys on a sax cone it is far from an ideal bore. At this point manufacturers have various tricks that can be used to somewhat get things back into line, and the major one is to change the bore profile locally to try to get rid of the worst of the tuning problems
 without introducing major new ones. 

So there you are. It is a mess from the beginning, and it will never, ever be anything like correct, not to mention other acoustic effects like end correction and problems having to do with reed compliance, etc. The best you are ever going to do is to get it in the ball park, and for that you
 simply take the length of the sax from the end of the bell to the end of the neck. Based on the general angle of conicity, extend the cone from the end of the neck until it comes to a point. The volume is 1/3(area of base)(height) of that imaginary portion. The height (length) of the truncated
 portion divided by the length of the entire real sax plus that imaginary part that comes to a point is the truncation ratio, expressed as a percentage. 

So if a sax is 90cm long from end of bell to end of neck, and the sax would actually be 1meter long if you extended it out to a point, the truncated part would be 10cm, and the truncation ratio would be 10%. IIRC truncation ratios of saxes are usually about 5-7%. Sops have higher truncation ratios
 than other sizes, which is one of the main reasons that they are so out of tune.

Toby 

perksjim <mcbop@...> wrote:                                  
 Thanks for the response.
 
 Paul says
 
 "It gets trickier."
 
 I hope that from the tone of my first paragraph that I acknowledge 
 that.
 
 Tony says:
 
 "You are making a huge mistake. The truncation ratio is the length of 
 the missing section at the top of the neck as a fraction of the total 
 length of the tube, from the end of the neck to the end of the bell. 
 Small discrepancies in conicity can be effectively ignored. You can 
 even make a sax out of stepped cylindrical sections that will 
 effectively act as a cone and sound just like a sax, with a slight 
 loss in acoustic efficiency and increase in turbulence."
 
 Is my mistake in the model/math or in the waste of time on something 
 that is of no practical importance? For my taste, the quality of the 
 sound is largely determined by how close the partials are to 
 harmonics; but even if this missing-volume stuff has no perceived 
 effect on this, I still want to understand the theory.
 
 I have read here some frustrations with trying to correlate 
 calculated missing-volume with reality. I am suggesting that the neck 
 is a poor indicator of the horns conicity; that it should be a part 
 of the conic missing-volume, and that the bore should be used for 
 conic measurements. Oh, and we haven't even mentioned the 
 added "acoustical" volume of a vibrating reed!
 
 If preserving conicity (as I believe) is important, then I want my 
 reed, my mouthpiece and my neck to participate. Therefore, since they 
 are not geometric cones, I want them to imitate an acoustic cone. The 
 first requirement is that this geometric volume equals the conic 
 missing-volume. At low frequencies, the actual shape of this volume 
 is less important than it is at higher frequencies. At higher 
 frequencies it becomes more important that the acoustic length should 
 match the LENGTH (height) of the missing cone (from the bottom of the 
 neck to the missing apex). This length, my calculated Lv, can be used 
 to determine the frequency that the mouthpiece and neck should sound 
 in order to achieve this requirement. 
          Frs45/2Lv. 
 
 In my original: "√" should be "square root"
  
 
 jim
  
  
  
 
 
     
                       
 

As you have already surmised, mpc volume changes quite significanly depending on its position on the cork. So as soon as you add temperature variation into the mix, everything goes nuts. Add to this the fact that at cold ambient temperatures, the differential between the warm top of the horn and
 the cold bottom of the horn creates significant intonational differences between short and long tube notes.

Toby

Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:                                  >>>>
 I have read here some frustrations with trying to correlate 
 calculated missing-volume with reality. I am suggesting that the neck 
 is a poor indicator of the horns conicity; that it should be a part 
 of the conic missing-volume, and that the bore should be used for 
 conic measurements. 
 <<<<
 
 Most saxes are not true cones.  They are somewhat parabolic.  So the
 missing volume based on the neck taper would be smaller than based on the
 body taper.
 
 I tried once to verify if where I tune my mouthpieces on my saxes agrees
 with theory.  I could not and the differences were not off in a systematic
 direction.  Some were high and some were low.  On the order of +/- 10 mm. 
 A few were within 2 mm.
 
 Has anyone else actually measured their mouthpiece volume using water,
 subtracted the amount of volume overlapping the cork, and compared it to a
 calculation of the missing cone volume?
 
 __________________________________________________________
 Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games.
 http://get.games.yahoo.com/proddesc?gamekey=monopolyherenow  
 
     
                       
 

As a practical matter, once the mouthpiece is playing as the designer wants, he simply adjusts the chamber volume, as I outlined previously, to get acceptable octave to octave intonation, and where the palm keys do not go flat or sharp in the upper register.
   
  Paul

kymarto123@... wrote:
          What I meant is that you cannot leave the neck out of the equation just because its angle of conicity may be slightly different from the rest of the body or the fact that the tenon is cylindrical. You can forget your ideal cone from the get-go: not only is the end truncated, which throws off the harmonics, but the added compliance of all those tonehole chimneys makes things a real mess. By way of example, a concert flute with no toneholes would actually play C# instead of C--the tonehole compliances effectively lengthen the bore by a semitone! 

By the time you get a mpc and keys on a sax cone it is far from an ideal bore. At this point manufacturers have various tricks that can be used to somewhat get things back into line, and the major one is to change the bore profile locally to try to get rid of the worst of the tuning problems without introducing major new ones. 

So there you are. It is a mess from the beginning, and it will never, ever be anything like correct, not to mention other acoustic effects like end correction and problems having to do with reed compliance, etc. The best you are ever going to do is to get it in the ball park, and for that you simply take the length of the sax from the end of the bell to the end of the neck. Based on the general angle of conicity, extend the cone from the end of the neck until it comes to a point. The volume is 1/3(area of base)(height) of that imaginary portion. The height (length) of the truncated portion divided by the length of the entire real sax plus that imaginary part that comes to a point is the truncation ratio, expressed as a percentage. 

So if a sax is 90cm long from end of bell to end of neck, and the sax would actually be 1meter long if you extended it out to a point, the truncated part would be 10cm, and the truncation ratio would be 10%. IIRC truncation ratios of saxes are usually about 5-7%. Sops have higher truncation ratios than other sizes, which is one of the main reasons that they are so out of tune.

Toby 

perksjim <mcbop@...> wrote:      
Thanks for the response.

Paul says

"It gets trickier."

I hope that from the tone of my first paragraph that I acknowledge 
that.

Tony says:

"You are making a huge mistake. The truncation ratio is the length of 
the missing section at the top of the neck as a fraction of the total 
length of the tube, from the end of the neck to the end of the bell. 
Small discrepancies in conicity can be effectively ignored. You can 
even make a sax out of stepped cylindrical sections that will 
effectively act as a cone and sound just like a sax, with a slight 
loss in acoustic efficiency and increase in turbulence."

Is my mistake in the model/math or in the waste of time on something 
that is of no practical importance? For my taste, the quality of the 
sound is largely determined by how close the partials are to 
harmonics; but even if this missing-volume stuff has no perceived 
effect on this, I still want to understand the theory.

I have read here some frustrations with trying to correlate 
calculated missing-volume with reality. I am suggesting that the neck 
is a poor indicator of the horns conicity; that it should be a part 
of the conic missing-volume, and that the bore should be used for 
conic measurements. Oh, and we haven't even mentioned the 
added "acoustical" volume of a vibrating reed!

If preserving conicity (as I believe) is important, then I want my 
reed, my mouthpiece and my neck to participate. Therefore, since they 
are not geometric cones, I want them to imitate an acoustic cone. The 
first requirement is that this geometric volume equals the conic 
missing-volume. At low frequencies, the actual shape of this volume 
is less important than it is at higher frequencies. At higher 
frequencies it becomes more important that the acoustic length should 
match the LENGTH (height) of the missing cone (from the bottom of the 
neck to the missing apex). This length, my calculated Lv, can be used 
to determine the frequency that the mouthpiece and neck should sound 
in order to achieve this requirement. 
Frs45/2Lv. 

In my original: "√" should be "square root"


jim







  
  

         


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@...
       
---------------------------------
Choose the right car based on your needs.  Check out Yahoo! Autos new Car Finder tool.

Yes, it is amazing the damn thing (saxophone, clarinet, whatever) plays at all.  
   
  But with modern improvements we are getting close.
   
  Paul

kymarto123@... wrote:
          As you have already surmised, mpc volume changes quite significanly depending on its position on the cork. So as soon as you add temperature variation into the mix, everything goes nuts. Add to this the fact that at cold ambient temperatures, the differential between the warm top of the horn and the cold bottom of the horn creates significant intonational differences between short and long tube notes.

Toby

Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:      >>>>
I have read here some frustrations with trying to correlate 
calculated missing-volume with reality. I am suggesting that the neck 
is a poor indicator of the horns conicity; that it should be a part 
of the conic missing-volume, and that the bore should be used for 
conic measurements. 
<<<<

Most saxes are not true cones. They are somewhat parabolic. So the
missing volume based on the neck taper would be smaller than based on the
body taper.

I tried once to verify if where I tune my mouthpieces on my saxes agrees
with theory. I could not and the differences were not off in a systematic
direction. Some were high and some were low. On the order of +/- 10 mm. 
A few were within 2 mm.

Has anyone else actually measured their mouthpiece volume using water,
subtracted the amount of volume overlapping the cork, and compared it to a
calculation of the missing cone volume?

__________________________________________________________
Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games.
http://get.games.yahoo.com/proddesc?gamekey=monopolyherenow 



  
  

         


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@...
 
---------------------------------
Be a PS3 game guru.
Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! Games.

 
<<<<
Most saxes are not true cones. They are somewhat parabolic. So the
missing volume based on the neck taper would be smaller than based on 
the body taper.
>>>>>

Are you suggesting that the neck may be parabolic, but the body is 
less so? I think that is a correct and astute observation.
Scavone writes that the parabolic bore claim is a myth. He has 
examined many saxophones made since the turn of the century and 
cannot detect any parabolic bore shapes. He thinks Sax may have used 
the concept as an aid in securing a patent. 
Additionally, he checked, mathematically, the effect of a small 
amount of parabolic change to a cone, and found the effects 
negligible.



>>>>>
I tried once to verify if where I tune my mouthpieces on my saxes 
agrees with theory. I could not and the differences were not off in a 
systematic direction. Some were high and some were low. On the order 
of +/- 10 mm. 
A few were within 2 mm.
>>>>>

I admire your efforts. This kind of investigation is time-consuming 
and draining.
Are you using Ferron's method? The reason I got interested in this is 
that I thought his method prone to inaccuracies. I am puzzled that 
your deviations are symmetric.
Ferron does not include the concept of the acoustical-volume addition 
of a vibrating reed. This would indicate that your tuned playing 
volume should be less than that calculated with Ferron's method.

I can post my method in Excel if anybody is interested.


<<<<<
Doesn't a curve in the bore have the same effect as enlarging the 
bore at that curved point?  And doesn't that affect increase as the 
radius of the curve decreases? 

If that is so, then it is impossible to accurately measure the 
missing volume of the cone based on measurements of the neck unless 
this effect is accounted for, because the volume of the neck bore (or 
bow bore, or to a lesser extent the bell bore) will effectively be 
greater than the actual measurements.  
>>>>>

Of course! I think you are agreeing with my concerns.

I have been reviewing Toby's comments, being careful to correctly 
understand his premises. In preparing my response to his comments, I 
am trying for a tone that is constructive, census-building, succinct 
and not combatively argumentative.
However, most of the concepts pertain to the horn body. Since this is 
a mouthpiece forum, maybe the members would prefer that Toby and I 
address these matters on another forum. ?????


jim

> Are you suggesting that the neck may be parabolic, but the body is 
> less so? I think that is a correct and astute observation.
> Scavone writes that the parabolic bore claim is a myth. He has 
> examined many saxophones made since the turn of the century and 
> cannot detect any parabolic bore shapes. He thinks Sax may have used 
> the concept as an aid in securing a patent. 
> Additionally, he checked, mathematically, the effect of a small 
> amount of parabolic change to a cone, and found the effects 
> negligible.
> 

I got my info from Ferron's book and I have seen it elsewhere.  Scavone
seems to have done some nice work with his thesis.  I'm surpised at his
measurement findings.  Maybe he has debunked something.

I measured taper only using the neck end diameters.  On my straight Conn
sop, I tried to estimate the ID where the neck separation would have been.




       
____________________________________________________________________________________
Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell. 
http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/

The parabolic bore business is a myth. I've looked for it for years in the
thousands of horns that have passed through my hands, and have yet to find a
parabolic bore among them. The business about Buescher's being parabolic
begs the question: "if they went to the trouble and expense of manufacturing
a parabolic bore, why didn't they advertise the fact?" I've got a huge
collection of old Buescher ads, and the parabolic bore is not mentioned in
any of them. You guys need to quit believing everything your read on the
internet!
 
That being said, I've measured quite a few horns, and there is a surprising
variation in body, neck, bow, and bell tapers on older horns. There's much
less variation among modern manufacturers than there was in horns
manufactured 50 years ago. At last, we seem to have figured out what works.
More importantly, we have finally learned what doesn't work. Modern horns
are much less "mouthpiece fussy" and play much more in tune.

  _____  

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of perksjim
Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2007 2:08 PM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Missing Cone Volume




<<<<
Most saxes are not true cones. They are somewhat parabolic. So the
missing volume based on the neck taper would be smaller than based on 
the body taper.
>>>>>

Are you suggesting that the neck may be parabolic, but the body is 
less so? I think that is a correct and astute observation.
Scavone writes that the parabolic bore claim is a myth. He has 
examined many saxophones made since the turn of the century and 
cannot detect any parabolic bore shapes. He thinks Sax may have used 
the concept as an aid in securing a patent. 
Additionally, he checked, mathematically, the effect of a small 
amount of parabolic change to a cone, and found the effects 
negligible.

>>>>>
I tried once to verify if where I tune my mouthpieces on my saxes 
agrees with theory. I could not and the differences were not off in a 
systematic direction. Some were high and some were low. On the order 
of +/- 10 mm. 
A few were within 2 mm.
>>>>>

I admire your efforts. This kind of investigation is time-consuming 
and draining.
Are you using Ferron's method? The reason I got interested in this is 
that I thought his method prone to inaccuracies. I am puzzled that 
your deviations are symmetric.
Ferron does not include the concept of the acoustical-volume addition 
of a vibrating reed. This would indicate that your tuned playing 
volume should be less than that calculated with Ferron's method.

I can post my method in Excel if anybody is interested.

<<<<<
Doesn't a curve in the bore have the same effect as enlarging the 
bore at that curved point? And doesn't that affect increase as the 
radius of the curve decreases? 

If that is so, then it is impossible to accurately measure the 
missing volume of the cone based on measurements of the neck unless 
this effect is accounted for, because the volume of the neck bore (or 
bow bore, or to a lesser extent the bell bore) will effectively be 
greater than the actual measurements. 
>>>>>

Of course! I think you are agreeing with my concerns.

I have been reviewing Toby's comments, being careful to correctly 
understand his premises. In preparing my response to his comments, I 
am trying for a tone that is constructive, census-building, succinct 
and not combatively argumentative.
However, most of the concepts pertain to the horn body. Since this is 
a mouthpiece forum, maybe the members would prefer that Toby and I 
address these matters on another forum. ?????

jim



 

I think we can only do so much as far as calculating, and it finally gets down to just simply "cut and try".
   
  Also, there are two papers, "Interactions Between Player's Windway and the Air Column of a Musical Instrument", Arthur H. Benade, PhD., and "Vocal Tract Effects in Wind Instrument Regeneration", also by Benade.
   
  So, there is more affecting all of this than just the mouthpiece and instrument.  And the player is still another variable.
   
  Paul

perksjim <mcbop@...> wrote:
          
<<<<
Most saxes are not true cones. They are somewhat parabolic. So the
missing volume based on the neck taper would be smaller than based on 
the body taper.
>>>>>

Are you suggesting that the neck may be parabolic, but the body is 
less so? I think that is a correct and astute observation.
Scavone writes that the parabolic bore claim is a myth. He has 
examined many saxophones made since the turn of the century and 
cannot detect any parabolic bore shapes. He thinks Sax may have used 
the concept as an aid in securing a patent. 
Additionally, he checked, mathematically, the effect of a small 
amount of parabolic change to a cone, and found the effects 
negligible.

>>>>>
I tried once to verify if where I tune my mouthpieces on my saxes 
agrees with theory. I could not and the differences were not off in a 
systematic direction. Some were high and some were low. On the order 
of +/- 10 mm. 
A few were within 2 mm.
>>>>>

I admire your efforts. This kind of investigation is time-consuming 
and draining.
Are you using Ferron's method? The reason I got interested in this is 
that I thought his method prone to inaccuracies. I am puzzled that 
your deviations are symmetric.
Ferron does not include the concept of the acoustical-volume addition 
of a vibrating reed. This would indicate that your tuned playing 
volume should be less than that calculated with Ferron's method.

I can post my method in Excel if anybody is interested.

<<<<<
Doesn't a curve in the bore have the same effect as enlarging the 
bore at that curved point? And doesn't that affect increase as the 
radius of the curve decreases? 

If that is so, then it is impossible to accurately measure the 
missing volume of the cone based on measurements of the neck unless 
this effect is accounted for, because the volume of the neck bore (or 
bow bore, or to a lesser extent the bell bore) will effectively be 
greater than the actual measurements. 
>>>>>

Of course! I think you are agreeing with my concerns.

I have been reviewing Toby's comments, being careful to correctly 
understand his premises. In preparing my response to his comments, I 
am trying for a tone that is constructive, census-building, succinct 
and not combatively argumentative.
However, most of the concepts pertain to the horn body. Since this is 
a mouthpiece forum, maybe the members would prefer that Toby and I 
address these matters on another forum. ?????

jim



         


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@...
       
---------------------------------
Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos & more. 

I think I have in my files just about every dissertation written on
saxophone design and acoustics. Paul correctly observes that there always
comes a point when you have to put the calculator down and build something
to see if it works. I always start with "the math" on my designs, but I have
found time and time again that "the math" will often lead you astray.

  _____  

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Paul C.
Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2007 7:45 PM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Missing Cone Volume




I think we can only do so much as far as calculating, and it finally gets
down to just simply "cut and try".
 
Also, there are two papers, "Interactions Between Player's Windway and the
Air Column of a Musical Instrument", Arthur H. Benade, PhD., and "Vocal
Tract Effects in Wind Instrument Regeneration", also by Benade.
 
So, there is more affecting all of this than just the mouthpiece and
instrument.  And the player is still another variable.
 
Paul

perksjim <mcbop@...> wrote:


<<<<
Most saxes are not true cones. They are somewhat parabolic. So the
missing volume based on the neck taper would be smaller than based on 
the body taper.
>>>>>

Are you suggesting that the neck may be parabolic, but the body is 
less so? I think that is a correct and astute observation.
Scavone writes that the parabolic bore claim is a myth. He has 
examined many saxophones made since the turn of the century and 
cannot detect any parabolic bore shapes. He thinks Sax may have used 
the concept as an aid in securing a patent. 
Additionally, he checked, mathematically, the effect of a small 
amount of parabolic change to a cone, and found the effects 
negligible.

>>>>>
I tried once to verify if where I tune my mouthpieces on my saxes 
agrees with theory. I could not and the differences were not off in a 
systematic direction. Some were high and some were low. On the order 
of +/- 10 mm. 
A few were within 2 mm.
>>>>>

I admire your efforts. This kind of investigation is time-consuming 
and draining.
Are you using Ferron's method? The reason I got interested in this is 
that I thought his method prone to inaccuracies. I am puzzled that 
your deviations are symmetric.
Ferron does not include the concept of the acoustical-volume addition 
of a vibrating reed. This would indicate that your tuned playing 
volume should be less than that calculated with Ferron's method.

I can post my method in Excel if anybody is interested.

<<<<<
Doesn't a curve in the bore have the same effect as enlarging the 
bore at that curved point? And doesn't that affect increase as the 
radius of the curve decreases? 

If that is so, then it is impossible to accurately measure the 
missing volume of the cone based on measurements of the neck unless 
this effect is accounted for, because the volume of the neck bore (or 
bow bore, or to a lesser extent the bell bore) will effectively be 
greater than the actual measurements. 
>>>>>

Of course! I think you are agreeing with my concerns.

I have been reviewing Toby's comments, being careful to correctly 
understand his premises. In preparing my response to his comments, I 
am trying for a tone that is constructive, census-building, succinct 
and not combatively argumentative.
However, most of the concepts pertain to the horn body. Since this is 
a mouthpiece forum, maybe the members would prefer that Toby and I 
address these matters on another forum. ?????

jim






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@... 


  _____  

Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evtH253/*http://mobile.yahoo.com/go?refer=1GNXIC>
in your pocket: mail, news, photos more. 

 

Totally agree. The math gives you a good ballpark starting point, and then the real work begins ;-)

Toby

 STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...> wrote:                                     
I think I have in my files just about every  dissertation written on saxophone design and acoustics. Paul correctly observes  that there always comes a point when you have to put the calculator down and  build something to see if it works. I always start with "the math" on my  designs, but I have
 found time and time again that "the math" will often lead  you astray.

  
---------------------------------
 From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com  [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Paul  C.
Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2007 7:45 PM
To:  MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re:  Missing Cone Volume


 
   
I think we can only do so much as far as calculating, and it finally gets  down to just simply "cut and try".
  
 Also, there are two papers, "Interactions Between Player's Windway and  the Air Column of a Musical Instrument", Arthur H. Benade, PhD., and "Vocal  Tract Effects in Wind Instrument Regeneration", also by Benade.
  
 So, there is more affecting all of this than just the mouthpiece and  instrument.  And the player is still another variable.
  
 Paul

perksjim <mcbop@...>  wrote:
       
<<<<
Most saxes are not true cones. They are somewhat    parabolic. So the
missing volume based on the neck taper would be smaller    than based on 
the body taper.
>>>>>

Are you    suggesting that the neck may be parabolic, but the body is 
less so? I    think that is a correct and astute observation.
Scavone writes that the    parabolic bore claim is a myth. He has 
examined many saxophones made since    the turn of the century and 
cannot detect any parabolic bore shapes. He    thinks Sax may have used 
the concept as an aid in securing a patent.    
Additionally, he checked, mathematically, the effect of a small 
amount    of parabolic change to a cone, and found the effects    
negligible.

>>>>>
I tried once to verify if where    I tune my mouthpieces on my saxes 
agrees with theory. I could not and the    differences were not off in a 
systematic direction. Some were high and    some were low. On the order 
of +/- 10 mm. 
A few were within 2    mm.
>>>>>

I admire your efforts. This kind of    investigation is time-consuming 
and draining.
Are you using Ferron's    method? The reason I got interested in this is 
that I thought his method    prone to inaccuracies. I am puzzled that 
your deviations are    symmetric.
Ferron does not include the concept of the acoustical-volume    addition 
of a vibrating reed. This would indicate that your tuned playing    
volume should be less than that calculated with Ferron's method.

I    can post my method in Excel if anybody is    interested.

<<<<<
Doesn't a curve in the bore have    the same effect as enlarging the 
bore at that curved point? And doesn't    that affect increase as the 
radius of the curve decreases? 

If that    is so, then it is impossible to accurately measure the 
missing volume of    the cone based on measurements of the neck unless 
this effect is accounted    for, because the volume of the neck bore (or 
bow bore, or to a lesser    extent the bell bore) will effectively be 
greater than the actual    measurements. 
>>>>>

Of course! I think you are    agreeing with my concerns.

I have been reviewing Toby's comments, being    careful to correctly 
understand his premises. In preparing my response to    his comments, I 
am trying for a tone that is constructive,    census-building, succinct 
and not combatively argumentative.
However,    most of the concepts pertain to the horn body. Since this is 
a mouthpiece    forum, maybe the members would prefer that Toby and I 
address these    matters on another forum. ?????

jim






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@...  

---------------------------------
 Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet  in your pocket: mail, news, photos more.  

 
     
                       
 

<<<<<
. I always start with "the math" on my designs, but I have found time 
and time again that "the math" will often lead you astray.
>>>>>

I think that it is applaudable that you include math and theoretical 
concepts in your work.

Benade, who, we all know, was a respected theorist, experimenter and 
player, wrote:

".....although saxophones are not quite conical in the physical 
shape, PROPERLY made instruments behave like nearly perfect cones, 
and it is often possible to calculate the the value of Xo {the 
missing cone length} for use in formulas....."  

<<<<<
saxophone is really a series of four cones with different tapers 
(neck, body, bow, and bell).
>>>>>

To summarize my (admittedly limited) understanding:

The sax is designed to be conic because, then, the partials will be 
harmonic (exact integers), and, consequently, will sound pleasant and 
be easy to play. For practical reasons, the horns cannot be made a 
perfect PHYSICAL cone shape. 
As a consequent, horn designers strive to make the instrument behave 
ACOUSTICALLY like a cone. Hence we see: narrowing the bore at a bend, 
making the bell in a short, bessel shape, compensating for tone 
holes, lots of fussing over the neck, and careful shaping of the 
mouthpiece in design and reworking.
The bore body is the part of the sax that most resembles a physical 
cone; and, therefore, if one is going to take measurements in order 
to calculate missing-volume, it is the best part of the sax to use.


<<<<<
Small discrepancies in conicity can be effectively ignored. You can 
even make a sax out of stepped cylindrical sections that will 
effectively act as a cone and sound just like a sax, with a slight 
loss in acoustic efficiency and increase in turbulence.
>>>>>

Scavone analyzed models of a sax made of varying sized cylinders and 
found the results an extremely inaccurate representation. He, then, 
tried a combination of cylinders and cones. The results, although a 
little better, were still poor. For example, the second partial, 
instead of being 314 Hz for harmonicity, was 353 Hz; and the third 
partial, instead of 471 Hz, was 635 Hz. I'd send it back!


<<<<<
In case anyone is interested, the fact is that the volume of the 
mouthpiece doesn't really matter until the length of the truncation 
is equal to or larger than 1/4 the wavelength of the note being 
sounded.
>>>>>

If you take an expert playing a fine sax and have him play a note 
with his best sound, the partials will be close to harmonics. Now 
have him play that same note sharp by increasing his lip pressure. 
The note will not sound good. Why? Because that little bit of mp 
volume reduction has upset the harmonics due to the fact that a 
change in volume causes the second partial to move up to four times 
the fundamental and the third partial nine times the fundamental. 
That is why we are constantly reminded by the experts to strive for a 
constant embouchure over the whole range of the instrument.

<<<<<
In addition there is a second-order correction needed for high notes, 
which has to do with the Helmholtz resonance frequency of the mpc. 
This is governed by the ratio of the internal volume to the throat 
diameter. Nederveen has a very good section on all this in his book, 
and says that sops especially could be much improved in intonation if 
the truncation ratio were reduced.
>>>>>

I haven't read the Nederveen book. On your recommendation I have 
ordered it. It is my understanding that theorists consider the 
mouthpiece as a continuation of the vibrating air column, and not as 
a separate Helmholtz cavity (Jug).


<<<<<
. So as soon as you add temperature variation into the mix, 
everything goes nuts. Add to this the fact that at cold ambient 
temperatures, the differential between the warm top of the horn and 
the cold bottom of the horn creates significant intonational 
differences between short and long tube notes.
>>>>>

Yes. And the ratio of carbon dioxide to oxygen in the breath, the 
day's free testosterone level, the pitch of the piano, etc. Don't 
give up! Sometimes it all, wondrously, comes together.

I have an acoustically designed music room. I listen to how my sax 
sounds to me, how it sounds recorded on a mike positioned to 
represent an audience, and how it sounds recorded by a mike at the 
piano player position (don't want the pianist to be pissed off!!!). 
Now if only all my playing venues were ...........sigh.......


jim

 
 




--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
>
> Totally agree. The math gives you a good ballpark starting point, 
and then the real work begins ;-)
> 
> Toby
> 
>  STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...> 
wrote:                                     
> I think I have in my files just about every  dissertation written 
on saxophone design and acoustics. Paul correctly observes  that 
there always comes a point when you have to put the calculator down 
and  build something to see if it works. I always start with "the 
math" on my  designs, but I have
>  found time and time again that "the math" will often lead  you 
astray.
> 
>   
> ---------------------------------
>  From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com  
[mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Paul  C.
> Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2007 7:45 PM
> To:  MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re:  Missing Cone Volume
> 
> 
>  
>    
> I think we can only do so much as far as calculating, and it 
finally gets  down to just simply "cut and try".
>   
>  Also, there are two papers, "Interactions Between Player's Windway 
and  the Air Column of a Musical Instrument", Arthur H. Benade, PhD., 
and "Vocal  Tract Effects in Wind Instrument Regeneration", also by 
Benade.
>   
>  So, there is more affecting all of this than just the mouthpiece 
and  instrument.  And the player is still another variable.
>   
>  Paul
> 
> perksjim <mcbop@...>  wrote:
>        
> <<<<
> Most saxes are not true cones. They are somewhat    parabolic. So 
the
> missing volume based on the neck taper would be smaller    than 
based on 
> the body taper.
> >>>>>
> 
> Are you    suggesting that the neck may be parabolic, but the body 
is 
> less so? I    think that is a correct and astute observation.
> Scavone writes that the    parabolic bore claim is a myth. He has 
> examined many saxophones made since    the turn of the century and 
> cannot detect any parabolic bore shapes. He    thinks Sax may have 
used 
> the concept as an aid in securing a patent.    
> Additionally, he checked, mathematically, the effect of a small 
> amount    of parabolic change to a cone, and found the effects    
> negligible.
> 
> >>>>>
> I tried once to verify if where    I tune my mouthpieces on my 
saxes 
> agrees with theory. I could not and the    differences were not off 
in a 
> systematic direction. Some were high and    some were low. On the 
order 
> of +/- 10 mm. 
> A few were within 2    mm.
> >>>>>
> 
> I admire your efforts. This kind of    investigation is time-
consuming 
> and draining.
> Are you using Ferron's    method? The reason I got interested in 
this is 
> that I thought his method    prone to inaccuracies. I am puzzled 
that 
> your deviations are    symmetric.
> Ferron does not include the concept of the acoustical-volume    
addition 
> of a vibrating reed. This would indicate that your tuned playing    
> volume should be less than that calculated with Ferron's method.
> 
> I    can post my method in Excel if anybody is    interested.
> 
> <<<<<
> Doesn't a curve in the bore have    the same effect as enlarging 
the 
> bore at that curved point? And doesn't    that affect increase as 
the 
> radius of the curve decreases? 
> 
> If that    is so, then it is impossible to accurately measure the 
> missing volume of    the cone based on measurements of the neck 
unless 
> this effect is accounted    for, because the volume of the neck 
bore (or 
> bow bore, or to a lesser    extent the bell bore) will effectively 
be 
> greater than the actual    measurements. 
> >>>>>
> 
> Of course! I think you are    agreeing with my concerns.
> 
> I have been reviewing Toby's comments, being    careful to 
correctly 
> understand his premises. In preparing my response to    his 
comments, I 
> am trying for a tone that is constructive,    census-building, 
succinct 
> and not combatively argumentative.
> However,    most of the concepts pertain to the horn body. Since 
this is 
> a mouthpiece    forum, maybe the members would prefer that Toby and 
I 
> address these    matters on another forum. ?????
> 
> jim
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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@...  
> 
> ---------------------------------
>  Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet  in your 
pocket: mail, news, photos more.
>

I think this quote REALLY hits on what I was saying about mouthpieces, a correct ratio of volume to length:
   
  "In addition there is a second-order correction needed for high notes, 
which has to do with the Helmholtz resonance frequency of the mpc. 
This is governed by the ratio of the internal volume to the throat 
diameter. Nederveen has a very good section on all this in his book, 
and says that sops especially could be much improved in intonation if 
the truncation ratio were reduced."

  Paul Coats

perksjim <mcbop@...> wrote:
          

<<<<<
. I always start with "the math" on my designs, but I have found time 
and time again that "the math" will often lead you astray.
>>>>>

I think that it is applaudable that you include math and theoretical 
concepts in your work.

Benade, who, we all know, was a respected theorist, experimenter and 
player, wrote:

".....although saxophones are not quite conical in the physical 
shape, PROPERLY made instruments behave like nearly perfect cones, 
and it is often possible to calculate the the value of Xo {the 
missing cone length} for use in formulas....." 

<<<<<
saxophone is really a series of four cones with different tapers 
(neck, body, bow, and bell).
>>>>>

To summarize my (admittedly limited) understanding:

The sax is designed to be conic because, then, the partials will be 
harmonic (exact integers), and, consequently, will sound pleasant and 
be easy to play. For practical reasons, the horns cannot be made a 
perfect PHYSICAL cone shape. 
As a consequent, horn designers strive to make the instrument behave 
ACOUSTICALLY like a cone. Hence we see: narrowing the bore at a bend, 
making the bell in a short, bessel shape, compensating for tone 
holes, lots of fussing over the neck, and careful shaping of the 
mouthpiece in design and reworking.
The bore body is the part of the sax that most resembles a physical 
cone; and, therefore, if one is going to take measurements in order 
to calculate missing-volume, it is the best part of the sax to use.

<<<<<
Small discrepancies in conicity can be effectively ignored. You can 
even make a sax out of stepped cylindrical sections that will 
effectively act as a cone and sound just like a sax, with a slight 
loss in acoustic efficiency and increase in turbulence.
>>>>>

Scavone analyzed models of a sax made of varying sized cylinders and 
found the results an extremely inaccurate representation. He, then, 
tried a combination of cylinders and cones. The results, although a 
little better, were still poor. For example, the second partial, 
instead of being 314 Hz for harmonicity, was 353 Hz; and the third 
partial, instead of 471 Hz, was 635 Hz. I'd send it back!

<<<<<
In case anyone is interested, the fact is that the volume of the 
mouthpiece doesn't really matter until the length of the truncation 
is equal to or larger than 1/4 the wavelength of the note being 
sounded.
>>>>>

If you take an expert playing a fine sax and have him play a note 
with his best sound, the partials will be close to harmonics. Now 
have him play that same note sharp by increasing his lip pressure. 
The note will not sound good. Why? Because that little bit of mp 
volume reduction has upset the harmonics due to the fact that a 
change in volume causes the second partial to move up to four times 
the fundamental and the third partial nine times the fundamental. 
That is why we are constantly reminded by the experts to strive for a 
constant embouchure over the whole range of the instrument.

<<<<<
In addition there is a second-order correction needed for high notes, 
which has to do with the Helmholtz resonance frequency of the mpc. 
This is governed by the ratio of the internal volume to the throat 
diameter. Nederveen has a very good section on all this in his book, 
and says that sops especially could be much improved in intonation if 
the truncation ratio were reduced.
>>>>>

I haven't read the Nederveen book. On your recommendation I have 
ordered it. It is my understanding that theorists consider the 
mouthpiece as a continuation of the vibrating air column, and not as 
a separate Helmholtz cavity (Jug).

<<<<<
. So as soon as you add temperature variation into the mix, 
everything goes nuts. Add to this the fact that at cold ambient 
temperatures, the differential between the warm top of the horn and 
the cold bottom of the horn creates significant intonational 
differences between short and long tube notes.
>>>>>

Yes. And the ratio of carbon dioxide to oxygen in the breath, the 
day's free testosterone level, the pitch of the piano, etc. Don't 
give up! Sometimes it all, wondrously, comes together.

