This is a post I made on SOTW last month.  It is semi-rant, but food 
for thought:

"Square" is easier to say, but it has always looked rectangular to me.

I find the square sax/neck comments silly. The reed is flat, the 
baffle above the reed is usually flat. The sides are usually straight 
or slightly curved. So somewhere there needs to be a transition from 
rectangular to round. So Selmer made another variation. Wow. I doubt 
they thought much about it other than to try it to see if it worked. 
Then could it be manufactured inexpensively and marketed.

Turbulence has little application in acoustics. The flow in the 
throat area is slow enough that turbulence does not exist. At best, 
there is some laminar recirculation.

The surfaces are sound wave reflectors. The farther the surfaces are 
away from the reed tip, the less they make a difference. Changes in 
the baffle will effect the sound ~10X more than changes in the throat 
area. 

A small round throat can be brighter than a larger "square" throat. 
So I think there is a cross-over point where you can make a square 
and round throat sound very similar. I have not tried this, but that 
is what I think.

You can play around with your square chamber by adding some putty to 
fill in the corners to make it round. I would expect the result will 
be brighter since the throat will now be smaller. A smaller throat 
creates "focus" in the sound. You can hear the fundamental tone more 
out front of the spectrum. A larger chamber/throat usually has a 
more "spread" sound. 

Square chambers are just not that big a deal... one way or the other.

I agree with all this. Can you spell g*i*m*m*i*c*k ??

Don't forget that organ pipes are often made square (because they are easier to make that way) and work just like round ones...I'm sure there are subtle differences, but basically, as Keith says, it is about volume at a given point, not so much about shape.

Toby
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Keith Bradbury 
  To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 9:43 PM
  Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Square chambers and turbulence


  This is a post I made on SOTW last month. It is semi-rant, but food 
  for thought:

  "Square" is easier to say, but it has always looked rectangular to me.

  I find the square sax/neck comments silly. The reed is flat, the 
  baffle above the reed is usually flat. The sides are usually straight 
  or slightly curved. So somewhere there needs to be a transition from 
  rectangular to round. So Selmer made another variation. Wow. I doubt 
  they thought much about it other than to try it to see if it worked. 
  Then could it be manufactured inexpensively and marketed.

  Turbulence has little application in acoustics. The flow in the 
  throat area is slow enough that turbulence does not exist. At best, 
  there is some laminar recirculation.

  The surfaces are sound wave reflectors. The farther the surfaces are 
  away from the reed tip, the less they make a difference. Changes in 
  the baffle will effect the sound ~10X more than changes in the throat 
  area. 

  A small round throat can be brighter than a larger "square" throat. 
  So I think there is a cross-over point where you can make a square 
  and round throat sound very similar. I have not tried this, but that 
  is what I think.

  You can play around with your square chamber by adding some putty to 
  fill in the corners to make it round. I would expect the result will 
  be brighter since the throat will now be smaller. A smaller throat 
  creates "focus" in the sound. You can hear the fundamental tone more 
  out front of the spectrum. A larger chamber/throat usually has a 
  more "spread" sound. 

  Square chambers are just not that big a deal... one way or the other.



   

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "Toby" <kymarto123@...> wrote:
>
> I agree with all this. Can you spell g*i*m*m*i*c*k ?? +
> 
Yes and I can also spell, cost cutting ploy.  Equals

Less finishing work at the end of the mouthpiece production line. 

 ----> Seems as if my emails are going through now -- so, I am taking the
liberty to re-send my previous message. <-----
	
	
	Disclaimer: I'm just a lurker here, gleaning info about the tricks
and techniques of Mouthpiece Refacing - to help me decide if I even want to
get involved with such a thing. As such, I have very little, if any,
knowledge of what you all are talking about... :)
	 
	With that said - Even though Adolphe Sax created the first sax
mouthpieces using a round chamber, I believe you are correct that it's the
volume (size) of the chamber that makes a difference, not necessarily the
shape. Using Adolphe Sax as a reference again - have you noticed that the
original sax mouthpieces had a HUGE chamber, immense compared to the current
mouthpieces manufactured today. 
	 
	I wonder if anyone makes a mouthpiece that is a copy, or a close
semblance, to Adolphe Sax's original design???
	 
	Sincerely,
	               Karsten J. Chikuri
	 

Karsten J. Chikuri wrote- "I wonder if anyone makes a mouthpiece that 
is a copy, or a close semblance, to Adolphe Sax's original design???"

Caravan and Rascher mouthpieces are said to be close to the original 
intentions but made to suit the instruments of today.  I had the good 
luck to examine what looked to be an original Sax mouthpiece and I can 
say that they are SIMILAR in chamber but not the same, and the facing 
is very very different.  The Sax 'piece had a narrow tip opening- but 
I can't be sure of the original intentions because it was wood and had 
warped a lot (the table was very very very concave to the naked eye).

Sax mouthpieces used to have longer facings and narrower tip openings than do modern mouthpieces.  They required harder reeds.
   
  Turbulance is a non-issue.  Once the air passes the first few mm's of the baffle and get into the 'chamber' area, the velocities are too low to cause turbulance.
   
  Paul

skygardener1 <skygardener1@...> wrote:
          Karsten J. Chikuri wrote- "I wonder if anyone makes a mouthpiece that 
is a copy, or a close semblance, to Adolphe Sax's original design???"

Caravan and Rascher mouthpieces are said to be close to the original 
intentions but made to suit the instruments of today. I had the good 
luck to examine what looked to be an original Sax mouthpiece and I can 
say that they are SIMILAR in chamber but not the same, and the facing 
is very very different. The Sax 'piece had a narrow tip opening- but 
I can't be sure of the original intentions because it was wood and had 
warped a lot (the table was very very very concave to the naked eye).



                         


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@...
       
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing.   Make Yahoo your homepage.