The recent post on reed strength and intonation got me thinking again 
about the flexibility of pitch and how one might chart it and 
reproduce it.  One of the things that no one has ever done 
effectively (that I have seen) is to accurately determine what the 
reed/mp is doing independent of the note produced.  What I mean is 
that when you add pressure to the reed, you can lip a flat note up.  
But to get a flat C to rise 20 cents, how much are you changing the 
pitch at the mp?  20 cents?  5 cents?  30 cents?  How much embouchure 
change (conscious and, more importantly, unconscious) does it take to 
get a horn to play in tune?

You can remove the mp with the neck or barrel and go through the same 
motions as best you can on the conscious embouchure changes.  That 
would give you some idea of what you are doing consciously, but it 
would be fascinating to see the two "tones" simultaneously on a graph 
and how fast you can bend a note into shape either by auditory 
feedback or by force of habit because you are familiar with the 
instrument.  

Most of you have probably seen the Santy Runyun article where he 
claims to have put a speaker producing A440 or A880 in the neck of a 
horn or horns and found that that was the tone needed to produce 
perfect pitch. 
http://www.saxontheweb.net/Learning/tone_production.html
At the time, few had the equipment to test this claim.  Now that 
almost every electric tuner can also produce tones and earbud 
speakers are $1.99, many have tried the experiment (myself 
included).  I've never heard of anybody being able to repeat his 
findings.

Blowing in my tenor sax neck, I get an E.  My alto is an A. These are 
approximate, as simply adjusting the mp can change things about a 
full note higher or lower.  Embouchure can also change it a note or 
more.  Changing to a different mp or reed would have some effect that 
could be easily recorded.  I doubt that there is some "magic note" 
here, as the mp, reed, neck, and horn functions as a unit.  A G# at 
the mp may produce an Eb at the neck, which may produce a perfect C# 
when attached to the horn.  Or, just as likely, a slightly flat G#, 
could produce a very sharp Eb at the neck, which still results in a 
perfect C# when all put together.  But it is more likely that there 
is a "magic range of tone" needed from the mp, something like 436-
448hz, for a particular horn to play it's entire range in perfect 
pitch.

The horn's overall air column length, dynamics, tone hole placement, 
etc., remains the same, so in theory, it would be possible to predict 
how a mp/reed combination will function on the horn just by what can 
be produced with the mp/reed.  Also, in theory, one could search for 
the perfect combination or determine how a combination will play 
based on just blowing into the mp or mp/neck.  One could even craft a 
mp to fit the requirements needed for a particular horn.  

But at some point you get into the artistry of crafting a mp and away 
from the hard numbers.  The table curvature would be determined by 
how much you want/need to change the pitch, either for a particular 
horn, style of playing, etc.   The chamber size would alter tone, 
whether the instrument was free blowing, etc., and you've quickly 
gotten away from hard numbers.  All that time spent with tiny 
speakers, beakers, oscilloscopes, Runyon claims and Bunsen burners 
and it still comes down to using your ears, your lung capacity, and 
maybe even your dental work.

Still, it would be fun to create an "artificial" mouthpiece. An 
earbud speaker doesn't blow into the mp.  I think that's why the 
Runyun experiment doesn't work.  But there must be some way of 
producing a tone/air column combination.  Maybe if I tear apart a 
harmonica I could produce both a variety of tones and an air column.  
I've wanted to tear apart every harmonica that I've ever heard, but I 
digress.

Mark

> Most of you have probably seen the Santy Runyun article where he 
> claims to have put a speaker producing A440 or A880 in the neck of a 
> horn or horns and found that that was the tone needed to produce 
> perfect pitch. 
> http://www.saxontheweb.net/Learning/tone_production.html
> At the time, few had the equipment to test this claim.  Now that 
> almost every electric tuner can also produce tones and earbud 
> speakers are $1.99, many have tried the experiment (myself 
> included).  I've never heard of anybody being able to repeat his 
> findings.
> 

What were your results?


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

Actually, Santy said an engineering professor did this, in his presence, using a Theramin to driver the little mouthpiece/speaker.  And between the Theramin and the little speaker was a box of some sort with a knob that the professor had to adjust, along with adjusting the Theramin, to make it resonate.
   
  I think the prof (who also had invented a 1/4 tone organ, and could perform on it, too, and other musical electronic instruments) used the amp portion of the Theramin, and those old tube amps did not have much in the way of damping factor.
   
  As I think about it, know that when you measure speaker impedance you can measure a big peak at the woofer's resonant frequency.  You can place a resistor in series with the speaker, and measure with a volt meter across the speaker's terminals.  An "8 ohm" woofer, at resonance, will peak out the voltage, meaning the impedance at resonance is high... as much as 16-20 ohms.
   
