I understand what you are saying Dan, but considering the profile you 
are talking about is a "segment of a circle" with a specific radius 
does the process only have 1 specific arc, radius of a single 
specific circle? - here in is where my question resides.
 Please bare with me on this.
I have to discribe to you where I'm coming from. 
This profile, the profile portrayed from a graph of the points on the 
graph paper joined with a line,will discribe an arc of a circle with 
a specific radius, that is certain. If we change the tip opening,more 
open,and even the rails, and leave the table,other than flattening, 
we have changed the profile, correct?(given there was enough material 
left in the center of the facing.) We then plot the new profile 
and join the dots and we now have a discribed arc of a circle, a 
segment of it, of different radius, correct? Is this the radius of 
the circle that is the best one? Taking all things into consideration 
here being done properly and even with a new larger tip opening we 
could theoretically use a smaller circle radius with a larger segment 
of this circle to discribe the profile of the gragh thereby making 
the facing curve have more of an arc, steeper if you will. This is 
why my original question was asked, is this arc better or is 
the "less steeper" arc better? Considering you can vary the strength 
of the reed to accomodate the arc of facing curve, how crucial is 
this criteria for choosing which radius to go for when resurfacing an 
unkown mpce? The different arcs wouldn't be that much different,also 
considering there would not be enough material left on the mpce to 
create too much of a steeper arc, but we are dealing with thousandths 
of inches when we measure and gragh, and a few thous' can make a big 
difference in the playablility of a mpce, I would think this to be a 
significant issue. Am I wrong? Does the software take care of this 
query? Does it spit out the ideal radial "segment" of a circle that 
you target for your mpce? How did it get there?
Sorry to for going on so, I am kida' "dense" and new to all this. I 
have only done a handful of mpecs and basically flying by the seat of 
my pants when it comes to the issues regarding my question. I am 
still missing something here. 
Thanks all that have taken the time to respond. You have already 
given me some insights that have helped greatly.   

This html message parsed with html2text ---------------------------I'm not sure, but It seems that you are operating from the premise that there
is more than one radial curve possible for a given tip opening and facing
length - there is not. Pick a tip opening and a facing length, and there is
only one radial curve that will fit.  
  
DT  
  
maddahorn wrote:

> I understand what you are saying Dan, but considering the profile you  
>  are talking about is a "segment of a circle" with a specific radius  
>  does the process only have 1 specific arc, radius of a single  
>  specific circle? - here in is where my question resides.  
>  Please bare with me on this.  
>  I have to discribe to you where I'm coming from.  
>  This profile, the profile portrayed from a graph of the points on the  
>  graph paper joined with a line,will discribe an arc of a circle with  
>  a specific radius, that is certain. If we change the tip opening,more  
>  open,and even the rails, and leave the table,other than flattening,  
>  we have changed the profile, correct?(given there was enough material  
>  left in the center of the facing.) We then plot the new profile  
>  and join the dots and we now have a discribed arc of a circle, a  
>  segment of it, of different radius, correct? Is this the radius of  
>  the circle that is the best one? Taking all things into consideration  
>  here being done properly and even with a new larger tip opening we  
>  could theoretically use a smaller circle radius with a larger segment  
>  of this circle to discribe the profile of the gragh thereby making  
>  the facing curve have more of an arc, steeper if you will. This is  
>  why my original question was asked, is this arc better or is  
>  the "less steeper" arc better? Considering you can vary the strength  
>  of the reed to accomodate the arc of facing curve, how crucial is  
>  this criteria for choosing which radius to go for when resurfacing an  
>  unkown mpce? The different arcs wouldn't be that much different,also  
>  considering there would not be enough material left on the mpce to  
>  create too much of a steeper arc, but we are dealing with thousandths  
>  of inches when we measure and gragh, and a few thous' can make a big  
>  difference in the playablility of a mpce, I would think this to be a  
>  significant issue. Am I wrong? Does the software take care of this  
>  query? Does it spit out the ideal radial "segment" of a circle that  
>  you target for your mpce? How did it get there?  
>  Sorry to for going on so, I am kida' "dense" and new to all this. I  
>  have only done a handful of mpecs and basically flying by the seat of  
>  my pants when it comes to the issues regarding my question. I am  
>  still missing something here.  
>  Thanks all that have taken the time to respond. You have already  
>  given me some insights that have helped greatly.  
>  
>

maddahorn,

Your long post/question is warrented.  I can tell you have thought a lot
about this and understand more than one does at the "dense" level.  ;)