I have an acoustically designed music room. I listen to how my sax 
sounds to me, how it sounds recorded on a mike positioned to 
represent an audience, and how it sounds recorded by a mike at the 
piano player position (don't want the pianist to be pissed off!!!). 
Now if only all my playing venues were ...........sigh.......

jim

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
>
> Totally agree. The math gives you a good ballpark starting point, 
and then the real work begins ;-)
> 
> Toby
> 
> STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...> 
wrote: 
> I think I have in my files just about every dissertation written 
on saxophone design and acoustics. Paul correctly observes that 
there always comes a point when you have to put the calculator down 
and build something to see if it works. I always start with "the 
math" on my designs, but I have
> found time and time again that "the math" will often lead you 
astray.
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------
> From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
[mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Paul C.
> Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2007 7:45 PM
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Missing Cone Volume
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think we can only do so much as far as calculating, and it 
finally gets down to just simply "cut and try".
> 
> Also, there are two papers, "Interactions Between Player's Windway 
and the Air Column of a Musical Instrument", Arthur H. Benade, PhD., 
and "Vocal Tract Effects in Wind Instrument Regeneration", also by 
Benade.
> 
> So, there is more affecting all of this than just the mouthpiece 
and instrument. And the player is still another variable.
> 
> Paul
> 
> perksjim <mcbop@...> wrote:
> 
> <<<<
> Most saxes are not true cones. They are somewhat parabolic. So 
the
> missing volume based on the neck taper would be smaller than 
based on 
> the body taper.
> >>>>>
> 
> Are you suggesting that the neck may be parabolic, but the body 
is 
> less so? I think that is a correct and astute observation.
> Scavone writes that the parabolic bore claim is a myth. He has 
> examined many saxophones made since the turn of the century and 
> cannot detect any parabolic bore shapes. He thinks Sax may have 
used 
> the concept as an aid in securing a patent. 
> Additionally, he checked, mathematically, the effect of a small 
> amount of parabolic change to a cone, and found the effects 
> negligible.
> 
> >>>>>
> I tried once to verify if where I tune my mouthpieces on my 
saxes 
> agrees with theory. I could not and the differences were not off 
in a 
> systematic direction. Some were high and some were low. On the 
order 
> of +/- 10 mm. 
> A few were within 2 mm.
> >>>>>
> 
> I admire your efforts. This kind of investigation is time-
consuming 
> and draining.
> Are you using Ferron's method? The reason I got interested in 
this is 
> that I thought his method prone to inaccuracies. I am puzzled 
that 
> your deviations are symmetric.
> Ferron does not include the concept of the acoustical-volume 
addition 
> of a vibrating reed. This would indicate that your tuned playing 
> volume should be less than that calculated with Ferron's method.
> 
> I can post my method in Excel if anybody is interested.
> 
> <<<<<
> Doesn't a curve in the bore have the same effect as enlarging 
the 
> bore at that curved point? And doesn't that affect increase as 
the 
> radius of the curve decreases? 
> 
> If that is so, then it is impossible to accurately measure the 
> missing volume of the cone based on measurements of the neck 
unless 
> this effect is accounted for, because the volume of the neck 
bore (or 
> bow bore, or to a lesser extent the bell bore) will effectively 
be 
> greater than the actual measurements. 
> >>>>>
> 
> Of course! I think you are agreeing with my concerns.
> 
> I have been reviewing Toby's comments, being careful to 
correctly 
> understand his premises. In preparing my response to his 
comments, I 
> am trying for a tone that is constructive, census-building, 
succinct 
> and not combatively argumentative.
> However, most of the concepts pertain to the horn body. Since 
this is 
> a mouthpiece forum, maybe the members would prefer that Toby and 
I 
> address these matters on another forum. ?????
> 
> jim
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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@... 
> 
> ---------------------------------
> Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your 
pocket: mail, news, photos more.
>



         


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@...
       
---------------------------------
Get the Yahoo! toolbar and be alerted to new email wherever you're surfing. 

So does this mean that we would do better if we favored smaller volumes and
larger throats on sop sax?  Like a stubby barrel chamber vs a longer
squeeze chamber design?  

They both can work, but I find the squeeze design easier to play in tune
and it has more projection without getting ugly.

--- "Paul C." <tenorman1952@...> wrote:

> I think this quote REALLY hits on what I was saying about mouthpieces, a
> correct ratio of volume to length:
>    
>   "In addition there is a second-order correction needed for high notes, 
> which has to do with the Helmholtz resonance frequency of the mpc. 
> This is governed by the ratio of the internal volume to the throat 
> diameter. Nederveen has a very good section on all this in his book, 
> and says that sops especially could be much improved in intonation if 
> the truncation ratio were reduced."



       
____________________________________________________________________________________Ready for the edge of your seat? 
Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV. 
http://tv.yahoo.com/

No, it just means the ratio of volume to length must be correct for the instrument.
   
  Paul

Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:
          So does this mean that we would do better if we favored smaller volumes and
larger throats on sop sax? Like a stubby barrel chamber vs a longer
squeeze chamber design? 

They both can work, but I find the squeeze design easier to play in tune
and it has more projection without getting ugly.

--- "Paul C." <tenorman1952@...> wrote:

> I think this quote REALLY hits on what I was saying about mouthpieces, a
> correct ratio of volume to length:
> 
> "In addition there is a second-order correction needed for high notes, 
> which has to do with the Helmholtz resonance frequency of the mpc. 
> This is governed by the ratio of the internal volume to the throat 
> diameter. Nederveen has a very good section on all this in his book, 
> and says that sops especially could be much improved in intonation if 
> the truncation ratio were reduced."

__________________________________________________________Ready for the edge of your seat? 
Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV. 
http://tv.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@...
       
---------------------------------
Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell. 

I have seen sopranos that played unacceptably sharp in the palm keys until the mouthpiece was replaced by one with a small chamber, which tuned long.
   
  And I have seen others, Mk VI and copies, that required a large chamber pushed on very far, past the cork, tuning short, to play the palm keys up to pitch.
   
  Paul

Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:
          So does this mean that we would do better if we favored smaller volumes and
larger throats on sop sax? Like a stubby barrel chamber vs a longer
squeeze chamber design? 

They both can work, but I find the squeeze design easier to play in tune
and it has more projection without getting ugly.

--- "Paul C." <tenorman1952@...> wrote:

> I think this quote REALLY hits on what I was saying about mouthpieces, a
> correct ratio of volume to length:
> 
> "In addition there is a second-order correction needed for high notes, 
> which has to do with the Helmholtz resonance frequency of the mpc. 
> This is governed by the ratio of the internal volume to the throat 
> diameter. Nederveen has a very good section on all this in his book, 
> and says that sops especially could be much improved in intonation if 
> the truncation ratio were reduced."

__________________________________________________________Ready for the edge of your seat? 
Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV. 
http://tv.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@...
       
---------------------------------
Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative vehicles.
Visit the Yahoo! Auto Green Center.

Me too.  But did you break out your calculator?

I love calculations... when they work.  I have not seen any that are useful
in understanding mouthpieces.  Basic concepts, yeah.  Ballpark, yeah.  But
you always need a significant amount of empirical work.  So far, I've
concluded 100% empirical work is better than starting with theory when it
comes to mouthpieces.  Measuring good chamber volumes is better than
calculating them.  No one has shown a good length calculation yet.  No one
has even shown a theory on baffle shapes, sidewall curves, throat size and
shape.

--- "Paul C." <tenorman1952@...> wrote:

> I have seen sopranos that played unacceptably sharp in the palm keys
> until the mouthpiece was replaced by one with a small chamber, which
> tuned long.
>    
>   And I have seen others, Mk VI and copies, that required a large chamber
> pushed on very far, past the cork, tuning short, to play the palm keys up
> to pitch.
>    



       
____________________________________________________________________________________
Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell. 
http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/

Has any else noticed that the very early large chamber mouthpieces 
such as the Selmer Airflow and French made brands need to have the 
neck receiver rebored to fit and play in tune on more modern 
saxophones?



--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "Paul C." <tenorman1952@...> 
wrote:
>
> I think this quote REALLY hits on what I was saying about 
mouthpieces, a correct ratio of volume to length:
>    
>   "In addition there is a second-order correction needed for high 
notes, 
> which has to do with the Helmholtz resonance frequency of the mpc. 
> This is governed by the ratio of the internal volume to the throat 
> diameter. Nederveen has a very good section on all this in his 
book, 
> and says that sops especially could be much improved in intonation 
if 
> the truncation ratio were reduced."
> 
>   Paul Coats
> 
>           
> 
>

No calculator.  It was all "cut and try" with a tuner as my guide.
   
  Paul

Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:
          Me too. But did you break out your calculator?

I love calculations... when they work. I have not seen any that are useful
in understanding mouthpieces. Basic concepts, yeah. Ballpark, yeah. But
you always need a significant amount of empirical work. So far, I've
concluded 100% empirical work is better than starting with theory when it
comes to mouthpieces. Measuring good chamber volumes is better than
calculating them. No one has shown a good length calculation yet. No one
has even shown a theory on baffle shapes, sidewall curves, throat size and
shape.

--- "Paul C." <tenorman1952@...> wrote:

> I have seen sopranos that played unacceptably sharp in the palm keys
> until the mouthpiece was replaced by one with a small chamber, which
> tuned long.
> 
> And I have seen others, Mk VI and copies, that required a large chamber
> pushed on very far, past the cork, tuning short, to play the palm keys up
> to pitch.
> 

__________________________________________________________
Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell. 
http://searchmarketing.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@...
 
---------------------------------
The fish are biting.
 Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search Marketing.

perksjim <mcbop@...> wrote:          

<<<<<
. I always start with "the math" on my designs, but I have found time 
and time again that "the math" will often lead you astray.
>>>>>

I think that it is applaudable that you include math and theoretical 
concepts in your work.

Benade, who, we all know, was a respected theorist, experimenter and 
player, wrote:

".....although saxophones are not quite conical in the physical 
shape, PROPERLY made instruments behave like nearly perfect cones, 
and it is often possible to calculate the the value of Xo {the 
missing cone length} for use in formulas....." 

<<<<<
saxophone is really a series of four cones with different tapers 
(neck, body, bow, and bell).
>>>>>

To summarize my (admittedly limited) understanding:

The sax is designed to be conic because, then, the partials will be 
harmonic (exact integers), and, consequently, will sound pleasant and 
be easy to play. For practical reasons, the horns cannot be made a 
perfect PHYSICAL cone shape. 
As a consequent, horn designers strive to make the instrument behave 
ACOUSTICALLY like a cone. Hence we see: narrowing the bore at a bend, 
making the bell in a short, bessel shape, compensating for tone 
holes, lots of fussing over the neck, and careful shaping of the 
mouthpiece in design and reworking.
The bore body is the part of the sax that most resembles a physical 
cone; and, therefore, if one is going to take measurements in order 
to calculate missing-volume, it is the best part of the sax to use.

  I think you have it very correct.
  
<<<<<
Small discrepancies in conicity can be effectively ignored. You can 
even make a sax out of stepped cylindrical sections that will 
effectively act as a cone and sound just like a sax, with a slight 
loss in acoustic efficiency and increase in turbulence.
>>>>>

Scavone analyzed models of a sax made of varying sized cylinders and 
found the results an extremely inaccurate representation. He, then, 
tried a combination of cylinders and cones. The results, although a 
little better, were still poor. For example, the second partial, 
instead of being 314 Hz for harmonicity, was 353 Hz; and the third 
partial, instead of 471 Hz, was 635 Hz. I'd send it back!
   
  I didn't know this. I read about the stepped cylinders in Fletcher and Rossing, I believe.  Obviously it also depends on the number of stepped cylinders...

<<<<<
In case anyone is interested, the fact is that the volume of the 
mouthpiece doesn't really matter until the length of the truncation 
is equal to or larger than 1/4 the wavelength of the note being 
sounded.
>>>>>

If you take an expert playing a fine sax and have him play a note 
with his best sound, the partials will be close to harmonics. Now 
have him play that same note sharp by increasing his lip pressure. 
The note will not sound good. Why? Because that little bit of mp 
volume reduction has upset the harmonics due to the fact that a 
change in volume causes the second partial to move up to four times 
the fundamental and the third partial nine times the fundamental. 
That is why we are constantly reminded by the experts to strive for a 
constant embouchure over the whole range of the instrument.
  This is, of course, different than inharmonicities due to truncation issues. Actually I am not sure that this is due to volume reduction as much as an issue of reed compliance. This is a very complex issue and I can post more some time.

<<<<<
In addition there is a second-order correction needed for high notes, 
which has to do with the Helmholtz resonance frequency of the mpc. 
This is governed by the ratio of the internal volume to the throat 
diameter. Nederveen has a very good section on all this in his book, 
and says that sops especially could be much improved in intonation if 
the truncation ratio were reduced.
>>>>>

I haven't read the Nederveen book. On your recommendation I have 
ordered it. It is my understanding that theorists consider the 
mouthpiece as a continuation of the vibrating air column, and not as 
a separate Helmholtz cavity (Jug).

  Be warned that the math in Nederveen is near impossible unless you have a good University background, and there is a lot of it, but there is enough simpler stuff to make it quite worthwhile to wade through. I am now hoping that this section was not actually in Fletcher and Rossing. The Helmholtz
 resonance of the mpc only affects the highest notes, and as I say, is a second order correction having to do somehow with making the mpc mimic not only the volume, but the shape of the cone. Basically it does not apply in other cases, if I understand correctly. As I say, I will post the full
 quote when I get home at the end of the month.
  
<<<<<
. So as soon as you add temperature variation into the mix, 
everything goes nuts. Add to this the fact that at cold ambient 
temperatures, the differential between the warm top of the horn and 
the cold bottom of the horn creates significant intonational 
differences between short and long tube notes.
>>>>>

Yes. And the ratio of carbon dioxide to oxygen in the breath, the 
day's free testosterone level, the pitch of the piano, etc. Don't 
give up! Sometimes it all, wondrously, comes together.

Just want to pass on to everyone a wealth of good musical acoustic info from Neville Fletcher which I stumbled across. Not so much about saxes specifically, but lots of really good stuff:
  http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/music/people/fletcherpublications.html
   
Toby

      Recent Activity
    
      3
  New Members

Visit Your Group 
  SPONSORED LINKS
      
   Saxophone mouthpieces  
   Clarinet mouthpiece  
   Wind instrument  
   Soprano saxophone mouthpiece

      Yahoo! TV
  Love TV?
  Listings, picks
  news and gossip.

    Yahoo! Groups
  Join a yoga group
  and take the stress
  out of your life.

    Yahoo! Groups HD
  The official Samsung
  Y! Group for HDTVs
  and devices.



  .

 
         
 

Actually I believe that it is a separate issue. Certainly volume and length are important factors, but the Helmholtz resonance specifically is a function of the internal volume and the throat diameter. If you think of blowing across a bottle, you'll remember that the note will be lower if the
 opening of the bottle is smaller (for the same volume). I'll post the entire quote when I get back to Tokyo at the end of the month and you can see what you make of it.
   
  A shorter truncation ratio specifically means that the neck is longer. When less of the cone is cut off there are fewer notes with wavelengths less than one quarter of the truncation length, which means more notes in tune, and more notes more in tune above that threshold. Of the various sopranos
 that Nederveen tested, he reported that the Selmer had the smallest truncation ratio and says that is why it is the best in tune (among a few other things).
   
  FWIW,
   
  Toby
   
  

"Paul C." <tenorman1952@...> wrote:
            I think this quote REALLY hits on what I was saying about mouthpieces, a correct ratio of volume to length:
   
  "In addition there is a second-order correction needed for high notes, 
which has to do with the Helmholtz resonance frequency of the mpc. 
This is governed by the ratio of the internal volume to the throat 
diameter. Nederveen has a very good section on all this in his book, 
and says that sops especially could be much improved in intonation if 
the truncation ratio were reduced."

  Paul Coats

perksjim <mcbop@...> wrote:
      

<<<<<
. I always start with "the math" on my designs, but I have found time 
and time again that "the math" will often lead you astray.
>>>>>

I think that it is applaudable that you include math and theoretical 
concepts in your work.

Benade, who, we all know, was a respected theorist, experimenter and 
player, wrote:

".....although saxophones are not quite conical in the physical 
shape, PROPERLY made instruments behave like nearly perfect cones, 
and it is often possible to calculate the the value of Xo {the 
missing cone length} for use in formulas....." 

<<<<<
saxophone is really a series of four cones with different tapers 
(neck, body, bow, and bell).
>>>>>

To summarize my (admittedly limited) understanding:

The sax is designed to be conic because, then, the partials will be 
harmonic (exact integers), and, consequently, will sound pleasant and 
be easy to play. For practical reasons, the horns cannot be made a 
perfect PHYSICAL cone shape. 
As a consequent, horn designers strive to make the instrument behave 
ACOUSTICALLY like a cone. Hence we see: narrowing the bore at a bend, 
making the bell in a short, bessel shape, compensating for tone 
holes, lots of fussing over the neck, and careful shaping of the 
mouthpiece in design and reworking.
The bore body is the part of the sax that most resembles a physical 
cone; and, therefore, if one is going to take measurements in order 
to calculate missing-volume, it is the best part of the sax to use.

<<<<<
Small discrepancies in conicity can be effectively ignored. You can 
even make a sax out of stepped cylindrical sections that will 
effectively act as a cone and sound just like a sax, with a slight 
loss in acoustic efficiency and increase in turbulence.
>>>>>

Scavone analyzed models of a sax made of varying sized cylinders and 
found the results an extremely inaccurate representation. He, then, 
tried a combination of cylinders and cones. The results, although a 
little better, were still poor. For example, the second partial, 
instead of being 314 Hz for harmonicity, was 353 Hz; and the third 
partial, instead of 471 Hz, was 635 Hz. I'd send it back!

<<<<<
In case anyone is interested, the fact is that the volume of the 
mouthpiece doesn't really matter until the length of the truncation 
is equal to or larger than 1/4 the wavelength of the note being 
sounded.
>>>>>

If you take an expert playing a fine sax and have him play a note 
with his best sound, the partials will be close to harmonics. Now 
have him play that same note sharp by increasing his lip pressure. 
The note will not sound good. Why? Because that little bit of mp 
volume reduction has upset the harmonics due to the fact that a 
change in volume causes the second partial to move up to four times 
the fundamental and the third partial nine times the fundamental. 
That is why we are constantly reminded by the experts to strive for a 
constant embouchure over the whole range of the instrument.

<<<<<
In addition there is a second-order correction needed for high notes, 
which has to do with the Helmholtz resonance frequency of the mpc. 
This is governed by the ratio of the internal volume to the throat 
diameter. Nederveen has a very good section on all this in his book, 
and says that sops especially could be much improved in intonation if 
the truncation ratio were reduced.
>>>>>

I haven't read the Nederveen book. On your recommendation I have 
ordered it. It is my understanding that theorists consider the 
mouthpiece as a continuation of the vibrating air column, and not as 
a separate Helmholtz cavity (Jug).

<<<<<
. So as soon as you add temperature variation into the mix, 
everything goes nuts. Add to this the fact that at cold ambient 
temperatures, the differential between the warm top of the horn and 
the cold bottom of the horn creates significant intonational 
differences between short and long tube notes.
>>>>>

Yes. And the ratio of carbon dioxide to oxygen in the breath, the 
day's free testosterone level, the pitch of the piano, etc. Don't 
give up! Sometimes it all, wondrously, comes together.

I have an acoustically designed music room. I listen to how my sax 
sounds to me, how it sounds recorded on a mike positioned to 
represent an audience, and how it sounds recorded by a mike at the 
piano player position (don't want the pianist to be pissed off!!!). 
Now if only all my playing venues were ...........sigh.......

jim

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
>
> Totally agree. The math gives you a good ballpark starting point, 
and then the real work begins ;-)
> 
> Toby
> 
> STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...> 
wrote: 
> I think I have in my files just about every dissertation written 
on saxophone design and acoustics. Paul correctly observes that 
there always comes a point when you have to put the calculator down 
and build something to see if it works. I always start with "the 
math" on my designs, but I have
> found time and time again that "the math" will often lead you 
astray.
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------
> From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
[mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Paul C.
> Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2007 7:45 PM
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Missing Cone Volume
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think we can only do so much as far as calculating, and it 
finally gets down to just simply "cut and try".
> 
> Also, there are two papers, "Interactions Between Player's Windway 
and the Air Column of a Musical Instrument", Arthur H. Benade, PhD., 
and "Vocal Tract Effects in Wind Instrument Regeneration", also by 
Benade.
> 
> So, there is more affecting all of this than just the mouthpiece 
and instrument. And the player is still another variable.
> 
> Paul
> 
> perksjim <mcbop@...> wrote:
> 
> <<<<
> Most saxes are not true cones. They are somewhat parabolic. So 
the
> missing volume based on the neck taper would be smaller than 
based on 
> the body taper.
> >>>>>
> 
> Are you suggesting that the neck may be parabolic, but the body 
is 
> less so? I think that is a correct and astute observation.
> Scavone writes that the parabolic bore claim is a myth. He has 
> examined many saxophones made since the turn of the century and 
> cannot detect any parabolic bore shapes. He thinks Sax may have 
used 
> the concept as an aid in securing a patent. 
> Additionally, he checked, mathematically, the effect of a small 
> amount of parabolic change to a cone, and found the effects 
> negligible.
> 
> >>>>>
> I tried once to verify if where I tune my mouthpieces on my 
saxes 
> agrees with theory. I could not and the differences were not off 
in a 
> systematic direction. Some were high and some were low. On the 
order 
> of +/- 10 mm. 
> A few were within 2 mm.
> >>>>>
> 
> I admire your efforts. This kind of investigation is time-
consuming 
> and draining.
> Are you using Ferron's method? The reason I got interested in 
this is 
> that I thought his method prone to inaccuracies. I am puzzled 
that 
> your deviations are symmetric.
> Ferron does not include the concept of the acoustical-volume 
addition 
> of a vibrating reed. This would indicate that your tuned playing 
> volume should be less than that calculated with Ferron's method.
> 
> I can post my method in Excel if anybody is interested.
> 
> <<<<<
> Doesn't a curve in the bore have the same effect as enlarging 
the 
> bore at that curved point? And doesn't that affect increase as 
the 
> radius of the curve decreases? 
> 
> If that is so, then it is impossible to accurately measure the 
> missing volume of the cone based on measurements of the neck 
unless 
> this effect is accounted for, because the volume of the neck 
bore (or 
> bow bore, or to a lesser extent the bell bore) will effectively 
be 
> greater than the actual measurements. 
> >>>>>
> 
> Of course! I think you are agreeing with my concerns.
> 
> I have been reviewing Toby's comments, being careful to 
correctly 
> understand his premises. In preparing my response to his 
comments, I 
> am trying for a tone that is constructive, census-building, 
succinct 
> and not combatively argumentative.
> However, most of the concepts pertain to the horn body. Since 
this is 
> a mouthpiece forum, maybe the members would prefer that Toby and 
I 
> address these matters on another forum. ?????
> 
> jim
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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@... 
> 
> ---------------------------------
> Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your 
pocket: mail, news, photos more.
>






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@...    
---------------------------------
  Get the Yahoo! toolbar and be alerted to new email wherever you're surfing.   

         
 

>    
>   A shorter truncation ratio specifically means that the neck is longer.
> When less of the cone is cut off there are fewer notes with wavelengths
> less than one quarter of the truncation length, which means more notes in
> tune, and more notes more in tune above that threshold. Of the various
> sopranos
>  that Nederveen tested, he reported that the Selmer had the smallest
> truncation ratio and says that is why it is the best in tune (among a few
> other things).
>    

Sooo, this does support why (I think) squeeze chamber designs work best on sopranos.


       
____________________________________________________________________________________
Got a little couch potato? 
Check out fun summer activities for kids.
http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=summer+activities+for+kids&cs=bz 

Posted the calculations for "Missing Volume" in Excel.

Let me know if there is a mistake, or if you have questions.

jim 

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "perksjim" <mcbop@...> wrote:
>
> 
> 
> 
> <<<<<
> . I always start with "the math" on my designs, but I have found 
time 
> and time again that "the math" will often lead you astray.
> >>>>>
> 
> I think that it is applaudable that you include math and 
theoretical 
> concepts in your work.
> 
> Benade, who, we all know, was a respected theorist, experimenter 
and 
> player, wrote:
> 
> ".....although saxophones are not quite conical in the physical 
> shape, PROPERLY made instruments behave like nearly perfect cones, 
> and it is often possible to calculate the the value of Xo {the 
> missing cone length} for use in formulas....."  
> 
> <<<<<
> saxophone is really a series of four cones with different tapers 
> (neck, body, bow, and bell).
> >>>>>
> 
> To summarize my (admittedly limited) understanding:
> 
> The sax is designed to be conic because, then, the partials will be 
> harmonic (exact integers), and, consequently, will sound pleasant 
and 
> be easy to play. For practical reasons, the horns cannot be made a 
> perfect PHYSICAL cone shape. 
> As a consequent, horn designers strive to make the instrument 
behave 
> ACOUSTICALLY like a cone. Hence we see: narrowing the bore at a 
bend, 
> making the bell in a short, bessel shape, compensating for tone 
> holes, lots of fussing over the neck, and careful shaping of the 
> mouthpiece in design and reworking.
> The bore body is the part of the sax that most resembles a physical 
> cone; and, therefore, if one is going to take measurements in order 
> to calculate missing-volume, it is the best part of the sax to use.
> 
> 
> <<<<<
> Small discrepancies in conicity can be effectively ignored. You can 
> even make a sax out of stepped cylindrical sections that will 
> effectively act as a cone and sound just like a sax, with a slight 
> loss in acoustic efficiency and increase in turbulence.
> >>>>>
> 
> Scavone analyzed models of a sax made of varying sized cylinders 
and 
> found the results an extremely inaccurate representation. He, then, 
> tried a combination of cylinders and cones. The results, although a 
> little better, were still poor. For example, the second partial, 
> instead of being 314 Hz for harmonicity, was 353 Hz; and the third 
> partial, instead of 471 Hz, was 635 Hz. I'd send it back!
> 
> 
> <<<<<
> In case anyone is interested, the fact is that the volume of the 
> mouthpiece doesn't really matter until the length of the truncation 
> is equal to or larger than 1/4 the wavelength of the note being 
> sounded.
> >>>>>
> 
> If you take an expert playing a fine sax and have him play a note 
> with his best sound, the partials will be close to harmonics. Now 
> have him play that same note sharp by increasing his lip pressure. 
> The note will not sound good. Why? Because that little bit of mp 
> volume reduction has upset the harmonics due to the fact that a 
> change in volume causes the second partial to move up to four times 
> the fundamental and the third partial nine times the fundamental. 
> That is why we are constantly reminded by the experts to strive for 
a 
> constant embouchure over the whole range of the instrument.
> 
> <<<<<
> In addition there is a second-order correction needed for high 
notes, 
> which has to do with the Helmholtz resonance frequency of the mpc. 
> This is governed by the ratio of the internal volume to the throat 
> diameter. Nederveen has a very good section on all this in his 
book, 
> and says that sops especially could be much improved in intonation 
if 
> the truncation ratio were reduced.
> >>>>>
> 
> I haven't read the Nederveen book. On your recommendation I have 
> ordered it. It is my understanding that theorists consider the 
> mouthpiece as a continuation of the vibrating air column, and not 
as 
> a separate Helmholtz cavity (Jug).
> 
> 
> <<<<<
> . So as soon as you add temperature variation into the mix, 
> everything goes nuts. Add to this the fact that at cold ambient 
> temperatures, the differential between the warm top of the horn and 
> the cold bottom of the horn creates significant intonational 
> differences between short and long tube notes.
> >>>>>
> 
> Yes. And the ratio of carbon dioxide to oxygen in the breath, the 
> day's free testosterone level, the pitch of the piano, etc. Don't 
> give up! Sometimes it all, wondrously, comes together.
> 
> I have an acoustically designed music room. I listen to how my sax 
> sounds to me, how it sounds recorded on a mike positioned to 
> represent an audience, and how it sounds recorded by a mike at the 
> piano player position (don't want the pianist to be pissed off!!!). 
> Now if only all my playing venues were ...........sigh.......
> 
> 
> jim
> 
>  
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@> wrote:
> >
> > Totally agree. The math gives you a good ballpark starting point, 
> and then the real work begins ;-)
> > 
> > Toby
> > 
> >  STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@> 
> wrote:                                     
> > I think I have in my files just about every  dissertation written 
> on saxophone design and acoustics. Paul correctly observes  that 
> there always comes a point when you have to put the calculator down 
> and  build something to see if it works. I always start with "the 
> math" on my  designs, but I have
> >  found time and time again that "the math" will often lead  you 
> astray.
> > 
> >   
> > ---------------------------------
> >  From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com  
> [mailto:MouthpieceWork@...m] On Behalf Of Paul  C.
> > Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2007 7:45 PM
> > To:  MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re:  Missing Cone Volume
> > 
> > 
> >  
> >    
> > I think we can only do so much as far as calculating, and it 
> finally gets  down to just simply "cut and try".
> >   
> >  Also, there are two papers, "Interactions Between Player's 
Windway 
> and  the Air Column of a Musical Instrument", Arthur H. Benade, 
PhD., 
> and "Vocal  Tract Effects in Wind Instrument Regeneration", also by 
> Benade.
> >   
> >  So, there is more affecting all of this than just the mouthpiece 
> and  instrument.  And the player is still another variable.
> >   
> >  Paul
> > 
> > perksjim <mcbop@>  wrote:
> >        
> > <<<<
> > Most saxes are not true cones. They are somewhat    parabolic. So 
> the
> > missing volume based on the neck taper would be smaller    than 
> based on 
> > the body taper.
> > >>>>>
> > 
> > Are you    suggesting that the neck may be parabolic, but the 
body 
> is 
> > less so? I    think that is a correct and astute observation.
> > Scavone writes that the    parabolic bore claim is a myth. He has 
> > examined many saxophones made since    the turn of the century 
and 
> > cannot detect any parabolic bore shapes. He    thinks Sax may 
have 
> used 
> > the concept as an aid in securing a patent.    
> > Additionally, he checked, mathematically, the effect of a small 
> > amount    of parabolic change to a cone, and found the effects    
> > negligible.
> > 
> > >>>>>
> > I tried once to verify if where    I tune my mouthpieces on my 
> saxes 
> > agrees with theory. I could not and the    differences were not 
off 
> in a 
> > systematic direction. Some were high and    some were low. On the 
> order 
> > of +/- 10 mm. 
> > A few were within 2    mm.
> > >>>>>
> > 
> > I admire your efforts. This kind of    investigation is time-
> consuming 
> > and draining.
> > Are you using Ferron's    method? The reason I got interested in 
> this is 
> > that I thought his method    prone to inaccuracies. I am puzzled 
> that 
> > your deviations are    symmetric.
> > Ferron does not include the concept of the acoustical-volume    
> addition 
> > of a vibrating reed. This would indicate that your tuned 
playing    
> > volume should be less than that calculated with Ferron's method.
> > 
> > I    can post my method in Excel if anybody is    interested.
> > 
> > <<<<<
> > Doesn't a curve in the bore have    the same effect as enlarging 
> the 
> > bore at that curved point? And doesn't    that affect increase as 
> the 
> > radius of the curve decreases? 
> > 
> > If that    is so, then it is impossible to accurately measure the 
> > missing volume of    the cone based on measurements of the neck 
> unless 
> > this effect is accounted    for, because the volume of the neck 
> bore (or 
> > bow bore, or to a lesser    extent the bell bore) will 
effectively 
> be 
> > greater than the actual    measurements. 
> > >>>>>
> > 
> > Of course! I think you are    agreeing with my concerns.
> > 
> > I have been reviewing Toby's comments, being    careful to 
> correctly 
> > understand his premises. In preparing my response to    his 
> comments, I 
> > am trying for a tone that is constructive,    census-building, 
> succinct 
> > and not combatively argumentative.
> > However,    most of the concepts pertain to the horn body. Since 
> this is 
> > a mouthpiece    forum, maybe the members would prefer that Toby 
and 
> I 
> > address these    matters on another forum. ?????
> > 
> > jim
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 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@  
> > 
> > ---------------------------------
> >  Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet  in your 
> pocket: mail, news, photos more.
> >
>

Hi team!

I have cleaned up my "Missing Volume" on Excel.

I have put in measured dimensions from my Buescher
C-melody. The angle of conicity calculates 1.33 degrees.
Scavone states that modern saxes are about 2 degrees.
Smaller angles of conicity, theoretically, produce
darker sounds. The Buescher C-melody has a reputation
for being dark.

Remember, the reason I have done this is because I think
Ferron's method of using measurements on the neck, instead
of the bore, is more likely to have larger errors. Also, Benade
states that the neck should be considered, along with the mouthpiece,
as providing the missing volume for the cone.

There are several reasons why my calculations probably have errors:

1. The percent acoustic volume added by a vibrating reed is based
   on measurements taken by others. Sometime I will determine 
   this empirically for my own personal setup.
2. My measurements were crude. Sometime, when I can take some
   key work off, I will take some more precise measurements.
3. The bore may not be a perfect conic section, although the halfway
   point measures within 1%.
4. Some, probably very minor, errors due to such things as varying
   bore thickness, etc.

My version is Excel 2002. Let me know if anybody needs this in an 
earlier version.

When I get ready to send my mouthpiece to one of you, I plan to 
include my neck, with the mouthpiece in playing (Frs) position. I 
will also include a more accurate Excel of my horn, including my Frs 
pitch. Of course I will include notes about my preferred playing 
style, problems, etc.

Would any of this prove helpful?

jim

--- perksjim <mcbop@...> wrote:
> 
> When I get ready to send my mouthpiece to one of you, I plan to 
> include my neck, with the mouthpiece in playing (Frs) position. I 
> will also include a more accurate Excel of my horn, including my Frs 
> note. Of course I will include notes about my preferred playing 
> style, problems, etc.
> 
> Would any of this prove helpful?
> 

While this information is interesting, good mouthpiece work can be done
with just a note about your "preferred playing style, problems, etc."

The neck would just get in the way and would add to shipping costs.


      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Catch up on fall's hot new shows on Yahoo! TV. Watch previews, get listings, and more!
http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/3658 

> > Would any of this prove helpful?
> > 
> 
> While this information is interesting, good mouthpiece work can be 
done
> with just a note about your "preferred playing style, problems, etc."
> 
> The neck would just get in the way and would add to shipping costs.
> 
It is a risky enough gamble to place your mouthpiece in the hands of a 
commercial shipping courier. Losing a neck as well as the mouthpiece 
would be a small catastrophe. Maybe the best mouthpiece work 
consultations are done in person. 
>       
________________________________________________________________________
____________
> Catch up on fall's hot new shows on Yahoo! TV. Watch previews, get 
listings, and more!
> http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/3658
>

In order to settle the mouthpiece vs. mouthpiece + neck issue, as to which is the compensating unit for the missing cone section, I wrote to Dr. Joe Wolfe at UNSW for his clarification.

Dr, Wolfe's reply affirmed my assumption.  For the saxophone, the
mouthpiece volume and the compliance of the reed alone compensate for
the missing conical section.  As such, for higher frequencies, the frs
of the mouthpiece/reed should equal the theoretical frequency of the
same.  The actual neck length and volume is not included and it's
separation from the body tube should be seen as an arbitrary cut to
facilitate the easy handling and storage of the instrument - i.e. This
explains the baritone neck vs. alto neck length. (although, if the neck has a pronounced narrower taper than the body tube, the compensating mouthpiece/reed volume should include the lost neck volume, based on the extension of the body cone, due to this taper, up to the end of the neck.  The taper of the bottom bow and bell are of concern to those notes with tone holes in those body sections and do not affect the notes above for the most part (D2/Eb2 being the exceptions))

Benade's insistence that the sax neck be included in determining frs
and total volume always troubled me, as his reference to it was always
just a bit too vague.  For the oboe and bassoon, no question.  I always interpreted his saxophone statements as indicating that it is the volume of the mouthpiece on the neck (minus the volume of the neck) that one must be concerned with, as the neck displaces mouthpiece shank volume, and as such, defines the end of the mouthpiece cavity.

Additionally, the neck is the constriction, as Benade maintains,
however, not in it's entirety.  One commonly looks at the saxophone
analytically, from the conical body's point of view - here's the body,
then comes the neck, which was separated here and often has a
different taper, so that's the constriction, and then there is the
mouthpiece.  Hooray!  Saxophone!   The other way to look at it, which
confirms Dr. Wolfe's view and explains Benade's statements, is to
begin at the mouthpiece end, where everything starts.  We have a
cavity.  The first thing our pressure wave encounters on it's way out
of the mouthpiece cavity, is the narrowest part of the entire air
column - the constriction - the open end of the neck.  This
constriction defines the end of the mouthpiece cavity, regardless of
the mouthpiece's size and shape (small chamber with long throat,
double chamber, link huge chamber, etc.).  After one micron however,
the neck is constricting nothing.  It is an expanding conical tube,
often with the exact same taper as the body tube, and as such, is
indistinguishable from it.  Seen thus, the neck opening is the
constriction, and as it defines the end of the mouthpiece cavity, we
must include it in our consideration of the volume and frs of our
compensating attachment, but, as the mouthpiece cavity and reed
compliance are 100% of the compensating volume, unless we extend the
constriction with a cylindrical insert matching it's diameter, thereby
displacing mouthpiece cavity volume, it has no effective length - it
is 2 dimensional. 

One could say that the throat of the mouthpiece is part of an extended stepped constriction which includes the open end of the neck, I suppose, and if the tuning, response, and tone quality results of this cavity/constriction shape were superior to all others, then it would be the best design.  The mouthpiece cavity and constriction function as a cylindrical tube with perturbations.  There is a compression anti-node at the tip of the reed for every note on the instrument and there is the displacement anti-node of the mouthpiece/reed/constriction resonating unit, at the constriction, which affects all other nodes in the area.  Length always affects pitch.  Additionally, cross sectional volume always affects pitch at a compression or displacement anti-node, so designing the shape of the mouthpiece cavity and shape of the constriction (if extended, stepped, etc.) and the ratio of mouthpiece cavity/reed to constriction volume, must take these aspects into account if they are to effectively meet the requirements of a correctly adjusted missing cone substitute. 