  If that woofer is put in a ported box, sweep the tone generator across the frequency range,  two resonant peaks will be seen.  One is the woofer + box resonance, and the other is the port + box resonance.
   
  Any frequency where there is resonance, the voltage will peak across the speaker terminals.
   
  I think the prof had to have inserted a series resistance, then provided feedback from that point back to the amplifier so that it would resonate.  I have to try this, perhaps a small LM386 or other small, low power op amp chip will do.
   
  I don't think the experiment failed.  I think we fail to understand what was actually done back then.  Santy himself explained that he did not understand all that the electronics prof was doing.
   
  Paul

Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:
          
> Most of you have probably seen the Santy Runyun article where he 
> claims to have put a speaker producing A440 or A880 in the neck of a 
> horn or horns and found that that was the tone needed to produce 
> perfect pitch. 
> http://www.saxontheweb.net/Learning/tone_production.html
> At the time, few had the equipment to test this claim. Now that 
> almost every electric tuner can also produce tones and earbud 
> speakers are $1.99, many have tried the experiment (myself 
> included). I've never heard of anybody being able to repeat his 
> findings.
> 

What were your results?

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


                           


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 friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.

There was a discussion on this topic on SOTW not long ago. No one could reproduce Santy's results, trying with a variety of methods--earbuds, speakers...

I myself tried it informally by singing into the sax with my mouth wrapped around the neck. I thought that perhaps one needed more sound pressure than an earbud could provide. Total failure in reproducing Santy's results, at least as we interpreted his results--he is not totally clear. I don't
 think what he describes is physically possible, so I take it as a fairy story.

Here is a link to the thread:

http://forum.saxontheweb.net/showthread.php?tu220

Toby

Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:                             
 > Most of you have probably seen the Santy Runyun article where he 
 > claims to have put a speaker producing A440 or A880 in the neck of a 
 > horn or horns and found that that was the tone needed to produce 
 > perfect pitch. 
 > http://www.saxontheweb.net/Learning/tone_production.html
 > At the time, few had the equipment to test this claim.  Now that 
 > almost every electric tuner can also produce tones and earbud 
 > speakers are $1.99, many have tried the experiment (myself 
 > included).  I've never heard of anybody being able to repeat his 
 > findings.
 > 
 
 What were your results?
 
 __________________________________________________________
 Be a better friend, newshound, and 
 know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.  http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
 
     
                                       
 

Has anyone tried this with a "cut-off" mouthpiece? Would that affect the incomplete cone and yield different results? 
BTW, it wasn't actually Santy conducting the experiment, if i read the material correctly. Perhaps we should research the professor who actually set up the experiment. One would think there would be some reference to it in the academic archives.



--- On Wed, 4/16/08, kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...> wrote:

> From: kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...>
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] In search of the artificial mouthpiece
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Wednesday, April 16, 2008, 9:55 PM
> There was a discussion on this topic on SOTW not long ago.
> No one could reproduce Santy's results, trying with a
> variety of methods--earbuds, speakers...
> 
> I myself tried it informally by singing into the sax with
> my mouth wrapped around the neck. I thought that perhaps
> one needed more sound pressure than an earbud could
> provide. Total failure in reproducing Santy's results,
> at least as we interpreted his results--he is not totally
> clear. I don't
>  think what he describes is physically possible, so I take
> it as a fairy story.
> 
> Here is a link to the thread:
> 
> http://forum.saxontheweb.net/showthread.php?tu220
> 
> Toby
> 
> Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:         
>                    
>  > Most of you have probably seen the Santy Runyun
> article where he 
>  > claims to have put a speaker producing A440 or A880
> in the neck of a 
>  > horn or horns and found that that was the tone needed
> to produce 
>  > perfect pitch. 
>  >
> http://www.saxontheweb.net/Learning/tone_production.html
>  > At the time, few had the equipment to test this
> claim.  Now that 
>  > almost every electric tuner can also produce tones
> and earbud 
>  > speakers are $1.99, many have tried the experiment
> (myself 
>  > included).  I've never heard of anybody being
> able to repeat his 
>  > findings.
>  > 
>  
>  What were your results?
>  
>  __________________________________________________________
>  Be a better friend, newshound, and 
>  know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now. 
> http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ


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

It was a professor at University of Missouri.
   
  I have attached a 2" speaker to a cut off mouthpiece.
   
  As I said, the way Santy described it, there was more to it than simply connecting directly from the Theremin to the speaker.  There was "some sort of box" in between with a dial that was adjusted.
   
  If I can get past the various projects on my workbench I'll try something I had in mind for this.
   