You are correct in visualizing that while holding the facing length
constant, opening a tip will require a smaller radius curve.  As for the
question "is this a good curve", it depends.  I find it is best to lengthen
the facing curve some as the tip is opened.  I do not pay much attention to
what the actual radius of the curves are.  But when I have, they do tend to
stay within a narrow range.  Like 5-6".  Sop MPs can be 4-7".

I mostly work off some charts and also a feel for what facing lengths I
want to use for what tip openings.  The math in the spreadsheets is worked
out so that it will back calculate the needed radius to generate a facing
curve that will run through the tip opening and the facing length (as
defined by your thinnest feeler gage).  The curve will also be tangent to
the table at the theoretical point where a .0000" feeler gage would
measure.  It solves for the radius and the distance to this tangent point
from the tip.  These 2 "unknowns" are solved using the 2 "knowns" of the
tip opening and the facing length.  There is only one answer that passes a
radial curve throught these 2 points that is also tangent to the table.

Keep asking!


      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?  
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.  http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping

Thanks all in helping me see my error in visualizing the concept of the facing curve and there only being 1 possible. Without drawing it out I assumed that there would be a number of circles with a variety of radii would fit the bill. Once I drew it on paper I saw the error. Yes, a number of circles would "fit" but the arc of their circumferences would not be tangent to the table as 1 only can. Too caught up in the forest and not seeing the trees - not realizing the signifigance of "tangent"! Silly me.
Thanks again for indulging me.

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Keith Bradbury 
  To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 11:31 AM
  Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Radial segment?


  maddahorn,

  Your long post/question is warrented. I can tell you have thought a lot
  about this and understand more than one does at the "dense" level. ;)

  You are correct in visualizing that while holding the facing length
  constant, opening a tip will require a smaller radius curve. As for the
  question "is this a good curve", it depends. I find it is best to lengthen
  the facing curve some as the tip is opened. I do not pay much attention to
  what the actual radius of the curves are. But when I have, they do tend to
  stay within a narrow range. Like 5-6". Sop MPs can be 4-7".

  I mostly work off some charts and also a feel for what facing lengths I
  want to use for what tip openings. The math in the spreadsheets is worked
  out so that it will back calculate the needed radius to generate a facing
  curve that will run through the tip opening and the facing length (as
  defined by your thinnest feeler gage). The curve will also be tangent to
  the table at the theoretical point where a .0000" feeler gage would
  measure. It solves for the radius and the distance to this tangent point
  from the tip. These 2 "unknowns" are solved using the 2 "knowns" of the
  tip opening and the facing length. There is only one answer that passes a
  radial curve throught these 2 points that is also tangent to the table.

  Keep asking!

  __________________________________________________________
  Looking for last minute shopping deals? 
  Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping


   

Hello, I've been busy, but I try to keep up with what is going on here. 
I was wondering if anyone has considered a spiral curv, like we use in
laying out the interstate highways?

Also, I have been considering a Caravan for my Buescher 400.  From what
I gathered from you, the Rascher should be touched up by Dr. Waymen(sp),
should I consider having the Caravan worked by someone before I have it
sent here to Central America?