This, is the neatest, most logical interpretation which, taking into account Benade's vague references, satisfies all published authors and Dr. Wolfe's latest email contribution.  It also explains the results of jbtsax's and my recent experiments.

One can still make arbitrary separations of the conical tube anywhere one wishes these rules of determining volume and resonant frequency
will apply.  No problem.  But I believe that this interpretation is the only useful one, as far as accurately adjusting mouthpiece + reed / constriction volume/length in order to optimize tuning. 

Thanks for posting this.  But how to you plan to make use of this theory?

--- On Mon, 8/3/09, lancelotburt <lancelotburt@...> wrote:

From: lancelotburt <lancelotburt@...>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: More On Missing Cone Volume
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, August 3, 2009, 12:19 PM


In order to settle the mouthpiece vs. mouthpiece + neck issue, as to which is the compensating unit for the missing cone section, I wrote to Dr. Joe Wolfe at UNSW for his clarification....




      

This html message parsed with html2text ---------------------------I might be misunderstanding this thread, but I don't think anyone on this
forum has claimed that the detachable neck is part of the "missing" end of the
cone. It's part of the actual cone of the instrument body and the fact that
it's detachable (on altos, tenors, baris & some sopranos) doesn't matter. Was
there a "mouthpiece vs. mouthpiece + neck issue" raised here at all?  
  
Dan T  
  
Keith Bradbury wrote:

>  
>  Thanks for posting this. But how to you plan to make use of this theory?  
>  
>  \\--- On Mon, 8/3/09, lancelotburt
> <[lancelotburt@yahoo.com](mailto:lancelotburt%40yahoo.com)> wrote:  
>  
>  From: lancelotburt
> <[lancelotburt@yahoo.com](mailto:lancelotburt%40yahoo.com)>  
>  Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: More On Missing Cone Volume  
>  To:
> [MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com](mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com)  
>  Date: Monday, August 3, 2009, 12:19 PM  
>  
>  In order to settle the mouthpiece vs. mouthpiece + neck issue, as to which
> is the compensating unit for the missing cone section, I wrote to Dr. Joe
> Wolfe at UNSW for his clarification....  
>  
>

Dan,

It's for the benefit of anyone who adheres to Benade's writings.  He want's to include the neck in everything.  There is a discussion of this here in older messages.  

Kieth,

The way you put a mouthpiece on a saxophone is a bit screwy I find.  Every other wind instrument, woodwind and brass, uses a socket-style coupling because a socket avoids the bore error induced
by making the inner diameter of the mouthpiece excessively large so it
will fit over the neck cork.  What a stupid idea!  The cork
dictates how large the mouthpiece inner diameter is, not acoustical design.  Even though they stupidly make the sax tenon cylindrical, at least it's a socket.
If the saxophone were like a bass clarinet, and the conical neck (body tube) ended in a socket, and you then connected the cork rimmed mouthpiece, which consisted of the 2 other components, the chamber and the constriction, what size do you think the inner diameter of the mouthpiece's constriction is going to be?..............................................No-one would be stupid enough to make the constriction larger than the opening of the neck.

Since the mouthpiece volume (chamber + constriction) = the missing cone piece - you just balance the ratio of the chamber volume/
constriction length until you get frs right, and then you are all set.

Why should the constriction be the same diameter as the neck opening?

The displacement anti-node for frs moves from just inside the mouthpiece constriction (for higher frequencies) down to just inside the neck tube (for lower frequencies).  If the diameter of the constriction is larger than the neck opening, frs will be raised in frequency out of proportion to that of the low frequency positon.  All the notes and resonances with nodes in the area will be affected.  The high register will be sharp and the higher frequency resonances out of alignment.  Besides intonation, tone quality and response will suffer.

All my mouthpieces now are extra-large chambered, short roll-over baffled, with a cylindrical constriction tube having a bore that matches the neck opening diameter.  The huge chamber gives me the tone and flexability and edge that I want.  Balancing the volume of the chamber with that of the variable length, smaller diameter constriction tube, which displaces (the IMO should not be there) throat volume, I can easily fulfill the 2 acoustical conditions required of the substitution:

1. chamber volume + constriction volume = missing cone volume
2. playing frequency of combined mouthpiece chamber + constiction = frs.

The intonation is as close to perfect as it could be, in all registers and the tone and response are just dreamy. IMO

I posted the audio links earlier but got no response here.  Comments from other listeners.

bzalto (member here but commented in email)  "I think it sounds great!" 

jbtsax (well known critic) "...the
recordings of your modified mouthpiece are excellent.  That clearly
demonstrates that you achieved the balance needed inside the piece to
produce the optimum tone, volume, and pitch.  Congratulations."

www.martinmods.com/mp03.mov
www.martinmods.com/mp04.mov

So you arrived at a mouthpiece design that you like based on your understanding of the theory of what should work well and not by empirical (trial and error) testing?  Were you already using a Link-like mouthpiece?

You believe this design is superior to small chambered, high baffle designs?  Superior by a little or a lot?  (I'm not trying to be antagonistic.)

I would say, in practice, very little, if any.  Too many players use, and sound great on, so many designs that I find the application of this mouthpiece theory almost useless.  

I wish it was not this way.  I wish that the science could drive mouthpiece development farther.  But as I see it now, its application suggests that we should throw away what obviously works.  That is a step backward IMO.

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "lancelotburt" <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
> 
> All my mouthpieces now are extra-large chambered, short roll-over baffled, with a cylindrical constriction tube having a bore that matches the neck opening diameter.  The huge chamber gives me the tone and flexability and edge that I want.  Balancing the volume of the chamber with that of the variable length, smaller diameter constriction tube, which displaces (the IMO should not be there) throat volume, I can easily fulfill the 2 acoustical conditions required of the substitution:
> 
> 1. chamber volume + constriction volume = missing cone volume
> 2. playing frequency of combined mouthpiece chamber + constiction = frs.
> 
> The intonation is as close to perfect as it could be, in all registers and the tone and response are just dreamy. IMO
> 

Speaking strictly as a guy who manufactures Seven very different tenor mouthpieces and as someone who designs saxophones for a living I must agree with Keith. 

The mouthpiece should help the player get the sound and response they want. Music is not a science driven business. 

That being said, physics does play a part, but the sound ultimately comes from the player.

The mouthpiece is merely a tool used to accomplish an end. Different players need different tools in order to accomplish their goals.  



Sent on the Sprint® Now Network from my BlackBerry®

-----Original Message-----
From: "Keith Bradbury" 

Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 02:05:16 
To: 
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: More On Missing Cone Volume


So you arrived at a mouthpiece design that you like based on your understanding of the theory of what should work well and not by empirical (trial and error) testing?  Were you already using a Link-like mouthpiece?

You believe this design is superior to small chambered, high baffle designs?  Superior by a little or a lot?  (I'm not trying to be antagonistic.)

I would say, in practice, very little, if any.  Too many players use, and sound great on, so many designs that I find the application of this mouthpiece theory almost useless.  

I wish it was not this way.  I wish that the science could drive mouthpiece development farther.  But as I see it now, its application suggests that we should throw away what obviously works.  That is a step backward IMO.

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "lancelotburt"  wrote:
> 
> All my mouthpieces now are extra-large chambered, short roll-over baffled, with a cylindrical constriction tube having a bore that matches the neck opening diameter.  The huge chamber gives me the tone and flexability and edge that I want.  Balancing the volume of the chamber with that of the variable length, smaller diameter constriction tube, which displaces (the IMO should not be there) throat volume, I can easily fulfill the 2 acoustical conditions required of the substitution:
> 
> 1. chamber volume + constriction volume = missing cone volume
> 2. playing frequency of combined mouthpiece chamber + constiction = frs.
> 
> The intonation is as close to perfect as it could be, in all registers and the tone and response are just dreamy. IMO
> 

Keith,

"So you arrived at a mouthpiece design that you like based on your understanding of the theory of what should work well and not by empirical (trial and error) testing?" 

That is presumtuous thinking.  I arrived at a design that I like based first, upon almost 40 years of professional playing (recording studios) every type of mouthpiece available, then systematically ruining $1000's in perfectly good mouthpieces by your empirical (trial and error) testing. While I suspected many of the reasons for why I liked what I liked, it has only been in the last year that my reading has provided me with the understanding of the textbook theory that supports my experience.  

"You believe this design is superior to small chambered, high baffle designs?"

I think you are missing the entire point. The important content, the entire point of my post, concerns the back-end of the mouthpiece, something which, as you have just so perfectly demonstrated, no-one really pays attention to. There is nothing in my post about chamber design other than the mention of large chamber as that is what I prefer due to personal taste. 

"Too many players use, and sound great on, so many designs that I find the application of this mouthpiece theory almost useless"

Two things:

1. From your earlier comments, it would appear that you really have no idea what this theory actually postulates.  You only addressed irrelevant issues.  Not the important issues of the theory.  You would have to at least do that for me to take you and your answer seriously.  

2. In my career, I have been compared, by those who hired me, to the best sounding artists on any horn in any era, on the same multitude of various mouthpiece designs that you mention, everything that I have seen here, everything that you claim "obviously works".  At no point, no matter how great I sounded, (and I would go as far as to say that this would apply to every other artist that you referenced above) did it ever occur to me that my set-up could not be improved upon.  At no point did I ever think as you do - there is no acoustical theory or any idea that could possibly improve some aspect of my mouthpiece, be it in tone quality, intonation, response, or dynamic range.  Do you know what that means?  That means that the guys who can play, are ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS, looking for something that can give them an edge.  That said, regardless of your opinion as a mouthpiece tech as to the uselessness of this theory, in my opinion as a pro player, I wish to Hell that I had known about this 40 years ago. I can't say that about anything else I see.

"I wish that the science could drive mouthpiece development farther.  But as I see it now, its application suggests that we should throw away what obviously works.  That is a step backward IMO."

If you cared to take the time to read my post carefully, you would see that my theory does not ask you to throw away what you currently have.  And I seriously question the validity of your statement that the current state of mouthpiece design "obviously works".  I would say that it "obviously works" to some degree, but not optimally.  If your view is truly the case, then why have so many new mouthpiece designs emerged in the last 5 years?  Sorry Kieth, I'd say they were still looking.  

I suggest merely that you complete the design paying attention to the laws of acoustical physics, as Benade so intelligently advised us all on page 472 of his FMA, 33 years ago.  But, you can't make a horse drink can you?  It would be the incomplete grasp or neglect of science which would cause a true "step backwards", as with every complete grasp of scientific theory comes a deluge of accomplishment.   Best take an apparent step backwards rather than continue on the wrong road perhaps.  

FYI, this was not my idea originally.  This was started by a post on SOTW about a month ago.  I disagreed with part of it initially, because I had only an incomplete grasp of the theory that applied.  Rather than dismiss it as non-sense, in order to sooth my ruffled state of inertial non-thinking bliss, I decided to attempt to duplicate the author's findings, like a true colleague and seeker of truth.  Something I do not see happening here. Well, I learned a thing or two that I consider invaluable, and improved my mouthpiece set-up for my playing as well, and THAT is a true step forward, IMO.



--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "Keith Bradbury" <kwbradbury@...> wrote:
>
> So you arrived at a mouthpiece design that you like based on your understanding of the theory of what should work well and not by empirical (trial and error) testing?  Were you already using a Link-like mouthpiece?
> 
> You believe this design is superior to small chambered, high baffle designs?  Superior by a little or a lot?  (I'm not trying to be antagonistic.)
> 
> I would say, in practice, very little, if any.  Too many players use, and sound great on, so many designs that I find the application of this mouthpiece theory almost useless.  
> 
> I wish it was not this way.  I wish that the science could drive mouthpiece development farther.  But as I see it now, its application suggests that we should throw away what obviously works.  That is a step backward IMO.
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "lancelotburt" <lancelotburt@> wrote:
> > 
> > All my mouthpieces now are extra-large chambered, short roll-over baffled, with a cylindrical constriction tube having a bore that matches the neck opening diameter.  The huge chamber gives me the tone and flexability and edge that I want.  Balancing the volume of the chamber with that of the variable length, smaller diameter constriction tube, which displaces (the IMO should not be there) throat volume, I can easily fulfill the 2 acoustical conditions required of the substitution:
> > 
> > 1. chamber volume + constriction volume = missing cone volume
> > 2. playing frequency of combined mouthpiece chamber + constiction = frs.
> > 
> > The intonation is as close to perfect as it could be, in all registers and the tone and response are just dreamy. IMO
> >
>

Thanks Steve.  That is truly enlightening.

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, saxgourmet@... wrote:
>
> Speaking strictly as a guy who manufactures Seven very different tenor mouthpieces and as someone who designs saxophones for a living I must agree with Keith. 
> 
> The mouthpiece should help the player get the sound and response they want. Music is not a science driven business. 
> 
> That being said, physics does play a part, but the sound ultimately comes from the player.
> 
> The mouthpiece is merely a tool used to accomplish an end. Different players need different tools in order to accomplish their goals.  
> 
> 
> 
> Sent on the Sprint® Now Network from my BlackBerry®
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Keith Bradbury" <kwbradbury@...>
> 
> Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 02:05:16 
> To: <MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: More On Missing Cone Volume
> 
> 
> So you arrived at a mouthpiece design that you like based on your understanding of the theory of what should work well and not by empirical (trial and error) testing?  Were you already using a Link-like mouthpiece?
> 
> You believe this design is superior to small chambered, high baffle designs?  Superior by a little or a lot?  (I'm not trying to be antagonistic.)
> 
> I would say, in practice, very little, if any.  Too many players use, and sound great on, so many designs that I find the application of this mouthpiece theory almost useless.  
> 
> I wish it was not this way.  I wish that the science could drive mouthpiece development farther.  But as I see it now, its application suggests that we should throw away what obviously works.  That is a step backward IMO.
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "lancelotburt" <lancelotburt@> wrote:
> > 
> > All my mouthpieces now are extra-large chambered, short roll-over baffled, with a cylindrical constriction tube having a bore that matches the neck opening diameter.  The huge chamber gives me the tone and flexability and edge that I want.  Balancing the volume of the chamber with that of the variable length, smaller diameter constriction tube, which displaces (the IMO should not be there) throat volume, I can easily fulfill the 2 acoustical conditions required of the substitution:
> > 
> > 1. chamber volume + constriction volume = missing cone volume
> > 2. playing frequency of combined mouthpiece chamber + constiction = frs.
> > 
> > The intonation is as close to perfect as it could be, in all registers and the tone and response are just dreamy. IMO
> >
>

>> The way you put a mouthpiece on a saxophone is a bit screwy I find.  Every
>> other wind instrument, woodwind and brass, uses a socket-style coupling
>> because a socket avoids the bore error induced
>> by making the inner diameter of the mouthpiece excessively large so it
>> will fit over the neck cork.

1. Quote from JVW as regards this: "I once met the brilliant classical
player Don Sinta at a trade show... He felt the tone chamber and the neck of
the horn should meet with the exact same diameter to maximize the efficiency
of the mouthpiece and horn relationship. I was compelled to try to do this
and send it to him to try. This idea presented a major tuning problem. It
was very difficult to make the interior of the piece exactly the right
volume so that when the piece went on the horn, and the inside bore met the
neck, the piece was exactly in tune. I did this by adding material on the
inside, to make the inside bore in the tone chamber be the same size as the
bore on the neck of my sax and then subtracting until the inside bore of the
piece met the neck and played perfectly in tune on my horn. It took
forever!! This is not a practical thing to do to a mouthpiece because every
horn plays in tune with the mouthpiece pushed to a slightly different place
on the cork.... [JVW discusses also having to repair the mouthpiece tip, but
concludes:] Turns out that Don's idea worked quite well. The tone of the
piece was warm and it was impossible to push the air so much that the sound
of the piece distorted.

2. What about the old Conns with the tuning adjuster on the neck? Wouldn't
this arrangement permit tuning with a mouthpiece that mated directly to the
neck with a matching bore? Were Conn mouthpieces for these horns designed to
match the neck bore?

I was very impressed with Donald Sinta.

For you average honker on a horn, this kind of stuff is senseless as:

1. Your average horn isn't going to improve that much.
2. Your average player isn't going to notice any improvement if there is any.

Matching a particular mouthpiece to a particular horn, the chamber/constriction ratio to the missing cone volume and the playing frequency of the mouthpiece/constriction to the theoretical frs, is complicated, and not something that one would like to do, each time they pull their horn out.  For developed players however, artists, who have found a superior instrument and mouthpiece (maybe), this is something that must and sould be done in order to get the most from the instrument/mouthpiece/player combination.  It only applies to that mouthpiece, with that horn, with that player.  

I personally prefer a Link chamber and I found that this modification gave me more of what I liked, the vintage "thing" that you can do with a note between the time you articulate it to the time the tone stabilizes.  You can play a whole song there, besides the one you're actually playing.  Response was superb.  It also dramatically improved and stabilized the intonation, something which usually is the first to suffer when you start messing with a Link.

I don't mean that there is anything really wrong with the mouthpiece fitting over the neck cork, only, realize that the inner diameter of the throat is dictated by that cork and not any acoustical consideration.  If the rest of the horn's bore was designed that carelessly, I really doubt that we would be here discussing this.  My point is: Just because the cork is that diameter, doesn't mean that that is the optimal diameter for the space between the chamber and the opening of the neck. I'm for the neck diameter constriction.




--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Barry Levine <barrylevine@...> wrote:
>
> >> The way you put a mouthpiece on a saxophone is a bit screwy I find.  Every
> >> other wind instrument, woodwind and brass, uses a socket-style coupling
> >> because a socket avoids the bore error induced
> >> by making the inner diameter of the mouthpiece excessively large so it
> >> will fit over the neck cork.
> 
> 1. Quote from JVW as regards this: "I once met the brilliant classical
> player Don Sinta at a trade show... He felt the tone chamber and the neck of
> the horn should meet with the exact same diameter to maximize the efficiency
> of the mouthpiece and horn relationship. I was compelled to try to do this
> and send it to him to try. This idea presented a major tuning problem. It
> was very difficult to make the interior of the piece exactly the right
> volume so that when the piece went on the horn, and the inside bore met the
> neck, the piece was exactly in tune. I did this by adding material on the
> inside, to make the inside bore in the tone chamber be the same size as the
> bore on the neck of my sax and then subtracting until the inside bore of the
> piece met the neck and played perfectly in tune on my horn. It took
> forever!! This is not a practical thing to do to a mouthpiece because every
> horn plays in tune with the mouthpiece pushed to a slightly different place
> on the cork.... [JVW discusses also having to repair the mouthpiece tip, but
> concludes:] Turns out that Don's idea worked quite well. The tone of the
> piece was warm and it was impossible to push the air so much that the sound
> of the piece distorted.
> 
> 2. What about the old Conns with the tuning adjuster on the neck? Wouldn't
> this arrangement permit tuning with a mouthpiece that mated directly to the
> neck with a matching bore? Were Conn mouthpieces for these horns designed to
> match the neck bore?
>

The problem with Conn microtuners is the fact that they add a cylindrical section where there should be a conical section, and this obviates any advantage that is gained by not having to leave a space in the mpc throat when pulling the mpc off the cork.

I put some thought into this, and it seems to me that the only obvious (at least to me) solution is a variant adopted by those other conical woodwinds, the oboe and bassoon: variable length staples or bocals. 

Here's an idea for Lance: while it is obviously impractical to carry a bunch of necks of different lengths around, one might make a "universal" neck somewhat shorter than normal, with a number of "extenders" of the right cone angle of different lengths which could be attached to form relatively
 seamless neck lengths.

It would simply be a matter of conical tenon-type joints: the neck would be, say, 7 cm shorter than normal, and you could have four or five sleeves which would fit over the truncated end of the neck of differing lengths with the cork attached. You would probably need some sort of small groove and
 guide arrangement to assure that this sleeve did not rotate when putting on or removing the mpc, and the end could have a tightening screw like that on the body receiver of the neck tenon for positive tightening.

This is not a perfect arrangement, since the volume of the mpc would theoretically have to change for each different neck sleeve (since the truncation ratio of the neck would change). But in practice it would not be a drastic difference for the normal tuning range of the sax, and it would
 eliminate the unwanted enlargement between the chamber and the end of the neck, since the mpc would be pushed on completely for each sleeve.

Not as easy or elegant as the microtuner, but it would preserve the conic integrity of the neck.

Toby

Barry Levine <barrylevine@...> wrote:                                    >> The way you put a mouthpiece on a saxophone is a bit screwy I find.  Every
 >> other wind instrument, woodwind and brass, uses a socket-style coupling
 >> because a socket avoids the bore error induced
 >> by making the inner diameter of the mouthpiece excessively large so it
 >> will fit over the neck cork.
 
 1. Quote from JVW as regards this: "I once met the brilliant classical
 player Don Sinta at a trade show... He felt the tone chamber and the neck of
 the horn should meet with the exact same diameter to maximize the efficiency
 of the mouthpiece and horn relationship. I was compelled to try to do this
 and send it to him to try. This idea presented a major tuning problem. It
 was very difficult to make the interior of the piece exactly the right
 volume so that when the piece went on the horn, and the inside bore met the
 neck, the piece was exactly in tune. I did this by adding material on the
 inside, to make the inside bore in the tone chamber be the same size as the
 bore on the neck of my sax and then subtracting until the inside bore of the
 piece met the neck and played perfectly in tune on my horn. It took
 forever!! This is not a practical thing to do to a mouthpiece because every
 horn plays in tune with the mouthpiece pushed to a slightly different place
 on the cork.... [JVW discusses also having to repair the mouthpiece tip, but
 concludes:] Turns out that Don's idea worked quite well. The tone of the
 piece was warm and it was impossible to push the air so much that the sound
 of the piece distorted.
 
 2. What about the old Conns with the tuning adjuster on the neck? Wouldn't
 this arrangement permit tuning with a mouthpiece that mated directly to the
 neck with a matching bore? Were Conn mouthpieces for these horns designed to
 match the neck bore?
 
 
        
             
                          
 

"I put some thought into this, and it seems to me that the only obvious
(at least to me) solution is a variant adopted by those other conical
woodwinds, the oboe and bassoon: variable length staples or bocals."

Toby,  

If you give Dr. Wolfe's statement any validity, this is all unnecessary.  Here is where the saxophone differs from the oboe/bassoon, due to the 1/1 ratio of the mouthpiece/reed cavity to missing cone volume.  Leave the sax neck alone.  It is perfectly fine the way it is, as the conical section of the body tube, which was arbitrarily cut off to facilitate handling and storage of the instrument.   The only aspect of the neck which is of any concern to the design of the mouthpiece, is the diameter of the neck (body tube) opening, and the amount of mouthpiece shank volume that it displaces when you shove the mouthpiece on.  

The mouthpiece cavity then must provide a chamber and a constriction between the chamber and the neck opening.  As the mouthpiece functions as a cylindrical tube with perturbations (Benade), it is perfectly acceptable to let the constriction be cylindrical, as it is (throat) on every mouthpiece I have seen, however as bore perturbations affect tuning and alignment here, as in every other part of the instrument, for optimal intonation and optimal resonance alignment affecting tone quality, response, and dynamic range, the constriction should be the same diameter as the neck opening.  Otherwise, the functioning resonance frequency of the mouthpiece, which should match the theoretical frs, will be unstable under playing conditions, excessively high when it's displacement anti-node is in the larger diameter constriction for upper register playing, moving down to where it should be, just inside the end of the neck, for lower register playing.  My
 experiments have shown this to be true.

The saxophone is a very flexible instrument.  There are many great artists making beautiful music on normal mouthpieces, but I seriously doubt that any of those aritsts would consider their mouthpiece as "perfect".   There is always room for improvement and even small improvements, even if only noticed directly by the player, are worthwhile.  

Sceptics: Before I discounted any theory, if I had any credibility at all, I would attempt to duplicate the findings of the theorist, or at least base my argument on related tests or acoustical studies rather than personal opinion or marketing propaganda.   I would also insure that I understood everything the theorist was postulating, and examine all test results, audio files, etc. and I would comment, in specific, on each point, showing why I disagreed.   Not doing so, I would expect to be seen, at least by the objectively minded readers, as either one who disagrees purely for the sake of disagreement, or one who insists, at any cost, to maintain the status quo.   The proof is in the pudding.  See you on the field.


--- On Fri, 8/7/09, kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...> wrote:

From: kymarto123@... <kymarto123@ybb.ne.jp>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: More On Missing Cone Volume
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, August 7, 2009, 3:45 PM






 




    
                  The problem with Conn microtuners is the fact that they add a cylindrical section where there should be a conical section, and this obviates any advantage that is gained by not having to leave a space in the mpc throat when pulling the mpc off the cork.



I put some thought into this, and it seems to me that the only obvious (at least to me) solution is a variant adopted by those other conical woodwinds, the oboe and bassoon: variable length staples or bocals. 



Here's an idea for Lance: while it is obviously impractical to carry a bunch of necks of different lengths around, one might make a "universal" neck somewhat shorter than normal, with a number of "extenders" of the right cone angle of different lengths which could be attached to form relatively
 seamless neck lengths.



It would simply be a matter of conical tenon-type joints: the neck would be, say, 7 cm shorter than normal, and you could have four or five sleeves which would fit over the truncated end of the neck of differing lengths with the cork attached. You would probably need some sort of small groove and
 guide arrangement to assure that this sleeve did not rotate when putting on or removing the mpc, and the end could have a tightening screw like that on the body receiver of the neck tenon for positive tightening.



This is not a perfect arrangement, since the volume of the mpc would theoretically have to change for each different neck sleeve (since the truncation ratio of the neck would change). But in practice it would not be a drastic difference for the normal tuning range of the sax, and it would
 eliminate the unwanted enlargement between the chamber and the end of the neck, since the mpc would be pushed on completely for each sleeve.



Not as easy or elegant as the microtuner, but it would preserve the conic integrity of the neck.



Toby



Barry Levine <barrylevine@ norwoodlight. com> wrote:                                 >> The way you put a mouthpiece on a saxophone is a bit screwy I find. 
 Every

 >> other wind instrument, woodwind and brass, uses a socket-style coupling

 >> because a socket avoids the bore error induced

 >> by making the inner diameter of the mouthpiece excessively large so it

 >> will fit over the neck cork.

 

 1. Quote from JVW as regards this: "I once met the brilliant classical

 player Don Sinta at a trade show... He felt the tone chamber and the neck of

 the horn should meet with the exact same diameter to maximize the efficiency

 of the mouthpiece and horn relationship. I was compelled to try to do this

 and send it to him to try. This idea presented a major tuning problem. It

 was very difficult to make the interior of the piece exactly the right

 volume so that when the piece went on the horn, and the inside bore met the

 neck, the piece was exactly in tune. I did this by adding material on the

 inside, to make the inside bore in the tone chamber be the same size as the

 bore on the neck of my sax and then subtracting until the inside bore of the

 piece met the neck and played perfectly in tune on my horn. It took

 forever!! This is not a practical thing to do to a mouthpiece because every

 horn plays in tune with the mouthpiece pushed to a slightly different place

 on the cork.... [JVW discusses also having to repair the mouthpiece tip, but

 concludes:] Turns out that Don's idea worked quite well. The tone of the

 piece was warm and it was impossible to push the air so much that the sound

 of the piece distorted.

 

 2. What about the old Conns with the tuning adjuster on the neck? Wouldn't

 this arrangement permit tuning with a mouthpiece that mated directly to the

 neck with a matching bore? Were Conn mouthpieces for these horns designed to

 match the neck bore?

 

                       


 

 

      

    
    
	
	 
	
	








	


	
	


      

MMod/Lance,

Thanks for clarifying your position and taking a few pot shots too ;).

I believe the theory can be used, as you have, to arrive at a very good mouthpiece.  But if it was "that good" players would stop looking for other mouthpieces.  We all want good intonation, but tone and response criteria are too diverse for one mouthpiece design to do it all for all players.

I also think the theory is too incomplete without considering the role of the player.  This is probably why Scavone is pursuing research in this area instead of creating a more detailed mouthpiece model.

It will be a long time before the theory will catch up to explain why what all is in use works so well.  Then, maybe it will offer some new ideas to try.  I hope to see it some day.


      

It's claimed by some that the cylindrical section of the neck tenon is
problematic. You are also making the same argument against the microtuner's
cylindrical bore. But is it really a big problem?

I've not played ANY of these Conns to have an opinion based on experience.
Who has?  I seem to recall that one problem was, they got stuck.

I realize your views may have changed, but regarding cylindrical sections in
a conical bore, you wrote this:

> kymarto
> 07-07-2005, 02:07 AM
> Jim Schmidt claims big improvement in his design that includes a tapered
> tenon. I don't know of any other sax maker who has gone to the trouble to
> taper the tenon. 
> 
> It's been shown that you can make a conical bore by joining a series of
> stepped cylinders. It works fine, although probably at the price some
> turbulence loss at the edges. And trumpets include a very long cylindrical
> section of tubing without a big problem in intonation, so my guess is that
> it's no big deal to have a cylindrical tenon. Think about sop saxes with and
> without detachable necks--I don't think that there are consistent claims for
> the superiority of the latter.
> 
> 
> 
> From: <kymarto123@...>
> Reply-To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2009 00:45:38 +0900 (JST)
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: More On Missing Cone Volume
> 
> 
>  
> The problem with Conn microtuners is the fact that they add a cylindrical
> section where there should be a conical section, and this obviates any
> advantage that is gained by not having to leave a space in the mpc throat when
> pulling the mpc off the cork.
> 
> I put some thought into this, and it seems to me that the only obvious (at
> least to me) solution is a variant adopted by those other conical woodwinds,
> the oboe and bassoon: variable length staples or bocals.
> 
> Here's an idea for Lance: while it is obviously impractical to carry a bunch
> of necks of different lengths around, one might make a "universal" neck
> somewhat shorter than normal, with a number of "extenders" of the right cone
> angle of different lengths which could be attached to form relatively seamless
> neck lengths.
> 
> It would simply be a matter of conical tenon-type joints: the neck would be,
> say, 7 cm shorter than normal, and you could have four or five sleeves which
> would fit over the truncated end of the neck of differing lengths with the
> cork attached. You would probably need some sort of small groove and guide
> arrangement to assure that this sleeve did not rotate when putting on or
> removing the mpc, and the end could have a tightening screw like that on the
> body receiver of the neck tenon for positive tightening.
> 
> This is not a perfect arrangement, since the volume of the mpc would
> theoretically have to change for each different neck sleeve (since the
> truncation ratio of the neck would change). But in practice it would not be a
> drastic difference for the normal tuning range of the sax, and it would
> eliminate the unwanted enlargement between the chamber and the end of the
> neck, since the mpc would be pushed on completely for each sleeve.
> 
> Not as easy or elegant as the microtuner, but it would preserve the conic
> integrity of the neck.
> 
> Toby
> 
> Barry Levine <barrylevine@...> wrote:
>               
>                  
>>>> >> The way you put a mouthpiece on a saxophone is a bit screwy I find.
>>>> Every
>>>> >> other wind instrument, woodwind and brass, uses a socket-style coupling
>>>> >> because a socket avoids the bore error induced
>>>> >> by making the inner diameter of the mouthpiece excessively large so it
>>>> >> will fit over the neck cork.
>> 
>> 1. Quote from JVW as regards this: "I once met the brilliant classical
>> player Don Sinta at a trade show... He felt the tone chamber and the neck of
>> the horn should meet with the exact same diameter to maximize the efficiency
>> of the mouthpiece and horn relationship. I was compelled to try to do this
>> and send it to him to try. This idea presented a major tuning problem. It
>> was very difficult to make the interior of the piece exactly the right
>> volume so that when the piece went on the horn, and the inside bore met the
>> neck, the piece was exactly in tune. I did this by adding material on the
>> inside, to make the inside bore in the tone chamber be the same size as the
>> bore on the neck of my sax and then subtracting until the inside bore of the
>> piece met the neck and played perfectly in tune on my horn. It took
>> forever!! This is not a practical thing to do to a mouthpiece because every
>> horn plays in tune with the mouthpiece pushed to a slightly different place
>> on the cork.... [JVW discusses also having to repair the mouthpiece tip, but
>> concludes:] Turns out that Don's idea worked quite well. The tone of the
>> piece was warm and it was impossible to push the air so much that the sound
>> of the piece distorted.
>> 
>> 2. What about the old Conns with the tuning adjuster on the neck? Wouldn't
>> this arrangement permit tuning with a mouthpiece that mated directly to the
>> neck with a matching bore? Were Conn mouthpieces for these horns designed to
>> match the neck bore?
>> 
>>         
>>               
>> 
>>  
>>   
>> 
> 
> 

"I believe the theory can be used, as you have, to arrive at a very good
mouthpiece. "

Thank-you. 

"But if it was "that good" players would stop looking for
other mouthpieces."

Well, as I am as yet, the only one who has played it, that remains to be seen.

"We all want good intonation, but tone and response criteria are too
diverse for one mouthpiece design to do it all for all players." 

Another gross misconception that aught concern you I think - you are missing a lot. The "good intonation" comes simply from matching the constriction diameter to the neck opening diameter.  This merely eliminates an acoustical error inherent in every mouthpiece, making it more efficient and accurate.  Nothing more.  The design and shape of the chamber and baffle, that which determines the actual characteristic tone and response of the mouthpiece, could be any design imaginable.  You limit yourself.

"I also think the theory is too incomplete without considering the role
of the player. This is probably why Scavone is pursuing research in
this area instead of creating a more detailed mouthpiece model."

This theory takes into account the roll of the player as much as any other mouthpiece theory, or empirical routine, and as such, is as complete as any other.  

As regards Scavone's not developing a detailed mouthpiece model, we needn't deal with probabilities.  He stated clearly in his thesis why the detailed mouthpiece model was not being pursued, "For real-time digital waveguide implementations under current computer processor capabilities, it is unclear whether the benefits of such mouthpiece design flexibility are worth the added computational cost."

"It will be a long time before the theory will catch up to explain why what all is in use works so well."

Again, I dispute the statement that what we have, "works so well".  as if mouthpieces to day are perfect.  I don't hear anyone saying that anywhere.   While this theory and demonstration may not reveal ALL the secrets of mouthpieces, it does indisputably expose an acoustical problem that all saxophone mouthpieces have, and it does provide an easy solution.   

But hey!  Kieth, this is your group and it has some great content, so take it where you want it to go.  It certainly isn't in this direction.  I'll leave you to your numbers.  I have some mouthpiece professionals who are interested in discussing this.






--- On Fri, 8/7/09, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: More On Missing Cone Volume
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, August 7, 2009, 6:26 PM






 




    
                  

MMod/Lance,



Thanks for clarifying your position and taking a few pot shots too ;).



I believe the theory can be used, as you have, to arrive at a very good mouthpiece.  But if it was "that good" players would stop looking for other mouthpieces.  We all want good intonation, but tone and response criteria are too diverse for one mouthpiece design to do it all for all players.



I also think the theory is too incomplete without considering the role of the player.  This is probably why Scavone is pursuing research in this area instead of creating a more detailed mouthpiece model.



It will be a long time before the theory will catch up to explain why what all is in use works so well.  Then, maybe it will offer some new ideas to try.  I hope to see it some day.




 

      

    
    
	
	 
	
	








	


	
	


      

>>>>>>>>>>>
--- On Fri, 8/7/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:

...But hey!  Kieth, this is your group and it has some great content, so take it where you want it to go.  It certainly isn't in this direction.  I'll leave you to your numbers.  I have some mouthpiece professionals who are interested in discussing this...
<<<<<<<<<<<

I do find this topic interesting in spite of your/my opinion on its usefulness.  I'm sorry you feel my opinion is guiding the discussion more than yours.  

I'll admit my understanding of the constriction location, and how it differs from existing mouthpieces in use, is limited.  Some kind of drawing or sketch would help.

I'm not sure what you mean by my "numbers".  If they are facing curve targets, I think they are pretty important.  




      

Yes the numbers are just as important as everything else.  



--- On Sat, 8/8/09, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:

From: Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: More On Missing Cone Volume
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, August 8, 2009, 2:41 AM






 




    
                  

>>>>>>>>>>>

--- On Fri, 8/7/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:



...But hey!  Kieth, this is your group and it has some great content, so take it where you want it to go.  It certainly isn't in this direction.  I'll leave you to your numbers.  I have some mouthpiece professionals who are interested in discussing this...

<<<<<<<<<<<



I do find this topic interesting in spite of your/my opinion on its usefulness.  I'm sorry you feel my opinion is guiding the discussion more than yours.  



I'll admit my understanding of the constriction location, and how it differs from existing mouthpieces in use, is limited.  Some kind of drawing or sketch would help.



I'm not sure what you mean by my "numbers".  If they are facing curve targets, I think they are pretty important.  




 

      

    
    
	
	 
	
	








	


	
	


      

I respectfully disagree, and it is only necessary to take the case to more of an extreme to see why. If you consider the shape at the top of the neck unimportant, then at what point does the shape become important? Why not just make the whole neck a cylinder, or the whole sax? Clearly this doesn't
 work.