  Paul

Tom Tapscott <sonusrepair@...> wrote:
          Has anyone tried this with a "cut-off" mouthpiece? Would that affect the incomplete cone and yield different results? 
BTW, it wasn't actually Santy conducting the experiment, if i read the material correctly. Perhaps we should research the professor who actually set up the experiment. One would think there would be some reference to it in the academic archives.

--- On Wed, 4/16/08, kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...> wrote:

> From: kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...>
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] In search of the artificial mouthpiece
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Wednesday, April 16, 2008, 9:55 PM
> There was a discussion on this topic on SOTW not long ago.
> No one could reproduce Santy's results, trying with a
> variety of methods--earbuds, speakers...
> 
> I myself tried it informally by singing into the sax with
> my mouth wrapped around the neck. I thought that perhaps
> one needed more sound pressure than an earbud could
> provide. Total failure in reproducing Santy's results,
> at least as we interpreted his results--he is not totally
> clear. I don't
> think what he describes is physically possible, so I take
> it as a fairy story.
> 
> Here is a link to the thread:
> 
> http://forum.saxontheweb.net/showthread.php?tu220
> 
> Toby
> 
> Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote: 
> 
> > Most of you have probably seen the Santy Runyun
> article where he 
> > claims to have put a speaker producing A440 or A880
> in the neck of a 
> > horn or horns and found that that was the tone needed
> to produce 
> > perfect pitch. 
> >
> http://www.saxontheweb.net/Learning/tone_production.html
> > At the time, few had the equipment to test this
> claim. Now that 
> > almost every electric tuner can also produce tones
> and earbud 
> > speakers are $1.99, many have tried the experiment
> (myself 
> > included). I've never heard of anybody being
> able to repeat his 
> > findings.
> > 
> 
> What were your results?
> 
> __________________________________________________________
> Be a better friend, newshound, and 
> know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. 
> http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

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


                           


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 friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.

It is a bit hard to replicate an experiment without all the details, isn't it?!


--- On Thu, 4/17/08, Paul C. <tenorman1952@...> wrote:

> From: Paul C. <tenorman1952@...>
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] In search of the artificial mouthpiece
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Thursday, April 17, 2008, 7:35 AM
> It was a professor at University of Missouri.
>    
>   I have attached a 2" speaker to a cut off
> mouthpiece.
>    
>   As I said, the way Santy described it, there was more to
> it than simply connecting directly from the Theremin to the
> speaker.  There was "some sort of box" in between
> with a dial that was adjusted.
>    
>   If I can get past the various projects on my workbench
> I'll try something I had in mind for this.
>    
>   Paul
> 
> Tom Tapscott <sonusrepair@...> wrote:
>           Has anyone tried this with a "cut-off"
> mouthpiece? Would that affect the incomplete cone and yield
> different results? 
> BTW, it wasn't actually Santy conducting the
> experiment, if i read the material correctly. Perhaps we
> should research the professor who actually set up the
> experiment. One would think there would be some reference
> to it in the academic archives.
> 
> --- On Wed, 4/16/08, kymarto123@...
> <kymarto123@...> wrote:
> 
> > From: kymarto123@...
> <kymarto123@...>
> > Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] In search of the
> artificial mouthpiece
> > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> > Date: Wednesday, April 16, 2008, 9:55 PM
> > There was a discussion on this topic on SOTW not long
> ago.
> > No one could reproduce Santy's results, trying
> with a
> > variety of methods--earbuds, speakers...
> > 
> > I myself tried it informally by singing into the sax
> with
> > my mouth wrapped around the neck. I thought that
> perhaps
> > one needed more sound pressure than an earbud could
> > provide. Total failure in reproducing Santy's
> results,
> > at least as we interpreted his results--he is not
> totally
> > clear. I don't
> > think what he describes is physically possible, so I
> take
> > it as a fairy story.
> > 
> > Here is a link to the thread:
> > 
> > http://forum.saxontheweb.net/showthread.php?tu220
> > 
> > Toby
> > 
> > Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote: 
> > 
> > > Most of you have probably seen the Santy Runyun
> > article where he 
> > > claims to have put a speaker producing A440 or
> A880
> > in the neck of a 
> > > horn or horns and found that that was the tone
> needed
> > to produce 
> > > perfect pitch. 
> > >
> >
> http://www.saxontheweb.net/Learning/tone_production.html
> > > At the time, few had the equipment to test this
> > claim. Now that 
> > > almost every electric tuner can also produce
> tones
> > and earbud 
> > > speakers are $1.99, many have tried the
> experiment
> > (myself 
> > > included). I've never heard of anybody being
> > able to repeat his 
> > > findings.
> > > 
> > 
> > What were your results?
> > 
> >
> __________________________________________________________
> > Be a better friend, newshound, and 
> > know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. 
> >
> http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
> 
> __________________________________________________________
> Be a better friend, newshound, and 
> know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
> http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
> 
> 
>                            
> 
> 
> 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 friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo!
> Mobile.  Try it now.