I would appreciate your comments,

Joe Petrof


--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "fred marych" <fmarych@...>
wrote:
>
> Thanks all in helping me see my error in visualizing the concept of
the facing curve and there only being 1 possible. Without drawing it out
I assumed that there would be a number of circles with a variety of
radii would fit the bill. Once I drew it on paper I saw the error. Yes,
a number of circles would "fit" but the arc of their circumferences
would not be tangent to the table as 1 only can. Too caught up in the
forest and not seeing the trees - not realizing the signifigance of
"tangent"! Silly me.
> Thanks again for indulging me.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Keith Bradbury
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 11:31 AM
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Radial segment?
>
>
> maddahorn,
>
> Your long post/question is warrented. I can tell you have thought a
lot
> about this and understand more than one does at the "dense" level. ;)
>
> You are correct in visualizing that while holding the facing length
> constant, opening a tip will require a smaller radius curve. As for
the
> question "is this a good curve", it depends. I find it is best to
lengthen
> the facing curve some as the tip is opened. I do not pay much
attention to
> what the actual radius of the curves are. But when I have, they do
tend to
> stay within a narrow range. Like 5-6". Sop MPs can be 4-7".
>
> I mostly work off some charts and also a feel for what facing lengths
I
> want to use for what tip openings. The math in the spreadsheets is
worked
> out so that it will back calculate the needed radius to generate a
facing
> curve that will run through the tip opening and the facing length (as
> defined by your thinnest feeler gage). The curve will also be tangent
to
> the table at the theoretical point where a .0000" feeler gage would
> measure. It solves for the radius and the distance to this tangent
point
> from the tip. These 2 "unknowns" are solved using the 2 "knowns" of
the
> tip opening and the facing length. There is only one answer that
passes a
> radial curve throught these 2 points that is also tangent to the
table.
>
> Keep asking!
>
> __________________________________________________________
> Looking for last minute shopping deals?
> Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
>

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "Joe Petrof" <rpetrof@...> 
wrote:
>
> 
> Hello, I've been busy, but I try to keep up with what is going on 
here. 
> I was wondering if anyone has considered a spiral curv, like we use 
in
> laying out the interstate highways?
> 
> Also, I have been considering a Caravan for my Buescher 400.  From 
what
> I gathered from you, the Rascher should be touched up by Dr. Waymen
(sp),
> should I consider having the Caravan worked by someone before I 
have it
> sent here to Central America?
> 
> I would appreciate your comments,

Sorry I didn't go into the sprial curve theroy very far, but the 
simple virsion is that you come off the tangent ie table and start 
the sprial and continue until you reach the desired degree of 
curvature then at the end of the end of the curve you go backwards on 
the spiral back to the tangent ie the tip.

Just wondering if any of this could be incorporated in mpc theroy.

Joe Petrof
> 
> Joe Petrof
> 
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "fred marych" <fmarych@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks all in helping me see my error in visualizing the concept 
of
> the facing curve and there only being 1 possible. Without drawing 
it out
> I assumed that there would be a number of circles with a variety of
> radii would fit the bill. Once I drew it on paper I saw the error. 
Yes,
> a number of circles would "fit" but the arc of their circumferences
> would not be tangent to the table as 1 only can. Too caught up in 
the
> forest and not seeing the trees - not realizing the signifigance of
> "tangent"! Silly me.
> > Thanks again for indulging me.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Keith Bradbury
> > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 11:31 AM
> > Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Radial segment?
> >
> >
> > maddahorn,
> >
> > Your long post/question is warrented. I can tell you have thought 
a
> lot
> > about this and understand more than one does at the "dense" 
level. ;)
> >
> > You are correct in visualizing that while holding the facing 
length
> > constant, opening a tip will require a smaller radius curve. As 
for
> the
> > question "is this a good curve", it depends. I find it is best to
> lengthen
> > the facing curve some as the tip is opened. I do not pay much
> attention to
> > what the actual radius of the curves are. But when I have, they do
> tend to
> > stay within a narrow range. Like 5-6". Sop MPs can be 4-7".
> >
> > I mostly work off some charts and also a feel for what facing 
lengths
> I
> > want to use for what tip openings. The math in the spreadsheets is
> worked
> > out so that it will back calculate the needed radius to generate a
> facing
> > curve that will run through the tip opening and the facing length 
(as
> > defined by your thinnest feeler gage). The curve will also be 
tangent
> to
> > the table at the theoretical point where a .0000" feeler gage 
would
> > measure. It solves for the radius and the distance to this tangent
> point
> > from the tip. These 2 "unknowns" are solved using the 2 "knowns" 
of
> the
> > tip opening and the facing length. There is only one answer that
> passes a
> > radial curve throught these 2 points that is also tangent to the
> table.
> >
> > Keep asking!
> >
> > __________________________________________________________
> > Looking for last minute shopping deals?
> > Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
> http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?
category=shopping
> >
>

I had to look into what a spiral curve is.  A basic spiral is a curve whose
radius gets smaller or larger as the arc is swept.  In polar coordinates,
it is r = a*theta (for radius getting larger with angle). 