If you read Benade or Fletcher and Rossing you will see that the double reeds have their own analog of the replication of the missing cone volume in the construction of the reed. It is as important in the oboe as in the sax.

Perhaps you missed the very long thread in SOTW on this very subject between jbt and myself. The upshot is that, after a very important fashion, both the physical sounding length AND the missing cone volume are important to intonation. We can revisit this argument if you wish. However here is a
 quote from Benade regarding oboes in particular, in answer to jbt's assertion, which is similar to yours, to wit: only the interior volume of the mpc affects intonation for a truncated conical woodwind:

 "(A) Suppose the D4-D5 octave is OK, but the scale runs flat in going up from D4 to C5 (i.e. the low-register scale runs short with an extra big jump between C5 and the D5 that is the bottom note of the second register). If everything sings as described earlier, then try to renegotiate with a
 narrower staple and/or narrower reed--but you must keep aware of other tuning checks given below, so as not to get into a bind! (Shorter should somewhat do the job too, but save it for what it does best--see below.)
 
 (B) Suppose the D4-D5 octave is OK, more or less, but the whole scale seems a trifle flat from what you want it to be. THIS IS A DANGEROUS GAME IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT PITCH THE INSTRUMENT WAS DESIGNED FOR!
 
 Provided the instrument pretty well sings with the reed you have and provided the scale runs a trifle short in the manner indicated in step A, the cure is to use a slightly SHORTER staple and/or reed--a narrower one of each will stretch the scale rather than raise it en masse[emphasis mine]. THIS
 SEEMS OBVIOUS--IT IS NOT, HOWEVER. It is a special quirk of a cone of variable length provided at the top with a cavity--somewhat elongated--and a constriction.
 
 As little as 3 mm shortening will raise the overall playing pitch of essentially the whole scale by 15 to 20 cents on an oboe if the cooperations are in reasonably good order.
 
 ...WITH ONLY A LITTLE CHANGE IT ADAPTS THINGS TO THE SAXOPHONE..."

Toby

MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:                                    "I put some thought into this, and it seems to me that the only obvious (at least to me) solution is a variant adopted by those other conical woodwinds, the oboe and bassoon: variable length staples or bocals."

Toby,  

If you give Dr. Wolfe's statement any validity, this is all unnecessary.  Here is where the saxophone differs from the oboe/bassoon, due to the 1/1 ratio of the mouthpiece/reed cavity to missing cone volume.  Leave the sax neck alone.  It is perfectly fine the way it is, as the conical section of
 the body tube, which was arbitrarily cut off to facilitate handling and storage of the instrument.   The only aspect of the neck which is of any concern to the design of the mouthpiece, is the diameter of the neck (body tube) opening, and the amount of mouthpiece shank volume that it displaces
 when you shove the mouthpiece on.  

The mouthpiece cavity then must provide a chamber and a constriction between the chamber and the neck opening.  As the mouthpiece functions as a cylindrical tube with perturbations (Benade), it is perfectly  acceptable to let the constriction be cylindrical, as it is (throat) on every mouthpiece I
 have seen, however as bore perturbations affect tuning and alignment here, as in every other part of the instrument, for optimal intonation and optimal resonance alignment affecting tone quality, response, and dynamic range, the constriction should be the same diameter as the neck opening. 
 Otherwise, the functioning resonance frequency of the mouthpiece, which should match the theoretical frs, will be unstable under playing conditions, excessively high when it's displacement anti-node is in the larger diameter constriction for upper register playing, moving down to where it should
 be, just inside the end of the neck, for lower register playing.  My experiments have shown this to be true.

The saxophone is a very flexible instrument.  There are many great artists making beautiful music on normal mouthpieces, but I seriously doubt that any of  those aritsts would consider their mouthpiece as "perfect".   There is always room for improvement and even small improvements, even if only
 noticed directly by the player, are worthwhile.  

Sceptics: Before I discounted any theory, if I had any credibility at all, I would attempt to duplicate the findings of the theorist, or at least base my argument on related tests or acoustical studies rather than personal opinion or marketing propaganda.   I would also insure that I understood
 everything the theorist was postulating, and examine all test results, audio files, etc. and I would comment, in specific, on each point, showing why I disagreed.   Not doing so, I would expect to be seen, at least by the objectively minded readers, as either one who disagrees purely for the sake
 of disagreement, or one who insists, at any cost, to maintain the status quo.   The proof is in the pudding.  See you on the  field.


--- On Fri, 8/7/09, kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...> wrote:

From: kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: More On Missing Cone Volume
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, August 7, 2009, 3:45 PM

                               The problem with Conn microtuners is the fact that they add a cylindrical section where there should be a conical section, and this obviates any advantage that is gained by not having to leave a space in the mpc throat when pulling the mpc off the cork.
 
 I put some thought into this, and it seems to me that the only obvious (at least to me) solution is a variant adopted by those other conical woodwinds, the oboe and bassoon: variable length staples or bocals. 
 
 Here's an idea for Lance: while it is obviously impractical to carry a bunch of necks of different lengths around, one might make a "universal" neck somewhat shorter than normal, with a number of "extenders" of the right cone angle of different lengths which could be attached to form relatively 
 seamless neck lengths.
 
 It would simply be a matter of conical tenon-type joints: the neck would be, say, 7 cm shorter than normal, and you could have four or five sleeves which would fit over the truncated end of the neck of differing lengths with the cork attached. You would probably need some sort of small groove and
  guide arrangement to assure that this sleeve did not rotate when putting on or removing the mpc, and the end could have a tightening screw like that on the body receiver of the neck tenon for positive tightening.
 
 This is not a perfect arrangement, since the volume of the mpc would theoretically have to change for each different neck sleeve (since the truncation ratio of the neck would change). But in practice it would not be a drastic difference for the normal tuning range of the sax, and it would 
 eliminate the unwanted enlargement between the chamber and the end of the neck, since the mpc would be pushed on completely for each sleeve.
 
 Not as easy or elegant as the microtuner, but it would preserve the conic integrity of the neck.
 
 Toby
 
 Barry Levine <barrylevine@ norwoodlight. com> wrote:
                                 >> The way you put a mouthpiece on a saxophone is a bit screwy I find.   Every
  >> other wind instrument, woodwind and brass, uses a socket-style coupling
  >> because a socket avoids the bore error induced
  >> by making the inner diameter of the mouthpiece excessively large so it
  >> will fit over the neck cork.
  
  1. Quote from JVW as regards this: "I once met the brilliant classical
  player Don Sinta at a trade show... He felt the tone chamber and the neck of
  the horn should meet with the exact same diameter to maximize the efficiency
  of the mouthpiece and horn relationship. I was compelled to try to do this
  and send it to him to try. This idea presented a major tuning problem. It
  was very difficult to make the interior of the piece exactly the right
  volume so that when the piece went on the horn, and the inside bore met the
  neck, the piece was exactly in tune. I did this by adding material on the
  inside, to make the inside bore in the tone chamber be the same size as the
  bore on the neck of my sax and then subtracting until the inside bore of the
  piece met the neck and played perfectly in tune on my horn. It took
  forever!! This is not a practical thing to do to a mouthpiece because every
  horn plays in tune with the mouthpiece pushed to a slightly different place
  on the cork.... [JVW discusses also having to repair the mouthpiece tip, but
  concludes:] Turns out that Don's idea worked quite well. The tone of the
  piece was warm and it was impossible to push the air so much that the sound
  of the piece distorted.
  
  2. What about the old Conns with the tuning adjuster on the neck? Wouldn't
  this arrangement permit tuning with a mouthpiece that mated directly to the
  neck with a matching bore? Were Conn mouthpieces for these horns designed to
  match the neck bore?
  
  
        
              
   
         
           

        
        
             
                          
 

Lance,

One more small point: if the tuning is entirely determined by the length of the column to the virtual apex of the cone alone, then the Conn microtuner would not change the pitch, or at least it would not change it consistently across all modes. Increasing the internal volume of the tip analog
 lowers the upper mode frequencies quite a bit more than those of the first mode.

Toby
 

Barry,

Stepped cylinders which average out to a cone are different from an interruption in the cone. To be honest, I don't know how much real-world difference these cylindrical constrictions make, but I'm sure that they make some difference. The microtuner is, I think, in a very critical area, which has
 a global effect on intonation, tone color and response. Areas further down the bore have more limited effects. As always, I remain skeptical of results based on "feelings" rather than controlled testing.

Toby

Barry Levine <barrylevine@...> wrote:                                       It's claimed by some that the cylindrical section of the neck tenon is problematic. You are also making the same argument against the microtuner's cylindrical bore. But is it really a big problem?
 
 I've not played ANY of these Conns to have an opinion based on experience. Who has?  I seem to recall that one problem was, they got stuck.
 
 I realize your views may have changed, but regarding cylindrical sections in a conical bore, you wrote this:
 
 
kymarto
 07-07-2005, 02:07 AM
 Jim Schmidt claims big improvement in his design that includes a tapered tenon. I don't know of any other sax maker who has gone to the trouble to taper the tenon. 
 
 It's been shown that you can make a conical bore by joining a series of stepped cylinders. It works fine, although probably at the price some turbulence loss at the edges. And trumpets include a very long cylindrical section of tubing without a big problem in intonation, so my guess is that it's
 no big deal to have a cylindrical tenon. Think about sop saxes with and without detachable necks--I don't think that there are consistent claims for the superiority of the latter.
 
 
 
 From: <kymarto123@...>
 Reply-To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
 Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2009 00:45:38 +0900 (JST)
 To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
 Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: More On Missing Cone Volume
 
 
  
 The problem with Conn microtuners is the fact that they add a cylindrical section where there should be a conical section, and this obviates any advantage that is gained by not having to leave a space in the mpc throat when pulling the mpc off the cork.
 
 I put some thought into this, and it seems to me that the only obvious (at least to me) solution is a variant adopted by those other conical woodwinds, the oboe and bassoon: variable length staples or bocals. 
 
 Here's an idea for Lance: while it is obviously impractical to carry a bunch of necks of different lengths around, one might make a "universal" neck somewhat shorter than normal, with a number of "extenders" of the right cone angle of different lengths which could be attached to form relatively
 seamless neck lengths.
 
 It would simply be a matter of conical tenon-type joints: the neck would be, say, 7 cm shorter than normal, and you could have four or five sleeves which would fit over the truncated end of the neck of differing lengths with the cork attached. You would probably need some sort of small groove and
 guide arrangement to assure that this sleeve did not rotate when putting on or removing the mpc, and the end could have a tightening screw like that on the body receiver of the neck tenon for positive tightening.
 
 This is not a perfect arrangement, since the volume of the mpc would theoretically have to change for each different neck sleeve (since the truncation ratio of the neck would change). But in practice it would not be a drastic difference for the normal tuning range of the sax, and it would
 eliminate the unwanted enlargement between the chamber and the end of the neck, since the mpc would be pushed on completely for each sleeve.
 
 Not as easy or elegant as the microtuner, but it would preserve the conic integrity of the neck.
 
 Toby
 
 Barry Levine <barrylevine@...> wrote:
               
                    
 >> The way you put a mouthpiece on a saxophone is a bit screwy I find. Every
 >> other wind instrument, woodwind and brass, uses a socket-style coupling
 >> because a socket avoids the bore error induced
 >> by making the inner diameter of the mouthpiece excessively large so it
 >> will fit over the neck cork.
 
 1. Quote from JVW as regards this: "I once met the brilliant classical
 player Don Sinta at a trade show... He felt the tone chamber and the neck of
 the horn should meet with the exact same diameter to maximize the efficiency
 of the mouthpiece and horn relationship. I was compelled to try to do this
 and send it to him to try. This idea presented a major tuning problem. It
 was very difficult to make the interior of the piece exactly the right
 volume so that when the piece went on the horn, and the inside bore met the
 neck, the piece was exactly in tune. I did this by adding material on the
 inside, to make the inside bore in the tone chamber be the same size as the
 bore on the neck of my sax and then subtracting until the inside bore of the
 piece met the neck and played perfectly in tune on my horn. It took
 forever!! This is not a practical thing to do to a mouthpiece because every
 horn plays in tune with the mouthpiece pushed to a slightly different place
 on the cork.... [JVW discusses also having to repair the mouthpiece tip, but
 concludes:] Turns out that Don's idea worked quite well. The tone of the
 piece was warm and it was impossible to push the air so much that the sound
 of the piece distorted.
 
 2. What about the old Conns with the tuning adjuster on the neck? Wouldn't
 this arrangement permit tuning with a mouthpiece that mated directly to the
 neck with a matching bore? Were Conn mouthpieces for these horns designed to
 match the neck bore?
 
         
               
 
  
   
 
 
 
     
        
             
                          
 

"I'll admit my understanding of the constriction location, and how it
differs from existing mouthpieces in use, is limited. Some kind of
drawing or sketch would help."

Constriction drawing attached with explanation.  Look at it this way:  We have a cone and we chop the small end off so we can put vibrating air into it and make sounds.  The cone is the body and the body is the boss.  Provided that we want our "sound making thing" to operate as efficiently as possible, whatever we stick on the end of the body has to compliment it's proportions - so say the acoustical laws of physics.  If we don't make the end of our substitution match the opening of the body, we are just being stupid.  Every other wind instrument on this planet, all centuries older than the saxophone, each one developed as a result of centuries of empirical trial and error testing, and that result substantiated by acoustical theory, fulfills this requirement.  Only the saxophone is so magically mysterious that it defies scientific acoustical analysis............or is it rather that it is still so new, we haven't taken the time to really think
 about it.  I think the latter.
..  .  





--- On Sat, 8/8/09, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:

From: Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: More On Missing Cone Volume
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, August 8, 2009, 2:41 AM






 




    
                  

>>>>>>>>>>>

--- On Fri, 8/7/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:



...But hey!  Kieth, this is your group and it has some great content, so take it where you want it to go.  It certainly isn't in this direction.  I'll leave you to your numbers.  I have some mouthpiece professionals who are interested in discussing this...

<<<<<<<<<<<



I do find this topic interesting in spite of your/my opinion on its usefulness.  I'm sorry you feel my opinion is guiding the discussion more than yours.  



I'll admit my understanding of the constriction location, and how it differs from existing mouthpieces in use, is limited.  Some kind of drawing or sketch would help.



I'm not sure what you mean by my "numbers".  If they are facing curve targets, I think they are pretty important.  




 

      

    
    
	
	 
	
	








	


	
	


      

Correction:  Pict file uploaded to Misc. File folder: Constriction.jpg

I have played and/or owned a number of the Conn saxophones with microtuners and a stencil with a simpler neck that slides and locks in place with a clamping screw. Odd tuning or tone effects in one register or the other were not noticed with an electronic tuner or by ear. It is a neat gizmo. But I usually leave it turned in all the way and use the cork like a regular neck (with a newer mouthpiece) solely because it is quicker to adjust to a different group or temperature than turning and turning.

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
>
> Barry,
> 
> Stepped cylinders which average out to a cone are different from an interruption in the cone. To be honest, I don't know how much real-world difference these cylindrical constrictions make, but I'm sure that they make some difference. The microtuner is, I think, in a very critical area, which has
>  a global effect on intonation, tone color and response. Areas further down the bore have more limited effects. As always, I remain skeptical of results based on "feelings" rather than controlled testing.
> 
> Toby
> 

I purchased a vintage horn Buffet Crampon- Evette & Schaeffer Baritone early 1900's. I had it overhauled. 
by itself it sounds sweet!
When I was testing the horn with the tuner, it was playing 1/2 step higher than it should have been!
I had the neck made longer it helped. so what might be a next step? that if their a next step!
I was thinking adding length to the horn, why ?
 
My primary horn is the alto, but why I play gospel the baritone takes it to another level!
What might you suggest?
thomas-


      

I have to wonder why Adolphe Sax, who had, after all, also built clarinets
and had completely revamped the bass clarinet, did not adopt the same
mounting for the saxophone mouthpiece.


> From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
> Reply-To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2009 13:11:05 -0700 (PDT)
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: More On Missing Cone Volume [1 Attachment]
> 
> (snip)
> 
> If we don't make the end of our substitution match the opening of the body, we
> are just being stupid.  Every other wind instrument on this planet, all
> centuries older than the saxophone, each one developed as a result of
> centuries of empirical trial and error testing, and that result substantiated
> by acoustical theory, fulfills this requirement.  Only the saxophone is so
> magically mysterious that it defies scientific acoustical
> analysis............or is it rather that it is still so new, we haven't taken
> the time to really think about it.  I think the latter.

My theory:  Sax made a compromise.  Compromise precise and even tuning for acceptable flexible tuning.  The instruments were intended to be used in military bands and concert bands, playing outside much of the time.   His design enabled quick and wide tuning adjustments to be made as needed due to fluxuating temperature conditions while still providing acceptable tuning accuracy.



--- On Sun, 8/9/09, Barry Levine <barrylevine@norwoodlight.com> wrote:

From: Barry Levine <barrylevine@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: More On Missing Cone Volume
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, August 9, 2009, 1:34 AM






 




    
                  


I have to wonder why Adolphe Sax, who had, after all, also built clarinets and had completely revamped the bass clarinet, did not adopt the same mounting for the saxophone mouthpiece.     





From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>

Reply-To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com

Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2009 13:11:05 -0700 (PDT)

To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com

Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: More On Missing Cone Volume [1 Attachment]



(snip)



If we don't make the end of our substitution match the opening of the body, we are just being stupid.  Every other wind instrument on this planet, all centuries older than the saxophone, each one developed as a result of centuries of empirical trial and error testing, and that result substantiated by acoustical theory, fulfills this requirement.  Only the saxophone is so magically mysterious that it defies scientific acoustical analysis..... ........or is it rather that it is still so new, we haven't taken the time to really think about it.  I think the latter.




 

      

    
    
	
	 
	
	








	


	
	


      

Seems pretty simple.  He saw how much room for tuning correction was needed on a saxophone from one mouthpiece/player to another and realized that the old way would NEVER do!

Bill Hausmann

If you have to mic a saxophone, the rest of the band is TOO LOUD!

--- On Sat, 8/8/09, Barry Levine <barrylevine@...> wrote:


From: Barry Levine <barrylevine@norwoodlight.com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: More On Missing Cone Volume
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, August 8, 2009, 9:34 PM








I have to wonder why Adolphe Sax, who had, after all, also built clarinets and had completely revamped the bass clarinet, did not adopt the same mounting for the saxophone mouthpiece.     



From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
Reply-To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2009 13:11:05 -0700 (PDT)
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: More On Missing Cone Volume [1 Attachment]

(snip)

If we don't make the end of our substitution match the opening of the body, we are just being stupid.  Every other wind instrument on this planet, all centuries older than the saxophone, each one developed as a result of centuries of empirical trial and error testing, and that result substantiated by acoustical theory, fulfills this requirement.  Only the saxophone is so magically mysterious that it defies scientific acoustical analysis............or is it rather that it is still so new, we haven't taken the time to really think about it.  I think the latter.





      

Sounds good to me.

Another phrase comes to mind as well: "close enough for jazz"

> From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
> Reply-To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2009 18:54:43 -0700 (PDT)
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: More On Missing Cone Volume
> 
> 
>  
> My theory:  Sax made a compromise.  Compromise precise and even tuning for
> acceptable flexible tuning.  The instruments were intended to be used in
> military bands and concert bands, playing outside much of the time.   His
> design enabled quick and wide tuning adjustments to be made as needed due to
> fluxuating temperature conditions while still providing acceptable tuning
> accuracy.
> 
> 
> 
> --- On Sun, 8/9/09, Barry Levine <barrylevine@...> wrote:
>> 
>> From: Barry Levine <barrylevine@...>
>> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: More On Missing Cone Volume
>> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>> Date: Sunday, August 9, 2009, 1:34 AM
>> 
>>  
>> I have to wonder why Adolphe Sax, who had, after all, also built clarinets
>> and had completely revamped the bass clarinet, did not adopt the same
>> mounting for the saxophone mouthpiece.
>> 
>> 
>>> From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
>>> Reply-To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
>>> Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2009 13:11:05 -0700 (PDT)
>>> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
>>> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: More On Missing Cone Volume [1 Attachment]
>>> 
>>> (snip)
>>> 
>>> If we don't make the end of our substitution match the opening of the body,
>>> we are just being stupid.  Every other wind instrument on this planet, all
>>> centuries older than the saxophone, each one developed as a result of
>>> centuries of empirical trial and error testing, and that result
>>> substantiated by acoustical theory, fulfills this requirement.  Only the
>>> saxophone is so magically mysterious that it defies scientific acoustical
>>> analysis.... .........or is it rather that it is still so new, we haven't
>>> taken the time to really think about it.  I think the latter.
>>>    
>>> 
>>>   
>>> 
> 
> 

Yes, but, we live in the Now.  Now we have artist saxophonists who specify room temperature in the studio for their recording session.  They play on one horn, and one mouthpiece, which if they are smart, has been matched to each other and themself.  On the high end, implementing the "old way" can give an artist more precise tuning, better response, wider dynamic range, and better tone, without having to work extra for it.  That frees them that much more for self-expression.  That is the "edge" they are all looking for.

--- On Sun, 8/9/09, Bill Hausmann <zoot51@...> wrote:

From: Bill Hausmann <zoot51@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: More On Missing Cone Volume
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, August 9, 2009, 1:59 AM






 




    
                  Seems pretty simple.  He saw how much room for tuning correction was needed on a saxophone from one mouthpiece/player to another and realized that the old way would NEVER do!

Bill Hausmann

If you have to mic a saxophone, the rest of the band is TOO LOUD!

--- On Sat, 8/8/09, Barry Levine <barrylevine@ norwoodlight. com> wrote:


From: Barry Levine <barrylevine@ norwoodlight. com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: More On Missing Cone Volume
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Saturday, August 8, 2009, 9:34 PM






I have to wonder why Adolphe Sax, who had, after all, also built clarinets and had completely revamped the bass clarinet, did not adopt the same mounting for the saxophone mouthpiece.     



From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
Reply-To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2009 13:11:05 -0700 (PDT)
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: More On Missing Cone Volume [1 Attachment]

(snip)

If we don't make the end of our substitution match the opening of the body, we are just being stupid.  Every other wind instrument on this planet, all centuries older than the saxophone, each one developed as a result of centuries of empirical trial and error testing, and that result substantiated by acoustical theory, fulfills this requirement.  Only the saxophone is so magically mysterious that it defies scientific acoustical analysis.... .........or is it rather that it is still so new, we haven't taken the time to really think about it.  I think the latter.





      
 

      

    
    
	
	 
	
	








	


	
	


      

Come on Professor W.  What do you think?

--- On Sun, 8/9/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:

From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: More On Missing Cone Volume
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, August 9, 2009, 2:15 AM






 




    
                  Yes, but, we live in the Now.  Now we have artist saxophonists who specify room temperature in the studio for their recording session.  They play on one horn, and one mouthpiece, which if they are smart, has been matched to each other and themself.  On the high end, implementing the "old way" can give an artist more precise tuning, better response, wider dynamic range, and better tone, without having to work extra for it.  That frees them that much more for self-expression.  That is the "edge" they are all looking for.

--- On Sun, 8/9/09, Bill Hausmann <zoot51@yahoo. com> wrote:

From: Bill Hausmann <zoot51@yahoo. com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: More On Missing Cone Volume
To:
 MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Sunday, August 9, 2009, 1:59 AM






 

    
                  Seems pretty simple.  He saw how much room for tuning correction was needed on a saxophone from one mouthpiece/player to another and realized that the old way would NEVER do!

Bill Hausmann

If you have to mic a saxophone, the rest of the band is TOO LOUD!

--- On Sat, 8/8/09, Barry Levine <barrylevine@ norwoodlight. com> wrote:


From: Barry Levine <barrylevine@ norwoodlight. com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: More On Missing Cone Volume
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Saturday, August 8, 2009, 9:34 PM






I have to wonder why Adolphe Sax, who had, after all, also built clarinets and had completely revamped the bass clarinet, did not adopt the same mounting for the saxophone mouthpiece.     



From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
Reply-To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2009 13:11:05 -0700 (PDT)
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: More On Missing Cone Volume [1 Attachment]

(snip)

If we don't make the end of our substitution match the opening of the body, we are just being stupid.  Every other wind instrument on this planet, all centuries older than the saxophone, each one developed as a result of centuries of empirical trial and error testing, and that result substantiated by acoustical theory, fulfills this requirement.  Only the saxophone is so magically mysterious that it defies scientific acoustical analysis.... .........or is it rather that it is still so new, we haven't taken the time to really think about it.  I think the latter..





      
 

      


	 
	
	




      
 

      

    
    
	
	 
	
	








	


	
	


      

you must check if the instrument is high or low pitch (the letters LP might be on the body);
equally the instrument would have used a ballooned out tone chamber mouthpiece--a modern mouthpiece would make it play sharper (even a Link is not big enough). It might also have been re-laquered and if the polishing was done badly prior to laquering the tone holes would be uneven-they then would have to be reduced to make them level again thus another reason for a sharper pitch ( this happens rarely but it does happen regreattably).
last point-does it have its original crook?
prof weinberg

--- On Sat, 8/8/09, ebony warrior <ebonywarrior13@...> wrote:


From: ebony warrior <ebonywarrior13@...>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] will changing the mouthpiece help
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, 8 August, 2009, 10:34 PM


  





I purchased a vintage horn Buffet Crampon- Evette & Schaeffer Baritone early 1900's. I had it overhauled. 
by itself it sounds sweet!
When I was testing the horn with the tuner, it was playing 1/2 step higher than it should have been!
I had the neck made longer it helped. so what might be a next step? that if their a next step!
I was thinking adding length to the horn, why ?
 
My primary horn is the alto, but why I play gospel the baritone takes it to another level!
What might you suggest?
thomas-
 

In the "now" I find most modern music insipid and without inspiration. The sound is amazing, yes, on contemporary recordings, but I will take the "heart" in the recordings of jazz in the 20s and rock in the 60s over just about anything today. 

I don't wish to be antagonistic, but I do wonder just how much difference this small change in the mpc makes in reality. To me, music is much less a question of bleeding edge technology than it is of human expression. Some of the music which has moved me the most is made on primitive instruments of wood and reed, played by people who could not read music or anything else. It seems to me that so many are so concerned with "kit" and "setup" that they forget that the instrument is just an "instrument", an object with which to achieve and end: they get so hung up with the means that they lose sight of the end.

Perfection is nowhere near possible acoustically with any wind instrument. This is not to say that it is not possible to improve in various ways on extant designs, but those improvements do not necessarily get us a qualitatively better instrument, just a different one. 

Sax was one of the most brilliant musical designers ever, and one with a very solid basis in acoustic knowledge. I do not think that his mpc/neck design was an oversight. Rather I think that he believed it a reasonable compromise, just as there are hundreds of other reasonable compromises on the sax. At some point you have to consider the reality of the situation. It is not possible to have 12 octave pips, so he decided it was a reasonable compromise to have two doing extra duty. This creates some pretty awful problems with the D2 and A2, and lesser ones with other notes, but it works well enough that musicians can express themselves decently without horrible gyrations. The idea of a non-adjustable mpc strikes me as impractical in many--if not most--situations. 

There is an interesting observation in technologies--the rule of ten, I think it is called--which states that to succeed,  a new technology has to be ten times better than a technology it is meant to replace if it entails major changes in practice or equipment. This is why Jim Schmidt's new sax design is doomed to obscurity along with so many other Good Musical Ideas and the Dvorak keyboard. I applaud Lance for his enthusiasm and technical skill, but I suggest that he think about practicality and the rule of ten before committing lots of effort to a design that requires big compromises in the present state of the art. To be blunt, if someone offered me a great new mouthpiece with much improved tonal, intonational and response characteristics, but which could only be used optimally in a very limited subset of the set of all conditions in which I play, I doubt I would be much interested.

Toby







  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: MartinMods 
  To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Sunday, August 09, 2009 11:15 AM
  Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: More On Missing Cone Volume


    Yes, but, we live in the Now.  Now we have artist saxophonists who specify room temperature in the studio for their recording session.  They play on one horn, and one mouthpiece, which if they are smart, has been matched to each other and themself.  On the high end, implementing the "old way" can give an artist more precise tuning, better response, wider dynamic range, and better tone, without having to work extra for it.  That frees them that much more for self-expression.  That is the "edge" they are all looking for.

        --- On Sun, 8/9/09, Bill Hausmann <zoot51@yahoo.com> wrote:


          From: Bill Hausmann <zoot51@...>
          Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: More On Missing Cone Volume
          To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
          Date: Sunday, August 9, 2009, 1:59 AM


            
                Seems pretty simple.  He saw how much room for tuning correction was needed on a saxophone from one mouthpiece/player to another and realized that the old way would NEVER do!

                Bill Hausmann

                If you have to mic a saxophone, the rest of the band is TOO LOUD!

                --- On Sat, 8/8/09, Barry Levine <barrylevine@ norwoodlight. com> wrote:


                  From: Barry Levine <barrylevine@ norwoodlight. com>
                  Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: More On Missing Cone Volume
                  To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
                  Date: Saturday, August 8, 2009, 9:34 PM




                  I have to wonder why Adolphe Sax, who had, after all, also built clarinets and had completely revamped the bass clarinet, did not adopt the same mounting for the saxophone mouthpiece.     



                    From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
                    Reply-To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
                    Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2009 13:11:05 -0700 (PDT)
                    To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
                    Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: More On Missing Cone Volume [1 Attachment]

                    (snip)

                    If we don't make the end of our substitution match the opening of the body, we are just being stupid.  Every other wind instrument on this planet, all centuries older than the saxophone, each one developed as a result of centuries of empirical trial and error testing, and that result substantiated by acoustical theory, fulfills this requirement.  Only the saxophone is so magically mysterious that it defies scientific acoustical analysis.... ........or is it rather that it is still so new, we haven't taken the time to really think about it.  I think the latter..


               


       



  

I doubt it. Sax started work on the saxophone trying to improve the bass clarinet. He intended it as a new voice in the orchestra, filling what he perceived as a tonal gap there. Sax made no more of a compromise than those who advocated equal temperament of keyboard instruments: not perfect, but practical in a variety of situations.

Toby
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: MartinMods 
  To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Sunday, August 09, 2009 10:54 AM
  Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: More On Missing Cone Volume


    My theory:  Sax made a compromise.  Compromise precise and even tuning for acceptable flexible tuning.  The instruments were intended to be used in military bands and concert bands, playing outside much of the time.   His design enabled quick and wide tuning adjustments to be made as needed due to fluxuating temperature conditions while still providing acceptable tuning accuracy.



        --- On Sun, 8/9/09, Barry Levine <barrylevine@...> wrote:


          From: Barry Levine <barrylevine@...>
          Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: More On Missing Cone Volume
          To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
          Date: Sunday, August 9, 2009, 1:34 AM


            
          I have to wonder why Adolphe Sax, who had, after all, also built clarinets and had completely revamped the bass clarinet, did not adopt the same mounting for the saxophone mouthpiece.     




            From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
            Reply-To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
            Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2009 13:11:05 -0700 (PDT)
            To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
            Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: More On Missing Cone Volume [1 Attachment]

            (snip)

            If we don't make the end of our substitution match the opening of the body, we are just being stupid.  Every other wind instrument on this planet, all centuries older than the saxophone, each one developed as a result of centuries of empirical trial and error testing, and that result substantiated by acoustical theory, fulfills this requirement.  Only the saxophone is so magically mysterious that it defies scientific acoustical analysis.... .........or is it rather that it is still so new, we haven't taken the time to really think about it.  I think the latter.
       



  

Because the sax isn't cylindrical. 

Toby

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Barry Levine 
  To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Sunday, August 09, 2009 10:34 AM
  Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: More On Missing Cone Volume


    I have to wonder why Adolphe Sax, who had, after all, also built clarinets and had completely revamped the bass clarinet, did not adopt the same mounting for the saxophone mouthpiece.     




    From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
    Reply-To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
    Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2009 13:11:05 -0700 (PDT)
    To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
    Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: More On Missing Cone Volume [1 Attachment]

    (snip)

    If we don't make the end of our substitution match the opening of the body, we are just being stupid.  Every other wind instrument on this planet, all centuries older than the saxophone, each one developed as a result of centuries of empirical trial and error testing, and that result substantiated by acoustical theory, fulfills this requirement.  Only the saxophone is so magically mysterious that it defies scientific acoustical analysis............or is it rather that it is still so new, we haven't taken the time to really think about it.  I think the latter.

  

I think that any tuning irregularities would be subsumed in the general chaos that is the sax/mpc/player combination--just as I think that the deviations from ideal in the mpc design create small irregularities that are unconsciously compensated for by any competent player.

Toby
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: fidlershorns 
  To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Sunday, August 09, 2009 6:00 AM
  Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: More On Missing Cone Volume


    
  I have played and/or owned a number of the Conn saxophones with microtuners and a stencil with a simpler neck that slides and locks in place with a clamping screw. Odd tuning or tone effects in one register or the other were not noticed with an electronic tuner or by ear. It is a neat gizmo. But I usually leave it turned in all the way and use the cork like a regular neck (with a newer mouthpiece) solely because it is quicker to adjust to a different group or temperature than turning and turning.

  --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
  >
  > Barry,
  > 
  > Stepped cylinders which average out to a cone are different from an interruption in the cone. To be honest, I don't know how much real-world difference these cylindrical constrictions make, but I'm sure that they make some difference. The microtuner is, I think, in a very critical area, which has
  > a global effect on intonation, tone color and response. Areas further down the bore have more limited effects. As always, I remain skeptical of results based on "feelings" rather than controlled testing.
  > 
  > Toby
  > 



  

>>>>>>>>>>>
To be blunt, if someone offered me a great new mouthpiece with much improved tonal, intonational and response characteristics, but which could only be used optimally in a very limited subset of the set of all conditions in which I play, I doubt I would be much interested.
<<<<<<<<<<<

But what if the design could be worked out so it was easy to use?  Unlike a multi-pip octave mechanism, this improvement could be quite simple to make.  Possibly a neck extension of some type.  Maybe some tuning rings like (occassionally) used by clarinet players.  

I basically agree with 10X improvement reasoning.  But if it is simple and low cost to implement, then it becomes 2X to 5X or so.  But a lot of sax players chase after a 2-5% improvements (1.02-1.05X) like found in material differences (IMO).  So I think the idea merits some further development.  

As for prior art, the Runyon Smoothbore was marketed as having a smoother transition into the neck.  But the design was motivated by mis-applied aerodynamic thinking, not acoustics.  Plus, they are made so there is a gap at the neck anyhow to facilitate tuning.

Joe Smallwood made mouthpiece inserts for sale but he is MIA.  I think his motivation was to offer a squeeze throat option for large chamber mouthpiece players to increase the focus and projection without adding a higher baffle.  He made and sold removable baffles too.

Then there is Steve Goodson's Neck Enhancer insert.  You can go to his site to check that product out.  


      

Excellent answer Prof.!

The only other thing I was going to suggest was to check the note you get out of the mouthpiece. An alto player might be pinching and voicing the bari note too high. But I bet you have a High pitch horn.

This chart was posted by Tom Tapscott on Mr Goodson's Sax repair group, and seems particullarly relevant to this group also.


> Mouthpiece Pitches(from Santy Runyon's Chart)
>
> Soprano: concert Db above the staff
> Alto: concert A above the staff
> Tenor: concert G above staff
> Bari: concert Eb - fourth space in staff
> Soprano Clarinet: concert B above staff
> Bass Clarinet: concert c above staff
>

> you must check if the instrument is high or low pitch (the letters LP might be on the body);
> equally the instrument would have used a ballooned out tone chamber mouthpiece--a modern mouthpiece would make it play sharper (even a Link is not big enough). It might also have been re-laquered and if the polishing was done badly prior to laquering the tone holes would be uneven-they then would have to be reduced to make them level again thus another reason for a sharper pitch ( this happens rarely but it does happen regreattably).
> last point-does it have its original crook?
> prof weinberg
> 
> --- On Sat, 8/8/09, ebony warrior <ebonywarrior13@...> wrote:
> 
> 
> From: ebony warrior <ebonywarrior13@...>
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] will changing the mouthpiece help
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Saturday, 8 August, 2009, 10:34 PM
> 
> 
>   
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I purchased a vintage horn Buffet Crampon- Evette & Schaeffer Baritone early 1900's. I had it overhauled. 
> by itself it sounds sweet!
> When I was testing the horn with the tuner, it was playing 1/2 step higher than it should have been!
> I had the neck made longer it helped. so what might be a next step? that if their a next step!
> I was thinking adding length to the horn, why ?
>  
> My primary horn is the alto, but why I play gospel the baritone takes it to another level!
> What might you suggest?
> thomas-
>  
>

So!  My name is now in ALL CAPS.  I admit, that I vocalize internally everything I read, and anything in ALL CAPS makes me yell in my mind's ear, at the top of my mind's lungs.  That's why I'm no good at speed reading.  There's a good laugh.

