Here is a link to a fascinating site on saxophone acoustics at the
University of New South Wales.  It deals with many of the topics
discussed here. They apparantly have an entire program devoted to
music acoustics.  Enjoy!

http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/~jw/saxacoustics.html

I have a Link to this site, and a few others of similar interest, in 
the "Literature, Info." area under "Links". 

I have tried several times to wrap my mind around the reed & 
mouthpiece flow vs pressure plot.  I believe the reed is vibrating 
only on the right side of the plot.  But it could be along the middle 
too.

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "Steve" <kd9bo@...> wrote:
>
> Here is a link to a fascinating site on saxophone acoustics at the
> University of New South Wales.  It deals with many of the topics
> discussed here. They apparantly have an entire program devoted to
> music acoustics.  Enjoy!
> 
> http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/~jw/saxacoustics.html
>

Fantastic site.  I had to mark it as a favorite so that I can return 
later.  I tried to read it all at once, but my head began to resonate 
in a standing semi-harmonic nodal wave and then exploded.

The website explains that the sound wave travels down the instrument 
tube, reverberates back, and has some effect on the reed.  An  
instrument's tube shape, given the same fingering, remains the same.  
The mp can be adjusted on the neck to effect tone.  The shape and 
volume of the mp also effects sound characteristics.  But the mp 
design, say of a baffle in the mp, probably doesn't just effect the air 
column in a single direction.  It would also effect the reverberation 
back towards the reed.  So, it's not just "aerodynamics" in one 
direction, as with automobile design.  It's a two way street, so to 
speak.  How would one know if the baffle's major effect is directing 
the sound out or directing the reverberation back at the reed?  Just 
thought I might further complicate a complex matter.

Mark

"How would one know if the baffle's major effect is directing 
the sound out or directing the reverberation back at the reed? Just 
thought I might further complicate a complex matter."
   
  Our friend Mark is paying attention to details!!!
   
  A GREAT observation, Mark!
   
  Paul
  

flemingml2000 <marklfleming@...> wrote:
          Fantastic site. I had to mark it as a favorite so that I can return 
later. I tried to read it all at once, but my head began to resonate 
in a standing semi-harmonic nodal wave and then exploded.

The website explains that the sound wave travels down the instrument 
tube, reverberates back, and has some effect on the reed. An 
instrument's tube shape, given the same fingering, remains the same. 
The mp can be adjusted on the neck to effect tone. The shape and 
volume of the mp also effects sound characteristics. But the mp 
design, say of a baffle in the mp, probably doesn't just effect the air 
column in a single direction. It would also effect the reverberation 
back towards the reed. So, it's not just "aerodynamics" in one 
direction, as with automobile design. It's a two way street, so to 
speak. How would one know if the baffle's major effect is directing 
the sound out or directing the reverberation back at the reed? Just 
thought I might further complicate a complex matter.

Mark



                           


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.

Thanks for the great email, Mark.
 
I have one question, though - (this is directed to the group, not just
Mark):
 
I, personally, haven't started working on mouthpieces yet - and my knowledge
of the acoustics of musical instruments is rudimentary, at best.
 
However, I've noticed what seems to be conflicting statements in regards to
the acoustics of the saxophone. Mark mentions "directing the sound out" - as
if implying that the air or the sound wave is traveling through the horn,
then out.
However, I've also heard people say that this is not true, that a standing
wave is generated - it's frequency dependant on the node/anti-node created
by the fingering combination...
 
Am I reading these statements wrong? Is there a consensus?
 
Thanks!
 
Sincerely,
               Karsten J. Chikuri
 
 


  _____  

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Paul C.
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 4:14 PM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Saxophone acoustics website





"How would one know if the baffle's major effect is directing 
the sound out or directing the reverberation back at the reed? Just 
thought I might further complicate a complex matter."
 
Our friend Mark is paying attention to details!!!
 
A GREAT observation, Mark!
 
Paul


flemingml2000 <marklfleming@...> wrote:

Fantastic site. I had to mark it as a favorite so that I can return 
later. I tried to read it all at once, but my head began to resonate 
in a standing semi-harmonic nodal wave and then exploded.

The website explains that the sound wave travels down the instrument 
tube, reverberates back, and has some effect on the reed. An 
instrument's tube shape, given the same fingering, remains the same. 
The mp can be adjusted on the neck to effect tone. The shape and 
volume of the mp also effects sound characteristics. But the mp 
design, say of a baffle in the mp, probably doesn't just effect the air 
column in a single direction. It would also effect the reverberation 
back towards the reed. So, it's not just "aerodynamics" in one 
direction, as with automobile design. It's a two way street, so to 
speak. How would one know if the baffle's major effect is directing 
the sound out or directing the reverberation back at the reed? Just 
thought I might further complicate a complex matter.

Mark






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
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evtQ733/*http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8
HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ> it now. 



 

Forgive the approximate language here...I'm painting in broad strokes.

A standing wave IS a traveling wave, but one which is reflected
back-and-forth in such a way that the observable node/antinode
placement will "stand" still.

It's much easier to visualize as a vertical displacement of a bit of
cord (like a guitar string). When you pluck a guitar ctring plum in
the middle of the two anchored points, two waves DO travel to the nut
and the bridge simultaneously, and then reflect back to the center. In
practice it's not this clean, but you can visually observe a
crescent-like displacement of the string up-and down. This is a
standing wave AND a composite of traveling waves, because the
traveling wave speed and the wavelength, given the length of the
string, are all related. There's a horribly complex bit of math called
the "wave equation" which explains this, if you have Calc 2 under your
belt.




--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "Karsten J. Chikuri"
<chikurk@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the great email, Mark.
>  
> I have one question, though - (this is directed to the group, not just
> Mark):
>  
> I, personally, haven't started working on mouthpieces yet - and my
knowledge
> of the acoustics of musical instruments is rudimentary, at best.
>  
> However, I've noticed what seems to be conflicting statements in
regards to
> the acoustics of the saxophone. Mark mentions "directing the sound
out" - as
> if implying that the air or the sound wave is traveling through the
horn,
> then out.
> However, I've also heard people say that this is not true, that a
standing
> wave is generated - it's frequency dependant on the node/anti-node
created
> by the fingering combination...
>  
> Am I reading these statements wrong? Is there a consensus?
>  
> Thanks!
>  
> Sincerely,
>                Karsten J. Chikuri
>  
>  
> 
> 
>   _____  
> 
> From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of Paul C.
> Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 4:14 PM
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Saxophone acoustics website
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "How would one know if the baffle's major effect is directing 
> the sound out or directing the reverberation back at the reed? Just 
> thought I might further complicate a complex matter."
>  
> Our friend Mark is paying attention to details!!!
>  
> A GREAT observation, Mark!
>  
> Paul
> 
> 
> flemingml2000 <marklfleming@...> wrote:
> 
> Fantastic site. I had to mark it as a favorite so that I can return 
> later. I tried to read it all at once, but my head began to resonate 
> in a standing semi-harmonic nodal wave and then exploded.
> 
> The website explains that the sound wave travels down the instrument 
> tube, reverberates back, and has some effect on the reed. An 
> instrument's tube shape, given the same fingering, remains the same. 
> The mp can be adjusted on the neck to effect tone. The shape and 
> volume of the mp also effects sound characteristics. But the mp 
> design, say of a baffle in the mp, probably doesn't just effect the air 
> column in a single direction. It would also effect the reverberation 
> back towards the reed. So, it's not just "aerodynamics" in one 
> direction, as with automobile design. It's a two way street, so to 
> speak. How would one know if the baffle's major effect is directing 
> the sound out or directing the reverberation back at the reed? Just 
> thought I might further complicate a complex matter.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
>
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evtQ733/*http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8
> HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ> it now.
>

Thank you for the clarification and explanation. However, what I often hear
disagreement with is whether the "air flow" of an instrument has any
substantial, or real, effect on the production of the sound. I don't know
how to better explain it - maybe I should step back a bit and give my
question more thought...
 
Sincerely,
               Karsten J. Chikuri
 
 


  _____  

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of dcb_76
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 7:06 PM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Saxophone acoustics website




Forgive the approximate language here...I'm painting in broad strokes.

A standing wave IS a traveling wave, but one which is reflected
back-and-forth in such a way that the observable node/antinode
placement will "stand" still.

It's much easier to visualize as a vertical displacement of a bit of
cord (like a guitar string). When you pluck a guitar ctring plum in
the middle of the two anchored points, two waves DO travel to the nut
and the bridge simultaneously, and then reflect back to the center. In
practice it's not this clean, but you can visually observe a
crescent-like displacement of the string up-and down. This is a
standing wave AND a composite of traveling waves, because the
traveling wave speed and the wavelength, given the length of the
string, are all related. There's a horribly complex bit of math called
the "wave equation" which explains this, if you have Calc 2 under your
belt.