To apply it to a sax facing curve, you would want your largest radius at
the table and smallest at the tip.  (You would need to pull out some
calculus to get the true tangent at the table but it would be close enough
to just fudge it a little by hand.)  The rate the radius changes would need
to be adjusted to get something that will work with the reed cuts
available.  

For the small segment of the spiral curve that would work, I think it would
be virtually identical to a small segment of an ellitical curve that would work.


      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and 
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.  http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ 

This thread brings up something I've been pondering for a while.  I 
was reading Ridenour's reed finishing book where he compares a reed 
to a diving board.  He states that the diving board is just a plank 
that has a continuous flex rate over its length while a reed has a 
taper that produces a changing flex curve.

A couple of issues.  First, Mr. Ridenour's expertise clearly is not 
diving, as good diving boards do have a changing flex curve.  More 
important, how does the changing reed flex curve best fit a mp 
curve?  If I understand the mp flex curves decribed in this post, 
they are continuous radius curves.  

It seems counter-intuitive that a countinuous radius curve would be 
the best shape to fit the changing curve of the reed.  If you place 
the two flex curves together, the reed tip will always touch the mp 
tip prior to the rest of the reed touching the full rails.  Maybe 
that's how it works, I don't know.  I need to develop a 
MiniMouthCam.  

It also seems that there might ("could or should???") be a "change-
up" point in the mp arc, probably where the lips contact the reed/mp 
to allow for embouchure to play a larger roll in controlling the 
reed.  Slight changes in embouchure, by moving the pressure point 
slightly forward/backward instead of simply increasing pressure, 
would have more effect if there was a "fulcrum" on the mp face.  

The second issue is the balancing of the diving board or reed's flex 
from left to right at the tip.  If the diving board is off, it will 
throw you slightly left or right depending on the tip imbalance.  
Difficult to get a 10 with no splash.  If the reed is off, there are 
tonal balance issues.  But what if the mp facing is asymetrical?  
Could it be that mps with asymetrical facings play better with some 
reeds than others, i.e., those reeds that are themselves asymetrical?

Think of it this way.  Some complain that there's something odd about 
a particular diving board and it makes good dives difficult.  Others 
say that there's no problem and it's the best diving board they've 
ever used, but then, they all walk with a limp favoring their left 
leg.  Hmmm.  

I think the geometry for what happens to a reed during vibration can
be considered somewhat approximately as a cantilevered beam with a
load applied to the free end.  The shape of the resulting deflection
depends on a number of parameters including:

The flex modulus of the reed (a constant).
The distribution of the load (non-constant).
The taper of the reed.

From memory a uniformly applied load results in a y = x^4 type curve.
 However once the taper of the reed and the non-linear load applied to
the reed is taken into account the maximum deflection reduces to y = x
^ 2, ie parabolic.  In the context of a facing curve, a parabola is
virtually identical in shape to a radial segment.

That's my take on it.

Regards,
Andrew


--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "flemingml2000"
<marklfleming@...> wrote:
>
> This thread brings up something I've been pondering for a while.  I 
> was reading Ridenour's reed finishing book where he compares a reed 
> to a diving board.  He states that the diving board is just a plank 
> that has a continuous flex rate over its length while a reed has a 
> taper that produces a changing flex curve.
> 
> A couple of issues.  First, Mr. Ridenour's expertise clearly is not 
> diving, as good diving boards do have a changing flex curve.  More 
> important, how does the changing reed flex curve best fit a mp 
> curve?  If I understand the mp flex curves decribed in this post, 
> they are continuous radius curves.  
> 
> It seems counter-intuitive that a countinuous radius curve would be 
> the best shape to fit the changing curve of the reed.  If you place 
> the two flex curves together, the reed tip will always touch the mp 
> tip prior to the rest of the reed touching the full rails.  Maybe 
> that's how it works, I don't know.  I need to develop a 
> MiniMouthCam.  
> 
> It also seems that there might ("could or should???") be a "change-
> up" point in the mp arc, probably where the lips contact the reed/mp 
> to allow for embouchure to play a larger roll in controlling the 
> reed.  Slight changes in embouchure, by moving the pressure point 
> slightly forward/backward instead of simply increasing pressure, 
> would have more effect if there was a "fulcrum" on the mp face.  
> 
> The second issue is the balancing of the diving board or reed's flex 
> from left to right at the tip.  If the diving board is off, it will 
> throw you slightly left or right depending on the tip imbalance.  
> Difficult to get a 10 with no splash.  If the reed is off, there are 
> tonal balance issues.  But what if the mp facing is asymetrical?  
> Could it be that mps with asymetrical facings play better with some 
> reeds than others, i.e., those reeds that are themselves asymetrical?
> 
> Think of it this way.  Some complain that there's something odd about 
> a particular diving board and it makes good dives difficult.  Others 
> say that there's no problem and it's the best diving board they've 
> ever used, but then, they all walk with a limp favoring their left 
> leg.  Hmmm.
>