Toby wrote, "In the "now" I find most modern music insipid and 
without inspiration. The sound is amazing, yes, on contemporary recordings, but I will take the "heart" in the recordings of jazz in the 20s and rock in the 60s over just about anything today."

Toby, we exchange emails daily almost, outside the forums, so I'm sure you can stand it if I address your comments matter-of-factly.  

That's an interesting subjective opinion, Toby.  So what? It doesn't have much to do with the subject of this thread, other than obscuring the issue, but I'll oblige you: Whatever speaks to you....  I think though, that the nature of our collective subconscious and spirit will insure that there will always be (just as there always has been) an urgent, of the moment inspired and from the heart, guff-cutting musical art form of some type being performed somewhere, by some social group, which just became aware of it's unique identity and message, amidst the apathetic masses lost in a fog of self persecution and propaganda.  Life doesn't stop just because you go to sleep, Toby.  Life is completely full to the brim every second, everywhere.  Perhaps you just don't get out enough, as they say. 

Toby wrote: "I don't wish to be antagonistic, but I do wonder 
just how much difference this small change in the mpc makes in reality."

If you were sincerely curious, you would do one of the following:

1. attempt to analyze the audio files, the links to which were provided here twice, and to you 3 times.
2. attempt to duplicate my findings on your own
3. attempt to aquire an example prototype from me to evaluate

As you have done non of the above, one could conclude that you prefer just being argumentative for it's own sake - a type of emotional release, rather than an attempt at clear concise communication.

"This is not to say that it is not possible to improve in various ways on extant designs, but those improvements do not necessarily get us a qualitatively better instrument, just a different one."

So what?  "not necessarily" is not an absolute.  Instruments are improved upon from time to time.  

Toby wrote, "Sax was one of the most brilliant musical designers ever, and one with a very solid basis in acoustic knowledge. I do not think that his mpc/neck design was an oversight. Rather I think that he believed it a reasonable compromise..."

You just agreed with me 100%.  You are so intent upon disagreeing just to disagree, that you often (as this demonstrates) confuse what is actually being said by the other party. There's another good laugh.

Toby wrote, "There is an interesting observation in technologies- -the rule of ten, I think it is called--which states that to succeed,  a new technology has to be ten times better than a technology it is meant to replace if it entails major changes in practice or equipment."

So what?  It does not apply, and never did apply to the development of any of our traditional musical instruments.  The current state of any of them is a result of many small improvements (Boehm excluded)over time.

Toby wrote, "To be blunt, if someone offered me a great new mouthpiece with much improved tonal, intonational and response characteristics, but which could only be used optimally in a very limited subset of the set of all conditions in which I play, I doubt I would be much interested."

Now I'm curious Toby.  Can you describe that set of conditions in which you play?  Better yet, can you provide us with an audio example of your current playing?  You are so outspoken on your views and opinions, either you are one Hell of a sax player or just one Hell of big talker, it's one or the other.  

A great, but little known ex-patriot jazz alto player, Frank St Peter, now passed, told me once years ago, "Music is like Baseball.  You have to have bases to put your balls on."  Frankly (no pun intended), I don't think you have the base, that mental and physical plane of conciousness, built by years of study, hours of daily practice, the development of self discipline, combined with the amount of musical talent, all applied to the saxophone to the point that one can actually play it at level of proficiency to warrent the way you talk.  If you don't have that actual experience, it's just air.  Some players are so mediocre that they wouldn't notice if they actually had a reed on or not.  I cordially invite you to prove me wrong though.  I know I'm not the only one in suspense.

And... I see now there are some more things to respond to, so I must end this post here.

Your buddy, 
Lance
MartinMods




 





 




    
                  





 

 

 

 
 
 
Toby
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: 
  MartinMods 
  To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com 
  
  Sent: Sunday, August 09, 2009 11:15 
  AM
  Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: More On 
  Missing Cone Volume
  
  
  
  
  
    
    
      Yes, but, we live in the Now.  Now we have artist 
        saxophonists who specify room temperature in the studio for their 
        recording session.  They play on one horn, and one mouthpiece, 
        which if they are smart, has been matched to each other and 
        themself.  On the high end, implementing the "old way" can give an 
        artist more precise tuning, better response, wider dynamic range, and 
        better tone, without having to work extra for it.  That frees them 
        that much more for self-expression.  That is the "edge" they are 
        all looking for.

--- On Sun, 8/9/09, Bill Hausmann 
        <zoot51@yahoo. com> wrote:

        
From: 
          Bill Hausmann <zoot51@yahoo. com>
Subject: Re: 
          [MouthpieceWork] Re: More On Missing Cone Volume
To: 
          MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Sunday, August 9, 
          2009, 1:59 AM


            
          
          
          
            
            
              Seems pretty simple.  He saw how much room for 
                tuning correction was needed on a saxophone from one 
                mouthpiece/player to another and realized that the old way would 
                NEVER do!

Bill Hausmann

If you have to mic a 
                saxophone, the rest of the band is TOO LOUD!

--- On 
                Sat, 8/8/09, Barry Levine <barrylevine@ norwoodlight. 
                com> wrote:

                
From: Barry 
                  Levine <barrylevine@ norwoodlight. com>
Subject: Re: 
                  [MouthpieceWork] Re: More On Missing Cone Volume
To: 
                  MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Saturday, August 8, 
                  2009, 9:34 PM


                  

I have to 
                  wonder why Adolphe Sax, who had, after all, also built 
                  clarinets and had completely revamped the bass clarinet, did 
                  not adopt the same mounting for the saxophone mouthpiece. 
                      


                  
From: MartinMods 
                    <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
Reply-To: 
                    MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Sat, 8 
                    Aug 2009 13:11:05 -0700 (PDT)
To: MouthpieceWork@ 
                    yahoogroups. com
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: 
                    More On Missing Cone Volume [1 
                    Attachment]

(snip)

If we don't make the end of 
                    our substitution match the opening of the body, we are just 
                    being stupid.  Every other wind instrument on this 
                    planet, all centuries older than the saxophone, each one 
                    developed as a result of centuries of empirical trial and 
                    error testing, and that result substantiated by acoustical 
                    theory, fulfills this requirement.  Only the saxophone 
                    is so magically mysterious that it defies scientific 
                    acoustical analysis.... ........or is it rather that it is 
                    still so new, we haven't taken the time to really think 
                    about it.  I think the 
                  latter..


                  



 

      

    
    
    
     
    
    








    


    
    



      

Yes, we do.  But he lived in the THEN, before recording, cental air, etc.  Certainly the design could be improved upon to meet today's conditions, but what Sax came up with was a good compromise for the time.

Bill Hausmann

If you have to mic a saxophone, the rest of the band is TOO LOUD!

--- On Sat, 8/8/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:


From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: More On Missing Cone Volume
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, August 8, 2009, 10:15 PM
















Yes, but, we live in the Now.  Now we have artist saxophonists who specify room temperature in the studio for their recording session.  They play on one horn, and one mouthpiece, which if they are smart, has been matched to each other and themself.  On the high end, implementing the "old way" can give an artist more precise tuning, better response, wider dynamic range, and better tone, without having to work extra for it.  That frees them that much more for self-expression.  That is the "edge" they are all looking for.

--- On Sun, 8/9/09, Bill Hausmann <zoot51@...> wrote:


From: Bill Hausmann <zoot51@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: More On Missing Cone Volume
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, August 9, 2009, 1:59 AM


  





Seems pretty simple.  He saw how much room for tuning correction was needed on a saxophone from one mouthpiece/player to another and realized that the old way would NEVER do!

Bill Hausmann

If you have to mic a saxophone, the rest of the band is TOO LOUD!

--- On Sat, 8/8/09, Barry Levine <barrylevine@ norwoodlight. com> wrote:


From: Barry Levine <barrylevine@ norwoodlight. com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: More On Missing Cone Volume
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Saturday, August 8, 2009, 9:34 PM




I have to wonder why Adolphe Sax, who had, after all, also built clarinets and had completely revamped the bass clarinet, did not adopt the same mounting for the saxophone mouthpiece.     



From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
Reply-To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2009 13:11:05 -0700 (PDT)
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: More On Missing Cone Volume [1 Attachment]

(snip)

If we don't make the end of our substitution match the opening of the body, we are just being stupid.  Every other wind instrument on this planet, all centuries older than the saxophone, each one developed as a result of centuries of empirical trial and error testing, and that result substantiated by acoustical theory, fulfills this requirement.  Only the saxophone is so magically mysterious that it defies scientific acoustical analysis.... ........or is it rather that it is still so new, we haven't taken the time to really think about it.  I think the latter..










      

Toby wrote, "I doubt it. Sax started work on the saxophone 
trying to improve the bass clarinet. He intended it as a new voice in the 
orchestra, filling what he perceived as a tonal gap there."

I've read the same material you've read.  I recall that bands were also part of the plan - one design for all occasions.   

Toby wrote, "Sax made no more of a 
compromise than those who advocated equal temperament of keyboard instruments: 
not perfect, but practical in a variety of situations."

We are not interested in the degree of the compromise, only the fact that it was a compromise.  Thank-you for agreeing in your "would be" disagreement.



--- On Sun, 8/9/09, Toby <kymarto123@...> wrote:

From: Toby <kymarto123@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: More On Missing Cone Volume
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, August 9, 2009, 4:18 PM






 




    
                  


I doubt it. Sax started work on the saxophone 
trying to improve the bass clarinet. He intended it as a new voice in the 
orchestra, filling what he perceived as a tonal gap there. Sax made no more of a 
compromise than those who advocated equal temperament of keyboard instruments: 
not perfect, but practical in a variety of situations.
 
Toby

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: 
  MartinMods 
  To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com 
  
  Sent: Sunday, August 09, 2009 10:54 
  AM
  Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: More On 
  Missing Cone Volume
  
  
  
  
  
    
    
      My theory:  Sax made a compromise.  Compromise 
        precise and even tuning for acceptable flexible tuning.  The 
        instruments were intended to be used in military bands and concert 
        bands, playing outside much of the time.   His design enabled 
        quick and wide tuning adjustments to be made as needed due to fluxuating 
        temperature conditions while still providing acceptable tuning 
        accuracy.



--- On Sun, 8/9/09, Barry Levine 
        <barrylevine@ norwoodlight. com> wrote:

        
From: 
          Barry Levine 
          <barrylevine@ norwoodlight. com>
Subject: Re: 
          [MouthpieceWork] Re: More On Missing Cone Volume
To: 
          MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Sunday, August 9, 
          2009, 1:34 AM


            
          
          I have to wonder why Adolphe Sax, who had, after 
          all, also built clarinets and had completely revamped the bass 
          clarinet, did not adopt the same mounting for the saxophone 
          mouthpiece.     


          
From: MartinMods 
            <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
Reply-To: MouthpieceWork@ 
            yahoogroups. com
Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2009 13:11:05 -0700 
            (PDT)
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Subject: 
            Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: More On Missing Cone Volume [1 
            Attachment]

(snip)

If we don't make the end of our 
            substitution match the opening of the body, we are just being 
            stupid.  Every other wind instrument on this planet, all 
            centuries older than the saxophone, each one developed as a result 
            of centuries of empirical trial and error testing, and that result 
            substantiated by acoustical theory, fulfills this requirement. 
             Only the saxophone is so magically mysterious that it defies 
            scientific acoustical analysis.... .........or is it rather that it 
            is still so new, we haven't taken the time to really think about it. 
             I think the latter.
          


 

      

    
    
	
	 
	
	








	


	
	


      

Barry Wrote, "I have to wonder why Adolphe Sax, who had, after all, 
  also built clarinets and had completely revamped the bass clarinet, did not 
  adopt the same mounting for the saxophone mouthpiece."

And then Toby wrote, "Because the sax isn't cylindrical. "

That has nothing to do with it.  The saxophone moutpiece IS cylindrical and would fit perfectly in a cylindrical flange attached to the conical neck, without causing ANY irregularity of the bore.

--- On Sun, 8/9/09, Toby <kymarto123@...> wrote:

From: Toby <kymarto123@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: More On Missing Cone Volume
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, August 9, 2009, 4:19 PM






 




    
                  


Because the sax isn't cylindrical. 
 
Toby
 

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: 
  Barry Levine 
  To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com 
  
  Sent: Sunday, August 09, 2009 10:34 
  AM
  Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: More On 
  Missing Cone Volume
  
  
  
  I have to wonder why Adolphe Sax, who had, after all, 
  also built clarinets and had completely revamped the bass clarinet, did not 
  adopt the same mounting for the saxophone mouthpiece. 
      


  
From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
Reply-To: 
    MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: 
    Sat, 8 Aug 2009 13:11:05 -0700 (PDT)
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Subject: 
    Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: More On Missing Cone Volume [1 
    Attachment]

(snip)

If we don't make the end of our 
    substitution match the opening of the body, we are just being stupid. 
     Every other wind instrument on this planet, all centuries older than 
    the saxophone, each one developed as a result of centuries of empirical 
    trial and error testing, and that result substantiated by acoustical theory, 
    fulfills this requirement.  Only the saxophone is so magically 
    mysterious that it defies scientific acoustical analysis.... ........or 
    is it rather that it is still so new, we haven't taken the time to really 
    think about it.  I think the latter.
  

 

      

    
    __._,_..___

           
  
    
    
    
              
          
            Messages in this topic           (72)
        
        
          
            Reply           (via web post)
          | 
        
          Start a new topic        
           
    
    
    
                Messages  
            |    Files  
            |    Photos  
            |    Links  
            |    Database  
            |    Polls  
            |    Members  
            |    Calendar  
      
    

                
                  


          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          


              
    
    
    
    
      
       

      Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) 

      Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional 


      
        Visit Your Group 
       |
      
        Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use       |
      
        Unsubscribe       
         
   

  
  
  
  
    
    


     


	    
	    
	      		Recent Activity
		
		        
       7
      New Members
    
  
		    
		    
		    
		        
       1
      New Files
    
  
		    
		
	      	      
		Visit Your Group	      
	     
	    	    	      
	    
	    	          
              
                        Give Back
  Yahoo! for Good
  Get inspired
  by a good cause.
                  
                    
                        Y! Toolbar
  Get it Free!
  easy 1-click access
  to your groups.
                  
                    
                        Yahoo! Groups
  Start a group
  in 3 easy steps.
  Connect with others.
                  
          

	    
	   	  
	  .
	 		   

	
	
	
	 
	
	








	


	
	


      

Keith wrote, "Possibly a neck extension of some type.  Maybe some tuning rings like (occassionally) used by clarinet players."

It's so simple, and Benade drew the diagram on p. 21 of: http://ccrma.stanford.edu/marl/Benade/documents/Benade-Physics323-1977.pdf (though he says "neck" as the constriction, Wolfe, and other experts disagree.  What Benade has to mean is, "neck opening" in order to make any sense)

We replace the chopped-off cone with 2 parts:

1. a cavity (mouthpiece chamber + reed compliance) and 
2. a constriction between 1. and the body tube opening (see brass instruments if you need to know why we need a constriction)

The problem is, what should be our constriction, the throat, is too large since it must fit over the neck cork.  As such it does not function acoustically as a constriction.  It functions as part of the chamber - a second chamber if you will.   The narrowest part of the bore is the neck opening, so that is acoustically our constriction, but as the neck is a cone, our working constriction has no length to speak of.  

To be clear in terminology and in function, the insert ,which is EXACTLY like a clarinet tuning insert, is an extension of the neck opening which more is more appropriately called, the constriction.



--- On Sun, 8/9/09, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:

From: Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: More On Missing Cone Volume
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, August 9, 2009, 5:53 PM






 




    
                  

>>>>>>>>>>>

To be blunt, if someone offered me a great new mouthpiece with much improved tonal, intonational and response characteristics, but which could only be used optimally in a very limited subset of the set of all conditions in which I play, I doubt I would be much interested.

<<<<<<<<<<<



But what if the design could be worked out so it was easy to use?  Unlike a multi-pip octave mechanism, this improvement could be quite simple to make.  Possibly a neck extension of some type.  Maybe some tuning rings like (occassionally) used by clarinet players.  



I basically agree with 10X improvement reasoning.  But if it is simple and low cost to implement, then it becomes 2X to 5X or so.  But a lot of sax players chase after a 2-5% improvements (1.02-1.05X) like found in material differences (IMO).  So I think the idea merits some further development.  



As for prior art, the Runyon Smoothbore was marketed as having a smoother transition into the neck.  But the design was motivated by mis-applied aerodynamic thinking, not acoustics.  Plus, they are made so there is a gap at the neck anyhow to facilitate tuning.



Joe Smallwood made mouthpiece inserts for sale but he is MIA.  I think his motivation was to offer a squeeze throat option for large chamber mouthpiece players to increase the focus and projection without adding a higher baffle.  He made and sold removable baffles too.



Then there is Steve Goodson's Neck Enhancer insert.  You can go to his site to check that product out.  




 

      

    
    
	
	 
	
	








	


	
	


      

There is quite a bit of information here: http://www.saxpics.com/?v=mod&modID=30
on the various models and characteristics.  Quite a few pictures as well.   Yours is most likely not one of the first ones keyed to Low B.  The later models were issued at A=440 and A=457.

--- On Sun, 8/9/09, fidlershorns <grassinospam@...> wrote:

From: fidlershorns <grassinospam@...>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: will changing the mouthpiece help
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, August 9, 2009, 6:15 PM






 




    
                  Excellent answer Prof.!



The only other thing I was going to suggest was to check the note you get out of the mouthpiece. An alto player might be pinching and voicing the bari note too high. But I bet you have a High pitch horn.



This chart was posted by Tom Tapscott on Mr Goodson's Sax repair group, and seems particullarly relevant to this group also.



> Mouthpiece Pitches(from Santy Runyon's Chart)

>

> Soprano: concert Db above the staff

> Alto: concert A above the staff

> Tenor: concert G above staff

> Bari: concert Eb - fourth space in staff

> Soprano Clarinet: concert B above staff

> Bass Clarinet: concert c above staff

>



> you must check if the instrument is high or low pitch (the letters LP might be on the body);

> equally the instrument would have used a ballooned out tone chamber mouthpiece-- a modern mouthpiece would make it play sharper (even a Link is not big enough). It might also have been re-laquered and if the polishing was done badly prior to laquering the tone holes would be uneven-they then would have to be reduced to make them level again thus another reason for a sharper pitch ( this happens rarely but it does happen regreattably) .

> last point-does it have its original crook?

> prof weinberg

> 

> --- On Sat, 8/8/09, ebony warrior <ebonywarrior13@ ...> wrote:

> 

> 

> From: ebony warrior <ebonywarrior13@ ...>

> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] will changing the mouthpiece help

> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com

> Date: Saturday, 8 August, 2009, 10:34 PM

> 

> 

>   

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> I purchased a vintage horn Buffet Crampon- Evette & Schaeffer Baritone early 1900's. I had it overhauled. 

> by itself it sounds sweet!

> When I was testing the horn with the tuner, it was playing 1/2 step higher than it should have been!

> I had the neck made longer it helped. so what might be a next step? that if their a next step!

> I was thinking adding length to the horn, why ?

>  

> My primary horn is the alto, but why I play gospel the baritone takes it to another level!

> What might you suggest?

> thomas-

>  

>




 

      

    
    
	
	 
	
	








	


	
	


      

No, that has everything to do with it. A cylindrical air column can be extended cylindrically by addition of a barrel or other extension. Old wooden flutes used an inner metal tenon to keep the diameter constant when moving the headjoint, which is a much better solution than is employed on the clarinet, since it does not entail having to insert or remove pieces (changing barrels) to keep the bore smooth. With either the flute or clarinet, you can adjust the length without that extra length adding volume which throws your tuning off. With conical woodwinds this is not the case. You have to extend the cone "conically" to add length, and this is a much bigger problem. Simply extending the length after the constriction changes the volume of the cone-tip analog (the mpc), and this throws the resonances off. Even if you found a way to extend the cone, it would change the truncation ratio and thus change the necessary volume and Helmholtz resonance of the mpc. Ideally with conical woodwinds you need an arrangement like an oboe reed: the "mpc" section should be seamlessly mated with a length of the cone (the stape of the reed) and designed specifically for that conical section. However Sax knew accepted the compromise of a movable mpc because it is simple.

Toby
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: MARTINMODS 
  To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 4:30 AM
  Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: More On Missing Cone Volume


    Barry Wrote, "I have to wonder why Adolphe Sax, who had, after all, also built clarinets and had completely revamped the bass clarinet, did not adopt the same mounting for the saxophone mouthpiece."

        And then Toby wrote, "Because the sax isn't cylindrical. "

        That has nothing to do with it.  The saxophone moutpiece IS cylindrical and would fit perfectly in a cylindrical flange attached to the conical neck, without causing ANY irregularity of the bore.

        --- On Sun, 8/9/09, Toby <kymarto123@...> wrote:


          From: Toby <kymarto123@...>
          Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: More On Missing Cone Volume
          To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
          Date: Sunday, August 9, 2009, 4:19 PM


            

          Because the sax isn't cylindrical. 

          Toby

            ----- Original Message ----- 
            From: Barry Levine 
            To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com 
            Sent: Sunday, August 09, 2009 10:34 AM
            Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: More On Missing Cone Volume


              
            I have to wonder why Adolphe Sax, who had, after all, also built clarinets and had completely revamped the bass clarinet, did not adopt the same mounting for the saxophone mouthpiece.     




              From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
              Reply-To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
              Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2009 13:11:05 -0700 (PDT)
              To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
              Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: More On Missing Cone Volume [1 Attachment]

              (snip)

              If we don't make the end of our substitution match the opening of the body, we are just being stupid.  Every other wind instrument on this planet, all centuries older than the saxophone, each one developed as a result of centuries of empirical trial and error testing, and that result substantiated by acoustical theory, fulfills this requirement.  Only the saxophone is so magically mysterious that it defies scientific acoustical analysis.... ........or is it rather that it is still so new, we haven't taken the time to really think about it.  I think the latter.
       



  

There's no question that it is a compromise. There are a zillion compromises in the design of any instrument. My only question is how large a compromise it really is, but you are in a better position to answer that since I have not done any hands-on tests.

Toby

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: MARTINMODS 
  To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 4:27 AM
  Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: More On Missing Cone Volume


    Toby wrote, "I doubt it. Sax started work on the saxophone trying to improve the bass clarinet. He intended it as a new voice in the orchestra, filling what he perceived as a tonal gap there."

        I've read the same material you've read.  I recall that bands were also part of the plan - one design for all occasions.   

        Toby wrote, "Sax made no more of a compromise than those who advocated equal temperament of keyboard instruments: not perfect, but practical in a variety of situations."

        We are not interested in the degree of the compromise, only the fact that it was a compromise.  Thank-you for agreeing in your "would be" disagreement.



        --- On Sun, 8/9/09, Toby <kymarto123@...> wrote:


          From: Toby <kymarto123@...>
          Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: More On Missing Cone Volume
          To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
          Date: Sunday, August 9, 2009, 4:18 PM


            

          I doubt it. Sax started work on the saxophone trying to improve the bass clarinet. He intended it as a new voice in the orchestra, filling what he perceived as a tonal gap there. Sax made no more of a compromise than those who advocated equal temperament of keyboard instruments: not perfect, but practical in a variety of situations.

          Toby
            ----- Original Message ----- 
            From: MartinMods 
            To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com 
            Sent: Sunday, August 09, 2009 10:54 AM
            Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: More On Missing Cone Volume


              
                  My theory:  Sax made a compromise.  Compromise precise and even tuning for acceptable flexible tuning.  The instruments were intended to be used in military bands and concert bands, playing outside much of the time.   His design enabled quick and wide tuning adjustments to be made as needed due to fluxuating temperature conditions while still providing acceptable tuning accuracy.



                  --- On Sun, 8/9/09, Barry Levine <barrylevine@ norwoodlight. com> wrote:


                    From: Barry Levine <barrylevine@ norwoodlight. com>
                    Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: More On Missing Cone Volume
                    To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
                    Date: Sunday, August 9, 2009, 1:34 AM


                      
                    I have to wonder why Adolphe Sax, who had, after all, also built clarinets and had completely revamped the bass clarinet, did not adopt the same mounting for the saxophone mouthpiece.     




                      From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
                      Reply-To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
                      Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2009 13:11:05 -0700 (PDT)
                      To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
                      Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: More On Missing Cone Volume [1 Attachment]

                      (snip)

                      If we don't make the end of our substitution match the opening of the body, we are just being stupid.  Every other wind instrument on this planet, all centuries older than the saxophone, each one developed as a result of centuries of empirical trial and error testing, and that result substantiated by acoustical theory, fulfills this requirement.  Only the saxophone is so magically mysterious that it defies scientific acoustical analysis.... .........or is it rather that it is still so new, we haven't taken the time to really think about it.  I think the latter.
                 


       



  

Hi Lance,

I'll look through my mail and try to find the links. I admit that I should listen to them. At the moment I am working 12-14 hours a day 7 days a week doing some stories with people in town from China. I know that I should do some hands-on testing. I should have time next week. You're right, though, that its not really fair to weigh in without more experience in the matter. I refrained from answering for the beginning of the thread, but I got hooked....

It seems to me that I should be able to make a temporary "constriction" with oil-based modelling clay to one of my extant mpcs, at least to get a feel for what difference it makes. I'm not sure, though, that I have the time, will or knowledge to calculate the necessary inner volume or Helmholtz resonance, which are important. OTOH I could just play with the clay and see what happens...

Toby
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: MARTINMODS 
  To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 4:23 AM
  Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: More On Missing Cone Volume


    So! My name is now in ALL CAPS. I admit, that I vocalize internally everything I read, and anything in ALL CAPS makes me yell in my mind's ear, at the top of my mind's lungs. That's why I'm no good at speed reading. There's a good laugh.

  Toby wrote, "In the "now" I find most modern music insipid and 
  without inspiration. The sound is amazing, yes, on contemporary recordings, but I will take the "heart" in the recordings of jazz in the 20s and rock in the 60s over just about anything today."

  Toby, we exchange emails daily almost, outside the forums, so I'm sure you can stand it if I address your comments matter-of-factly. 

  That's an interesting subjective opinion, Toby. So what? It doesn't have much to do with the subject of this thread, other than obscuring the issue, but I'll oblige you: Whatever speaks to you.... I think though, that the nature of our collective subconscious and spirit will insure that there will always be (just as there always has been) an urgent, of the moment inspired and from the heart, guff-cutting musical art form of some type being performed somewhere, by some social group, which just became aware of it's unique identity and message, amidst the apathetic masses lost in a fog of self persecution and propaganda. Life doesn't stop just because you go to sleep, Toby. Life is completely full to the brim every second, everywhere. Perhaps you just don't get out enough, as they say. 

  Toby wrote: "I don't wish to be antagonistic, but I do wonder 
  just how much difference this small change in the mpc makes in reality."

  If you were sincerely curious, you would do one of the following:

  1. attempt to analyze the audio files, the links to which were provided here twice, and to you 3 times.
  2. attempt to duplicate my findings on your own
  3. attempt to aquire an example prototype from me to evaluate

  As you have done non of the above, one could conclude that you prefer just being argumentative for it's own sake - a type of emotional release, rather than an attempt at clear concise communication.

  "This is not to say that it is not possible to improve in various ways on extant designs, but those improvements do not necessarily get us a qualitatively better instrument, just a different one."

  So what? "not necessarily" is not an absolute. Instruments are improved upon from time to time. 

  Toby wrote, "Sax was one of the most brilliant musical designers ever, and one with a very solid basis in acoustic knowledge. I do not think that his mpc/neck design was an oversight. Rather I think that he believed it a reasonable compromise..."

  You just agreed with me 100%. You are so intent upon disagreeing just to disagree, that you often (as this demonstrates) confuse what is actually being said by the other party. There's another good laugh.

  Toby wrote, "There is an interesting observation in technologies- -the rule of ten, I think it is called--which states that to succeed, a new technology has to be ten times better than a technology it is meant to replace if it entails major changes in practice or equipment."

  So what? It does not apply, and never did apply to the development of any of our traditional musical instruments. The current state of any of them is a result of many small improvements (Boehm excluded)over time.

  Toby wrote, "To be blunt, if someone offered me a great new mouthpiece with much improved tonal, intonational and response characteristics, but which could only be used optimally in a very limited subset of the set of all conditions in which I play, I doubt I would be much interested."

  Now I'm curious Toby. Can you describe that set of conditions in which you play? Better yet, can you provide us with an audio example of your current playing? You are so outspoken on your views and opinions, either you are one Hell of a sax player or just one Hell of big talker, it's one or the other. 

  A great, but little known ex-patriot jazz alto player, Frank St Peter, now passed, told me once years ago, "Music is like Baseball. You have to have bases to put your balls on." Frankly (no pun intended), I don't think you have the base, that mental and physical plane of conciousness, built by years of study, hours of daily practice, the development of self discipline, combined with the amount of musical talent, all applied to the saxophone to the point that one can actually play it at level of proficiency to warrent the way you talk. If you don't have that actual experience, it's just air. Some players are so mediocre that they wouldn't notice if they actually had a reed on or not. I cordially invite you to prove me wrong though. I know I'm not the only one in suspense.

  And... I see now there are some more things to respond to, so I must end this post here.

  Your buddy, 
  Lance
  MartinMods

  Toby








  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: 
  MartinMods 
  To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com 

  Sent: Sunday, August 09, 2009 11:15 
  AM
  Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: More On 
  Missing Cone Volume







  Yes, but, we live in the Now. Now we have artist 
  saxophonists who specify room temperature in the studio for their 
  recording session. They play on one horn, and one mouthpiece, 
  which if they are smart, has been matched to each other and 
  themself. On the high end, implementing the "old way" can give an 
  artist more precise tuning, better response, wider dynamic range, and 
  better tone, without having to work extra for it. That frees them 
  that much more for self-expression. That is the "edge" they are 
  all looking for.

  --- On Sun, 8/9/09, Bill Hausmann 
  <zoot51@yahoo. com> wrote:

  From: 
  Bill Hausmann <zoot51@yahoo. com>
  Subject: Re: 
  [MouthpieceWork] Re: More On Missing Cone Volume
  To: 
  MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
  Date: Sunday, August 9, 
  2009, 1:59 AM

  Seems pretty simple. He saw how much room for 
  tuning correction was needed on a saxophone from one 
  mouthpiece/player to another and realized that the old way would 
  NEVER do!

  Bill Hausmann

  If you have to mic a 
  saxophone, the rest of the band is TOO LOUD!

  --- On 
  Sat, 8/8/09, Barry Levine <barrylevine@ norwoodlight. 
  com> wrote:

  From: Barry 
  Levine <barrylevine@ norwoodlight. com>
  Subject: Re: 
  [MouthpieceWork] Re: More On Missing Cone Volume
  To: 
  MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
  Date: Saturday, August 8, 
  2009, 9:34 PM

  I have to 
  wonder why Adolphe Sax, who had, after all, also built 
  clarinets and had completely revamped the bass clarinet, did 
  not adopt the same mounting for the saxophone mouthpiece. 


  From: MartinMods 
  <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
  Reply-To: 
  MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
  Date: Sat, 8 
  Aug 2009 13:11:05 -0700 (PDT)
  To: MouthpieceWork@ 
  yahoogroups. com
  Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: 
  More On Missing Cone Volume [1 
  Attachment]

  (snip)

  If we don't make the end of 
  our substitution match the opening of the body, we are just 
  being stupid. Every other wind instrument on this 
  planet, all centuries older than the saxophone, each one 
  developed as a result of centuries of empirical trial and 
  error testing, and that result substantiated by acoustical 
  theory, fulfills this requirement. Only the saxophone 
  is so magically mysterious that it defies scientific 
  acoustical analysis.... ........or is it rather that it is 
  still so new, we haven't taken the time to really think 
  about it. I think the 
  latter..



  

I listened to MartinMods sound files.  The links to them are in post 7178.  I could not find the older post with them.

These are both "after" sound examples?   Do you have similar recordings of you playing without the constiction installed?

No before sound files.   It's a scenario we all know very well I think, at least it has been described quite a few times.  A link chamber that is too big for the horn, when pushed in to tune, results in a very sharp upper octave, flatish middle c and c#, though the sound is nice, if you like that sound.   What's noticable about these scales, is how even the pitch is, as well as the timber and response.  You barely hear any difference in registers.  It was effortless to play too.  I didn't have to do any vocal tract adjustments to get the registers even.   Just an Olds Ambassador tenor - a Martin Indiana sencil.

I'll make some more with/without recordings as soon as I have another tenor put together.  I'm working on a bari and an alto mouthpiece now as well.

--- On Mon, 8/10/09, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:

From: Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: More On Missing Cone Volume
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, August 10, 2009, 12:35 AM






 




    
                  I listened to MartinMods sound files.  The links to them are in post 7178.  I could not find the older post with them.



These are both "after" sound examples?   Do you have similar recordings of you playing without the constiction installed?




 

      

    
    
	
	 
	
	








	


	
	


      

Toby wrote, " You 
have to extend the cone "conically" to add length, and this is a much bigger 
problem. Simply extending the length after the constriction changes the volume 
of the cone-tip analog (the mpc), and this throws the resonances off."

Sorry Toby, you are wrong.  You aren't reading well my friend.  This has been typed quit a few times already.  The cone stays chopped where we chopped it.  The constriction IS part of the mouthpiece.  It is inseperable from it.  If we decide to lengthen the constriction, we must adjust the volume of the chamber accordingly, AND we must insure that the sounding freq, of the mouthpiece (chamber, reed, AND constriction) equals frs.  



--- On Sun, 8/9/09, Toby <kymarto123@...> wrote:

From: Toby <kymarto123@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: More On Missing Cone Volume
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, August 9, 2009, 11:32 PM






 




    
                  


No, that has everything to do with it. A 
cylindrical air column can be extended cylindrically by addition of a barrel or 
other extension. Old wooden flutes used an inner metal tenon to keep the 
diameter constant when moving the headjoint, which is a much better solution 
than is employed on the clarinet, since it does not entail having to insert or 
remove pieces (changing barrels) to keep the bore smooth. With either the flute 
or clarinet, you can adjust the length without that extra length adding volume 
which throws your tuning off. With conical woodwinds this is not the case. You 
have to extend the cone "conically" to add length, and this is a much bigger 
problem. Simply extending the length after the constriction changes the volume 
of the cone-tip analog (the mpc), and this throws the resonances off. Even if 
you found a way to extend the cone, it would change the truncation ratio and 
thus change the necessary volume and Helmholtz resonance of the 
mpc. Ideally with conical woodwinds you need an arrangement like an oboe 
reed: the "mpc" section should be seamlessly mated with a length of the cone 
(the stape of the reed) and designed specifically for that conical section. 
However Sax knew accepted the compromise of a movable mpc because it is 
simple.
 
Toby

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: 
  MARTINMODS 
  To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com 
  
  Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 4:30 
  AM
  Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: More On 
  Missing Cone Volume
  
  
  
  
  
    
    
      Barry Wrote, "I have to wonder why 
        Adolphe Sax, who had, after all, also built clarinets and had completely 
        revamped the bass clarinet, did not adopt the same mounting for the 
        saxophone mouthpiece."

And then Toby wrote, "Because the sax isn't cylindrical. "

That has nothing 
        to do with it.  The saxophone moutpiece IS cylindrical and would 
        fit perfectly in a cylindrical flange attached to the conical neck, 
        without causing ANY irregularity of the bore.

--- On 
        Sun, 8/9/09, Toby <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp> 
        wrote:

        
From: 
          Toby <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
Subject: Re: 
          [MouthpieceWork] Re: More On Missing Cone Volume
To: 
          MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Sunday, August 9, 
          2009, 4:19 PM


            
          
          
          Because the sax isn't cylindrical. 
          
           
          Toby
           
          
            ----- 
            Original Message ----- 
            From: 
            Barry 
            Levine 
            To: 
            MouthpieceWork@ 
            yahoogroups. com 
            Sent: 
            Sunday, August 09, 2009 10:34 AM
            Subject: 
            Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: More On Missing Cone Volume
            
  
            
            I have to wonder why Adolphe Sax, who had, 
            after all, also built clarinets and had completely revamped the bass 
            clarinet, did not adopt the same mounting for the saxophone 
            mouthpiece.     


            
From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ 
              yahoo.com>
Reply-To: MouthpieceWork@ 
              yahoogroups. com
Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2009 13:11:05 
              -0700 (PDT)
To: MouthpieceWork@ 
              yahoogroups. com
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: 
              More On Missing Cone Volume [1 Attachment]

(snip)

If 
              we don't make the end of our substitution match the opening of the 
              body, we are just being stupid.  Every other wind instrument 
              on this planet, all centuries older than the saxophone, each one 
              developed as a result of centuries of empirical trial and error 
              testing, and that result substantiated by acoustical theory, 
              fulfills this requirement..  Only the saxophone is so 
              magically mysterious that it defies scientific acoustical 
              analysis.... ........or is it rather that it is still so new, we 
              haven't taken the time to really think about it.  I think the 
              latter.
            