--- In MouthpieceWork@ <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
yahoogroups.com, "Karsten J. Chikuri"
<chikurk@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the great email, Mark.
> 
> I have one question, though - (this is directed to the group, not just
> Mark):
> 
> I, personally, haven't started working on mouthpieces yet - and my
knowledge
> of the acoustics of musical instruments is rudimentary, at best.
> 
> However, I've noticed what seems to be conflicting statements in
regards to
> the acoustics of the saxophone. Mark mentions "directing the sound
out" - as
> if implying that the air or the sound wave is traveling through the
horn,
> then out.
> However, I've also heard people say that this is not true, that a
standing
> wave is generated - it's frequency dependant on the node/anti-node
created
> by the fingering combination...
> 
> Am I reading these statements wrong? Is there a consensus?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Sincerely,
> Karsten J. Chikuri
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _____ 
> 
> From: MouthpieceWork@ <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
yahoogroups.com
[mailto:MouthpieceWork@ <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of Paul C.
> Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 4:14 PM
> To: MouthpieceWork@ <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Saxophone acoustics website
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "How would one know if the baffle's major effect is directing 
> the sound out or directing the reverberation back at the reed? Just 
> thought I might further complicate a complex matter."
> 
> Our friend Mark is paying attention to details!!!
> 
> A GREAT observation, Mark!
> 
> Paul
> 
> 
> flemingml2000 <marklfleming@...> wrote:
> 
> Fantastic site. I had to mark it as a favorite so that I can return 
> later. I tried to read it all at once, but my head began to resonate 
> in a standing semi-harmonic nodal wave and then exploded.
> 
> The website explains that the sound wave travels down the instrument 
> tube, reverberates back, and has some effect on the reed. An 
> instrument's tube shape, given the same fingering, remains the same. 
> The mp can be adjusted on the neck to effect tone. The shape and 
> volume of the mp also effects sound characteristics. But the mp 
> design, say of a baffle in the mp, probably doesn't just effect the air 
> column in a single direction. It would also effect the reverberation 
> back towards the reed. So, it's not just "aerodynamics" in one 
> direction, as with automobile design. It's a two way street, so to 
> speak. How would one know if the baffle's major effect is directing 
> the sound out or directing the reverberation back at the reed? Just 
> thought I might further complicate a complex matter.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link to Paul's articles from Main page of "Saxgourmet":
> http://www.saxgourm <http://www.saxgourmet.com> et.com
> Listen to Paul's MP3's and view saxophone photos at:
> http://briefcase. <http://briefcase.yahoo.com/tenorman1952>
yahoo.com/tenorman1952
> 
> Paul Coats is the sole US importer of SAXRAX products from 
> http://www.saxrax. <http://www.saxrax.com> com 
> For SAXRAX products, email Paul at saxraxus@... 
> 
> 
> 
> _____ 
> 
> Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try
>
<http://us.rd.
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evtQ733/*http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8
> yahoo.com/evtQ733/*http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8
> HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ> it now.
>



 

Well, at least this question is easy!  Simply compare the sound your
horn makes when you blow into it and when you don't blow into it ; )


--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "Karsten J. Chikuri"
<chikurk@...> wrote:
>
> Thank you for the clarification and explanation. However, what I
often hear
> disagreement with is whether the "air flow" of an instrument has any
> substantial, or real, effect on the production of the sound. I don't
know
> how to better explain it - maybe I should step back a bit and give my
> question more thought...
>  
> Sincerely,
>                Karsten J. Chikuri
>  
>  
> 
> 
>   _____  
> 
> From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of dcb_76
> Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 7:06 PM
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Saxophone acoustics website
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Forgive the approximate language here...I'm painting in broad strokes.
> 
> A standing wave IS a traveling wave, but one which is reflected
> back-and-forth in such a way that the observable node/antinode
> placement will "stand" still.
> 
> It's much easier to visualize as a vertical displacement of a bit of
> cord (like a guitar string). When you pluck a guitar ctring plum in
> the middle of the two anchored points, two waves DO travel to the nut
> and the bridge simultaneously, and then reflect back to the center. In
> practice it's not this clean, but you can visually observe a
> crescent-like displacement of the string up-and down. This is a
> standing wave AND a composite of traveling waves, because the
> traveling wave speed and the wavelength, given the length of the
> string, are all related. There's a horribly complex bit of math called
> the "wave equation" which explains this, if you have Calc 2 under your
> belt.
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@ <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
> yahoogroups.com, "Karsten J. Chikuri"
> <chikurk@> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for the great email, Mark.
> > 
> > I have one question, though - (this is directed to the group, not just
> > Mark):
> > 
> > I, personally, haven't started working on mouthpieces yet - and my
> knowledge
> > of the acoustics of musical instruments is rudimentary, at best.
> > 
> > However, I've noticed what seems to be conflicting statements in
> regards to
> > the acoustics of the saxophone. Mark mentions "directing the sound
> out" - as
> > if implying that the air or the sound wave is traveling through the
> horn,
> > then out.
> > However, I've also heard people say that this is not true, that a
> standing
> > wave is generated - it's frequency dependant on the node/anti-node
> created
> > by the fingering combination...
> > 
> > Am I reading these statements wrong? Is there a consensus?
> > 
> > Thanks!
> > 
> > Sincerely,
> > Karsten J. Chikuri
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _____ 
> > 
> > From: MouthpieceWork@ <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
> yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:MouthpieceWork@ <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
> yahoogroups.com]
> > On Behalf Of Paul C.
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 4:14 PM
> > To: MouthpieceWork@ <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
> yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Saxophone acoustics website
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > "How would one know if the baffle's major effect is directing 
> > the sound out or directing the reverberation back at the reed? Just 
> > thought I might further complicate a complex matter."
> > 
> > Our friend Mark is paying attention to details!!!
> > 
> > A GREAT observation, Mark!
> > 
> > Paul
> > 
> > 
> > flemingml2000 <marklfleming@> wrote:
> > 
> > Fantastic site. I had to mark it as a favorite so that I can return 
> > later. I tried to read it all at once, but my head began to resonate 
> > in a standing semi-harmonic nodal wave and then exploded.
> > 
> > The website explains that the sound wave travels down the instrument 
> > tube, reverberates back, and has some effect on the reed. An 
> > instrument's tube shape, given the same fingering, remains the same. 
> > The mp can be adjusted on the neck to effect tone. The shape and 
> > volume of the mp also effects sound characteristics. But the mp 
> > design, say of a baffle in the mp, probably doesn't just effect
the air 
> > column in a single direction. It would also effect the reverberation 
> > back towards the reed. So, it's not just "aerodynamics" in one 
> > direction, as with automobile design. It's a two way street, so to 
> > speak. How would one know if the baffle's major effect is directing 
> > the sound out or directing the reverberation back at the reed? Just 
> > thought I might further complicate a complex matter.
> > 
> > Mark
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Link to Paul's articles from Main page of "Saxgourmet":
> > http://www.saxgourm <http://www.saxgourmet.com> et.com
> > Listen to Paul's MP3's and view saxophone photos at:
> > http://briefcase. <http://briefcase.yahoo.com/tenorman1952>
> yahoo.com/tenorman1952
> > 
> > Paul Coats is the sole US importer of SAXRAX products from 
> > http://www.saxrax. <http://www.saxrax.com> com 
> > For SAXRAX products, email Paul at saxraxus@ 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _____ 
> > 
> > Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try
> >
> <http://us.rd.
>
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evtQ733/*http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8
> > yahoo.com/evtQ733/*http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8
> > HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ> it now.
> >
>

LOL!!! :-)
 
I think the best way to describe the situation is when people discuss tone
and projection... A lot of people think that you get projection by forcing
more air into the horn, as if the sound goes through the horn and out.
Others would say that you get more projection by strengthening the
production of the standing wave, which resonates out from the horn...
meaning that the resonation comes from the standing wave, not by the medium
(air in this case).
 
P.S. - Thanks for being patient with me. Like I said, I haven't the chance
to spend much of any time studying instrument acoustics - and I don't have
physics background that would allow me understand much of what is often
written in such books. :-)
 
Sincerely,
               Karsten J. Chikuri
 


  _____  

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of andrewhdonaldson
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 10:39 PM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Saxophone acoustics website



Well, at least this question is easy! Simply compare the sound your
horn makes when you blow into it and when you don't blow into it ; )

--- In MouthpieceWork@ <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
yahoogroups.com, "Karsten J. Chikuri"
<chikurk@...> wrote:
>
> Thank you for the clarification and explanation. However, what I
often hear
> disagreement with is whether the "air flow" of an instrument has any
> substantial, or real, effect on the production of the sound. I don't
know
> how to better explain it - maybe I should step back a bit and give my
> question more thought...
> 
> Sincerely,
> Karsten J. Chikuri
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _____ 
> 
> From: MouthpieceWork@ <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
yahoogroups.com
[mailto:MouthpieceWork@ <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of dcb_76
> Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 7:06 PM
> To: MouthpieceWork@ <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Saxophone acoustics website
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Forgive the approximate language here...I'm painting in broad strokes.
> 
> A standing wave IS a traveling wave, but one which is reflected
> back-and-forth in such a way that the observable node/antinode
> placement will "stand" still.
> 
> It's much easier to visualize as a vertical displacement of a bit of
> cord (like a guitar string). When you pluck a guitar ctring plum in
> the middle of the two anchored points, two waves DO travel to the nut
> and the bridge simultaneously, and then reflect back to the center. In
> practice it's not this clean, but you can visually observe a
> crescent-like displacement of the string up-and down. This is a
> standing wave AND a composite of traveling waves, because the
> traveling wave speed and the wavelength, given the length of the
> string, are all related. There's a horribly complex bit of math called
> the "wave equation" which explains this, if you have Calc 2 under your
> belt.
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@ <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
> yahoogroups.com, "Karsten J. Chikuri"
> <chikurk@> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for the great email, Mark.
> > 
> > I have one question, though - (this is directed to the group, not just
> > Mark):
> > 
> > I, personally, haven't started working on mouthpieces yet - and my
> knowledge
> > of the acoustics of musical instruments is rudimentary, at best.
> > 
> > However, I've noticed what seems to be conflicting statements in
> regards to
> > the acoustics of the saxophone. Mark mentions "directing the sound
> out" - as
> > if implying that the air or the sound wave is traveling through the
> horn,
> > then out.
> > However, I've also heard people say that this is not true, that a
> standing
> > wave is generated - it's frequency dependant on the node/anti-node
> created
> > by the fingering combination...
> > 
> > Am I reading these statements wrong? Is there a consensus?
> > 
> > Thanks!
> > 
> > Sincerely,
> > Karsten J. Chikuri
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _____ 
> > 
> > From: MouthpieceWork@ <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
> yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:MouthpieceWork@ <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
> yahoogroups.com]
> > On Behalf Of Paul C.
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 4:14 PM
> > To: MouthpieceWork@ <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
> yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Saxophone acoustics website
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > "How would one know if the baffle's major effect is directing 
> > the sound out or directing the reverberation back at the reed? Just 
> > thought I might further complicate a complex matter."
> > 
> > Our friend Mark is paying attention to details!!!
> > 
> > A GREAT observation, Mark!
> > 
> > Paul
> > 
> > 
> > flemingml2000 <marklfleming@> wrote:
> > 
> > Fantastic site. I had to mark it as a favorite so that I can return 
> > later. I tried to read it all at once, but my head began to resonate 
> > in a standing semi-harmonic nodal wave and then exploded.
> > 
> > The website explains that the sound wave travels down the instrument 
> > tube, reverberates back, and has some effect on the reed. An 
> > instrument's tube shape, given the same fingering, remains the same. 
> > The mp can be adjusted on the neck to effect tone. The shape and 
> > volume of the mp also effects sound characteristics. But the mp 
> > design, say of a baffle in the mp, probably doesn't just effect
the air 
> > column in a single direction. It would also effect the reverberation 
> > back towards the reed. So, it's not just "aerodynamics" in one 
> > direction, as with automobile design. It's a two way street, so to 
> > speak. How would one know if the baffle's major effect is directing 
> > the sound out or directing the reverberation back at the reed? Just 
> > thought I might further complicate a complex matter.
> > 
> > Mark
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Link to Paul's articles from Main page of "Saxgourmet":
> > http://www.saxgourm <http://www.saxgourm <http://www.saxgourmet.com>
et.com> et.com
> > Listen to Paul's MP3's and view saxophone photos at:
> > http://briefcase. <http://briefcase.
<http://briefcase.yahoo.com/tenorman1952> yahoo.com/tenorman1952>
> yahoo.com/tenorman1952
> > 
> > Paul Coats is the sole US importer of SAXRAX products from 
> > http://www.saxrax. <http://www.saxrax. <http://www.saxrax.com> com> com 
> > For SAXRAX products, email Paul at saxraxus@ 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _____ 
> > 
> > Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try
> >
> <http://us.rd.
>
<http://us.rd.
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evtQ733/*http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8
> yahoo.com/evtQ733/*http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8
> > yahoo.com/evtQ733/*http://mobile.
<http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8> yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8
> > HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ> it now.
> >
>