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

I had just seen the SOTW thread and posted there last week.  

My results were a change in tonal quality but not a change in pitch, 
wich seems to be everyone's results.  The note remained almost the 
same as I tried various fingerings.  Sort of like singing the same 
note and changing your mouth opening.  If you put A440 in the horn, 
you get "variations" of A440 out.  Nothing at all that would make me 
believe that an octave worth of notes is possible using any type of 
speaker producing any special frequency.

Instead of tearing apart a harmonica, which I won't allow in my home, 
I found my old pitch pipe.  (I stopped using it after I connected it 
to my Korg.)  It was fairly simple to take it apart and place one 
reed so that it covered the window of an alto sax mouthpiece.  
Blowing on the contraption sort of felt like a trip to the dentist's 
office, but I was able get my mouth around the entire thing 
sufficient that I was getting both a tone and some air through the 
mp.  It took a surprising amount of air.  When connected to the 
instrument, I got the same results as before.  A440 in, interesting 
A440 out.  Same for an entire octave of notes.  Again, nothing that 
made me feel like I was close or that I should tear apart the pitch 
pipe to get a better seal.

In re-reading the Runyon article, I see that he claimed that A880 was 
the magic number.  I see no reason why that would be the case, 
especially as to all saxes or maybe even all reed instruments.  
Still, there must be some way of artificially re-producing what the 
reed is doing.  

I could try a connection to a compressed air tank with a fitting that 
covers the entire mp.  Not exactly an artificial mp, but it would be 
interesting to see what this unchanging "embouchure" and air column 
produces.  Plus, I could sing and play sax at the same time.  My 
guess is that the playing and singing would be of the same musical 
quality.  The finale could be a loud pop that launches the sax across 
the room.

Mark

Careful with that sax, Eugene.

What you wrote reproduces my results exactly. From an acoustic standpoint, it seems to be a physical impossibility for any tone generator of *fixed* frequency to couple with an air column of another frequency, unless the two are harmonically related. The whole point of the reed is that the loading
 of the air column forces it away from its natural resonance frequency(ies) to couple with whatever frequency the air column has. There are certian reed effects based on its own properties, but by and large the main component of the reed's vibrational behavior is determined by the air column. This
 is most definitely not the case with any fixed generator like a theremin or harmonica reed or tone generator and speaker.

So although I have great respect for Santy, I can't figure out what he was on about in this experiment, and the vagueness of his writing makes it hard to analyze any further.

Toby

flemingml2000 <marklfleming@...> wrote:                             I had just seen the SOTW thread and posted there last week.  
 
 My results were a change in tonal quality but not a change in pitch, 
 wich seems to be everyone's results.  The note remained almost the 
 same as I tried various fingerings.  Sort of like singing the same 
 note and changing your mouth opening.  If you put A440 in the horn, 
 you get "variations" of A440 out.  Nothing at all that would make me 
 believe that an octave worth of notes is possible using any type of 
 speaker producing any special frequency.
 
 Instead of tearing apart a harmonica, which I won't allow in my home, 
 I found my old pitch pipe.  (I stopped using it after I connected it 
 to my Korg.)  It was fairly simple to take it apart and place one 
 reed so that it covered the window of an alto sax mouthpiece.  
 Blowing on the contraption sort of felt like a trip to the dentist's 
 office, but I was able get my mouth around the entire thing 
 sufficient that I was getting both a tone and some air through the 
 mp.  It took a surprising amount of air.  When connected to the 
 instrument, I got the same results as before.  A440 in, interesting 
 A440 out.  Same for an entire octave of notes.  Again, nothing that 
 made me feel like I was close or that I should tear apart the pitch 
 pipe to get a better seal.
 
 In re-reading the Runyon article, I see that he claimed that A880 was 
 the magic number.  I see no reason why that would be the case, 
 especially as to all saxes or maybe even all reed instruments.  
 Still, there must be some way of artificially re-producing what the 
 reed is doing.  
 
 I could try a connection to a compressed air tank with a fitting that 
 covers the entire mp.  Not exactly an artificial mp, but it would be 
 interesting to see what this unchanging "embouchure" and air column 
 produces.  Plus, I could sing and play sax at the same time.  My 
 guess is that the playing and singing would be of the same musical 
 quality.  The finale could be a loud pop that launches the sax across 
 the room.
 
 Mark
 
 Careful with that sax, Eugene.