 

      

    
    
	
	 
	
	








	


	
	


      

A famous saxophone manufacturer pointed out to me a while back that the end of the sax neck is largely cylindrical. It seems that a mouthpiece with a throat that matches the end of the neck bore with a tuneable neck would solve the practicality issue. Wouldn't it?

Next time I see the simpler tuneable neck sax I sold, I will try to get a picture for you. It does the same thing as a bass clarinet neck, only right at the end of the mouthpiece.

If it offers great benefits and is practical, Martinmods could retire rich from the profits from the mouthpiece and neck sets! 

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MARTINMODS <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
>
> Barry Wrote, "I have to wonder why Adolphe Sax, who had, after all, 
>   also built clarinets and had completely revamped the bass clarinet, did not 
>   adopt the same mounting for the saxophone mouthpiece."
> 
> And then Toby wrote, "Because the sax isn't cylindrical. "
> 
> That has nothing to do with it.  The saxophone moutpiece IS cylindrical and would fit perfectly in a cylindrical flange attached to the conical neck, without causing ANY irregularity of the bore.
> 
> --- On Sun, 8/9/09, Toby <kymarto123@...> wrote:
> 
> From: Toby <kymarto123@...>
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: More On Missing Cone Volume
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Sunday, August 9, 2009, 4:19 PM
> 
 
> 
> Because the sax isn't cylindrical. 
>  
> Toby
>  
> 
>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: 
>   Barry Levine 
>   To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com 
>   
>   Sent: Sunday, August 09, 2009 10:34 
>   AM
>   Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: More On 
>   Missing Cone Volume
>   
>   
>   
>   I have to wonder why Adolphe Sax, who had, after all, 
>   also built clarinets and had completely revamped the bass clarinet, did not 
>   adopt the same mounting for the saxophone mouthpiece. 

If I get rich I'm buying the drinks....

Fidler wrote, "A famous saxophone manufacturer pointed out to me a while back that the
end of the sax neck is largely cylindrical. It seems that a mouthpiece
with a throat that matches the end of the neck bore with a tuneable
neck would solve the practicality issue. Wouldn't it?"

I don't know what that means, "...the sax neck is larely cylindrical."  I thought it was conical, with maybe an altered taper
 

	
	
	
	 
	
	








	


	
	


      

Pushed the wrong button there.....let's go back:

From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: More On Missing Cone Volume
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, August 10, 2009, 4:35 AM






 




    
                  If I get rich I'm buying the drinks....

Fidler wrote, "A famous saxophone manufacturer pointed out to me a while back that the
end of the sax neck is largely cylindrical. It seems that a mouthpiece
with a throat that matches the end of the neck bore with a tuneable
neck would solve the practicality issue. Wouldn't it?"

I don't know what that means, "...the sax neck is largely cylindrical. "  I thought it was conical, with maybe an altered taper.  It is round for sure. 

The whole thing is so simple.  Nothing has to change.  Mpce over neck cork is OK.  Just, we add a constriction insert, exactly like on a clarinet for tuning, in order to balance the chamber/constiction volume with that of the hacked (now it's hacked off!!) cone piece, and the mouthpiece (combined chamber + reed compliance + constricton) resonance freq (Helmholtz blah, blah, blah) with the frs of our hacked section. What does that mean?  We stick clarinet tuning insert in to make everything OK.  Let's go back to the clarinet!
 

	
	
	
	 
	
	

--- On Mon, 8/10/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: More On Missing Cone Volume
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, August 10, 2009, 4:35 AM






 




    
                  If I get rich I'm buying the drinks....

Fidler wrote, "A famous saxophone manufacturer pointed out to me a while back that the
end of the sax neck is largely cylindrical. It seems that a mouthpiece
with a throat that matches the end of the neck bore with a tuneable
neck would solve the practicality issue. Wouldn't it?"

I don't know what that means, "...the sax neck is larely cylindrical. "  I thought it was conical, with maybe an altered taper
 

	
	
	
	 
	
	




      
 

      

    
    
	
	 
	
	








	


	
	


      

I apologize for entering this discussion so late in its in progress.  I didn't remember this site until Lance jogged my memory.

My interpretation and understanding of the effect of mouthpiece volume upon the pitch produced is quite simple and straightforward compared to some others. 

I want to thank Lance for pointing out that when replacing the displaced mouthpiece volume by pulling the mouthpiece out that the volume of entire disk as though it were a solid object is involved and therefore the mouthpiece need not be pulled the entire length of the insert to bring the pitch back down.

This was my primary stumbling block in my original tests leading me to believe that a non linear effect was taking place. Thank goodness it is not that complex.  By treating the volume of the insert differently everything suddenly fell into place.

The extension of my study and tests along with a related paper that I wrote can be found at this site.

http://www.jbtsaxmusic.net/Mouthpiece%20Volume%20and%20Pitch%20Studies.html

John

Hello Professor Weinberg
Thank you for the insight!
The cork has been replace it is new.
No lacquer. 
So what type of mouthpiece would you recommend? 
e-
 
 




________________________________
From: ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, August 8, 2009 11:58:44 PM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] will changing the mouthpiece help

  
you must check if the instrument is high or low pitch (the letters LP might be on the body);
equally the instrument would have used a ballooned out tone chamber mouthpiece-- a modern mouthpiece would make it play sharper (even a Link is not big enough). It might also have been re-laquered and if the polishing was done badly prior to laquering the tone holes would be uneven-they then would have to be reduced to make them level again thus another reason for a sharper pitch ( this happens rarely but it does happen regreattably) .
last point-does it have its original crook?
prof weinberg

--- On Sat, 8/8/09, ebony warrior <ebonywarrior13@ yahoo.com> wrote:


>From: ebony warrior <ebonywarrior13@ yahoo.com>
>Subject: [MouthpieceWork] will changing the mouthpiece help
>To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
>Date: Saturday, 8 August, 2009, 10:34 PM
>
>
>  
>I purchased a vintage horn Buffet Crampon- Evette & Schaeffer Baritone early 1900's. I had it overhauled. 
>by itself it sounds sweet!
>When I was testing the horn with the tuner, it was playing 1/2 step higher than it should have been!
>I had the neck made longer it helped. so what might be a next step? that if their a next step!
>I was thinking adding length to the horn, why ? 
>  
>My primary horn is the alto, but why I play gospel the baritone takes it to another level! 
>What might you suggest? 
>thomas- 
>
> 



      

Dear Martinmods,
    You apparently misread what I wrote and then misquoted me. Here is the real quote.

"A famous saxophone manufacturer pointed out to me a while back that the end of the sax neck is largely cylindrical"

To clarify what I meant - I was speaking of the mouthpiece end since the body end is supposed to be a cylinder for the socket (most of the time). Next time you change a neck cork on a tenor sax, measure and see how much the rate of taper decreases to allow mouthpiece placement adjustment.

I still believe changing tuning rings or inserts each time you need to tune is a pain and is not something that will sell well enough to buy a very large round of drinks. I do not need more junk in my case or a more time consuming set up procedure.
    
Good luck with your ideas!

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
>
> Pushed the wrong button there.....let's go back:
> 
> From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: More On Missing Cone Volume
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Monday, August 10, 2009, 4:35 AM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
>     
>                   If I get rich I'm buying the drinks....
> 
> Fidler wrote, "A famous saxophone manufacturer pointed out to me a while back that the
> end of the sax neck is largely cylindrical. It seems that a mouthpiece
> with a throat that matches the end of the neck bore with a tuneable
> neck would solve the practicality issue. Wouldn't it?"
> 
> I don't know what that means, "...the sax neck is largely cylindrical. "  I thought it was conical, with maybe an altered taper.  It is round for sure. 
> 
> The whole thing is so simple.  Nothing has to change.  Mpce over neck cork is OK.  Just, we add a constriction insert, exactly like on a clarinet for tuning, in order to balance the chamber/constiction volume with that of the hacked (now it's hacked off!!) cone piece, and the mouthpiece (combined chamber + reed compliance + constricton) resonance freq (Helmholtz blah, blah, blah) with the frs of our hacked section. What does that mean?  We stick clarinet tuning insert in to make everything OK.  Let's go back to the clarinet!
>  
> 
> 	
> 	
> 	
> 	 
> 	
> 	
> 
> --- On Mon, 8/10/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
> 
> From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: More On Missing Cone Volume
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Monday, August 10, 2009, 4:35 AM
 

Hi Toby, (sorry my ininteligible English language)

I am in all accordingly with you. And what to say of Paul Desmond, isn´t it? The master of the conditions that we are talking here. Good Setup, simplicity, player exquisite, feeling made perfect sound, is the compilation of the three attributes that i believe must to have a good player of saxophone: the player and your body (diaphragm, cavity mouth, teeth, lip, fingers, emotions, etc) the mouthpiece and red (in concordance with your mouth), neck (in concordance with mouthpiece and with the body of sax) 

I appraisal very much that conversations because i learn very much too.

Fraternally your.

Silverio

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "Toby" <kymarto123@...> wrote:
>
> In the "now" I find most modern music insipid and without inspiration. The sound is amazing, yes, on contemporary recordings, but I will take the "heart" in the recordings of jazz in the 20s and rock in the 60s over just about anything today. 
> 
> I don't wish to be antagonistic, but I do wonder just how much difference this small change in the mpc makes in reality. To me, music is much less a question of bleeding edge technology than it is of human expression. Some of the music which has moved me the most is made on primitive instruments of wood and reed, played by people who could not read music or anything else. It seems to me that so many are so concerned with "kit" and "setup" that they forget that the instrument is just an "instrument", an object with which to achieve and end: they get so hung up with the means that they lose sight of the end.
> 
> Perfection is nowhere near possible acoustically with any wind instrument. This is not to say that it is not possible to improve in various ways on extant designs, but those improvements do not necessarily get us a qualitatively better instrument, just a different one. 
> 
> Sax was one of the most brilliant musical designers ever, and one with a very solid basis in acoustic knowledge. I do not think that his mpc/neck design was an oversight. Rather I think that he believed it a reasonable compromise, just as there are hundreds of other reasonable compromises on the sax. At some point you have to consider the reality of the situation. It is not possible to have 12 octave pips, so he decided it was a reasonable compromise to have two doing extra duty. This creates some pretty awful problems with the D2 and A2, and lesser ones with other notes, but it works well enough that musicians can express themselves decently without horrible gyrations. The idea of a non-adjustable mpc strikes me as impractical in many--if not most--situations. 
> 
> There is an interesting observation in technologies--the rule of ten, I think it is called--which states that to succeed,  a new technology has to be ten times better than a technology it is meant to replace if it entails major changes in practice or equipment. This is why Jim Schmidt's new sax design is doomed to obscurity along with so many other Good Musical Ideas and the Dvorak keyboard. I applaud Lance for his enthusiasm and technical skill, but I suggest that he think about practicality and the rule of ten before committing lots of effort to a design that requires big compromises in the present state of the art. To be blunt, if someone offered me a great new mouthpiece with much improved tonal, intonational and response characteristics, but which could only be used optimally in a very limited subset of the set of all conditions in which I play, I doubt I would be much interested.
> 
> Toby
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: MartinMods 
>   To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
>   Sent: Sunday, August 09, 2009 11:15 AM
>   Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: More On Missing Cone Volume
> 
> 
>     Yes, but, we live in the Now.  Now we have artist saxophonists who specify room temperature in the studio for their recording session.  They play on one horn, and one mouthpiece, which if they are smart, has been matched to each other and themself.  On the high end, implementing the "old way" can give an artist more precise tuning, better response, wider dynamic range, and better tone, without having to work extra for it.  That frees them that much more for self-expression.  That is the "edge" they are all looking for.
> 
>         --- On Sun, 8/9/09, Bill Hausmann <zoot51@...> wrote:
> 
> 
>           From: Bill Hausmann <zoot51@...>
>           Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: More On Missing Cone Volume
>           To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>           Date: Sunday, August 9, 2009, 1:59 AM
> 
> 
>             
>                 Seems pretty simple.  He saw how much room for tuning correction was needed on a saxophone from one mouthpiece/player to another and realized that the old way would NEVER do!
> 
>                 Bill Hausmann
> 
>                 If you have to mic a saxophone, the rest of the band is TOO LOUD!
> 
>                 --- On Sat, 8/8/09, Barry Levine <barrylevine@ norwoodlight. com> wrote:
> 
> 
>                   From: Barry Levine <barrylevine@ norwoodlight. com>
>                   Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: More On Missing Cone Volume
>                   To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
>                   Date: Saturday, August 8, 2009, 9:34 PM
> 
> 
> 
> 
>                   I have to wonder why Adolphe Sax, who had, after all, also built clarinets and had completely revamped the bass clarinet, did not adopt the same mounting for the saxophone mouthpiece.     
> 
> 
> 
>                     From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
>                     Reply-To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
>                     Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2009 13:11:05 -0700 (PDT)
>                     To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
>                     Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: More On Missing Cone Volume [1 Attachment]
> 
>                     (snip)
> 
>                     If we don't make the end of our substitution match the opening of the body, we are just being stupid.  Every other wind instrument on this planet, all centuries older than the saxophone, each one developed as a result of centuries of empirical trial and error testing, and that result substantiated by acoustical theory, fulfills this requirement.  Only the saxophone is so magically mysterious that it defies scientific acoustical analysis.... ........or is it rather that it is still so new, we haven't taken the time to really think about it.  I think the latter..
>

Fidlershorns,

I just misunderstood what you meant.  Sorry.   I did not know that.  I don't suppose you could say who that was or which brand of saxophone that he was referring to exactly.  I have always read and been taught, that the conical taper of the saxophone neck, from tip to tip, was of paramount importance for the accuracy of intonation over the entire range of the horn.  As one could easily just use a slightly thicker neck cork (if it were actually needed) to accomodate any degree of acoustically correct neck taper, I'd be interested in knowing just which famous saxophone manufacturer thought it advantageous to sacrifice tuning simply for the convenince and financial gain of making the end of the neck cylindrical and using a thinner cork.

--- On Tue, 8/11/09, fidlershorns <grassinospam@gmail.com> wrote:

From: fidlershorns <grassinospam@...>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: More On Missing Cone Volume
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, August 11, 2009, 4:20 AM






 




    
                  Dear Martinmods,

    You apparently misread what I wrote and then misquoted me. Here is the real quote.



"A famous saxophone manufacturer pointed out to me a while back that the end of the sax neck is largely cylindrical"



To clarify what I meant - I was speaking of the mouthpiece end since the body end is supposed to be a cylinder for the socket (most of the time). Next time you change a neck cork on a tenor sax, measure and see how much the rate of taper decreases to allow mouthpiece placement adjustment.



I still believe changing tuning rings or inserts each time you need to tune is a pain and is not something that will sell well enough to buy a very large round of drinks. I do not need more junk in my case or a more time consuming set up procedure.

    

Good luck with your ideas!



--- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ ...> wrote:

>

> Pushed the wrong button there.....let' s go back:

> 

> From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ ...>

> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: More On Missing Cone Volume

> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com

> Date: Monday, August 10, 2009, 4:35 AM

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

>  

> 

> 

> 

> 

>     

>                   If I get rich I'm buying the drinks....

> 

> Fidler wrote, "A famous saxophone manufacturer pointed out to me a while back that the

> end of the sax neck is largely cylindrical. It seems that a mouthpiece

> with a throat that matches the end of the neck bore with a tuneable

> neck would solve the practicality issue. Wouldn't it?"

> 

> I don't know what that means, "...the sax neck is largely cylindrical. "  I thought it was conical, with maybe an altered taper.  It is round for sure. 

> 

> The whole thing is so simple.  Nothing has to change.  Mpce over neck cork is OK.  Just, we add a constriction insert, exactly like on a clarinet for tuning, in order to balance the chamber/constiction volume with that of the hacked (now it's hacked off!!) cone piece, and the mouthpiece (combined chamber + reed compliance + constricton) resonance freq (Helmholtz blah, blah, blah) with the frs of our hacked section. What does that mean?  We stick clarinet tuning insert in to make everything OK.  Let's go back to the clarinet!

>  

> 

> 	

> 	

> 	

> 	 

> 	

> 	

> 

> --- On Mon, 8/10/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ ...> wrote:

> 

> From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ ...>

> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: More On Missing Cone Volume

> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com

> Date: Monday, August 10, 2009, 4:35 AM

 




 

      

    
    
	
	 
	
	








	


	
	


      

regrettably the old ballooned out chamber mouthpieces are not made anymore: you could find one from one of the vintage mouthpiece sites (beware that the ebonite is not degrading--if so it will have a greenish hue ) or you could scrape out a link--assuming you have an old one to copy. it is an awkward problem. try a link now that i seem to remember you aid the crook had been lengthened
prof weinberg

--- On Tue, 11/8/09, ebony warrior <ebonywarrior13@...> wrote:


From: ebony warrior <ebonywarrior13@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] will changing the mouthpiece help
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, 11 August, 2009, 12:10 AM


  






Hello Professor Weinberg
Thank you for the insight!
The cork has been replace it is new.
No lacquer. 
So what type of mouthpiece would you recommend? 
e-
 
 





From: ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com>
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Saturday, August 8, 2009 11:58:44 PM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] will changing the mouthpiece help

  






you must check if the instrument is high or low pitch (the letters LP might be on the body);
equally the instrument would have used a ballooned out tone chamber mouthpiece-- a modern mouthpiece would make it play sharper (even a Link is not big enough). It might also have been re-laquered and if the polishing was done badly prior to laquering the tone holes would be uneven-they then would have to be reduced to make them level again thus another reason for a sharper pitch ( this happens rarely but it does happen regreattably) .
last point-does it have its original crook?
prof weinberg

--- On Sat, 8/8/09, ebony warrior <ebonywarrior13@ yahoo.com> wrote:


From: ebony warrior <ebonywarrior13@ yahoo.com>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] will changing the mouthpiece help
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Saturday, 8 August, 2009, 10:34 PM


  



I purchased a vintage horn Buffet Crampon- Evette & Schaeffer Baritone early 1900's. I had it overhauled. 
by itself it sounds sweet!
When I was testing the horn with the tuner, it was playing 1/2 step higher than it should have been!
I had the neck made longer it helped. so what might be a next step? that if their a next step!
I was thinking adding length to the horn, why ? 
  
My primary horn is the alto, but why I play gospel the baritone takes it to another level! 
What might you suggest? 
thomas- 
 

Lance, 

As Paul Newman said, "what we have here is a failure to
communicate."

The cone stays chopped off where it is chopped off, yes.
But you could make an extension to make the cone longer,
which is what I am talking about. The end of the cone is
the constriction, unless you create a point further
upstream that is smaller for some silly reason. The
constriction is not part of the mpc per se, it is the
point at which the cone begins, or it should be.

If you tune simply by pulling the mpc off the cork the
constriction stays in the same place: at the point of
truncation. You increase the length because the reed tip
is further from the other end of the cone (yes, this does
matter, even in a conical bore). In addition you increase
the volume, which throws the resonances off, making the
upper modes flatter relative to the lower modes. 

If you want to tune by increasing length without
increasing volume, which would globally lower the
intonation without throwing the modes off, you would need
to extend the cone. Of course this would still be somewhat
of a problem since the tonehole placement is correct only
for a single tube length, but at least you wouldn't have
to worry about the mpc volume.

Toby

Toby

--- MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:

> Toby wrote, " You 
> have to extend the cone "conically" to add length,
> and this is a much bigger 
> problem. Simply extending the length after the
> constriction changes the volume 
> of the cone-tip analog (the mpc), and this throws
> the resonances off."
> 
> Sorry Toby, you are wrong.  You aren't reading well
> my friend.  This has been typed quit a few times
> already.  The cone stays chopped where we chopped
> it.  The constriction IS part of the
mouthpiece.  It
> is inseperable from it.  If we decide to lengthen
> the constriction, we must adjust the volume of the
> chamber accordingly, AND we must insure that the
> sounding freq, of the mouthpiece (chamber, reed, AND
> constriction) equals frs.  
> 
> 
> 
> --- On Sun, 8/9/09, Toby <kymarto123@...>
> wrote:
> 
> From: Toby <kymarto123@...>
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: More On Missing
> Cone Volume
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Sunday, August 9, 2009, 11:32 PM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
>     
>                   
> 
> 
> No, that has everything to do with it. A 
> cylindrical air column can be extended cylindrically
> by addition of a barrel or 
> other extension. Old wooden flutes used an inner
> metal tenon to keep the 
> diameter constant when moving the headjoint, which
> is a much better solution 
> than is employed on the clarinet, since it does not
> entail having to insert or 
> remove pieces (changing barrels) to keep the bore
> smooth. With either the flute 
> or clarinet, you can adjust the length without that
> extra length adding volume 
> which throws your tuning off. With conical woodwinds
> this is not the case. You 
> have to extend the cone "conically" to add length,
> and this is a much bigger 
> problem. Simply extending the length after the
> constriction changes the volume 
> of the cone-tip analog (the mpc), and this throws
> the resonances off. Even if 
> you found a way to extend the cone, it would change
> the truncation ratio and 
> thus change the necessary volume and Helmholtz
> resonance of the 
> mpc. Ideally with conical woodwinds you need an
> arrangement like an oboe 
> reed: the "mpc" section should be seamlessly mated
> with a length of the cone 
> (the stape of the reed) and designed specifically
> for that conical section. 
> However Sax knew accepted the compromise of a
> movable mpc because it is 
> simple.
>  
> Toby
> 
>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: 
>   MARTINMODS 
>   To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com 
>   
>   Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 4:30 
>   AM
>   Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: More On 
>   Missing Cone Volume
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>     
>     
>       Barry Wrote, "I have to wonder why 
>         Adolphe Sax, who had, after all, also built
> clarinets and had completely 
>         revamped the bass clarinet, did not adopt
> the same mounting for the 
>         saxophone mouthpiece."
> 
> And then Toby wrote, "Because the sax isn't
> cylindrical. "
> 
> That has nothing 
>         to do with it.  The saxophone moutpiece IS
> cylindrical and would 
>         fit perfectly in a cylindrical flange
> attached to the conical neck, 
>         without causing ANY irregularity of the
> bore.
> 
> --- On 
>         Sun, 8/9/09, Toby <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp> 
>         wrote:
> 
>         
> From: 
>           Toby <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
> Subject: Re: 
>           [MouthpieceWork] Re: More On Missing Cone
> Volume
> To: 
>           MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> Date: Sunday, August 9, 
>           2009, 4:19 PM
> 
> 
>             
>           
>           
>           Because the sax isn't cylindrical. 
>           
>            
>           Toby
>            
>           
>             ----- 
>             Original Message ----- 
>             From: 
>             Barry 
>             Levine 
>             To: 
>             MouthpieceWork@ 
>             yahoogroups. com 
>             Sent: 
>             Sunday, August 09, 2009 10:34 AM
>             Subject: 
>             Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: More On Missing
> Cone Volume
>             
>   
>             
>             I have to wonder why Adolphe Sax, who
> had, 
>             after all, also built clarinets and had
> completely revamped the bass 
>             clarinet, did not adopt the same
> mounting for the saxophone 
>             mouthpiece.     
> 
> 
>             
> From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ 
>               yahoo.com>
> Reply-To: MouthpieceWork@ 
>               yahoogroups. com
> Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2009 13:11:05 
>               -0700 (PDT)
> To: MouthpieceWork@ 
>               yahoogroups. com
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: 
>               More On Missing Cone Volume [1
> Attachment]
> 
> (snip)
> 
> If 
>               we don't make the end of our
> substitution match the opening of the 
>               body, we are just being stupid.
 Every
> other wind instrument 
>               on this planet, all centuries older
> than the saxophone, each one 
>               developed as a result of centuries of
> empirical trial and error 
>               testing, and that result substantiated
> by acoustical theory, 
>               fulfills this requirement..  Only the
> saxophone is so 
>               magically mysterious that it defies
> scientific acoustical 
>               analysis.... ........or is it rather
> that it is still so new, we 
>               haven't taken the time to really think
> about it.  I think the 
>               latter.
>             
> 
> 
== $B0J2<$N%a%C%;!<%8$O>JN,$5$l$^$7$?(B =

Actually, Strother Martin, who played "Captain, Road Prison 36" in the movie, said it first, and the way that he said it and the circumstance are what give the phrase it's significance.  Newman did mock him with the line, later in the movie though.



--- On Wed, 8/12/09, kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...> wrote:

From: kymarto123@... <kymarto123@....jp>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: More On Missing Cone Volume
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 2:23 AM






 




    
                  Lance, 



As Paul Newman said, "what we have here is a failure to

communicate. "



The cone stays chopped off where it is chopped off, yes.

But you could make an extension to make the cone longer,

which is what I am talking about. The end of the cone is

the constriction, unless you create a point further

upstream that is smaller for some silly reason. The

constriction is not part of the mpc per se, it is the

point at which the cone begins, or it should be.



If you tune simply by pulling the mpc off the cork the

constriction stays in the same place: at the point of

truncation. You increase the length because the reed tip

is further from the other end of the cone (yes, this does

matter, even in a conical bore). In addition you increase

the volume, which throws the resonances off, making the

upper modes flatter relative to the lower modes. 



If you want to tune by increasing length without

increasing volume, which would globally lower the

intonation without throwing the modes off, you would need

to extend the cone. Of course this would still be somewhat

of a problem since the tonehole placement is correct only

for a single tube length, but at least you wouldn't have

to worry about the mpc volume.



Toby



Toby



--- MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:



> Toby wrote, " You 

> have to extend the cone "conically" to add length,

> and this is a much bigger 

> problem. Simply extending the length after the

> constriction changes the volume 

> of the cone-tip analog (the mpc), and this throws

> the resonances off."

> 

> Sorry Toby, you are wrong.  You aren't reading well

> my friend.  This has been typed quit a few times

> already.  The cone stays chopped where we chopped

> it.  The constriction IS part of the

mouthpiece.& #160; It

> is inseperable from it.  If we decide to lengthen

> the constriction, we must adjust the volume of the

> chamber accordingly, AND we must insure that the

> sounding freq, of the mouthpiece (chamber, reed, AND

> constriction) equals frs.  

> 

> 

> 

> --- On Sun, 8/9/09, Toby <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>

> wrote:

> 

> From: Toby <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>

> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: More On Missing

> Cone Volume

> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com

> Date: Sunday, August 9, 2009, 11:32 PM

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

>  

> 

> 

> 

> 

>     

>                   

> 

> 

> No, that has everything to do with it. A 

> cylindrical air column can be extended cylindrically

> by addition of a barrel or 

> other extension. Old wooden flutes used an inner

> metal tenon to keep the 

> diameter constant when moving the headjoint, which

> is a much better solution 

> than is employed on the clarinet, since it does not

> entail having to insert or 

> remove pieces (changing barrels) to keep the bore

> smooth. With either the flute 

> or clarinet, you can adjust the length without that

> extra length adding volume 

> which throws your tuning off. With conical woodwinds

> this is not the case. You 

> have to extend the cone "conically" to add length,

> and this is a much bigger 

> problem. Simply extending the length after the

> constriction changes the volume 

> of the cone-tip analog (the mpc), and this throws

> the resonances off. Even if 

> you found a way to extend the cone, it would change

> the truncation ratio and 

> thus change the necessary volume and Helmholtz

> resonance of the 

> mpc. Ideally with conical woodwinds you need an

> arrangement like an oboe 

> reed: the "mpc" section should be seamlessly mated

> with a length of the cone 

> (the stape of the reed) and designed specifically

> for that conical section. 

> However Sax knew accepted the compromise of a

> movable mpc because it is 

> simple.

>  

> Toby

> 

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

>   From: 

>   MARTINMODS 

>   To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com 

>   

>   Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 4:30 

>   AM

>   Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: More On 

>   Missing Cone Volume

>   

>   

>   

>   

>   

>     

>     

>       Barry Wrote, "I have to wonder why 

>         Adolphe Sax, who had, after all, also built

> clarinets and had completely 

>         revamped the bass clarinet, did not adopt

> the same mounting for the 

>         saxophone mouthpiece."

> 

> And then Toby wrote, "Because the sax isn't

> cylindrical. "

> 

> That has nothing 

>         to do with it.  The saxophone moutpiece IS

> cylindrical and would 

>         fit perfectly in a cylindrical flange

> attached to the conical neck, 

>         without causing ANY irregularity of the

> bore.

> 

> --- On 

>         Sun, 8/9/09, Toby <kymarto123@ ybb. ne.jp> 

>         wrote:

> 

>         

> From: 

>           Toby <kymarto123@ ybb. ne.jp>

> Subject: Re: 

>           [MouthpieceWork] Re: More On Missing Cone

> Volume

> To: 

>           MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com

> Date: Sunday, August 9, 

>           2009, 4:19 PM

> 

> 

>             

>           

>           

>           Because the sax isn't cylindrical. 

>           

>            

>           Toby

>            

>           

>             ----- 

>             Original Message ----- 

>             From: 

>             Barry 

>             Levine 

>             To: 

>             MouthpieceWork@ 

>             yahoogroups. com 

>             Sent: 

>             Sunday, August 09, 2009 10:34 AM

>             Subject: 

>             Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: More On Missing

> Cone Volume

>             

>   

>             

>             I have to wonder why Adolphe Sax, who

> had, 

>             after all, also built clarinets and had

> completely revamped the bass 

>             clarinet, did not adopt the same

> mounting for the saxophone 

>             mouthpiece.      

> 

> 

>             

> From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ 

>               yahoo.com>

> Reply-To: MouthpieceWork@ 

>               yahoogroups. com

> Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2009 13:11:05 

>               -0700 (PDT)

> To: MouthpieceWork@ 

>               yahoogroups. com

> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: 

>               More On Missing Cone Volume [1

> Attachment]

> 

> (snip)

> 

> If 

>               we don't make the end of our

> substitution match the opening of the 

>               body, we are just being stupid.

 Every

> other wind instrument 

>               on this planet, all centuries older

> than the saxophone, each one 

>               developed as a result of centuries of

> empirical trial and error 

>               testing, and that result substantiated

> by acoustical theory, 

>               fulfills this requirement. .  Only the

> saxophone is so 

>               magically mysterious that it defies

> scientific acoustical 

>               analysis.... ........or is it rather

> that it is still so new, we 

>               haven't taken the time to really think

> about it.  I think the 

>               latter.

>             

> 

> 

=== 以下のメッセージは省略されました ===




 

      

    
    
	
	 
	
	








	


	
	


      

I think he means that the very end of the neck under the
cork has less of a semi-angle than the rest of the neck.
Is that true? I don't think so, or we could replace neck
corks with a straight rectangle of cork...

Toby

--- MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:

> If I get rich I'm buying the drinks....
> 
> Fidler wrote, "A famous saxophone manufacturer
> pointed out to me a while back that the
> end of the sax neck is largely cylindrical. It seems
> that a mouthpiece
> with a throat that matches the end of the neck bore
> with a tuneable
> neck would solve the practicality issue. Wouldn't
> it?"
> 
> I don't know what that means, "...the sax neck is
> larely cylindrical."  I thought it was conical,
with
> maybe an altered taper
>  
> 
> 	
> 	
> 	
> 	 
> 	
> 	
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 	
> 
> 
> 	
> 	
> 
> 
>       

I'd like to see more audio files (so I could hear them) uploaded here, demonstrating whatever is being described, charted, pictured, altered, or whatever.  Even though every player is different, one can still discern at least some of the characteristics of the item, by listening analytically.  Or we engage some "hot" player to demo everything for us.  That would provide an element of consistency.



      

You can verify what I am saying by yourself. Please get out your caliper next time you change a tenor sax cork, and you will see the angle lessens significantly. Otherwise the tuneable neck would have been cursed as throwing off tuning, (which it did not), not for getting stuck or being unneeded. The rate of taper changes so much that I doubt any set of calculations based on cones alone is accurate. The shape of a piece of cork for the end of the neck is much closer to a rectangle than the fan shape it would take farther into the neck.

Saying the sax is conical is like saying a modern trumpet is a cylindrical instrument. The leadpipe is tapered to the tuning slide and the bell is tapered to near the valve block. 

I value the findings and opinions of those who are desigining and testing the best saxophones in the world today. Like music theory is ususally made to describe what has already been written, so does this acoustical theory. It is a good place to start understanding what is going on.



--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
>
> I think he means that the very end of the neck under the
> cork has less of a semi-angle than the rest of the neck.
> Is that true? I don't think so, or we could replace neck
> corks with a straight rectangle of cork...
> 
> Toby
> 
> --- MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
> 
> > If I get rich I'm buying the drinks....
> > 
> > Fidler wrote, "A famous saxophone manufacturer
> > pointed out to me a while back that the
> > end of the sax neck is largely cylindrical. It seems
> > that a mouthpiece
> > with a throat that matches the end of the neck bore
> > with a tuneable
> > neck would solve the practicality issue. Wouldn't
> > it?"
> > 
> > I don't know what that means, "...the sax neck is
> > larely cylindrical."  I thought it was conical,
> with
> > maybe an altered taper
> >  
> > 
> > 	
> > 	
> > 	
> > 	 
> > 	
> > 	
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 	
> > 
> > 
> > 	
> > 	
> > 
> > 
> >
>

OK, this is probably true but the sax is already a
collection of at least two different conic sections
married together, and apparently now we have a third. But
this is not necessarily so on all saxes: I can verify that
the angle doesn't change on my old Conn sop.

Toby

--- fidlershorns <grassinospam@...> wrote:

> You can verify what I am saying by yourself. Please
> get out your caliper next time you change a tenor
> sax cork, and you will see the angle lessens
> significantly. Otherwise the tuneable neck would
> have been cursed as throwing off tuning, (which it
> did not), not for getting stuck or being unneeded.
> The rate of taper changes so much that I doubt any
> set of calculations based on cones alone is
> accurate. The shape of a piece of cork for the end
> of the neck is much closer to a rectangle than the
> fan shape it would take farther into the neck.
> 
> Saying the sax is conical is like saying a modern
> trumpet is a cylindrical instrument. The leadpipe is
> tapered to the tuning slide and the bell is tapered
> to near the valve block. 
> 
> I value the findings and opinions of those who are
> desigining and testing the best saxophones in the
> world today. Like music theory is ususally made to
> describe what has already been written, so does this
> acoustical theory. It is a good place to start
> understanding what is going on.
> 
> 
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com,
> <kymarto123@...> wrote:
> >
> > I think he means that the very end of the neck
> under the
> > cork has less of a semi-angle than the rest of the
> neck.
> > Is that true? I don't think so, or we could
> replace neck
> > corks with a straight rectangle of cork...
> > 
> > Toby
> > 
> > --- MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
> > 
> > > If I get rich I'm buying the drinks....
> > > 
> > > Fidler wrote, "A famous saxophone manufacturer
> > > pointed out to me a while back that the
> > > end of the sax neck is largely cylindrical. It
> seems
> > > that a mouthpiece
> > > with a throat that matches the end of the neck
> bore
> > > with a tuneable
> > > neck would solve the practicality issue.
> Wouldn't
> > > it?"
> > > 
> > > I don't know what that means, "...the sax neck
> is
> > > larely cylindrical."  I thought it was
> conical,
> > with
> > > maybe an altered taper
> > >  
> > > 
> > > 	
> > > 	
> > > 	
> > > 	 
> > > 	
> > > 	
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 	
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 	
> > > 	
> > > 
> > > 
> > >
> >
> 
> 
> 

Right. Strother Martin was great, as was Newman, in that
flick.