 

[ Attachment content not displayed ]

I'm sorry but I don't agree. The temperature of the air has nothing to do with the content of the partials. In any case the air leaves the player warm no matter what the ambient temperature. The problem with a low ambient temperature is the differential between different parts of the horn, which
 makes intonation a difficult issue, but doesn't really affect the tonal quality in and of itself. 

The difficulty with using only our ears is that tone production is so complex that we are unable to isolate the causative factors of whatever differences we perceive. "Intellectualizing ad nauseaum", as you call it, is at its best a process of isolating and exploring the various factors that are
 involved (interactively) in the final sound produced, and putting them in their proper perspective in an attempt to better understand "what does what in which situation". By understanding what goes into tone production, we are better able to control it.

Certainly the shape of the oral cavity plays a significant role in tone production--in fact a group led by Joe Wolfe at UNSW has just published a very well received study showing how experienced players use this factor in producing altissimos. It is a critical factor in altissimos.

What we don't seem to be mentioning here is the non-linear response of the reed to changes in blowing pressure. I have a feeling that a lot of what people perceive as "putting more air into the horn" is actually a different reed response in relation to higher blowing pressure.

Toby

John Delia <bzalto@...> wrote:                             I've been reading all of the responses and, pardon me, laughing, because it is hardly a scientific question.  In my opinion, the simplest answer is always best, and Joe Allard answered it best. Warm air and an open throat
 approximates the proper breath support and cold air renders a smaller tone that is less rich in overtones and less pleasant.  All we need do is use our ears rather than intellectualizing ad nauseum.  John Delia
 

On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 2:28 AM, Karsten J. Chikuri <chikurk@...> wrote:
                                  
   LOL!!! :-)
  
 I think the best way to describe the situation is when  people discuss tone and projection... A lot of people think that you get  projection by forcing more air into the horn, as if the sound goes through the  horn and out. Others would say that you get more projection by strengthening the 
 production of the standing wave, which resonates out from the horn... meaning  that the resonation comes from the standing wave, not by the medium (air in this  case).
  
 P.S. - Thanks for being patient with me. Like I said, I  haven't the chance to spend much of any time studying instrument acoustics - and  I don't have physics background that would allow me understand much of what is  often written in such books. :-)
  
 
Sincerely,
                 Karsten J. Chikuri
  

       
---------------------------------
   From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com    [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of    andrewhdonaldson
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 10:39    PM

To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject:    [MouthpieceWork] Re: Saxophone acoustics website





   
      Well, at least this question is easy! Simply compare the sound your
horn    makes when you blow into it and when you don't blow into it ; )

--- In    MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com,    "Karsten J. Chikuri"
<chikurk@...> wrote:
>
> Thank    you for the clarification and explanation. However, what I
often    hear
> disagreement with is whether the "air flow" of an instrument has    any
> substantial, or real, effect on the production of the sound. I    don't
know
> how to better explain it - maybe I should step back a    bit and give my
> question more thought...
> 
>    Sincerely,
> Karsten J. Chikuri
> 
> 
> 
>    
> _____ 
> 
> From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
 >    On Behalf Of dcb_76
> Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 7:06 PM
> To:    MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>    Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Saxophone acoustics website
> 
>    
> 
> 
> Forgive the approximate language here...I'm    painting in broad strokes.
> 
> A standing wave IS a traveling    wave, but one which is reflected
> back-and-forth in such a way that the    observable node/antinode
> placement will "stand" still.
>    
> It's much easier to visualize as a vertical displacement of a bit    of
> cord (like a guitar string). When you pluck a guitar ctring plum    in
> the middle of the two anchored points, two waves DO travel to the    nut
> and the bridge simultaneously, and then reflect back to the    center. In
> practice it's not this clean, but you can visually observe    a
> crescent-like displacement of the string up-and down. This is    a
> standing wave AND a composite of traveling waves, because    the
> traveling wave speed and the wavelength, given the length of    the
> string, are all related. There's a horribly complex bit of math    called
> the "wave equation" which explains this, if you have Calc 2    under your
> belt.
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@    <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
>    yahoogroups.com, "Karsten J. Chikuri"
> <chikurk@>    wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for the great email, Mark.
>    > 
> > I have one question, though - (this is directed to the    group, not just
> > Mark):
> > 
> > I, personally,    haven't started working on mouthpieces yet - and my
> knowledge
>    > of the acoustics of musical instruments is rudimentary, at best.
>    > 
> > However, I've noticed what seems to be conflicting    statements in
> regards to
> > the acoustics of the saxophone.    Mark mentions "directing the sound
> out" - as
> > if implying    that the air or the sound wave is traveling through the
> horn,
>    > then out.
> > However, I've also heard people say that this is    not true, that a
> standing
> > wave is generated - it's    frequency dependant on the node/anti-node
> created
> > by the    fingering combination...
> > 
> > Am I reading these    statements wrong? Is there a consensus?
> > 
> >    Thanks!
> > 
> > Sincerely,
> > Karsten J.    Chikuri
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >    _____ 
> > 
> > From: MouthpieceWork@    <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
>    yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:MouthpieceWork@    <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
>    yahoogroups.com]
> > On Behalf Of Paul C.
> > Sent:    Wednesday, April 23, 2008 4:14 PM
> > To: MouthpieceWork@    <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
>    yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Saxophone    acoustics website
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >    
> > 
> > "How would one know if the baffle's major effect    is directing 
> > the sound out or directing the reverberation back    at the reed? Just 
> > thought I might further complicate a complex    matter."
> > 
> > Our friend Mark is paying attention to    details!!!
> > 
> > A GREAT observation, Mark!
> >    
> > Paul
> > 
> > 
> > flemingml2000    <marklfleming@> wrote:
> > 
> > Fantastic site. I    had to mark it as a favorite so that I can return 
> > later. I tried    to read it all at once, but my head began to resonate 
> > in a    standing semi-harmonic nodal wave and then exploded.
> > 
>    > The website explains that the sound wave travels down the instrument    
> > tube, reverberates back, and has some effect on the reed. An    
> > instrument's tube shape, given the same fingering, remains the    same. 
> > The mp can be adjusted on the neck to effect tone. The    shape and 
> > volume of the mp also effects sound characteristics.    But the mp 
> > design, say of a baffle in the mp, probably doesn't    just effect
the air 
> > column in a single direction. It would    also effect the reverberation 
> > back towards the reed. So, it's    not just "aerodynamics" in one 
> > direction, as with automobile    design. It's a two way street, so to 
> > speak. How would one know    if the baffle's major effect is directing 
> > the sound out or    directing the reverberation back at the reed? Just 
> > thought I    might further complicate a complex matter.
> > 
> >    Mark
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >    
> > 
> > Link to Paul's articles from Main page of    "Saxgourmet":
> > http://www.saxgourm <http://www.saxgourmet.com>    et.com
> > Listen to Paul's MP3's and view saxophone photos    at:
> > http://briefcase. <http://briefcase.yahoo.com/tenorman1952>
>    yahoo.com/tenorman1952
> > 
> > Paul Coats is the sole    US importer of SAXRAX products from 
> > http://www.saxrax. <http://www.saxrax.com> com 
>    > For SAXRAX products, email Paul at saxraxus@ 
> > 
> >    
> > 
> > _____ 
> > 
> > Be a better    friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try
>    >
> <http://us.rd.
>
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evtQ733/*http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8
 >    > yahoo.com/evtQ733/*http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8
>    > HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ> it now.
> >
>





      
                 
                      



 
     
                                       
 

As we blow harder the higher partials increase in percentage of the tone.  This is what is really perceived as "louder" or "more projection, the higher partials.
   
  I have sound analysis graphs of the Runyon Custom mouthpiece, same reed, same instrument, same player (me).  Both blown as close to the same as I can do.
   
  One is with the "spoiler" insert, one without.
   
  The graph with the spoiler in the mouthpiece shows a large increase in partials in the 1000 hz - 2000 hz range, right where the ear is most sensitive.  And the sound with the spoiler insert sounds much louder.
   
  But even without the spoiler insert, others have analyzed saxophone tone at various volume levels and it is mostly the strength of the overtones that changes.
   
  Paul

kymarto123@... wrote:
          I'm sorry but I don't agree. The temperature of the air has nothing to do with the content of the partials. In any case the air leaves the player warm no matter what the ambient temperature. The problem with a low ambient temperature is the differential between different parts of the horn, which makes intonation a difficult issue, but doesn't really affect the tonal quality in and of itself. 

The difficulty with using only our ears is that tone production is so complex that we are unable to isolate the causative factors of whatever differences we perceive. "Intellectualizing ad nauseaum", as you call it, is at its best a process of isolating and exploring the various factors that are involved (interactively) in the final sound produced, and putting them in their proper perspective in an attempt to better understand "what does what in which situation". By understanding what goes into tone production, we are better able to control it.