Not so much a spiral, but here's the idea...
   
  Establish the radial curve, then, bring the .0015" feeler back about 3 mm, and the .010" feeler back about 2 mm.  This forms an "easement" into the radial curve that helps the low end without hurting the high end.
   
  Paul

Joe Petrof <rpetrof@...> wrote:
          --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "Joe Petrof" <rpetrof@...> 
wrote:
>
> 
> Hello, I've been busy, but I try to keep up with what is going on 
here. 
> I was wondering if anyone has considered a spiral curv, like we use 
in
> laying out the interstate highways?
> 
> Also, I have been considering a Caravan for my Buescher 400. From 
what
> I gathered from you, the Rascher should be touched up by Dr. Waymen
(sp),
> should I consider having the Caravan worked by someone before I 
have it
> sent here to Central America?
> 
> I would appreciate your comments,

Sorry I didn't go into the sprial curve theroy very far, but the 
simple virsion is that you come off the tangent ie table and start 
the sprial and continue until you reach the desired degree of 
curvature then at the end of the end of the curve you go backwards on 
the spiral back to the tangent ie the tip.

Just wondering if any of this could be incorporated in mpc theroy.

Joe Petrof
> 
> Joe Petrof
> 
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "fred marych" <fmarych@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks all in helping me see my error in visualizing the concept 
of
> the facing curve and there only being 1 possible. Without drawing 
it out
> I assumed that there would be a number of circles with a variety of
> radii would fit the bill. Once I drew it on paper I saw the error. 
Yes,
> a number of circles would "fit" but the arc of their circumferences
> would not be tangent to the table as 1 only can. Too caught up in 
the
> forest and not seeing the trees - not realizing the signifigance of
> "tangent"! Silly me.
> > Thanks again for indulging me.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Keith Bradbury
> > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 11:31 AM
> > Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Radial segment?
> >
> >
> > maddahorn,
> >
> > Your long post/question is warrented. I can tell you have thought 
a
> lot
> > about this and understand more than one does at the "dense" 
level. ;)
> >
> > You are correct in visualizing that while holding the facing 
length
> > constant, opening a tip will require a smaller radius curve. As 
for
> the
> > question "is this a good curve", it depends. I find it is best to
> lengthen
> > the facing curve some as the tip is opened. I do not pay much
> attention to
> > what the actual radius of the curves are. But when I have, they do
> tend to
> > stay within a narrow range. Like 5-6". Sop MPs can be 4-7".
> >
> > I mostly work off some charts and also a feel for what facing 
lengths
> I
> > want to use for what tip openings. The math in the spreadsheets is
> worked
> > out so that it will back calculate the needed radius to generate a
> facing
> > curve that will run through the tip opening and the facing length 
(as
> > defined by your thinnest feeler gage). The curve will also be 
tangent
> to
> > the table at the theoretical point where a .0000" feeler gage 
would
> > measure. It solves for the radius and the distance to this tangent
> point
> > from the tip. These 2 "unknowns" are solved using the 2 "knowns" 
of
> the
> > tip opening and the facing length. There is only one answer that
> passes a
> > radial curve throught these 2 points that is also tangent to the
> table.
> >
> > Keep asking!
> >
> > __________________________________________________________
> > Looking for last minute shopping deals?
> > Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
> http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?
category=shopping
> >
>



                         


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

Paul Coats is the sole US importer of SAXRAX products from 
http://www.saxrax.com 
For SAXRAX products, email Paul at saxraxus@...
       