Toby

--- MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:

> Actually, Strother Martin, who played "Captain, Road
> Prison 36" in the movie, said it first, and the way
> that he said it and the circumstance are what give
> the phrase it's significance.� Newman did mock
him
> with the line, later in the movie though.
> 
> 
> 
> --- On Wed, 8/12/09, kymarto123@...
> <kymarto123@...> wrote:
> 
> From: kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...>
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: More On Missing
> Cone Volume
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 2:23 AM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> �
> 
> 
> 
> 
>     
>                   Lance, 
> 
> 
> 
> As Paul Newman said, "what we have here is a failure
> to
> 
> communicate. "
> 
> 
> 
> The cone stays chopped off where it is chopped off,
> yes.
> 
> But you could make an extension to make the cone
> longer,
> 
> which is what I am talking about. The end of the
> cone is
> 
> the constriction, unless you create a point further
> 
> upstream that is smaller for some silly reason. The
> 
> constriction is not part of the mpc per se, it is
> the
> 
> point at which the cone begins, or it should be.
> 
> 
> 
> If you tune simply by pulling the mpc off the cork
> the
> 
> constriction stays in the same place: at the point
> of
> 
> truncation. You increase the length because the reed
> tip
> 
> is further from the other end of the cone (yes, this
> does
> 
> matter, even in a conical bore). In addition you
> increase
> 
> the volume, which throws the resonances off, making
> the
> 
> upper modes flatter relative to the lower modes. 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to tune by increasing length without
> 
> increasing volume, which would globally lower the
> 
> intonation without throwing the modes off, you would
> need
> 
> to extend the cone. Of course this would still be
> somewhat
> 
> of a problem since the tonehole placement is correct
> only
> 
> for a single tube length, but at least you wouldn't
> have
> 
> to worry about the mpc volume.
> 
> 
> 
> Toby
> 
> 
> 
> Toby
> 
> 
> 
> --- MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> > Toby wrote, " You 
> 
> > have to extend the cone "conically" to add length,
> 
> > and this is a much bigger 
> 
> > problem. Simply extending the length after the
> 
> > constriction changes the volume 
> 
> > of the cone-tip analog (the mpc), and this throws
> 
> > the resonances off."
> 
> > 
> 
> > Sorry Toby, you are wrong.  You aren't
> reading well
> 
> > my friend.  This has been typed quit a few
> times
> 
> > already.  The cone stays chopped where we
> chopped
> 
> > it.  The constriction IS part of the
> 
> mouthpiece.& #160; It
> 
> > is inseperable from it.  If we decide to
> lengthen
> 
> > the constriction, we must adjust the volume of the
> 
> > chamber accordingly, AND we must insure that the
> 
> > sounding freq, of the mouthpiece (chamber, reed,
> AND
> 
> > constriction) equals frs.  
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > --- On Sun, 8/9/09, Toby <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
> 
> > wrote:
> 
> > 
> 
> > From: Toby <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
> 
> > Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: More On Missing
> 
> > Cone Volume
> 
> > To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> 
> > Date: Sunday, August 9, 2009, 11:32 PM
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> >  
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> >     
> 
> >                   
> 
== $B0J2<$N%a%C%;!<%8$O>JN,$5$l$^$7$?(B =

Lance, 

Basically this is what I know about volume and HH rez. As
I mentioned I have never seen any mention anywhere about a
displacement antinode at the constriction, nor have I seen
that the playing frequency affects the HH rez of the the
mpc, which should be based strictly on the volume of the
area above the constriction AFAIK.

Is this something from Benade?

Anyway, here is Scavone:

"Benade and Richards (1983) conducted a theoretical
analysis on the influence of reed and staple
proportion adjustments on the air column normal modes of
an oboe. By approximating the reed
and staple with a cylindrical and conical section,
respectively, they derived a closed-form solution
from which the effect of simple geometric variations
could be determined. In particular, they found
that the reed and staple assembly should be so
proportioned that its total volume is equivalent
to that of the missing conical section at the top of the
instrument. *This requirement is based on
the low-frequency behavior of the structure, since a
cavity is characterized by its volume in the
long-wavelength limit but not by its particular shape.
Further, the lowest natural frequency of the
assembly should match that of the missing conical tip so
that their behaviors are comparable in the
vicinity of this frequency. When correctly proportioned,
the reed structure functions in place of the missing
conical section and can correct some or most of the
effects of conical bore truncation. The
motion of the reed, damping in the reed and lips, and oral
cavity effects all make large contributions
to the effective volume of the reed assembly, which is
much greater than its geometrical volume....
Given the analysis of Benade and Richards (1983), it is
reasonable to expect that a saxophone
mouthpiece which produces a characteristically "dark" tone
quality destructively influences the
higher partials of the air column. PIn this sense, a long
and narrow mouthpiece chamber may form
a better continuation of the conical bore to its apex, and
allow more high harmonic participation in
the regime of oscillation.*"

I starred a couple of sections I think are important to
discussions we are having.

Toby

Just a warning that some of the recent discussions are being percieved as trolling and/or bullying by some of our members.  I see nothing that looks like a message from a troll to me.  Look up the definition of a web troll to see what I mean.  
 
Do not confuse a devil's advocate or disagreement with a troll or bully.  

If there is a particular post that you think crosses the line, please send it to me.

There are a lot of old posts on refacing.  There are very few on the state of the art of understanding mouthpiece physics.  I would like the discussion to continue if there are new things to add or clarify.  
 
I would like to start getting more reports on trying out some of the ideas instead of just talking about it.  


      

I'm just catching up on all the discussions...
 
Toby>>>>
If you can match the volume and first-mode resonance of
the missing tip with the mpc then you come as close as
possible to bringing the resonances into line for the
whole cone. After that, the shape of the mpc has important
effects on the tonal spectrum of the note, but in terms of
intonation the internal shape is not so important, as long
as those first two conditions are met.
<<<<

Perhaps not “as close as possible”.  Some hear the tonal spectrum as an extension of the intonation of the fundamental.  When we “voice” notes we use our oral cavity to line up the first few overtones as best we can to get the notes spectrum to “ring” as best we can.  I think some of the reason squeeze throat designs work to “focus” the sound is that they help to line up a few of these overtones with the fundamental tone.  But they are also changing the equalization (amplitude balance) of the overtones.   Investigating inserts closer to the neck gives another knob to turn.  
 
Toby>>>>
What is gospel is that there should be no sharp edges in a
bore. Aside from discussions of shape it is certainly of
value to round the bottom edge of the window cutout, and
the more the better. This should have a minimal effect on
tone but increase efficiency by reducing turbulence.
<<<<
 
It is not gospel in my bible.  Sharp edges can give a gritty edgy sound that some players a looking for.  I never introduce edges, but I sometimes warn clients that if I take them out, the sound might be too clean for their tastes.
 
Also, I believe there is very little turbulence going on inside musical instruments.  I have done some quick calculations in the past and found that the Reynolds number is only high enough near the mouthpiece tip where the cross-sectional area is very small.  The edges inside a mouthpiece and sax can create laminar recirculation, but the flow is not strong, random and chaotic enough to meet the definition of turbulent flow in a lot of cases cited.   There is some vortex shedding at the tone holes, but I’m not sure this is happening inside the mouthpiece.
 
Toby>>>>
Anyone wishing to understand what we are dealing with should read this paper:
http://hal.archives -ouvertes. fr/docs/00/ 25/27/96/ PDF/ajp-jp419940 4C5120.pdf
<<<<
 
This may change my mind. 
 
MartinMods>>>>
I'd like to see more audio files (so I could hear them) uploaded here, demonstrating whatever is being described, charted, pictured, altered, or whatever.  Even though every player is different, one can still discern at least some of the characteristics of the item, by listening analytically.  Or we engage some "hot" player to demo everything for us.  That would provide an element of consistency.
<<<< 
 
I agree.  But it will take several players testing the same before/after for me to get a feel for the significance of the change.  I have access to some “hot players” willing to test things.  I would just need to get an acceptable recording-to-PC system worked out.  I have used Windows audio and a simple mic in the past.  But the results were a little noisy.
 
--- frymorgan <frymorgan@yahoo. com> wrote:
> Perhaps not exactly the shape but the
> cross-sectional area must affect pitch of every wave
> with a node within the mouthpiece. The pitch of the
> harmonics affects the perception of intonation,
> doesn't it?
 
I think it does for some players, and does not for others.
 
Toby>>>>
OK, this is probably true but the sax is already a
collection of at least two different conic sections
married together, and apparently now we have a third. But
this is not necessarily so on all saxes: I can verify that
the angle doesn't change on my old Conn sop.
<<<< 
 
I think my Conn straight sop does change.  There is slight bulge in the taper just above the high F  tone hole.  I’ll have to check.


      

FYI, It is possible to set your membership to recieve individual posts, not recieve any posts (just visit the web site to see them), or you can recieve all of the posts in 24 hours in one daily digest file.  Just visit the Yahoo Mouthpiece Work site to reset your preferences.


      

on 8/12/09 11:48 AM, Keith Bradbury at kwbradbury@... wrote:

(snip)

> I would like to start getting more reports on trying out some of the ideas
> instead of just talking about it. 
> 

Have been using baffle inserts of various sizes on my Ponzol M1 for years.
They require pulling the mouthpiece out a bit further, but I've not noticed
any great problems with intonation.

Adding a throat ring seems to improve focus - notes are a little less
spread, seem to pop out a bit faster.  Depending on ring placement, there's
no loss of playing ease. Optimum seems to be about 3/16" in from the tip
ring of the neck. This is an estimate. Pushing it in further increases a
feeling of resistance, akin to a narrower facing. Having it flush to the tip
of the neck tip ring doesn't seem to do much.

Similar constrictions of 1/4" and 1/2" flush to the neck tip ring increase
sense of resistance, play like a narrow facing. (Tried this using some
sections of vinyl tubing. Admittedly, it's a bit soft, so may not be a good
test. Morevoer, it's not quite as narrow a constriction as the throat ring.)

The combination of additional baffle plus throat ring requires pulling the
mouthpiece out even a bit further - not good,  became a little wobbly on the
cork, probably a bit of air leak.

So I created an extension to the mouthpiece - found some plastic electrical
conduit with only very slightly large I.D. than the mouthpiece, cut a piece
about 1" long, reamed it slightly to accomodate about 3/4" of the end of the
mouthpiece. Adds stability and a better seal to the cork.

I don't find that the intonation is problematic. This combo of baffle insert
plus throat ring plus length extension plays nicely. Bright with overtones -
ok to my taste, if not to others.

B

typing corrections, clarifications
> 
> Similar constrictions of 1/4" and 1/2" flush to the neck tip ring increase
> sense of resistance, play like a narrow facing. (Tried this using some
> sections of vinyl tubing. Admittedly, it's a bit soft, so may not be a good
> test. Morevoer, it's not quite as narrow a constriction as the throat ring.)

i.e. lengths of tubing 1/4" and 1/2" long.  These are sl. too large to fit,
so I slit them and removed a bit of the circumference.
> 
> The combination of additional baffle plus throat ring requires pulling the
> mouthpiece out even a bit further - not good,  became a little wobbly on the
> cork, probably a bit of air leak.
> 
> So I created an extension to the mouthpiece - found some plastic electrical
> conduit with only very slightly large I.D. than the mouthpiece, cut a piece
> about 1" long, reamed it slightly to accomodate about 3/4" of the end of the
> mouthpiece. Adds stability and a better seal to the cork.

That's 3/8", not 3/4"

How about some audio to go with your descriptions?  That would be nice.



--- On Wed, 8/12/09, Barry Levine <barrylevine@...> wrote:

From: Barry Levine <barrylevine@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Potchkying
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 5:03 PM






 




    
                  on 8/12/09 11:48 AM, Keith Bradbury at kwbradbury@yahoo. com wrote:



(snip)



> I would like to start getting more reports on trying out some of the ideas

> instead of just talking about it. 

> 



Have been using baffle inserts of various sizes on my Ponzol M1 for years.

They require pulling the mouthpiece out a bit further, but I've not noticed

any great problems with intonation.



Adding a throat ring seems to improve focus - notes are a little less

spread, seem to pop out a bit faster.  Depending on ring placement, there's

no loss of playing ease. Optimum seems to be about 3/16" in from the tip

ring of the neck. This is an estimate. Pushing it in further increases a

feeling of resistance, akin to a narrower facing. Having it flush to the tip

of the neck tip ring doesn't seem to do much.



Similar constrictions of 1/4" and 1/2" flush to the neck tip ring increase

sense of resistance, play like a narrow facing. (Tried this using some

sections of vinyl tubing. Admittedly, it's a bit soft, so may not be a good

test. Morevoer, it's not quite as narrow a constriction as the throat ring.)



The combination of additional baffle plus throat ring requires pulling the

mouthpiece out even a bit further - not good,  became a little wobbly on the

cork, probably a bit of air leak.



So I created an extension to the mouthpiece - found some plastic electrical

conduit with only very slightly large I.D. than the mouthpiece, cut a piece

about 1" long, reamed it slightly to accomodate about 3/4" of the end of the

mouthpiece. Adds stability and a better seal to the cork.



I don't find that the intonation is problematic. This combo of baffle insert

plus throat ring plus length extension plays nicely. Bright with overtones -

ok to my taste, if not to others.



B




 

      

    
    
	
	 
	
	








	


	
	


      

Barry,

It's important for your tests to have usable results, that the inserts fit snug against the throat wall.  It's a high pressure area, and any gap (narrow is worse than wide) will dampen a lot of energy.  The vinyl should be OK for preliminary testing.  Brass would be better.

Lance

--- On Wed, 8/12/09, Barry Levine <barrylevine@...> wrote:

From: Barry Levine <barrylevine@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Potchkying
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 5:11 PM






 




    
                  typing corrections, clarifications

> 

> Similar constrictions of 1/4" and 1/2" flush to the neck tip ring increase

> sense of resistance, play like a narrow facing. (Tried this using some

> sections of vinyl tubing. Admittedly, it's a bit soft, so may not be a good

> test. Morevoer, it's not quite as narrow a constriction as the throat ring.)



i.e. lengths of tubing 1/4" and 1/2" long.  These are sl. too large to fit,

so I slit them and removed a bit of the circumference.

> 

> The combination of additional baffle plus throat ring requires pulling the

> mouthpiece out even a bit further - not good,  became a little wobbly on the

> cork, probably a bit of air leak.

> 

> So I created an extension to the mouthpiece - found some plastic electrical

> conduit with only very slightly large I.D. than the mouthpiece, cut a piece

> about 1" long, reamed it slightly to accomodate about 3/4" of the end of the

> mouthpiece. Adds stability and a better seal to the cork.



That's 3/8", not 3/4"




 

      

    
    
	
	 
	
	








	


	
	


      

Keith, it's a function of amplitude and not frequency. You
can use the oral cavity to reinforce certain harmonics by
creating the correct resonant frequency  in the oral
cavity, but you cannot change the frequency of the
overtones, which are strictly locked in correct harmonic
relationships to the sounding frequency via mode locking.
If the tube resonances are not at integer multiples of the
fundamental, then they are weakened and response suffers,
but they still are locked to the correct frequency. If the
fundamental is not present, however, as when the octave
key is pressed, the second mode first partial is free to
sound at its naturalresonance as determined by the tube
impedance. That's how octaves get out of tune. If you have
doubts about this it can be clearly demonstrated with a
spectrum analyzer.

But then the second partial, for instance, (the twelfth)
and the harmonics above will lock themselves to the new
dominant frequency, so that if--for instance--the octave
is 25 cents sharp, so too will all the harmonics shift up
25 cents to be in the correct relationship with the new
dominant frequency.

Any perturbation is going to affect the mode frequencies,
either globally if it is high in the tube, or more locally
if it is lower down. But it will affect the different
modes differently. Makers use perturbations to correct
intonational inconsistencies which manifest in one mode
but not another. But in any case, whatever note is
sounding as the dominant frequency will get all the
partials to line up in harmonic relationship, although the
amplitudes can vary as a function of how far off the
correct harmonic value the natural resonances of those
partials are.

Toby



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

> I'm just catching up on all the discussions...
> $B%D(B
> Toby>>>>
> If you can match the volume and first-mode resonance
> of
> the missing tip with the mpc then you come as close
> as
> possible to bringing the resonances into line for
> the
> whole cone. After that, the shape of the mpc has
> important
> effects on the tonal spectrum of the note, but in
> terms of
> intonation the internal shape is not so important,
> as long
> as those first two conditions are met.
> <<<<
> 
> Perhaps not $Bc`WB(Bs close as possible$Bc`(B�.$B%D(B Some
hear
> the tonal spectrum as an extension of the intonation
> of the fundamental.$B%D(B When we $Bc`WW(Boice$Bc`(B� notes
we
> use our oral cavity to line up the first few
> overtones as best we can to get the notes spectrum
> to $Bc`WS(Bing$Bc`(B� as best we can.$B%D(B I think some of
the
> reason squeeze throat designs work to $Bc`WG(Bocus$Bc`(B�
> the sound is that they help to line up a few of
> these overtones with the fundamental tone.$B%D(B But
> they are also changing the equalization (amplitude
> balance) of the overtones.$B%D%D(B Investigating inserts
> closer to the neck gives another knob to turn.$B%D(B 
> $B%D(B
> Toby>>>>
> What is gospel is that there should be no sharp
> edges in a
> bore. Aside from discussions of shape it is
> certainly of
> value to round the bottom edge of the window cutout,
> and
> the more the better. This should have a minimal
> effect on
> tone but increase efficiency by reducing turbulence.
> <<<<
> $B%D(B
> It is not gospel in my bible.$B%D(B Sharp edges can give
> a gritty edgy sound that some players a looking
> for.$B%D(B I never introduce edges, but I sometimes warn
> clients that if I take them out, the sound might be
> too clean for their tastes.
> $B%D(B
> Also, I believe there is very little turbulence
> going on inside musical instruments.$B%D(B I have done
> some quick calculations in the past and found that
> the Reynolds number is only high enough near the
> mouthpiece tip where the cross-sectional area is
> very small.$B%D(B The edges inside a mouthpiece and sax
> can create laminar recirculation, but the flow is
> not strong, random and chaotic enough to meet the
> definition of turbulent flow in a lot of cases
> cited.$B%D(B $B%D(BThere is some vortex shedding at the tone
> holes, but I$Bc`QN(B not sure this is happening inside
> the mouthpiece.
> $B%D(B
> Toby>>>>
> Anyone wishing to understand what we are dealing
> with should read this paper:
> http://hal.archives -ouvertes. fr/docs/00/ 25/27/96/
> PDF/ajp-jp419940 4C5120.pdf
> <<<<
> $B%D(B
> This may change my mind. 
> $B%D(B
> MartinMods>>>>
> I'd like to see more audio files (so I could hear
> them) uploaded here, demonstrating whatever is being
> described, charted, pictured, altered, or
> whatever.$B%D(B Even though every player is different,
> one can still discern at least some of the
> characteristics of the item, by listening
> analytically.$B%D(B Or we engage some "hot" player to
> demo everything for us.$B%D(B That would provide an
> element of consistency.
> <<<<$B%D(B
> $B%D(B
> I agree.$B%D(B But it will take several players testing
> the same before/after for me to get a feel for the
> significance of the change.$B%D(B I have access to some
> $Bc`WI(Bot players$Bc`(B� willing to test things.$B%D(B I
would
> just need to get an acceptable recording-to-PC
> system worked out.$B%D(B I have used Windows audio and a
> simple mic in the past.$B%D(B But the results were a
> little noisy.
> $B%D(B
> --- frymorgan <frymorgan@yahoo. com> wrote:
> > Perhaps not exactly the shape but the
> > cross-sectional area must affect pitch of every
> wave
> > with a node within the mouthpiece. The pitch of
> the
> > harmonics affects the perception of intonation,
> > doesn't it?
> $B%D(B
> I think it does for some players, and does not for
> others.
> $B%D(B
> Toby>>>>
> OK, this is probably true but the sax is already a
> collection of at least two different conic sections
> married together, and apparently now we have a
> third. But
> this is not necessarily so on all saxes: I can
> verify that
> the angle doesn't change on my old Conn sop.
> <<<<$B%D(B
> $B%D(B
> I think my Conn straight sop does change.$B%D(B There is
> slight bulge in the taper just above the high F$B%D(B
> tone hole.$B%D(B I$Bc`QM(Bl have to check.
> 
> 
>       

> From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
> Reply-To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:12:34 -0700 (PDT)
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Potchkying
> 
> 
> 
> How about some audio to go with your descriptions?  That would be nice.

Re sound samples, a lot of this has to be purely subjective - eg. It's about
the sense that a note pops out a bit more easily, or how much "work" it is
to play a particular reed-mpc combo (horn remaining the same).

There's also some playing compensation going on that's pretty much automatic
within limits. For example, if a reed-mpc combo is very bright, even more
than I prefer, I bring a little more damping lip into play, to keep the
sound where I want it. I don't think about it. I'd have to think in order
not to do it.

I suppose if I put stoppers in my ears, I could try to play each mouthpiece
alteration in exactly the same fashion, in order to record some possible
audible differences.

I've never bothered listening to demo samples of mouthpiece sounds per se.
For the reasons I've stated and others, I don't think it makes much sense.
A good player can make a mouthpiece sound a million different ways.   Not to
mention the difference the reed makes!

Here are more exact measurements for the throat ring and mouthpiece
extension (now that I'm sitting at my workbench computer):

The latest throat ring is placed in the mouthpiece so it ends up about 1/4"
from the end of the tip ring.  The ring itself is 1/16 thick, 5/32" long,
and the side facing the mouthpiece is chamfered. (This is a ring I made
while trying to test a Steve Goodson hypothesis, that chamfering the inside
of the neck tip ring is a good idea, the idea being to place a chamfered
ring on the end of the neck as an impermanent test, rather than possibly
mess up a good neck.  Results were, to me, nil).

The mouthpiece extension I created is 7/16" long, not 1". The mouthpiece is
set into it about halfway, yielding an extra 3/8" of contact with the neck
cork.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- On Wed, 8/12/09, Barry Levine <barrylevine@...> wrote:
>> 
>> From: Barry Levine <barrylevine@...>
>> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Potchkying
>> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>> Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 5:03 PM
>> 
>> 
>> on 8/12/09 11:48 AM, Keith Bradbury at kwbradbury@yahoo. com
>> </mc/compose?to=kwbradbury%40yahoo.com>  wrote:
>> 
>> (snip)
>> 
>>> I would like to start getting more reports on trying out some of the ideas
>>> instead of just talking about it.
>>> 
>> 
>> Have been using baffle inserts of various sizes on my Ponzol M1 for years.
>> They require pulling the mouthpiece out a bit further, but I've not noticed
>> any great problems with intonation.
>> 
>> Adding a throat ring seems to improve focus - notes are a little less
>> spread, seem to pop out a bit faster.  Depending on ring placement, there's
>> no loss of playing ease. Optimum seems to be about 3/16" in from the tip
>> ring of the neck. This is an estimate. Pushing it in further increases a
>> feeling of resistance, akin to a narrower facing. Having it flush to the tip
>> of the neck tip ring doesn't seem to do much.
>> 
>> Similar constrictions of 1/4" and 1/2" flush to the neck tip ring increase
>> sense of resistance, play like a narrow facing. (Tried this using some
>> sections of vinyl tubing. Admittedly, it's a bit soft, so may not be a good
>> test. Morevoer, it's not quite as narrow a constriction as the throat ring.)
>> 
>> The combination of additional baffle plus throat ring requires pulling the
>> mouthpiece out even a bit further - not good,  became a little wobbly on the
>> cork, probably a bit of air leak.
>> 
>> So I created an extension to the mouthpiece - found some plastic electrical
>> conduit with only very slightly large I.D. than the mouthpiece, cut a piece
>> about 1" long, reamed it slightly to accomodate about 3/4" of the end of the
>> mouthpiece. Adds stability and a better seal to the cork.
>> 
>> I don't find that the intonation is problematic. This combo of baffle insert
>> plus throat ring plus length extension plays nicely. Bright with overtones -
>> ok to my taste, if not to others.
>> 
>> B
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 

I've been reading - at least partially - the recent outpouring of posts and have to say that I very much appreciate all of you folks who put so much effort into the area of mouthpiece design and sax acoustics.  
 
I see nothing that I'd term trolling, just a lot of info, much discussion - some of it a bit heated - and a few points that I've actually understood !
 
While I fool around with my sax mouthpieces a bit, it's mostly just for fun and my own curiosity.  What you folks are doing in these discussions is way beyond me for the most part but I have picked up some very useful bits of information about tuning, intonation, mouthpiece design and such.  For my purposes I'm very glad there are people like the ones on this group who take the whole topic so seriously - so I don't have to  :)
 
That's why I've been a member of this group and all I really want to interject here is that, as a 'reader' of this group, thanks for the enlighening discussion.
 
Ralph


www.ralphhopper.ca
www.myspace.com/ralphhopper

--- On Wed, 8/12/09, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:


From: Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Warning
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Received: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 3:48 PM

















Just a warning that some of the recent discussions are being percieved as trolling and/or bullying by some of our members.  I see nothing that looks like a message from a troll to me.  Look up the definition of a web troll to see what I mean.  
 
Do not confuse a devil's advocate or disagreement with a troll or bully.  

If there is a particular post that you think crosses the line, please send it to me.

There are a lot of old posts on refacing.  There are very few on the state of the art of understanding mouthpiece physics.  I would like the discussion to continue if there are new things to add or clarify.  
 
I would like to start getting more reports on trying out some of the ideas instead of just talking about it.  

I can't wait for Part 2.  

Toby,

We always disagree when we reach this point, whether about resonators, or mouthpieces.  Now I finally see why that is, and this is important for you to understand.  Though what you say is in principle true, for the most part, it is entirely too simplistic a view to be of any use to us here now, or then (resos) really, (now please read this slowly) because it does not take into consideration, the absolutely fascinating, irrefutably essential, and directly related things about harmonic regimes, which are in fact, the entire reason we are having (or ever had) this kind of conversation in the first place.

Some points:

1. A resonance does not have an isolated, exact frequency.  Graphically seen, with amplitude on the vertical axis, and frequency on the horizontal, a resonance is a bell-shape, consisting of a wide range of frequencies at the bottom at low amplitued, and narrowing towards the top, to one specific frequency at the peak amplitude.  

2. For any resonance to participate in a harmonic regime at all - for it to support a harmonic, the frequency of that harmonic that it is to support, must lie somewhere inside the resonance's frequency bandwidth - it must graphically intersect with the resonance's bell shape.

3. While a harmonic regime will try to pull the peak of a misaligned resonance into an exact integer multiple relationship with the fundamental, the "negotiations" between a regime and a resonance are ALL about energy efficiency.  If it costs the regime more energy to pull the misaligned peak into correct alignment, than it would get from the resonance peak by doing so, it won't try.  The regime will lock onto that point on the resonance's amplitude/frequency bell that it can pull into the integer multiple relationship, which gives it the most amount of energy, for the amount it has to spend to do so.
That point could be close to the peak, halfway down the slope, or way down at the bottom.  

4. The amplitude of that point on the resonance scale is is the amplitude of the harmonic.  Higher up = louder harmonic.

5. Damping a misaligned resonance that is too far off to participate, will lower the amplitude but also widen the base frequency band width, and often widen it enough so that the resonance can take part, though at a lower amplitude.   This is why a sax with mis-aligned resonances will play better with small or no resonators.  It will never be really good however.

6.  While the amplitude relationships of the harmonics to the fundamental have everything to say about the tone of the established regime, what is of practically infinite more interest, is the manner and the speed, their proportionally related manner of modulation and rate of change as influence by the countless various combinations of articulation and blowing dynamics (air pressure), with which the various resonances align themselves to form a stable harmonic regime.  This equates to response and dynamic level.  

7.  Though a successful regime may have locked onto various mis-aligned resonances at those points of direct integer relationships to the fundamental, the mis-aligned peaks do not go away.  They are still resonating (though they do not contribute to the ease of playing - they actually cost the player blowing energy) and they are still audible.  A note with mis-aligned peaks may play in tune, but the mis-aligned peaks of harmonic resonances will still be louder than the harmonic and the note will lack a center of pitch, as percieved by the player.

This is why all this stuff is so interesting and why I have struggled with Toby so much.  The more developed on becomes as a player, the more these things become obvious, whether you can accurately explain them or not.

MM







--- On Wed, 8/12/09, kymarto123@ybb.ne.jp <kymarto123@...> wrote:

From: kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Mouthpiece Constriction, etc
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 5:23 PM






 




    
                  Keith, it's a function of amplitude and not frequency. You

can use the oral cavity to reinforce certain harmonics by

creating the correct resonant frequency  in the oral

cavity, but you cannot change the frequency of the

overtones, which are strictly locked in correct harmonic

relationships to the sounding frequency via mode locking.

If the tube resonances are not at integer multiples of the

fundamental, then they are weakened and response suffers,

but they still are locked to the correct frequency. If the

fundamental is not present, however, as when the octave

key is pressed, the second mode first partial is free to

sound at its naturalresonance as determined by the tube

impedance. That's how octaves get out of tune. If you have

doubts about this it can be clearly demonstrated with a

spectrum analyzer.



But then the second partial, for instance, (the twelfth)

and the harmonics above will lock themselves to the new

dominant frequency, so that if--for instance--the octave

is 25 cents sharp, so too will all the harmonics shift up

25 cents to be in the correct relationship with the new

dominant frequency.



Any perturbation is going to affect the mode frequencies,

either globally if it is high in the tube, or more locally

if it is lower down. But it will affect the different

modes differently. Makers use perturbations to correct

intonational inconsistencies which manifest in one mode

but not another. But in any case, whatever note is

sounding as the dominant frequency will get all the

partials to line up in harmonic relationship, although the

amplitudes can vary as a function of how far off the

correct harmonic value the natural resonances of those

partials are.



Toby



--- Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@yahoo. com> wrote:



> I'm just catching up on all the discussions. ..

> ツ

> Toby>>>>

> If you can match the volume and first-mode resonance

> of

> the missing tip with the mpc then you come as close

> as

> possible to bringing the resonances into line for

> the

> whole cone. After that, the shape of the mpc has

> important

> effects on the tonal spectrum of the note, but in

> terms of

> intonation the internal shape is not so important,

> as long

> as those first two conditions are met.

> <<<<

> 

> Perhaps not 窶彗s close as possible窶� .ツ Some

hear

> the tonal spectrum as an extension of the intonation

> of the fundamental.ツ When we 窶忻oice窶� notes

we

> use our oral cavity to line up the first few

> overtones as best we can to get the notes spectrum

> to 窶徨ing窶� as best we can.ツ I think some of

the

> reason squeeze throat designs work to 窶彷ocus窶�

> the sound is that they help to line up a few of

> these overtones with the fundamental tone.ツ But

> they are also changing the equalization (amplitude

> balance) of the overtones.ツツ Investigating inserts

> closer to the neck gives another knob to turn.ツ 

> ツ

> Toby>>>>

> What is gospel is that there should be no sharp

> edges in a

> bore. Aside from discussions of shape it is

> certainly of

> value to round the bottom edge of the window cutout,

> and

> the more the better. This should have a minimal

> effect on

> tone but increase efficiency by reducing turbulence.

> <<<<

> ツ

> It is not gospel in my bible.ツ Sharp edges can give

> a gritty edgy sound that some players a looking

> for.ツ I never introduce edges, but I sometimes warn

> clients that if I take them out, the sound might be

> too clean for their tastes.

> ツ

> Also, I believe there is very little turbulence

> going on inside musical instruments.ツ I have done

> some quick calculations in the past and found that

> the Reynolds number is only high enough near the

> mouthpiece tip where the cross-sectional area is

> very small.ツ The edges inside a mouthpiece and sax

> can create laminar recirculation, but the flow is

> not strong, random and chaotic enough to meet the

> definition of turbulent flow in a lot of cases

> cited.ツ ツThere is some vortex shedding at the tone

> holes, but I窶冦 not sure this is happening inside

> the mouthpiece.

> ツ

> Toby>>>>

> Anyone wishing to understand what we are dealing

> with should read this paper:

> http://hal.archives -ouvertes. fr/docs/00/ 25/27/96/

> PDF/ajp-jp419940 4C5120.pdf

> <<<<

> ツ

> This may change my mind. 

> ツ

> MartinMods>> >>

> I'd like to see more audio files (so I could hear

> them) uploaded here, demonstrating whatever is being

> described, charted, pictured, altered, or

> whatever.ツ Even though every player is different,

> one can still discern at least some of the

> characteristics of the item, by listening

> analytically.ツ Or we engage some "hot" player to

> demo everything for us.ツ That would provide an

> element of consistency.

> <<<<ツ

> ツ

> I agree.ツ But it will take several players testing

> the same before/after for me to get a feel for the

> significance of the change.ツ I have access to some

> 窶徂ot players窶� willing to test things.ツ I

would

> just need to get an acceptable recording-to- PC

> system worked out.ツ I have used Windows audio and a

> simple mic in the past.ツ But the results were a

> little noisy.

> ツ

> --- frymorgan <frymorgan@yahoo. com> wrote:

> > Perhaps not exactly the shape but the

> > cross-sectional area must affect pitch of every

> wave

> > with a node within the mouthpiece. The pitch of

> the

> > harmonics affects the perception of intonation,

> > doesn't it?

> ツ

> I think it does for some players, and does not for

> others.

> ツ

> Toby>>>>

> OK, this is probably true but the sax is already a

> collection of at least two different conic sections

> married together, and apparently now we have a

> third. But

> this is not necessarily so on all saxes: I can

> verify that

> the angle doesn't change on my old Conn sop.

> <<<<ツ

> ツ

> I think my Conn straight sop does change.ツ There is

> slight bulge in the taper just above the high Fツ

> tone hole.ツ I窶冤l have to check.

> 

> 

>       




 

      

    
    
	
	 
	
	








	


	
	


      

More about #6.  The manner in which the resonances form the regime determine the attack of any note you play, the kind off foo, foo, foo you can get, the popping staccatto, the ease with which you can jump intervals, practically EVERYTHING about playing music except for holding out long tones.



--- On Wed, 8/12/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:

From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Mouthpiece Constriction, etc
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 7:34 PM






 




    
                  I can't wait for Part 2.  

Toby,

We always disagree when we reach this point, whether about resonators, or mouthpieces.  Now I finally see why that is, and this is important for you to understand.  Though what you say is in principle true, for the most part, it is entirely too simplistic a view to be of any use to us here now, or then (resos) really, (now please read this slowly) because it does not take into consideration, the absolutely fascinating, irrefutably essential, and directly related things about harmonic regimes, which are in fact, the entire reason we are having (or ever had) this kind of conversation in the first place.

Some points:

1. A resonance does not have an isolated, exact frequency.  Graphically seen, with amplitude on the vertical axis, and frequency on the horizontal, a resonance is a
 bell-shape, consisting of a wide range of frequencies at the bottom at low amplitued, and narrowing towards the top, to one specific frequency at the peak amplitude.  

2. For any resonance to participate in a harmonic regime at all - for it to support a harmonic, the frequency of that harmonic that it is to support, must lie somewhere inside the resonance's frequency bandwidth - it must graphically intersect with the resonance's bell shape.

3. While a harmonic regime will try to pull the peak of a misaligned resonance into an exact integer multiple relationship with the fundamental, the "negotiations" between a regime and a resonance are ALL about energy efficiency.  If it costs the regime more energy to pull the misaligned peak into correct alignment, than it would get from the resonance peak by doing so, it won't try.  The regime will lock onto that point on the resonance's amplitude/frequency bell that it can pull into
 the integer multiple relationship, which gives it the most amount of energy, for the amount it has to spend to do so.
That point could be close to the peak, halfway down the slope, or way down at the bottom.  

4. The amplitude of that point on the resonance scale is is the amplitude of the harmonic.  Higher up = louder harmonic.

5. Damping a misaligned resonance that is too far off to participate, will lower the amplitude but also widen the base frequency band width, and often widen it enough so that the resonance can take part, though at a lower amplitude.   This is why a sax with mis-aligned resonances will play better with small or no resonators.  It will never be really good however.

6..  While the amplitude relationships of the harmonics to the fundamental have everything to say about the tone of the established regime, what is of practically infinite more interest, is the manner and the speed,
 their proportionally related manner of modulation and rate of change as influence by the countless various combinations of articulation and blowing dynamics (air pressure), with which the various resonances align themselves to form a stable harmonic regime.  This equates to response and dynamic level.  

7.  Though a successful regime may have locked onto various mis-aligned resonances at those points of direct integer relationships to the fundamental, the mis-aligned peaks do not go away.  They are still resonating (though they do not contribute to the ease of playing - they actually cost the player blowing energy) and they are still audible.  A note with mis-aligned peaks may play in tune, but the mis-aligned peaks of harmonic resonances will still be louder than the harmonic and the note will lack a center of pitch, as percieved by the player.

This is why all this stuff is so interesting and why I have struggled
 with Toby so much.  The more developed on becomes as a player, the more these things become obvious, whether you can accurately explain them or not..

MM







--- On Wed, 8/12/09, kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp> wrote:

From: kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Mouthpiece Constriction, etc
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 5:23 PM






 

    
                  Keith, it's a function of amplitude and not frequency. You

can use the oral cavity to reinforce certain harmonics by

creating the correct resonant frequency  in the oral

cavity, but you cannot change the frequency of the

overtones, which are strictly locked in correct harmonic

relationships to the sounding frequency via mode locking.

If the tube resonances are not at integer multiples of the

fundamental, then they are weakened and response suffers,

but they still are locked to the correct frequency. If the

fundamental is not present, however, as when the octave

key is pressed, the second mode first partial is free to

sound at its naturalresonance as determined by the tube

impedance. That's how octaves get out of tune. If you have

doubts about this it can be clearly demonstrated with a

spectrum analyzer.



But then the second partial, for instance, (the twelfth)

and the harmonics above will lock themselves to the new

dominant frequency, so that if--for instance--the octave

is 25 cents sharp, so too will all the harmonics shift up

25 cents to be in the correct relationship with the new

dominant frequency.