Certainly the shape of the oral cavity plays a significant role in tone production--in fact a group led by Joe Wolfe at UNSW has just published a very well received study showing how experienced players use this factor in producing altissimos. It is a critical factor in altissimos.

What we don't seem to be mentioning here is the non-linear response of the reed to changes in blowing pressure. I have a feeling that a lot of what people perceive as "putting more air into the horn" is actually a different reed response in relation to higher blowing pressure.

Toby

John Delia <bzalto@...> wrote:      I've been reading all of the responses and, pardon me, laughing, because it is hardly a scientific question.  In my opinion, the simplest answer is always best, and Joe Allard answered it best. Warm air and an open throat approximates the proper breath support and cold air renders a smaller tone that is less rich in overtones and less pleasant.  All we need do is use our ears rather than intellectualizing ad nauseum.  John Delia


  On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 2:28 AM, Karsten J. Chikuri <chikurk@...> wrote:
            
    LOL!!! :-)
   
  I think the best way to describe the situation is when people discuss tone and projection... A lot of people think that you get projection by forcing more air into the horn, as if the sound goes through the horn and out. Others would say that you get more projection by strengthening the production of the standing wave, which resonates out from the horn... meaning that the resonation comes from the standing wave, not by the medium (air in this case).
   
  P.S. - Thanks for being patient with me. Like I said, I haven't the chance to spend much of any time studying instrument acoustics - and I don't have physics background that would allow me understand much of what is often written in such books. :-)
   

  Sincerely,
                 Karsten J. Chikuri
   

      
---------------------------------
  From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of andrewhdonaldson
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 10:39 PM    
  
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Saxophone acoustics website




    
    
    Well, at least this question is easy! Simply compare the sound your
horn makes when you blow into it and when you don't blow into it ; )

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "Karsten J. Chikuri"
<chikurk@...> wrote:
>
> Thank you for the clarification and explanation. However, what I
often hear
> disagreement with is whether the "air flow" of an instrument has any
> substantial, or real, effect on the production of the sound. I don't
know
> how to better explain it - maybe I should step back a bit and give my
> question more thought...
> 
> Sincerely,
> Karsten J. Chikuri
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _____ 
> 
> From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of dcb_76
> Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 7:06 PM
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Saxophone acoustics website
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Forgive the approximate language here...I'm painting in broad strokes.
> 
> A standing wave IS a traveling wave, but one which is reflected
> back-and-forth in such a way that the observable node/antinode
> placement will "stand" still.
> 
> It's much easier to visualize as a vertical displacement of a bit of
> cord (like a guitar string). When you pluck a guitar ctring plum in
> the middle of the two anchored points, two waves DO travel to the nut
> and the bridge simultaneously, and then reflect back to the center. In
> practice it's not this clean, but you can visually observe a
> crescent-like displacement of the string up-and down. This is a
> standing wave AND a composite of traveling waves, because the
> traveling wave speed and the wavelength, given the length of the
> string, are all related. There's a horribly complex bit of math called
> the "wave equation" which explains this, if you have Calc 2 under your
> belt.
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@ <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
> yahoogroups.com, "Karsten J. Chikuri"
> <chikurk@> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for the great email, Mark.
> > 
> > I have one question, though - (this is directed to the group, not just
> > Mark):
> > 
> > I, personally, haven't started working on mouthpieces yet - and my
> knowledge
> > of the acoustics of musical instruments is rudimentary, at best.
> > 
> > However, I've noticed what seems to be conflicting statements in
> regards to
> > the acoustics of the saxophone. Mark mentions "directing the sound
> out" - as
> > if implying that the air or the sound wave is traveling through the
> horn,
> > then out.
> > However, I've also heard people say that this is not true, that a
> standing
> > wave is generated - it's frequency dependant on the node/anti-node
> created
> > by the fingering combination...
> > 
> > Am I reading these statements wrong? Is there a consensus?
> > 
> > Thanks!
> > 
> > Sincerely,
> > Karsten J. Chikuri
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _____ 
> > 
> > From: MouthpieceWork@ <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
> yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:MouthpieceWork@ <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
> yahoogroups.com]
> > On Behalf Of Paul C.
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 4:14 PM
> > To: MouthpieceWork@ <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
> yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Saxophone acoustics website
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > "How would one know if the baffle's major effect is directing 
> > the sound out or directing the reverberation back at the reed? Just 
> > thought I might further complicate a complex matter."
> > 
> > Our friend Mark is paying attention to details!!!
> > 
> > A GREAT observation, Mark!
> > 
> > Paul
> > 
> > 
> > flemingml2000 <marklfleming@> wrote:
> > 
> > Fantastic site. I had to mark it as a favorite so that I can return 
> > later. I tried to read it all at once, but my head began to resonate 
> > in a standing semi-harmonic nodal wave and then exploded.
> > 
> > The website explains that the sound wave travels down the instrument 
> > tube, reverberates back, and has some effect on the reed. An 
> > instrument's tube shape, given the same fingering, remains the same. 
> > The mp can be adjusted on the neck to effect tone. The shape and 
> > volume of the mp also effects sound characteristics. But the mp 
> > design, say of a baffle in the mp, probably doesn't just effect
the air 
> > column in a single direction. It would also effect the reverberation 
> > back towards the reed. So, it's not just "aerodynamics" in one 
> > direction, as with automobile design. It's a two way street, so to 
> > speak. How would one know if the baffle's major effect is directing 
> > the sound out or directing the reverberation back at the reed? Just 
> > thought I might further complicate a complex matter.
> > 
> > Mark
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Link to Paul's articles from Main page of "Saxgourmet":
> > http://www.saxgourm <http://www.saxgourmet.com> et.com
> > Listen to Paul's MP3's and view saxophone photos at:
> > http://briefcase. <http://briefcase.yahoo.com/tenorman1952>
> yahoo.com/tenorman1952
> > 
> > Paul Coats is the sole US importer of SAXRAX products from 
> > http://www.saxrax. <http://www.saxrax.com> com 
> > For SAXRAX products, email Paul at saxraxus@ 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _____ 
> > 
> > Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try
> >
> <http://us.rd.
>
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evtQ733/*http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8
> > yahoo.com/evtQ733/*http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8
> > HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ> it now.
> >
>











  


  
  

                           


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.

Yes, and I believe that to a great extent the changes in overtone composition have to do with reed non-linearity. Obviously you are not changing the geometry, as you do by inserting the spoiler.

Toby

"Paul C." <tenorman1952@...> wrote:                             
As we blow harder the higher partials increase in percentage of the tone.  This is what is really perceived as "louder" or "more projection, the higher partials.
   
  I have sound analysis graphs of the Runyon Custom mouthpiece, same reed, same instrument, same player (me).  Both blown as close to the same as I can do.
   
  One is with the "spoiler" insert, one without.
   
  The graph with the spoiler in the mouthpiece shows a large increase in partials in the 1000 hz - 2000 hz range, right where the ear is most sensitive.  And the sound with the spoiler insert sounds much louder.
   
  But even without the spoiler insert, others have analyzed saxophone tone at various volume levels and it is mostly the strength of the overtones that changes.
   
  Paul

kymarto123@... wrote:
      I'm sorry but I don't agree. The temperature of the air has nothing to do with the content of the partials. In any case the air leaves the player warm no matter what the ambient temperature. The problem with a low ambient temperature is the differential between different parts of the horn,
 which makes intonation a difficult issue, but doesn't really affect the tonal quality in and of itself. 

The difficulty with using only our ears is that tone production is so complex that we are unable to isolate the causative factors of whatever differences we perceive.  "Intellectualizing ad nauseaum", as you call it, is at its best a process of isolating and exploring the various factors that are
 involved (interactively) in the final sound produced, and putting them in their proper perspective in an attempt to better understand "what does what in which situation". By understanding what goes into tone production, we are better able to control it.

Certainly the shape of the oral cavity plays a significant role in tone production--in fact a group led by Joe Wolfe at UNSW has just published a very well received study showing how experienced players use this factor in producing altissimos. It is a critical factor in altissimos.

What we don't seem to be mentioning here is the non-linear response of the reed to changes in blowing pressure. I have a feeling that a lot of what people perceive as "putting more air into the horn" is actually a different reed response in relation to higher blowing  pressure.

Toby

John Delia <bzalto@...> wrote:      I've been reading all of the responses and, pardon me, laughing, because it is hardly a scientific question.  In my opinion, the simplest answer is always best, and Joe Allard answered it best. Warm air and an open throat approximates the proper breath
 support and cold air renders a smaller tone that is less rich in overtones and less pleasant.  All we need do is use our ears rather than intellectualizing ad nauseum.  John Delia


  On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 2:28 AM, Karsten J. Chikuri <chikurk@...> wrote:
            
    LOL!!! :-)
   
  I think the best way to describe the situation is when people discuss tone and projection... A lot of people think that you get projection by forcing more air into the horn, as if the sound goes through the horn and out. Others would say that you get more projection by strengthening the
 production of the standing wave, which resonates out from the horn... meaning that the resonation comes from the standing wave, not by the medium (air in this case).
   