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals?  Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.

"Could it be that mps with asymetrical facings play better with some 
reeds than others, i.e., those reeds that are themselves asymetrical?"
   
  I am firmly convinced this is the case.  "I can only use, maybe, one reed out of a box."  I would bet his mouthpiece is not symmetrical, that is, uneven side rails.  More reeds are playable with a straight mouthpiece.
   
  Paul

flemingml2000 <marklfleming@...> wrote:
          This thread brings up something I've been pondering for a while. I 
was reading Ridenour's reed finishing book where he compares a reed 
to a diving board. He states that the diving board is just a plank 
that has a continuous flex rate over its length while a reed has a 
taper that produces a changing flex curve.

A couple of issues. First, Mr. Ridenour's expertise clearly is not 
diving, as good diving boards do have a changing flex curve. More 
important, how does the changing reed flex curve best fit a mp 
curve? If I understand the mp flex curves decribed in this post, 
they are continuous radius curves. 

It seems counter-intuitive that a countinuous radius curve would be 
the best shape to fit the changing curve of the reed. If you place 
the two flex curves together, the reed tip will always touch the mp 
tip prior to the rest of the reed touching the full rails. Maybe 
that's how it works, I don't know. I need to develop a 
MiniMouthCam. 

It also seems that there might ("could or should???") be a "change-
up" point in the mp arc, probably where the lips contact the reed/mp 
to allow for embouchure to play a larger roll in controlling the 
reed. Slight changes in embouchure, by moving the pressure point 
slightly forward/backward instead of simply increasing pressure, 
would have more effect if there was a "fulcrum" on the mp face. 

The second issue is the balancing of the diving board or reed's flex 
from left to right at the tip. If the diving board is off, it will 
throw you slightly left or right depending on the tip imbalance. 
Difficult to get a 10 with no splash. If the reed is off, there are 
tonal balance issues. But what if the mp facing is asymetrical? 
Could it be that mps with asymetrical facings play better with some 
reeds than others, i.e., those reeds that are themselves asymetrical?

Think of it this way. Some complain that there's something odd about 
a particular diving board and it makes good dives difficult. Others 
say that there's no problem and it's the best diving board they've 
ever used, but then, they all walk with a limp favoring their left 
leg. Hmmm. 



                         


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.

Yes, this is absolutely the case. If the asymmetry of the reed complements the asymmetry of the mpc it will play fine, and play badly on a symmetrical mpc.

Toby

"Paul C." <tenorman1952@...> wrote:                               
"Could it be that mps with asymetrical facings play better with some 
reeds than others, i.e., those reeds that are themselves asymetrical?"
   
  I am firmly convinced this is the case.  "I can only use, maybe, one reed out of a box."  I would bet his mouthpiece is not symmetrical, that is, uneven side rails.  More reeds are playable with a straight mouthpiece.
   
  Paul

flemingml2000 <marklfleming@...> wrote:
      This thread brings up something I've been  pondering for a while. I 
was reading Ridenour's reed finishing book where he compares a reed 
to a diving board. He states that the diving board is just a plank 
that has a continuous flex rate over its length while a reed has a 
taper that produces a changing flex curve.

A couple of issues. First, Mr. Ridenour's expertise clearly is not 
diving, as good diving boards do have a changing flex curve. More 
important, how does the changing reed flex curve best fit a mp 
curve? If I understand the mp flex curves decribed in this post, 
they are continuous radius curves. 

It seems counter-intuitive that a countinuous radius curve would be 
the best shape to fit the changing curve of the reed. If you place 
the two flex curves together, the reed tip will always touch the mp 
tip prior to the rest of the reed touching the full rails. Maybe 
that's how it works, I don't know. I need to develop a 
MiniMouthCam. 

It also  seems that there might ("could or should???") be a "change-
up" point in the mp arc, probably where the lips contact the reed/mp 
to allow for embouchure to play a larger roll in controlling the 
reed. Slight changes in embouchure, by moving the pressure point 
slightly forward/backward instead of simply increasing pressure, 
would have more effect if there was a "fulcrum" on the mp face. 