Any perturbation is going to affect the mode frequencies,

either globally if it is high in the tube, or more locally

if it is lower down. But it will affect the different

modes differently. Makers use perturbations to correct

intonational inconsistencies which manifest in one mode

but not another. But in any case, whatever note is

sounding as the dominant frequency will get all the

partials to line up in harmonic relationship, although the

amplitudes can vary as a function of how far off the

correct harmonic value the natural resonances of those

partials are.



Toby



--- Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@yahoo. com> wrote:



> I'm just catching up on all the discussions. ..

> ツ

> Toby>>>>

> If you can match the volume and first-mode resonance

> of

> the missing tip with the mpc then you come as close

> as

> possible to bringing the resonances into line for

> the

> whole cone. After that, the shape of the mpc has

> important

> effects on the tonal spectrum of the note, but in

> terms of

> intonation the internal shape is not so important,

> as long

> as those first two conditions are met.

> <<<<

> 

> Perhaps not 窶彗s close as possible窶� .ツ Some

hear

> the tonal spectrum as an extension of the intonation

> of the fundamental.ツ When we 窶忻oice窶� notes

we

> use our oral cavity to line up the first few

> overtones as best we can to get the notes spectrum

> to 窶徨ing窶� as best we can.ツ I think some of

the

> reason squeeze throat designs work to 窶彷ocus窶�

> the sound is that they help to line up a few of

> these overtones with the fundamental tone.ツ But

> they are also changing the equalization (amplitude

> balance) of the overtones.ツツ Investigating inserts

> closer to the neck gives another knob to turn.ツ 

> ツ

> Toby>>>>

> What is gospel is that there should be no sharp

> edges in a

> bore. Aside from discussions of shape it is

> certainly of

> value to round the bottom edge of the window cutout,

> and

> the more the better. This should have a minimal

> effect on

> tone but increase efficiency by reducing turbulence.

> <<<<

> ツ

> It is not gospel in my bible.ツ Sharp edges can give

> a gritty edgy sound that some players a looking

> for.ツ I never introduce edges, but I sometimes warn

> clients that if I take them out, the sound might be

> too clean for their tastes.

> ツ

> Also, I believe there is very little turbulence

> going on inside musical instruments.ツ I have done

> some quick calculations in the past and found that

> the Reynolds number is only high enough near the

> mouthpiece tip where the cross-sectional area is

> very small.ツ The edges inside a mouthpiece and sax

> can create laminar recirculation, but the flow is

> not strong, random and chaotic enough to meet the

> definition of turbulent flow in a lot of cases

> cited.ツ ツThere is some vortex shedding at the tone

> holes, but I窶冦 not sure this is happening inside

> the mouthpiece.

> ツ

> Toby>>>>

> Anyone wishing to understand what we are dealing

> with should read this paper:

> http://hal.archives -ouvertes. fr/docs/00/ 25/27/96/

> PDF/ajp-jp419940 4C5120.pdf

> <<<<

> ツ

> This may change my mind. 

> ツ

> MartinMods>> >>

> I'd like to see more audio files (so I could hear

> them) uploaded here, demonstrating whatever is being

> described, charted, pictured, altered, or

> whatever.ツ Even though every player is different,

> one can still discern at least some of the

> characteristics of the item, by listening

> analytically.ツ Or we engage some "hot" player to

> demo everything for us.ツ That would provide an

> element of consistency.

> <<<<ツ

> ツ

> I agree.ツ But it will take several players testing

> the same before/after for me to get a feel for the

> significance of the change.ツ I have access to some

> 窶徂ot players窶� willing to test things.ツ I

would

> just need to get an acceptable recording-to- PC

> system worked out.ツ I have used Windows audio and a

> simple mic in the past.ツ But the results were a

> little noisy.

> ツ

> --- frymorgan <frymorgan@yahoo. com> wrote:

> > Perhaps not exactly the shape but the

> > cross-sectional area must affect pitch of every

> wave

> > with a node within the mouthpiece. The pitch of

> the

> > harmonics affects the perception of intonation,

> > doesn't it?

> ツ

> I think it does for some players, and does not for

> others.

> ツ

> Toby>>>>

> OK, this is probably true but the sax is already a

> collection of at least two different conic sections

> married together, and apparently now we have a

> third. But

> this is not necessarily so on all saxes: I can

> verify that

> the angle doesn't change on my old Conn sop.

> <<<<ツ

> ツ

> I think my Conn straight sop does change.ツ There is

> slight bulge in the taper just above the high Fツ

> tone hole.ツ I窶冤l have to check.

> 

> 

>       




 

      


	 
	
	


      
 

      

    
    
	
	 
	
	








	


	
	


      

So, once you analyze the dimensions of your bore, mouthpiece bore or mouthpiece + instrument (one also would need to analyze the vocal tract or the individual player as well for surgically accurate results), you can locate the anti-nodes for each resonance of each harmonic of every note in every register and you can manipulate the alignment of the resonances and improve or change the qualities of the instrument and or mouthpiece.  The adjustment phase is not any less complicated than the analysis, but it is possible if one keeps the science in mind as a guide.  Benade gives numerous examples of real world alterations to bassoons and oboes based upon this stuff.  Once you start to understand it, you will stop spending so much time looking for the right mouthpiece or horn, and will start spending all your time changing the one you have.




--- On Wed, 8/12/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:

From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Mouthpiece Constriction, etc
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 7:47 PM






 




    
                  More about #6.  The manner in which the resonances form the regime determine the attack of any note you play, the kind off foo, foo, foo you can get, the popping staccatto, the ease with which you can jump intervals, practically EVERYTHING about playing music except for holding out long tones.



--- On Wed, 8/12/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:

From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Mouthpiece Constriction, etc
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 7:34 PM






 

    
                  I can't wait for Part 2..  

Toby,

We always disagree when we reach this point, whether about resonators, or mouthpieces.  Now I finally see why that is, and this is important for you to understand.  Though what you say is in principle true, for the most part, it is entirely too simplistic a view to be of any use to us here now, or then (resos) really, (now please read this slowly) because it does not take into consideration, the absolutely fascinating, irrefutably essential, and directly related things about harmonic regimes, which are in fact, the entire reason we are having (or ever had) this kind of conversation in the
 first place.

Some points:

1. A resonance does not have an isolated, exact frequency.  Graphically seen, with amplitude on the vertical axis, and frequency on the horizontal, a resonance is a
 bell-shape, consisting of a wide range of frequencies at the bottom at low amplitued, and narrowing towards the top, to one specific frequency at the peak amplitude.  

2. For any resonance to participate in a harmonic regime at all - for it to support a harmonic, the frequency of that harmonic that it is to support, must lie somewhere inside the resonance's frequency bandwidth - it must graphically intersect with the resonance's bell shape.

3. While a harmonic regime will try to pull the peak of a misaligned resonance into an exact integer multiple relationship with the fundamental, the "negotiations" between a regime and a resonance are ALL about energy efficiency.  If it costs the regime more energy to pull the misaligned peak into correct alignment, than it would get from the resonance peak by doing so, it won't try.  The regime will lock onto that point on the resonance's amplitude/frequency bell that it can pull into
 the integer multiple relationship, which gives it the most amount of energy, for the amount it has to spend to do so.
That point could be close to the peak, halfway down the slope, or way down at the bottom.  

4. The amplitude of that point on the resonance scale is is the amplitude of the harmonic.  Higher up = louder harmonic.

5. Damping a misaligned resonance that is too far off to participate, will lower the amplitude but also widen the base frequency band width, and often widen it enough so that the resonance can take part, though at a lower amplitude.   This is why a sax with mis-aligned resonances will play better with small or no resonators.  It will never be really good however.

6..  While the amplitude relationships of the harmonics to the fundamental have everything to say about the tone of the established regime, what is of practically infinite more interest, is the manner and the speed,
 their proportionally related manner of modulation and rate of change as influence by the countless various combinations of articulation and blowing dynamics (air pressure), with which the various resonances align themselves to form a stable harmonic regime.  This equates to response and dynamic level.  

7.  Though a successful regime may have locked onto various mis-aligned resonances at those points of direct integer relationships to the fundamental, the mis-aligned peaks do not go away.  They are still resonating (though they do not contribute to the ease of playing - they actually cost the player blowing energy) and they are still audible.  A note with mis-aligned peaks may play in tune, but the mis-aligned peaks of harmonic resonances will still be louder than the harmonic and the note will lack a center of pitch, as percieved by the player.

This is why all this stuff is so interesting and why I have struggled
 with Toby so much.  The more developed on becomes as a player, the more these things become obvious, whether you can accurately explain them or not..

MM







--- On Wed, 8/12/09, kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp> wrote:

From: kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Mouthpiece Constriction, etc
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 5:23 PM






 

    
                  Keith, it's a function of amplitude and not frequency. You

can use the oral cavity to reinforce certain harmonics by

creating the correct resonant frequency  in the oral

cavity, but you cannot change the frequency of the

overtones, which are strictly locked in correct harmonic

relationships to the sounding frequency via mode locking.

If the tube resonances are not at integer multiples of the

fundamental, then they are weakened and response suffers,

but they still are locked to the correct frequency. If the

fundamental is not present, however, as when the octave

key is pressed, the second mode first partial is free to

sound at its naturalresonance as determined by the tube

impedance. That's how octaves get out of tune. If you have

doubts about this it can be clearly demonstrated with a

spectrum analyzer.



But then the second partial, for instance, (the twelfth)

and the harmonics above will lock themselves to the new

dominant frequency, so that if--for instance--the octave

is 25 cents sharp, so too will all the harmonics shift up

25 cents to be in the correct relationship with the new

dominant frequency.



Any perturbation is going to affect the mode frequencies,

either globally if it is high in the tube, or more locally

if it is lower down. But it will affect the different

modes differently. Makers use perturbations to correct

intonational inconsistencies which manifest in one mode

but not another. But in any case, whatever note is

sounding as the dominant frequency will get all the

partials to line up in harmonic relationship, although the

amplitudes can vary as a function of how far off the

correct harmonic value the natural resonances of those

partials are.



Toby



--- Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@yahoo. com> wrote:



> I'm just catching up on all the discussions. ..

> ツ

> Toby>>>>

> If you can match the volume and first-mode resonance

> of

> the missing tip with the mpc then you come as close

> as

> possible to bringing the resonances into line for

> the

> whole cone. After that, the shape of the mpc has

> important

> effects on the tonal spectrum of the note, but in

> terms of

> intonation the internal shape is not so important,

> as long

> as those first two conditions are met.

> <<<<

> 

> Perhaps not 窶彗s close as possible窶� .ツ Some

hear

> the tonal spectrum as an extension of the intonation

> of the fundamental.ツ When we 窶忻oice窶� notes

we

> use our oral cavity to line up the first few

> overtones as best we can to get the notes spectrum

> to 窶徨ing窶� as best we can.ツ I think some of

the

> reason squeeze throat designs work to 窶彷ocus窶�

> the sound is that they help to line up a few of

> these overtones with the fundamental tone.ツ But

> they are also changing the equalization (amplitude

> balance) of the overtones.ツツ Investigating inserts

> closer to the neck gives another knob to turn.ツ 

> ツ

> Toby>>>>

> What is gospel is that there should be no sharp

> edges in a

> bore. Aside from discussions of shape it is

> certainly of

> value to round the bottom edge of the window cutout,

> and

> the more the better. This should have a minimal

> effect on

> tone but increase efficiency by reducing turbulence.

> <<<<

> ツ

> It is not gospel in my bible.ツ Sharp edges can give

> a gritty edgy sound that some players a looking

> for.ツ I never introduce edges, but I sometimes warn

> clients that if I take them out, the sound might be

> too clean for their tastes.

> ツ

> Also, I believe there is very little turbulence

> going on inside musical instruments.ツ I have done

> some quick calculations in the past and found that

> the Reynolds number is only high enough near the

> mouthpiece tip where the cross-sectional area is

> very small.ツ The edges inside a mouthpiece and sax

> can create laminar recirculation, but the flow is

> not strong, random and chaotic enough to meet the

> definition of turbulent flow in a lot of cases

> cited.ツ ツThere is some vortex shedding at the tone

> holes, but I窶冦 not sure this is happening inside

> the mouthpiece.

> ツ

> Toby>>>>

> Anyone wishing to understand what we are dealing

> with should read this paper:

> http://hal.archives -ouvertes. fr/docs/00/ 25/27/96/

> PDF/ajp-jp419940 4C5120.pdf

> <<<<

> ツ

> This may change my mind. 

> ツ

> MartinMods>> >>

> I'd like to see more audio files (so I could hear

> them) uploaded here, demonstrating whatever is being

> described, charted, pictured, altered, or

> whatever.ツ Even though every player is different,

> one can still discern at least some of the

> characteristics of the item, by listening

> analytically.ツ Or we engage some "hot" player to

> demo everything for us.ツ That would provide an

> element of consistency.

> <<<<ツ

> ツ

> I agree.ツ But it will take several players testing

> the same before/after for me to get a feel for the

> significance of the change.ツ I have access to some

> 窶徂ot players窶� willing to test things.ツ I

would

> just need to get an acceptable recording-to- PC

> system worked out.ツ I have used Windows audio and a

> simple mic in the past.ツ But the results were a

> little noisy.

> ツ

> --- frymorgan <frymorgan@yahoo. com> wrote:

> > Perhaps not exactly the shape but the

> > cross-sectional area must affect pitch of every

> wave

> > with a node within the mouthpiece. The pitch of

> the

> > harmonics affects the perception of intonation,

> > doesn't it?

> ツ

> I think it does for some players, and does not for

> others.

> ツ

> Toby>>>>

> OK, this is probably true but the sax is already a

> collection of at least two different conic sections

> married together, and apparently now we have a

> third. But

> this is not necessarily so on all saxes: I can

> verify that

> the angle doesn't change on my old Conn sop.

> <<<<ツ

> ツ

> I think my Conn straight sop does change.ツ There is

> slight bulge in the taper just above the high Fツ

> tone hole.ツ I窶冤l have to check.

> 

> 

>       




 

      


	 
	
	


      
 

      


	 
	
	


      
 

      

    
    
	
	 
	
	








	


	
	


      

I have an Otto Link STM Baritone 5*.  Is it impractical to open it up to an 8?



      

depends upon the amount of marerial in the beak at the tip and then you will have to recut the baffle to its correct proportion to the tip rail and chamber. forgive me if i state the obvious: if there is enough material at the tip i see/hear no problem and have done it several times.
prof weinberg

--- On Wed, 12/8/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:


From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Change From 5* to 8
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, 12 August, 2009, 10:11 PM


  







I have an Otto Link STM Baritone 5*.  Is it impractical to open it up to an 8?

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
>
> I have an Otto Link STM Baritone 5*.  Is it impractical to open it up to an 8?
>
Target what is the best tip opening for your or the tastes of the person intending to play this mouthpiece rather than a #. Each player settles into their own comfort zone with tip openings. If #8 or .120" in Link Bari measurement works for you and is complimentary to your reed strength choice, then it is practical. From .095" to .120" isn't out of the question. Are you going to be satisfied with such a big jump is a more relevant question. 

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@...> wrote:
>
> depends upon the amount of marerial in the beak at the tip and then you will have to recut the baffle to its correct proportion to the tip rail and chamber. forgive me if i state the obvious: if there is enough material at the tip i see/hear no problem and have done it several times.
> prof weinberg
> 
> --- On Wed, 12/8/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
> 
> 
> From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Change From 5* to 8
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Wednesday, 12 August, 2009, 10:11 PM
> 
> 
>   
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have an Otto Link STM Baritone 5*.  Is it impractical to open it up to an 8?
>

Thanks guys.  I play an 8 and the client is used to a 7*, and wouldn't mind going there.  It's just something that he had, never played, and want's to experiment with.  He already opened the tip some.  I haven't measured it yet.

Professor, I emailed you the 2 picts of the mpce. to your email at btopenworld, as you said you could not access them here.   Did you see them?  THat was in reference to the below pasted in stuff:

Professor,

I attached 2 pictures of a Link I have received for
modificatons.  Pict 01 before and pict 02 after.  Is this the side wall
of the slot you are referring to?  I found rounding this with the rest
of the wall to have a nice effect on a Link. 

Martinmods

--- On Tue, 8/11/09, ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com> wrote:

From: ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Tuesday, August 11, 2009, 5:30 AM

one
thing that will definitely happen is that, should the side walls of the
slot have their angle altered by changing the window shape (ie bowed
over--no longer straight from the floor of the slot) then the tone can
become very rough although equally responsive. one will have the
impression of being able to pitch a note just about anywhere. the shape
and size of the window is in direct relationship to the volume of the
chamber --because the travelling vibrating column of air goes down the
players throat on its return journey. nothing starts or ends at the
mouthpiece tip--there are consequences in altering internal
relationships in the mouthpiece unfortunatley. ( and one has to play
with other instrumentalists and blend) but i have experienced some
improvements when experimenting simply because i am not implying that
all mouthpieces are 'design perfect'.
prof weinberg

--- On Mon, 10/8/09, STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@cox. net> wrote:


From: STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@cox. net>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Monday, 10 August, 2009, 9:59 PM


  



I’ve
been experimenting again, and trying different shapes for the window. I
do find that making it larger than is typically found seems to improve
response, and I’m wondering if anyone can share their thoughts on
shapes different than the usual semi-circle?
 
STEVE GOODSON
SAXOPHONE DESIGNER TO THE STARS

 They are in the attached file section.  

--- On Wed, 8/12/09, anton.weinberg@btopenworld.com <anton.weinberg@...> wrote:

From: anton.weinberg@... <anton.weinberg@...>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Change From 5* to 8
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 9:25 PM






 




    
                  --- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ ...> wrote:

>

> depends upon the amount of marerial in the beak at the tip and then you will have to recut the baffle to its correct proportion to the tip rail and chamber. forgive me if i state the obvious: if there is enough material at the tip i see/hear no problem and have done it several times.

> prof weinberg

> 

> --- On Wed, 12/8/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ ...> wrote:

> 

> 

> From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ ...>

> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Change From 5* to 8

> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com

> Date: Wednesday, 12 August, 2009, 10:11 PM

> 

> 

>   

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> I have an Otto Link STM Baritone 5*.  Is it impractical to open it up to an 8?

>




 

      

    
    
	
	 
	
	








	


	
	


      

Hi Lance,

I'm sorry you had to spend so much time and energy on this
post, since I agree with you 100%. What you don't seem to
understand about my position is that I am arguing that the
tube resonances are so far off anyway due to various
real-world factors, which are also constantly changing,
that small adjustments such as to reso thickness--short of
larger-scale perturbations to the bore or changes of bore
geometry--will be subsumed in the general chaos of
real-world variables. This, I think, is what Joe Wolfe
meant when he said that "they would have to be thick
plates".

Mode-locking is the only reason that we can play at all,
and it does a pretty good job. Yes of course: the closer
the resonances the better the instrument will slot and
play, and it is worthwhile to try to optimize them. I'm
just totally skeptical on several points: first,that the
designers of saxes actually take into account--even *can*
take into account--small changes in things like volume
under closed tone holes when designing saxes. My
understanding is that they start with first principles and
then fiddle around until they reach something that they
like, or they take an existing design and try to fix
whatever large inadequacies they perceive. This has
certainly been my experience building shakuhachi flutes
and observing professional makers--even top makers. They
always arrive at a design by trial and error based on
small variations of templates that have existed for
several hundred years.

When I first started making shaks I decided that I would
revolutionize the business by finding bold new designs and
improvements that tradition-bound makers were too timid to
consider. It didn't take me long to find out that the
design had already been optimized about a century before I
was born. I am used to constructing bores literally from
scratch and I have a pretty good feel, I think, for how
different changes in different locations of different
amounts generally affect the way an instrument plays.

Of course there are differences between shaks and saxes,
but my overall experience has been that you have to arrive
at a good bore profile which gives you the playing
qualities that you desire, and then work like a dog to
bring inevitable local deficiencies into line with the
overall playing quality of the rest of the instrument.
More often than not this involves actually compromising
the quality of the best ranges of the instrument--in
effect bringing down the peaks in order to fill the
valleys. Makers have told me again and again that their
aim is to achieve good balance; playing evenly is much
more highly regarded than playing spectacularly in some
areas and poorly in others. It is notably difficult to
optimize an instrument across its range: occasionally one
runs across an instrument that seems to play effortlessly
from top to bottom, but they are more lucky accidents than
anything else, and are generally then used as templates
for other instruments (and it is rare that the clones are
ever as good as the original).

There are a handful of top makers who have hit upon a way
to achieve consistent results through trial and error, and
have the skill and knowledge to correct the inevitable
small inconsistencies that crop up from one instrument to
another, but the quality of such instruments depends on
rigorous duplication of preexisting bore dimensions.

Second, take a good instrument and the response doesn't
change noticeably even if you fill the finger holes
completely, or in real-world situations press hard so that
the pads of the fingers protrude deeply into the finger
holes. Tiny differences perhaps, but much smaller than a
small shift in embouchure. I have even tried bracing the
instrument so that when I use more force to cover the
holes I don't subtly change the position vis-a-vis my
mouth, but the very act of changing hand pressure affects
my perception noticeably.

I do not have your experience with resos, for instance,
but my experience in analogous situations makes me very
skeptical about the improvements you seem to claim for
them, especially based on the idea that the resonances
were designed optimally in the first place. 

At the end of the day I cannot claim expertise, since I
have not experienced the difference hands-on. Even if I
had, though, I would not trust my perceptions unless I
could check the difference under controlled conditions. I
can't tell you how many times during building of flutes
that I think I have improved something marvelously--am
completely convinced of it, experience it fully--and then
am rudely awakened when I revisit an old flute that I knew
well and find that in comparison the improvement was all
in my mind.

That, in a nutshell, is my position. I will acknowledge
that without direct experience I cannot know for sure how
your various improvements actually affect the playing of
the instrument, but I am quite aware of the power of the
placebo effect, and for your sake I play the devil's
advocate to keep you aware and alert to certain dangers on
your path.

Toby

--- MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:

> I can't wait for Part 2.� 
> 
> Toby,
> 
> We always disagree when we reach this point, whether
> about resonators, or mouthpieces.� Now I finally
> see why that is, and this is important for you to
> understand.� Though what you say is in principle
> true, for the most part, it is entirely too
> simplistic a view to be of any use to us here now,
> or then (resos) really, (now please read this
> slowly) because it does not take into consideration,
> the absolutely fascinating, irrefutably essential,
> and directly related things about harmonic regimes,
> which are in fact, the entire reason we are having
> (or ever had) this kind of conversation in the first
> place.
> 
> Some points:
> 
> 1. A resonance does not have an isolated, exact
> frequency.� Graphically seen, with amplitude on
the
> vertical axis, and frequency on the horizontal, a
> resonance is a bell-shape, consisting of a wide
> range of frequencies at the bottom at low amplitued,
> and narrowing towards the top, to one specific
> frequency at the peak amplitude.� 
> 
> 2. For any resonance to participate in a harmonic
> regime at all - for it to support a harmonic, the
> frequency of that harmonic that it is to support,
> must lie somewhere inside the resonance's frequency
> bandwidth - it must graphically intersect with the
> resonance's bell shape.
> 
> 3. While a harmonic regime will try to pull the peak
> of a misaligned resonance into an exact integer
> multiple relationship with the fundamental, the
> "negotiations" between a regime and a resonance are
> ALL about energy efficiency.� If it costs the
> regime more energy to pull the misaligned peak into
> correct alignment, than it would get from the
> resonance peak by doing so, it won't try.� The
> regime will lock onto that point on the resonance's
> amplitude/frequency bell that it can pull into the
> integer multiple relationship, which gives it the
> most amount of energy, for the amount it has to
> spend to do so.
> That point could be close to the peak, halfway down
> the slope, or way down at the bottom.� 
> 
> 4. The amplitude of that point on the resonance
> scale is is the amplitude of the harmonic.�
Higher
> up = louder harmonic.
> 
> 5. Damping a misaligned resonance that is too far
> off to participate, will lower the amplitude but
> also widen the base frequency band width, and often
> widen it enough so that the resonance can take part,
> though at a lower amplitude.�� This is why
a sax
> with mis-aligned resonances will play better with
> small or no resonators.� It will never be really
> good however.
> 
> 6.� While the amplitude relationships of the
> harmonics to the fundamental have everything to say
> about the tone of the established regime, what is of
> practically infinite more interest, is the manner
> and the speed, their proportionally related manner
> of modulation and rate of change as influence by the
> countless various combinations of articulation and
> blowing dynamics (air pressure), with which the
> various resonances align themselves to form a stable
> harmonic regime.� This equates to response and
> dynamic level.� 
> 
> 7.� Though a successful regime may have locked
onto
> various mis-aligned resonances at those points of
> direct integer relationships to the fundamental, the
> mis-aligned peaks do not go away.� They are still
> resonating (though they do not contribute to the
> ease of playing - they actually cost the player
> blowing energy) and they are still audible.� A
note
> with mis-aligned peaks may play in tune, but the
> mis-aligned peaks of harmonic resonances will still
> be louder than the harmonic and the note will lack a
> center of pitch, as percieved by the player.
> 
> This is why all this stuff is so interesting and why
> I have struggled with Toby so much.� The more
> developed on becomes as a player, the more these
> things become obvious, whether you can accurately
> explain them or not.
> 
> MM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- On Wed, 8/12/09, kymarto123@...
> <kymarto123@...> wrote:
> 
> From: kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...>
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Mouthpiece
> Constriction, etc
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 5:23 PM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> �
> 
> 
> 
> 
>     
>                   Keith, it's a function of
> amplitude and not frequency. You
> 
> can use the oral cavity to reinforce certain
> harmonics by
> 
> creating the correct resonant frequency  in the oral
> 
> cavity, but you cannot change the frequency of the
> 
> overtones, which are strictly locked in correct
> harmonic
> 
> relationships to the sounding frequency via mode
> locking.
> 
> If the tube resonances are not at integer multiples
> of the
> 
> fundamental, then they are weakened and response
> suffers,
> 
> but they still are locked to the correct frequency.
> If the
> 
> fundamental is not present, however, as when the
> octave
> 
> key is pressed, the second mode first partial is
> free to
> 
> sound at its naturalresonance as determined by the
> tube
> 
> impedance. That's how octaves get out of tune. If
> you have
> 
> doubts about this it can be clearly demonstrated
> with a
> 
> spectrum analyzer.
> 
> 
> 
> But then the second partial, for instance, (the
> twelfth)
> 
> and the harmonics above will lock themselves to the
> new
> 
> dominant frequency, so that if--for instance--the
> octave
> 
> is 25 cents sharp, so too will all the harmonics
> shift up
> 
> 25 cents to be in the correct relationship with the
> new
> 
> dominant frequency.
> 
> 
> 
> Any perturbation is going to affect the mode
> frequencies,
> 
> either globally if it is high in the tube, or more
> locally
> 
> if it is lower down. But it will affect the
> different
> 
> modes differently. Makers use perturbations to
> correct
> 
> intonational inconsistencies which manifest in one
> mode
> 
> but not another. But in any case, whatever note is
> 
== $B0J2<$N%a%C%;!<%8$O>JN,$5$l$^$7$?(B =

John Kaizan Neptune, arguably one of a dozen or so top
shakuhachi players in the world and a highly respected
maker (his instruments sell for between $4-20K), let me
play his personal flute. Amazing to me, although other
players I have spoken to are less impressed (different
strokes and all...)

Anyway I had a look down the bore and it looked like a
gravel streambed: irregular, bumpy, out of round. John
said that he started with a good flute and had done
literally hundreds of local alterations. His holes, too,
were irregularly shaped and cut with a knife rather than
drilled.

That being said, I have played many other top instruments
that could rival it which have never been touched since
they left the maker's shop.

Toby

--- MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:

> So, once you analyze the dimensions of your bore,
> mouthpiece bore or mouthpiece + instrument (one also
> would need to analyze the vocal tract or the
> individual player as well for surgically accurate
> results), you can locate the anti-nodes for each
> resonance of each harmonic of every note in every
> register and you can manipulate the alignment of the
> resonances and improve or change the qualities of
> the instrument and or mouthpiece.� The adjustment
> phase is not any less complicated than the analysis,
> but it is possible if one keeps the science in mind
> as a guide.� Benade gives numerous examples of
real
> world alterations to bassoons and oboes based upon
> this stuff.� Once you start to understand it, you
> will stop spending so much time looking for the
> right mouthpiece or horn, and will start spending
> all your time changing the one you have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- On Wed, 8/12/09, MartinMods
> <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
> 
> From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Mouthpiece
> Constriction, etc
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 7:47 PM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> �
> 
> 
> 
> 
>     
>                   More about #6.� The manner in
> which the resonances form the regime determine the
> attack of any note you play, the kind off foo, foo,
> foo you can get, the popping staccatto, the ease
> with which you can jump intervals, practically
> EVERYTHING about playing music except for holding
> out long tones.
> 
> 
> 
> --- On Wed, 8/12/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@
> yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Mouthpiece
> Constriction, etc
> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 7:34 PM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> �
> 
>     
>                   I can't wait for Part 2..� 
> 
> Toby,
> 
> We always disagree when we reach this point, whether
> about resonators, or mouthpieces.� Now I finally
> see why that is, and this is important for you to
> understand.� Though what you say is in principle
> true, for the most part, it is entirely too
> simplistic a view to be of any use to us here now,
> or then (resos) really, (now please read this
> slowly) because it does not take into consideration,
> the absolutely fascinating, irrefutably essential,
> and directly related things about harmonic regimes,
> which are in fact, the entire reason we are having
> (or ever had) this kind of conversation in the
>  first place.
> 
> Some points:
> 
> 1. A resonance does not have an isolated, exact
> frequency.� Graphically seen, with amplitude on
the
> vertical axis, and frequency on the horizontal, a
> resonance is a
>  bell-shape, consisting of a wide range of
> frequencies at the bottom at low amplitued, and
> narrowing towards the top, to one specific frequency
> at the peak amplitude.� 
> 
> 2. For any resonance to participate in a harmonic
> regime at all - for it to support a harmonic, the
> frequency of that harmonic that it is to support,
> must lie somewhere inside the resonance's frequency
> bandwidth - it must graphically intersect with the
> resonance's bell shape.
> 
> 3. While a harmonic regime will try to pull the peak
> of a misaligned resonance into an exact integer
> multiple relationship with the fundamental, the
> "negotiations" between a regime and a resonance are
> ALL about energy efficiency.� If it costs the
> regime more energy to pull the misaligned peak into
> correct alignment, than it would get from the
> resonance peak by doing so, it won't try.� The
> regime will lock onto that point on the resonance's
> amplitude/frequency bell that it can pull into
>  the integer multiple relationship, which gives it
> the most amount of energy, for the amount it has to
> spend to do so.
> That point could be close to the peak, halfway down
> the slope, or way down at the bottom.� 
> 
> 4. The amplitude of that point on the resonance
> scale is is the amplitude of the harmonic.�
Higher
> up = louder harmonic.
> 
> 5. Damping a misaligned resonance that is too far
> off to participate, will lower the amplitude but
> also widen the base frequency band width, and often
> widen it enough so that the resonance can take part,
> though at a lower amplitude.�� This is why
a sax
> with mis-aligned resonances will play better with
> small or no resonators.� It will never be really
> good however.
> 
> 6..� While the amplitude relationships of the
> harmonics to the fundamental have everything to say
> about the tone of the established regime, what is of
> practically infinite more interest, is the manner
> and the speed,
>  their proportionally related manner of modulation
> and rate of change as influence by the countless
> various combinations of articulation and blowing
> dynamics (air pressure), with which the various
> resonances align themselves to form a stable
> harmonic regime.� This equates to response and
> dynamic level.� 
> 
> 7.� Though a successful regime may have locked
onto
> various mis-aligned resonances at those points of
> direct integer relationships to the fundamental, the
> mis-aligned peaks do not go away.� They are still
> resonating (though they do not contribute to the
> ease of playing - they actually cost the player
> blowing energy) and they are still audible.� A
note
> with mis-aligned peaks may play in tune, but the
> mis-aligned peaks of harmonic resonances will still
> be louder than the harmonic and the note will lack a
> center of pitch, as percieved by the player.
> 
> This is why all this stuff is so interesting and why
> I have struggled
>  with Toby so much.� The more developed on
becomes
> as a player, the more these things become obvious,
> whether you can accurately explain them or not..
> 
> MM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- On Wed, 8/12/09, kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp
> <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp> wrote:
> 
> From: kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Mouthpiece
> Constriction, etc
> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 5:23 PM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> �
> 
>     
>                   Keith, it's a function of
> amplitude and not frequency. You
> 
> can use the oral cavity to reinforce certain
> harmonics by
> 
> creating the correct resonant frequency  in the oral
> 
> cavity, but you cannot change the frequency of the
> 
> overtones, which are strictly locked in correct
> harmonic
> 
== $B0J2<$N%a%C%;!<%8$O>JN,$5$l$^$7$?(B =

One can also angle the table some to open the tip.  But on a bari mouthpiece you need to take a lot off the heel of the table to gain a littl at the tip opening.

--- On Wed, 8/12/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:


From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Change From 5* to 8
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 5:11 PM


  







I have an Otto Link STM Baritone 5*.  Is it impractical to open it up to an 8?

















      

yes i did recieve them and excellent they were in clarity: your method seems very neat and 
i can imagine that it works very well. there is a substance called milliput which used to be used for mending antique china--it is now available in black. It is totally safe when completely dry and is rather excellent for ebonite mouthpieces. Any reshape or rebuild of a chamber or baffle is possible: they have their own website-just put in the name to google. 
the other method i have developed is in the use of superglue. it can be used to regloss the damage to bassoon bodies once the filler has dried and coloured accordingly and can equally rebuild damaged mouthpieces (even with chips at the tip) when mixed with wood powder. it can then be filed and refaced. also for damage to wooden instruments--tone holes etc.
prof weinberg
--- On Wed, 12/8/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:


From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Change From 5* to 8
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, 12 August, 2009, 10:43 PM


  







Thanks guys.  I play an 8 and the client is used to a 7*, and wouldn't mind going there.  It's just something that he had, never played, and want's to experiment with.  He already opened the tip some.  I haven't measured it yet.

Professor, I emailed you the 2 picts of the mpce. to your email at btopenworld, as you said you could not access them here.   Did you see them?  THat was in reference to the below pasted in stuff:

Professor,

I attached 2 pictures of a Link I have received for modificatons.  Pict 01 before and pict 02 after.  Is this the side wall of the slot you are referring to?  I found rounding this with the rest of the wall to have a nice effect on a Link. 

Martinmods

--- On Tue, 8/11/09, ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com> wrote:

From: ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Tuesday, August 11, 2009, 5:30 AM


one thing that will definitely happen is that, should the side walls of the slot have their angle altered by changing the window shape (ie bowed over--no longer straight from the floor of the slot) then the tone can become very rough although equally responsive. one will have the impression of being able to pitch a note just about anywhere. the shape and size of the window is in direct relationship to the volume of the chamber --because the travelling vibrating column of air goes down the players throat on its return journey. nothing starts or ends at the mouthpiece tip--there are consequences in altering internal relationships in the mouthpiece unfortunatley. ( and one has to play with other instrumentalists and blend) but i have experienced some improvements when experimenting simply because i am not implying that all mouthpieces are 'design perfect'.
prof weinberg

--- On Mon, 10/8/09, STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@cox. net> wrote:

From: STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@cox. net>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Monday, 10 August, 2009, 9:59 PM


  



I’ve been experimenting again, and trying different shapes for the window. I do find that making it larger than is typically found seems to improve response, and I’m wondering if anyone can share their thoughts on shapes different than the usual semi-circle?
 
STEVE GOODSON
SAXOPHONE DESIGNER TO THE STARS

 They are in the attached file section.  

--- On Wed, 8/12/09, anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com> wrote:


From: anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Change From 5* to 8
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. .com
Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 9:25 PM


  

--- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ ...> wrote:
>
> depends upon the amount of marerial in the beak at the tip and then you will have to recut the baffle to its correct proportion to the tip rail and chamber. forgive me if i state the obvious: if there is enough material at the tip i see/hear no problem and have done it several times.
> prof weinberg
> 
> --- On Wed, 12/8/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ ...> wrote:
> 
> 
> From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ ...>
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Change From 5* to 8
> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> Date: Wednesday, 12 August, 2009, 10:11 PM
> 
> 
>   
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have an Otto Link STM Baritone 5*.  Is it impractical to open it up to an 8?
>

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

> I agree.  But it will take several players testing the same before/after for me to get a feel for the significance of the change.  I have access to some hot players willing to test things.  I would just need to get an acceptable recording-to-PC system worked out.  I have used Windows audio and a simple mic in the past.  But the results were a little noisy.
> 
Keith,

I have had good results converting both cassette tape and vinyl disks to clean mp3 files using "Spin It Again" from http://www.acoustica.com/ So, if you could record to tape, it could be gotten into the computer quite easily with most noise removed.

David