  P.S. - Thanks for being patient with me. Like I said, I haven't the chance to spend  much of any time studying instrument acoustics - and I don't have physics background that would allow me understand much of what is often written in such books. :-)
   

  Sincerely,
                 Karsten J. Chikuri
   

      
---------------------------------
  From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of andrewhdonaldson
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 10:39 PM    
  
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Saxophone acoustics website




    
    
    Well, at least this question is easy! Simply compare the sound your
horn makes when you blow into it and when you don't blow into it ; )

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "Karsten J. Chikuri"
<chikurk@...> wrote:
>
> Thank you for the clarification and explanation. However, what I
often hear
> disagreement with is whether the "air flow" of an instrument has any
> substantial, or  real, effect on the production of the sound. I don't
know
> how to better explain it - maybe I should step back a bit and give my
> question more thought...
> 
> Sincerely,
> Karsten J. Chikuri
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _____ 
> 
> From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of dcb_76
> Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 7:06 PM
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Saxophone acoustics website
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Forgive the approximate language here...I'm painting in broad strokes.
> 
> A standing wave IS a traveling wave, but one which is  reflected
> back-and-forth in such a way that the observable node/antinode
> placement will "stand" still.
> 
> It's much easier to visualize as a vertical displacement of a bit of
> cord (like a guitar string). When you pluck a guitar ctring plum in
> the middle of the two anchored points, two waves DO travel to the nut
> and the bridge simultaneously, and then reflect back to the center. In
> practice it's not this clean, but you can visually observe a
> crescent-like displacement of the string up-and down. This is a
> standing wave AND a composite of traveling waves, because the
> traveling wave speed and the wavelength, given the length of the
> string, are all related. There's a horribly complex bit of math called
> the "wave equation" which explains this, if you have Calc 2 under your
> belt.
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@ <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
> yahoogroups.com, "Karsten J. Chikuri"
> <chikurk@> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for the great email, Mark.
> > 
> > I have one question, though - (this is directed to the group, not just
> > Mark):
> > 
> > I, personally, haven't started working on mouthpieces yet - and my
> knowledge
> > of the acoustics of musical instruments is rudimentary, at best.
> > 
> > However, I've noticed what seems to be conflicting statements in
> regards to
> > the acoustics of the saxophone. Mark mentions "directing the sound
> out" - as
> > if implying that the air or the sound wave is traveling through the
> horn,
> > then out.
> > However, I've also heard  people say that this is not true, that a
> standing
> > wave is generated - it's frequency dependant on the node/anti-node
> created
> > by the fingering combination...
> > 
> > Am I reading these statements wrong? Is there a consensus?
> > 
> > Thanks!
> > 
> > Sincerely,
> > Karsten J. Chikuri
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _____ 
> > 
> > From: MouthpieceWork@ <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
> yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:MouthpieceWork@ <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
> yahoogroups.com]
> > On Behalf Of Paul C.
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 4:14 PM
> > To: MouthpieceWork@ <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
> yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Saxophone acoustics website
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > "How would one know if the baffle's major effect is directing 
> > the sound out or directing the reverberation back at the reed? Just 
> > thought I might further complicate a complex matter."
> > 
> > Our friend Mark is paying attention to details!!!
> > 
> > A GREAT observation, Mark!
> > 
> > Paul
> > 
> > 
> > flemingml2000 <marklfleming@>  wrote:
> > 
> > Fantastic site. I had to mark it as a favorite so that I can return 
> > later. I tried to read it all at once, but my head began to resonate 
> > in a standing semi-harmonic nodal wave and then exploded.
> > 
> > The website explains that the sound wave travels down the instrument 
> > tube, reverberates back, and has some effect on the reed. An 
> > instrument's tube shape, given the same fingering, remains the same. 
> > The mp can be adjusted on the neck to effect tone. The shape and 
> > volume of the mp also effects sound characteristics. But the mp 
> > design, say of a baffle in the mp, probably doesn't just effect
the air 
> > column in a single direction. It would also effect the reverberation 
> > back towards the reed. So, it's not just "aerodynamics" in one 
> > direction, as with automobile design. It's a two way  street, so to 
> > speak. How would one know if the baffle's major effect is directing 
> > the sound out or directing the reverberation back at the reed? Just 
> > thought I might further complicate a complex matter.
> > 
> > Mark
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Link to Paul's articles from Main page of "Saxgourmet":
> > http://www.saxgourm <http://www.saxgourmet.com> et.com
> > Listen to Paul's MP3's and view saxophone photos at:
> > http://briefcase. <http://briefcase.yahoo.com/tenorman1952>
> yahoo.com/tenorman1952
> > 
> > Paul Coats is the sole US importer of SAXRAX products from 
> > http://www.saxrax. <http://www.saxrax.com> com 
> > For SAXRAX products, email Paul at saxraxus@ 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _____ 
> > 
> > Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try
> >
> <http://us.rd.
>
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evtQ733/*http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8
> > yahoo.com/evtQ733/*http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8
> > HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ> it now.
> >
>











  


  
  





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.
     
                                       
 

I think what Joe was doing is describing an oral cavity shape in terms we
could better understand.  When you blow on your knuckles to heat them up in
the winter it is a different air stream and "embouchure" than when you blow
on them to cool a burn.  I agree that the actual temperature of the air
does not vary enough to be that important.

> I've been reading all of the responses and, pardon me, laughing, because
> it
> is hardly a scientific question.  In my opinion, the simplest answer is
> always best, and Joe Allard answered it best. Warm air and an open throat
> approximates the proper breath support and cold air renders a smaller
> tone
> that is less rich in overtones and less pleasant.  All we need do is use
> our
> ears rather than intellectualizing ad nauseum.  John Delia
> 



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

[ Attachment content not displayed ]

Intellectualization is essential to understand how and why things 
work the way they do. Research and development and scientific method, 
which is one of the points of interest of this website require 
analysis and techinical understanding. A better future comes from 
well informed theories of how to improve the products and procedures 
of the past.

Back to a point that has been brought up but was not discussed much. 
Which is the the importance of mouthpiece baffle design to reflect 
the standing wave back into the chamber of the mouthpiece instead of 
back into the reed.  If memory serves well, Ernest Ferron addresses 
this matter in his book "The saxophone is my voice" in the mouthpiece 
section that ideally the baffle should reflect the wave back into the 
chamber.  The spoiler that Paul mentions might serve this function.  
So ideally, How important is it that the baffle reflect to the 
chamber? And Why?

-Greg

 
>
> Well, you can intellectualize all you want, but at 66 I will say 
that the
> only thing that has ever helped my playing consistency and progress 
is
> regular and intelligent practice. Amazing things can happen if one 
does so.
> As a younger student, my teachers were always able to play my 
instrument
> with my setup and sounded better than I did.  Back to the woodshed, 
and best
> wishes! John Delia
> 
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 10:16 AM, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...>
> wrote:
> 
> >   I think what Joe was doing is describing an oral cavity shape 
in terms
> > we
> > could better understand. When you blow on your knuckles to heat 
them up in
> > the winter it is a different air stream and "embouchure" than 
when you blow
> > on them to cool a burn. I agree that the actual temperature of 
the air
> > does not vary enough to be that important.
> >
> >
> > > I've been reading all of the responses and, pardon me, 
laughing, because
> > > it
> > > is hardly a scientific question. In my opinion, the simplest 
answer is
> > > always best, and Joe Allard answered it best. Warm air and an 
open throat
> > > approximates the proper breath support and cold air renders a 
smaller
> > > tone
> > > that is less rich in overtones and less pleasant. All we need 
do is use
> > > our
> > > ears rather than intellectualizing ad nauseum. John Delia
> > >
> >
> > __________________________________________________________
> > Be a better friend, newshound, and
> > know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
> > http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
> >  
> >
>

I mentioned the spoiler as an example, only because it is essentially two mouthpieces in one.  The spoiler acts like a long thin baffle that has little or no volume.
   
  But my point was, this was a minimal change to the mouthpiece that resulted in a change of tone, and that change of tone, and its perceived volume was in the increase of strength of overtones in the 1000 hz - 2000 hz range.  I'll post these two graphs in a folder I'll call Runyon Spoiler.
   
  Ferron also touches upon the change in both number and strength of overtones as the player blows pp, p, mf, f, ff, etc.
   
  Paul

Greg Wier <gregwier@...> wrote:
          Intellectualization is essential to understand how and why things 
work the way they do. Research and development and scientific method, 
which is one of the points of interest of this website require 
analysis and techinical understanding. A better future comes from 
well informed theories of how to improve the products and procedures 
of the past.

Back to a point that has been brought up but was not discussed much. 
Which is the the importance of mouthpiece baffle design to reflect 
the standing wave back into the chamber of the mouthpiece instead of 
back into the reed. If memory serves well, Ernest Ferron addresses 
this matter in his book "The saxophone is my voice" in the mouthpiece 
section that ideally the baffle should reflect the wave back into the 
chamber. The spoiler that Paul mentions might serve this function. 
So ideally, How important is it that the baffle reflect to the 
chamber? And Why?

-Greg

>
> Well, you can intellectualize all you want, but at 66 I will say 
that the
> only thing that has ever helped my playing consistency and progress 
is
> regular and intelligent practice. Amazing things can happen if one 
does so.
> As a younger student, my teachers were always able to play my 
instrument
> with my setup and sounded better than I did. Back to the woodshed, 
and best
> wishes! John Delia
> 
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 10:16 AM, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...>
> wrote:
> 
> > I think what Joe was doing is describing an oral cavity shape 
in terms
> > we
> > could better understand. When you blow on your knuckles to heat 
them up in
> > the winter it is a different air stream and "embouchure" than 
when you blow
> > on them to cool a burn. I agree that the actual temperature of 
the air
> > does not vary enough to be that important.
> >
> >
> > > I've been reading all of the responses and, pardon me, 
laughing, because
> > > it
> > > is hardly a scientific question. In my opinion, the simplest 
answer is
> > > always best, and Joe Allard answered it best. Warm air and an 
open throat
> > > approximates the proper breath support and cold air renders a 
smaller
> > > tone
> > > that is less rich in overtones and less pleasant. All we need 
do is use
> > > our
> > > ears rather than intellectualizing ad nauseum. John Delia
> > >
> >
> > __________________________________________________________
> > 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.

I have just created a file in the File section, Runyon Spoiler.
   
  Notice the two pdf files of the Prestini tenor, Runyon Custom, with and without spoiler.  Look at the drastic change in overtones.
   
  Paul

Greg Wier <gregwier@...> wrote:
          Intellectualization is essential to understand how and why things 
work the way they do. Research and development and scientific method, 
which is one of the points of interest of this website require 
analysis and techinical understanding. A better future comes from 
well informed theories of how to improve the products and procedures 
of the past.

Back to a point that has been brought up but was not discussed much. 
Which is the the importance of mouthpiece baffle design to reflect 
the standing wave back into the chamber of the mouthpiece instead of 
back into the reed. If memory serves well, Ernest Ferron addresses 
this matter in his book "The saxophone is my voice" in the mouthpiece 
section that ideally the baffle should reflect the wave back into the 
chamber. The spoiler that Paul mentions might serve this function. 
So ideally, How important is it that the baffle reflect to the 
chamber? And Why?