The second issue is the balancing of the diving board or reed's flex 
from left to right at the tip. If the diving board is off, it will 
throw you slightly left or right depending on the tip imbalance. 
Difficult to get a 10 with no splash. If the reed is off, there are 
tonal balance issues. But what if the mp facing is asymetrical? 
Could it be that mps with asymetrical facings play better with some 
reeds than others, i.e., those reeds that are themselves asymetrical?

Think of it this way. Some complain that there's something odd about  
a particular diving board and it makes good dives difficult. Others 
say that there's no problem and it's the best diving board they've 
ever used, but then, they all walk with a limp favoring their left 
leg. Hmmm. 






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.  
     
                               
 

The acoustical behavior of the reed is very complicated, due to the interaction of the physics of the free reed with the air column. In addition there is considerable non-linearity in the behavior of the reed. Fletcher and Rossing devote a very complicated chapter to the reed IIRC in their book.
 One interesting fact is that the damping coefficient, I believe, is totally different for a clarinet than for a sax due to the differing characteristics of the two different types of air column. Due to this, it is necessary for the clarinet player to damp the reed with the lips in order to avoid
 squeaking, whereas with the sax it is not necessary at all. Try it. And read Fletcher and Rossing if you really want to get a clear idea of how and why the reed behaves as it does.

Toby

andrewhdonaldson <andrewhdonaldson@...> wrote:                               I think the geometry for what happens to a reed during vibration can
 be considered somewhat approximately as a cantilevered beam with a
 load applied to the free end.  The shape of the resulting deflection
 depends on a number of parameters including:
 
 The flex modulus of the reed (a constant).
 The distribution of the load (non-constant).
 The taper of the reed.
 
 From memory a uniformly applied load results in a y = x^4 type curve.
  However once the taper of the reed and the non-linear load applied to
 the reed is taken into account the maximum deflection reduces to y = x
 ^ 2, ie parabolic.  In the context of a facing curve, a parabola is
 virtually identical in shape to a radial segment.
 
 That's my take on it.
 
 Regards,
 Andrew
 
 --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "flemingml2000"
 <marklfleming@...> wrote:
 >
 > This thread brings up something I've been pondering for a while.  I 
 > was reading Ridenour's reed finishing book where he compares a reed 
 > to a diving board.  He states that the diving board is just a plank 
 > that has a continuous flex rate over its length while a reed has a 
 > taper that produces a changing flex curve.
 > 
 > A couple of issues.  First, Mr. Ridenour's expertise clearly is not 
 > diving, as good diving boards do have a changing flex curve.  More 
 > important, how does the changing reed flex curve best fit a mp 
 > curve?  If I understand the mp flex curves decribed in this post, 
 > they are continuous radius curves.  
 > 
 > It seems counter-intuitive that a countinuous radius curve would be 
 > the best shape to fit the changing curve of the reed.  If you place 
 > the two flex curves together, the reed tip will always touch the mp 
 > tip prior to the rest of the reed touching the full rails.  Maybe 
 > that's how it works, I don't know.  I need to develop a 
 > MiniMouthCam.  
 > 
 > It also seems that there might ("could or should???") be a "change-
 > up" point in the mp arc, probably where the lips contact the reed/mp 
 > to allow for embouchure to play a larger roll in controlling the 
 > reed.  Slight changes in embouchure, by moving the pressure point 
 > slightly forward/backward instead of simply increasing pressure, 
 > would have more effect if there was a "fulcrum" on the mp face.  
 > 
 > The second issue is the balancing of the diving board or reed's flex 
 > from left to right at the tip.  If the diving board is off, it will 
 > throw you slightly left or right depending on the tip imbalance.  
 > Difficult to get a 10 with no splash.  If the reed is off, there are 
 > tonal balance issues.  But what if the mp facing is asymetrical?  
 > Could it be that mps with asymetrical facings play better with some 
 > reeds than others, i.e., those reeds that are themselves asymetrical?
 > 
 > Think of it this way.  Some complain that there's something odd about 
 > a particular diving board and it makes good dives difficult.  Others 
 > say that there's no problem and it's the best diving board they've 
 > ever used, but then, they all walk with a limp favoring their left 
 > leg.  Hmmm.
 >