-Greg

>
> Well, you can intellectualize all you want, but at 66 I will say 
that the
> only thing that has ever helped my playing consistency and progress 
is
> regular and intelligent practice. Amazing things can happen if one 
does so.
> As a younger student, my teachers were always able to play my 
instrument
> with my setup and sounded better than I did. Back to the woodshed, 
and best
> wishes! John Delia
> 
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 10:16 AM, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...>
> wrote:
> 
> > I think what Joe was doing is describing an oral cavity shape 
in terms
> > we
> > could better understand. When you blow on your knuckles to heat 
them up in
> > the winter it is a different air stream and "embouchure" than 
when you blow
> > on them to cool a burn. I agree that the actual temperature of 
the air
> > does not vary enough to be that important.
> >
> >
> > > I've been reading all of the responses and, pardon me, 
laughing, because
> > > it
> > > is hardly a scientific question. In my opinion, the simplest 
answer is
> > > always best, and Joe Allard answered it best. Warm air and an 
open throat
> > > approximates the proper breath support and cold air renders a 
smaller
> > > tone
> > > that is less rich in overtones and less pleasant. All we need 
do is use
> > > our
> > > ears rather than intellectualizing ad nauseum. John Delia
> > >
> >
> > __________________________________________________________
> > 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.

>  ...If memory serves well, Ernest Ferron addresses 
> this matter in his book "The saxophone is my voice" in the mouthpiece 
> section that ideally the baffle should reflect the wave back into the 
> chamber.  The spoiler that Paul mentions might serve this function.  
> So ideally, How important is it that the baffle reflect to the 
> chamber? And Why?
> 
> -Greg

I think the mouthpiece diagrams Ferron has in his book offer some good
insights not found in other references.  I think they illustrate how the
path of the standing waves are bounced off the mouthpiece interior geometry
and the reed.  There are actually many more 3D paths going on
simultaneously that would be too complex to show.

I think if the paths make their way into the neck with fewer bounces, the
tone is clearer with fewer upper partials that are not harmonics of the
fundamental (less "noise" or edge).  I'm not saying this is how it should
be.  It is just an observation that might help with mouthpiece
understanding and design.

I recently worked on a Yanagisawa metal tenor mouthpiece.  It had a large
blunt "wall" at the base of the window "U".  I usually undercut the wall
away but before I did I decided to play test it before and after.  I had
been a while since I checked what this change does.  It was very
significant and yielded a more projecting sound with less effort.  One of
Ferron's diagrams shows where this wall reflects a portion of the wave back
towards the reed tip (where it must reflect some more before finding its
way down the sax).  By undercutting this wall, more of the sound wave makes
it down the sax on the first pass.  I think this is an example of how the
process understanding can guide changes and explain the effects of the
changes.  It is no substitute for playing experience and practice.  But it
can enrich the mouthpiece design process beyond what trial and error can do.


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

The portion of the mouthpiece_which is the ramp between the baffle and 
the chamber has always intriuged me. My handmade Guardala has an even 
concave curve in this part and has more projection and is easier to 
project than any piece with a relatively large chamber that I have ever 
tried. Could this ramp design be why?
cheers
Ross 
McIntyre________________________________________________________________
___________________
> Be a better friend, newshound, and 
> know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.  
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
>

[ Attachment content not displayed ]

I think that the transition between the baffle and chamber certainly affects the way the mpc plays, but there are actually many, many factors in "play", of which that is only one. The concavity in and of itself is not of great importance, I think: more important would be the geometry of the baffle
 up to that break and the size and geometry of the chamber after it. Balance between those, I believe, is the key.

Toby

Ross McIntyre <mk6sax@...> wrote:                             The portion of the mouthpiece_which is the ramp between the baffle and 
 the chamber has always intriuged me. My handmade Guardala has an even 
 concave curve in this part and has more projection and is easier to 
 project than any piece with a relatively large chamber that I have ever 
 tried. Could this ramp design be why?
 cheers
 Ross 
 McIntyre__________________________________________________________
 ___________________
 > Be a better friend, newshound, and 
 > know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.  
 http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
 >
 
 
     
                                       
 

Very few mouthpieces are made this way.  That is, if I understand 
you, the tip of the reed is along the centerline of the shank bore.

Larry Wyman indicated in his alto mouthpieces testing paper that this 
might be a desirable feature in a mouthpiece.  But he did not offer a 
reason why this may be.

A Brilhart Level Air (the original design) has this feature.  But the 
high baffle in its design dominates its sound.

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "John Delia" <bzalto@...> 
wrote:
>
> I'm not against intellectualizing different aspects of the 
acoustics of the
> saxophone mouthpiece, but I believe in balance.  Too much thinking 
without
> doing can hamper one's progress.  Has anyone ever tried reshaping a
> mouthpiece by cutting it in two at a point just below the window 
and then
> filing down one side of the new bottom of the top piece in order to 
angle
> the reed and baffle with reference to the air column in a straight 
line,
> like an oboe or bassoon reed.  This was one of my first experiments 
back in
> 1980.  I used an old Goldbeck and put a new facing as well.  My 
idea was to
> reduce the resistance by rendering the air column perfectly 
straight.  It
> worked very well and I still have it and occasionally use it even 
though it
> looks very weird.  John
> 

"Too much thinking without
doing"

But as long as we're doing, there's nothing wrong with thinking, 
right?.  And if the thinking and hard nuimbers don't support what we 
believe happens when doing, are we being misled by too much thinking?

Here's my concern.  There was a thread started on a bass clarinet 
board by somebody who wanted to get the neck on their bass gold-
plated.  A large number of people responded with their experiences in 
doing the same and about the effect of having the neck made of a 
certain material, or plated with a certain material, or plating the 
bell instead of the neck, etc.  Using their ears, they detected 
subtle and not so subtle differences in tone, ease of playing, etc.  

The acoustics web site mentioned above debunks this.  It seems that 
the tone they thought they heard from "doing" wasn't supported by any 
thinking or hard numbers.

Here was my response.  

"Any plating shop should be able to help. A couple things to keep in
mind. First, they'll probably want to know the composition of the
base metal. The horn's manufacturer should be able to help. You may
have to remove any existing plating. Second, you probably won't get or
want "pure gold". What is called gold plating can be a witch's brew
of metals that look and perform (visually) like gold. It's possible
that it wouldn't even include real gold. Finally, the preparation
will likely cost you more than the actual plating even if real gold.
Unless there are zero imperfections, or you pay for many layers of
plating, everything has to be buffed out perfect before it goes in the
tank.

Now, to the issue. Does 10k gold plating play like 24K gold? You
don't want 24K because of wear issues. So real gold is going to be
alloyed with copper, zinc, nickel, aluminum, thorium, silver, tin,
etc., depending on the look and the base material. Does an 18k 
aluminum/zinc alloy (called black gold) sound richer than an 18K
silver alloy (called green gold)? Does 14K yellow gold (29% copper)
sound "tinnier" than an 18K alloy that actually contains tin?

I don't know, but here's my suggestion. Use that money to buy a nice
big 22k gold ring. You may even save enough money for big emerald or
ruby in it. Something that can catch the light like a gold neck on a 
bass 
clarinet.  You'll feel, look, and play better. Buy a ring for your 
finger if
you're in the symphony, for your ear if you play jazz, and for your
eyebrow if you play the street."

My response ended the thread.  I admit there was a little smart ass 
in it, but apparently nobody had a response despite the earlier 
claims that the person would benefit in various ways by gold-plating 
the neck. It seems that the tone they heard from "doing" wasn't 
supported by any thinking.  The doing had "bling appeal" and that 
interfered with their thinking, even though they probably would 
disagree.  When "too much" thinking conflicts with doing, I'll go 
with the thinking.

Mark Fleming


--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "John Delia" <bzalto@...> 
wrote:
>
> I'm not against intellectualizing different aspects of the 
acoustics of the
> saxophone mouthpiece, but I believe in balance.  Too much thinking 
without
> doing can hamper one's progress.  Has anyone ever tried reshaping a
> mouthpiece by cutting it in two at a point just below the window 
and then
> filing down one side of the new bottom of the top piece in order to 
angle
> the reed and baffle with reference to the air column in a straight 
line,
> like an oboe or bassoon reed.  This was one of my first experiments 
back in
> 1980.  I used an old Goldbeck and put a new facing as well.  My 
idea was to
> reduce the resistance by rendering the air column perfectly 
straight.  It
> worked very well and I still have it and occasionally use it even 
though it
> looks very weird.  John
> 
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 1:04 PM, Greg Wier <gregwier@...> wrote:
> 
> >   Intellectualization is essential to understand how and why 
things
> > work the way they do. Research and development and scientific 
method,
> > which is one of the points of interest of this website require
> > analysis and techinical understanding. A better future comes from
> > well informed theories of how to improve the products and 
procedures
> > of the past.
> >
> > Back to a point that has been brought up but was not discussed 
much.
> > Which is the the importance of mouthpiece baffle design to reflect
> > the standing wave back into the chamber of the mouthpiece instead 
of
> > back into the reed. If memory serves well, Ernest Ferron addresses
> > this matter in his book "The saxophone is my voice" in the 
mouthpiece
> > section that ideally the baffle should reflect the wave back into 
the
> > chamber. The spoiler that Paul mentions might serve this function.
> > So ideally, How important is it that the baffle reflect to the
> > chamber? And Why?
> >
> > -Greg
> >
> > >
> > > Well, you can intellectualize all you want, but at 66 I will say
> > that the
> > > only thing that has ever helped my playing consistency and 
progress
> > is
> > > regular and intelligent practice. Amazing things can happen if 
one
> > does so.
> > > As a younger student, my teachers were always able to play my
> > instrument
> > > with my setup and sounded better than I did. Back to the 
woodshed,
> > and best
> > > wishes! John Delia
> > >
> > > On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 10:16 AM, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I think what Joe was doing is describing an oral cavity shape
> > in terms
> > > > we
> > > > could better understand. When you blow on your knuckles to 
heat
> > them up in
> > > > the winter it is a different air stream and "embouchure" than
> > when you blow
> > > > on them to cool a burn. I agree that the actual temperature of
> > the air
> > > > does not vary enough to be that important.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > I've been reading all of the responses and, pardon me,
> > laughing, because
> > > > > it
> > > > > is hardly a scientific question. In my opinion, the simplest
> > answer is
> > > > > always best, and Joe Allard answered it best. Warm air and 
an
> > open throat
> > > > > approximates the proper breath support and cold air renders 
a
> > smaller
> > > > > tone
> > > > > that is less rich in overtones and less pleasant. All we 
need
> > do is use
> > > > > our
> > > > > ears rather than intellectualizing ad nauseum. John Delia
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > __________________________________________________________
> > > > Be a better friend, newshound, and
> > > > know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
> > > > http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >  
> >
>

Great point, Mark. One thing that has always frustrated me is
musicians who seem to be hearing things that aren't there.

Finally, in response to projection, and how it relates to the original
subject:

The art/intuitive part:

Projection is a bit more than just increased volume. One of the most
common problems young players have is developing a "characteristic"
sound. I can't quantify this, but you probably know what I mean. Often
times it comes from lack of muscle control, breath support, whatever.
IT's why young clarinetists and saxophone players sound "fuzzy" even
on a soft reed. It's why beginning flute players get dizzy--to make a
sound they need to use HUGE amounts of air.

I would guess that most people on this thread agree that a skilled
player can increase projection to some extent without substantially
changing their tonal quality (i.e. mellow at multiple volumes, bright
even when playing at a low volume), and this is dependent on their
personal sound.

I have found it useful to think of my own personal sound development
as a process of improving my ability to PROJECT my own sound by
increasing the RESONANCE of the overal sound production mechanism
through long tone practice, reed and mouthpiece selection, listening,
and experimentation.

The science part:

Greater resonance of a vibrating system at a given frequency means the
energy output of the wave produced will be higher given the same input
energy. You could define a mathematical model of energy returned based
on energy input.

Example: Saxophone mutes are specifically designed to reduce overall
resonance of the instrument by dampening vibrations in the bell. The
overall energy of the output sound waves is less with the mute in
place. This can be called lower resonance. Same thing with violin
mutes, or the little foam things tennis players put between their
strings to reduce vibration. Everything has a resonant frequency. Soft
tissue, inconsistent air pressure, poorly formed embouchure, leaky
pads, a warped mouthpiece
table can all act as mutes, or "attenuators" at frequency ranges.

Now, by combining the intellectual approach of identifying thing that
help resonance, such as an accurate radial curve on the mouthpiece,
with constant practice (which trains the muscles to improve tonal
quality through aural feedback), we can maximize resonance and projection.

At the end of this process you should find you can get MORE sound with
LESS air, and thus, you have projection.

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "flemingml2000"
<marklfleming@...> wrote:
>
> "Too much thinking without
> doing"
> 
> But as long as we're doing, there's nothing wrong with thinking, 
> right?.  And if the thinking and hard nuimbers don't support what we 
> believe happens when doing, are we being misled by too much thinking?
> 
> Here's my concern.  There was a thread started on a bass clarinet 
> board by somebody who wanted to get the neck on their bass gold-
> plated.  A large number of people responded with their experiences in 
> doing the same and about the effect of having the neck made of a 
> certain material, or plated with a certain material, or plating the 
> bell instead of the neck, etc.  Using their ears, they detected 
> subtle and not so subtle differences in tone, ease of playing, etc.  
> 
> The acoustics web site mentioned above debunks this.  It seems that 
> the tone they thought they heard from "doing" wasn't supported by any 
> thinking or hard numbers.
> 
> Here was my response.  
> 
> "Any plating shop should be able to help. A couple things to keep in
> mind. First, they'll probably want to know the composition of the
> base metal. The horn's manufacturer should be able to help. You may
> have to remove any existing plating. Second, you probably won't get or
> want "pure gold". What is called gold plating can be a witch's brew
> of metals that look and perform (visually) like gold. It's possible
> that it wouldn't even include real gold. Finally, the preparation
> will likely cost you more than the actual plating even if real gold.
> Unless there are zero imperfections, or you pay for many layers of
> plating, everything has to be buffed out perfect before it goes in the
> tank.
> 
> Now, to the issue. Does 10k gold plating play like 24K gold? You
> don't want 24K because of wear issues. So real gold is going to be
> alloyed with copper, zinc, nickel, aluminum, thorium, silver, tin,
> etc., depending on the look and the base material. Does an 18k 
> aluminum/zinc alloy (called black gold) sound richer than an 18K
> silver alloy (called green gold)? Does 14K yellow gold (29% copper)
> sound "tinnier" than an 18K alloy that actually contains tin?
> 
> I don't know, but here's my suggestion. Use that money to buy a nice
> big 22k gold ring. You may even save enough money for big emerald or
> ruby in it. Something that can catch the light like a gold neck on a 
> bass 
> clarinet.  You'll feel, look, and play better. Buy a ring for your 
> finger if
> you're in the symphony, for your ear if you play jazz, and for your
> eyebrow if you play the street."
> 
> My response ended the thread.  I admit there was a little smart ass 
> in it, but apparently nobody had a response despite the earlier 
> claims that the person would benefit in various ways by gold-plating 
> the neck. It seems that the tone they heard from "doing" wasn't 
> supported by any thinking.  The doing had "bling appeal" and that 
> interfered with their thinking, even though they probably would 
> disagree.  When "too much" thinking conflicts with doing, I'll go 
> with the thinking.
> 
> Mark Fleming
> 
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "John Delia" <bzalto@> 
> wrote:
> >
> > I'm not against intellectualizing different aspects of the 
> acoustics of the
> > saxophone mouthpiece, but I believe in balance.  Too much thinking 
> without
> > doing can hamper one's progress.  Has anyone ever tried reshaping a
> > mouthpiece by cutting it in two at a point just below the window 
> and then
> > filing down one side of the new bottom of the top piece in order to 
> angle
> > the reed and baffle with reference to the air column in a straight 
> line,
> > like an oboe or bassoon reed.  This was one of my first experiments 
> back in
> > 1980.  I used an old Goldbeck and put a new facing as well.  My 
> idea was to
> > reduce the resistance by rendering the air column perfectly 
> straight.  It
> > worked very well and I still have it and occasionally use it even 
> though it
> > looks very weird.  John
> > 
> > On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 1:04 PM, Greg Wier <gregwier@> wrote:
> > 
> > >   Intellectualization is essential to understand how and why 
> things
> > > work the way they do. Research and development and scientific 
> method,
> > > which is one of the points of interest of this website require
> > > analysis and techinical understanding. A better future comes from
> > > well informed theories of how to improve the products and 
> procedures
> > > of the past.
> > >
> > > Back to a point that has been brought up but was not discussed 
> much.
> > > Which is the the importance of mouthpiece baffle design to reflect
> > > the standing wave back into the chamber of the mouthpiece instead 
> of
> > > back into the reed. If memory serves well, Ernest Ferron addresses
> > > this matter in his book "The saxophone is my voice" in the 
> mouthpiece
> > > section that ideally the baffle should reflect the wave back into 
> the
> > > chamber. The spoiler that Paul mentions might serve this function.
> > > So ideally, How important is it that the baffle reflect to the
> > > chamber? And Why?
> > >
> > > -Greg
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Well, you can intellectualize all you want, but at 66 I will say
> > > that the
> > > > only thing that has ever helped my playing consistency and 
> progress
> > > is
> > > > regular and intelligent practice. Amazing things can happen if 
> one
> > > does so.
> > > > As a younger student, my teachers were always able to play my
> > > instrument
> > > > with my setup and sounded better than I did. Back to the 
> woodshed,
> > > and best
> > > > wishes! John Delia
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 10:16 AM, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I think what Joe was doing is describing an oral cavity shape
> > > in terms
> > > > > we
> > > > > could better understand. When you blow on your knuckles to 
> heat
> > > them up in
> > > > > the winter it is a different air stream and "embouchure" than
> > > when you blow
> > > > > on them to cool a burn. I agree that the actual temperature of
> > > the air
> > > > > does not vary enough to be that important.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > I've been reading all of the responses and, pardon me,
> > > laughing, because
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > is hardly a scientific question. In my opinion, the simplest
> > > answer is
> > > > > > always best, and Joe Allard answered it best. Warm air and 
> an
> > > open throat
> > > > > > approximates the proper breath support and cold air renders 
> a
> > > smaller
> > > > > > tone
> > > > > > that is less rich in overtones and less pleasant. All we 
> need
> > > do is use
> > > > > > our
> > > > > > ears rather than intellectualizing ad nauseum. John Delia
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > __________________________________________________________
> > > > > Be a better friend, newshound, and
> > > > > know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
> > > > > http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> >
>

FANTASTIC post!!!!  A little sanity injected into the world of fantasy believers and Holy Grail seekers.  :-)

flemingml2000 <marklfleming@...> wrote:  "Too much thinking without
doing"

But as long as we're doing, there's nothing wrong with thinking, 
right?. And if the thinking and hard nuimbers don't support what we 
believe happens when doing, are we being misled by too much thinking?

Here's my concern. There was a thread started on a bass clarinet 
board by somebody who wanted to get the neck on their bass gold-
plated. A large number of people responded with their experiences in 
doing the same and about the effect of having the neck made of a 
certain material, or plated with a certain material, or plating the 
bell instead of the neck, etc. Using their ears, they detected 
subtle and not so subtle differences in tone, ease of playing, etc. 

The acoustics web site mentioned above debunks this. It seems that 
the tone they thought they heard from "doing" wasn't supported by any 
thinking or hard numbers.

Here was my response. 

"Any plating shop should be able to help. A couple things to keep in
mind. First, they'll probably want to know the composition of the
base metal. The horn's manufacturer should be able to help. You may
have to remove any existing plating. Second, you probably won't get or
want "pure gold". What is called gold plating can be a witch's brew
of metals that look and perform (visually) like gold. It's possible
that it wouldn't even include real gold. Finally, the preparation
will likely cost you more than the actual plating even if real gold.
Unless there are zero imperfections, or you pay for many layers of
plating, everything has to be buffed out perfect before it goes in the
tank.

Now, to the issue. Does 10k gold plating play like 24K gold? You
don't want 24K because of wear issues. So real gold is going to be
alloyed with copper, zinc, nickel, aluminum, thorium, silver, tin,
etc., depending on the look and the base material. Does an 18k 
aluminum/zinc alloy (called black gold) sound richer than an 18K
silver alloy (called green gold)? Does 14K yellow gold (29% copper)
sound "tinnier" than an 18K alloy that actually contains tin?

I don't know, but here's my suggestion. Use that money to buy a nice
big 22k gold ring. You may even save enough money for big emerald or
ruby in it. Something that can catch the light like a gold neck on a 
bass 
clarinet. You'll feel, look, and play better. Buy a ring for your 
finger if
you're in the symphony, for your ear if you play jazz, and for your
eyebrow if you play the street."

My response ended the thread. I admit there was a little smart ass 
in it, but apparently nobody had a response despite the earlier 
claims that the person would benefit in various ways by gold-plating 
the neck. It seems that the tone they heard from "doing" wasn't 
supported by any thinking. The doing had "bling appeal" and that 
interfered with their thinking, even though they probably would 
disagree. When "too much" thinking conflicts with doing, I'll go 
with the thinking.

Mark Fleming


--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "John Delia" 
wrote:
>
> I'm not against intellectualizing different aspects of the 
acoustics of the
> saxophone mouthpiece, but I believe in balance. Too much thinking 
without
> doing can hamper one's progress. Has anyone ever tried reshaping a
> mouthpiece by cutting it in two at a point just below the window 
and then
> filing down one side of the new bottom of the top piece in order to 
angle
> the reed and baffle with reference to the air column in a straight 
line,
> like an oboe or bassoon reed. This was one of my first experiments 
back in
> 1980. I used an old Goldbeck and put a new facing as well. My 
idea was to
> reduce the resistance by rendering the air column perfectly 
straight. It
> worked very well and I still have it and occasionally use it even 
though it
> looks very weird. John
> 
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 1:04 PM, Greg Wier wrote:
> 
> > Intellectualization is essential to understand how and why 
things
> > work the way they do. Research and development and scientific 
method,
> > which is one of the points of interest of this website require
> > analysis and techinical understanding. A better future comes from
> > well informed theories of how to improve the products and 
procedures
> > of the past.
> >
> > Back to a point that has been brought up but was not discussed 
much.
> > Which is the the importance of mouthpiece baffle design to reflect
> > the standing wave back into the chamber of the mouthpiece instead 
of
> > back into the reed. If memory serves well, Ernest Ferron addresses
> > this matter in his book "The saxophone is my voice" in the 
mouthpiece
> > section that ideally the baffle should reflect the wave back into 
the
> > chamber. The spoiler that Paul mentions might serve this function.
> > So ideally, How important is it that the baffle reflect to the
> > chamber? And Why?
> >
> > -Greg
> >
> > >
> > > Well, you can intellectualize all you want, but at 66 I will say
> > that the
> > > only thing that has ever helped my playing consistency and 
progress
> > is
> > > regular and intelligent practice. Amazing things can happen if 
one
> > does so.
> > > As a younger student, my teachers were always able to play my
> > instrument
> > > with my setup and sounded better than I did. Back to the 
woodshed,
> > and best
> > > wishes! John Delia
> > >
> > > On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 10:16 AM, Keith Bradbury 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I think what Joe was doing is describing an oral cavity shape
> > in terms
> > > > we
> > > > could better understand. When you blow on your knuckles to 
heat
> > them up in
> > > > the winter it is a different air stream and "embouchure" than
> > when you blow
> > > > on them to cool a burn. I agree that the actual temperature of
> > the air
> > > > does not vary enough to be that important.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > I've been reading all of the responses and, pardon me,
> > laughing, because
> > > > > it
> > > > > is hardly a scientific question. In my opinion, the simplest
> > answer is
> > > > > always best, and Joe Allard answered it best. Warm air and 
an
> > open throat
> > > > > approximates the proper breath support and cold air renders 
a
> > smaller
> > > > > tone
> > > > > that is less rich in overtones and less pleasant. All we 
need
> > do is use
> > > > > our
> > > > > ears rather than intellectualizing ad nauseum. John Delia
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > __________________________________________________________
> > > > Be a better friend, newshound, and
> > > > know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
> > > > http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > 
> >
>



------------------------------------

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/mygroupsYahoo! Groups Links






Bill Hausmann

If you have to mic a saxophone, the rest of the band is TOO LOUD!
       
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.

[ Attachment content not displayed ]

In searching for an answer before posting I came across some discussions concerning undercutting a blunt floor at the base of the U -- take Guardalas as an example, which are undercut significantly.  Has any one experimented with under cutting the floors of Vandoren Javas or V5s? if so, what results. 

tia

mike 


--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:
>
> >  ...If memory serves well, Ernest Ferron addresses 
> > this matter in his book "The saxophone is my voice" in the mouthpiece 
> > section that ideally the baffle should reflect the wave back into the 
> > chamber.  The spoiler that Paul mentions might serve this function.  
> > So ideally, How important is it that the baffle reflect to the 
> > chamber? And Why?
> > 
> > -Greg
> 
> I think the mouthpiece diagrams Ferron has in his book offer some good
> insights not found in other references.  I think they illustrate how the
> path of the standing waves are bounced off the mouthpiece interior geometry
> and the reed.  There are actually many more 3D paths going on
> simultaneously that would be too complex to show.
> 
> I think if the paths make their way into the neck with fewer bounces, the
> tone is clearer with fewer upper partials that are not harmonics of the
> fundamental (less "noise" or edge).  I'm not saying this is how it should
> be.  It is just an observation that might help with mouthpiece
> understanding and design.
> 
> I recently worked on a Yanagisawa metal tenor mouthpiece.  It had a large
> blunt "wall" at the base of the window "U".  I usually undercut the wall
> away but before I did I decided to play test it before and after.  I had
> been a while since I checked what this change does.  It was very
> significant and yielded a more projecting sound with less effort.  One of
> Ferron's diagrams shows where this wall reflects a portion of the wave back
> towards the reed tip (where it must reflect some more before finding its
> way down the sax).  By undercutting this wall, more of the sound wave makes
> it down the sax on the first pass.  I think this is an example of how the
> process understanding can guide changes and explain the effects of the
> changes.  It is no substitute for playing experience and practice.  But it
> can enrich the mouthpiece design process beyond what trial and error can do.
> 
> 
>       ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Be a better friend, newshound, and 
> know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.  http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
>

I do this as a routine part of a refacing job on all mouthpieces.  I do not do many classical mouthpiece.  That is the case where I might be concerned with altering the resistance without discussing this with the client.

I had a metal Yana tenor MP last year that had a nice facing on it.  The only change I made was to undercut this area leading in to one side of the square-ish throat.  The change was stunning in this case.  Much more free-blowing and resonant.  According to Ferron, sound can refect off the "wall" at the base of the window U.  He has diagrams showing this effect.   The sound eventually makes its way down the sax but it is better if a portion does not reflect back to the tip before finding its way. 



________________________________
From: mdc5220 <chedoggy@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, November 14, 2009 1:26:02 PM
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Saxophone acoustics website

  

In searching for an answer before posting I came across some discussions concerning undercutting a blunt floor at the base of the U -- take Guardalas as an example, which are undercut significantly. Has any one experimented with under cutting the floors of Vandoren Javas or V5s? if so, what results. 

tia

mike 

--- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@ ...> wrote:
>
> > ...If memory serves well, Ernest Ferron addresses 
> > this matter in his book "The saxophone is my voice" in the mouthpiece 
> > section that ideally the baffle should reflect the wave back into the 
> > chamber. The spoiler that Paul mentions might serve this function. 
> > So ideally, How important is it that the baffle reflect to the 
> > chamber? And Why?
> > 
> > -Greg
> 
> I think the mouthpiece diagrams Ferron has in his book offer some good
> insights not found in other references. I think they illustrate how the
> path of the standing waves are bounced off the mouthpiece interior geometry
> and the reed. There are actually many more 3D paths going on
> simultaneously that would be too complex to show.
> 
> I think if the paths make their way into the neck with fewer bounces, the
> tone is clearer with fewer upper partials that are not harmonics of the
> fundamental (less "noise" or edge). I'm not saying this is how it should
> be. It is just an observation that might help with mouthpiece
> understanding and design.
> 
> I recently worked on a Yanagisawa metal tenor mouthpiece. It had a large
> blunt "wall" at the base of the window "U". I usually undercut the wall
> away but before I did I decided to play test it before and after. I had
> been a while since I checked what this change does. It was very
> significant and yielded a more projecting sound with less effort. One of
> Ferron's diagrams shows where this wall reflects a portion of the wave back
> towards the reed tip (where it must reflect some more before finding its
> way down the sax). By undercutting this wall, more of the sound wave makes
> it down the sax on the first pass. I think this is an example of how the
> process understanding can guide changes and explain the effects of the
> changes. It is no substitute for playing experience and practice. But it
> can enrich the mouthpiece design process beyond what trial and error can do.
> 
> 
> ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
> Be a better friend, newshound, and 
> know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile. yahoo.com/ ;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR 8HDtDypao8Wcj9tA cJ
>





      

I experimented to some extent with altering the "U" or Ramp area on various mouthpieces, to the extent of even filling in the curved "U" window completely, with an abrupt wall the same thickness as the table.  Here's a summary of my findings:

1. any sharp, exposed edges cause turbulence and resistance.

2. If the table wall is thick (HR mouthpiece with small chamber for example), then excessive rounding or angling of the ramp wall will dramatically reduce resistance but will also cause the intonation and feel of tonal character of the mouthpiece to become uncentered.  It's better to just slightly round any sharp edge at the ramp wall/throat junction

3 If the table wall is thin (STM Link for example) then angling of the ramp has mostly beneficial results.






________________________________
From: Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, November 14, 2009 3:24:34 PM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Undercutting the Base of the window "U"

  
I do this as a routine part of a refacing job on all mouthpieces.  I do not do many classical mouthpiece.  That is the case where I might be concerned with altering the resistance without discussing this with the client.
 
I had a metal Yana tenor MP last year that had a nice facing on it.  The only change I made was to undercut this area leading in to one side of the square-ish throat.  The change was stunning in this case.  Much more free-blowing and resonant.  According to Ferron, sound can refect off the "wall" at the base of the window U.  He has diagrams showing this effect.   The sound eventually makes its way down the sax but it is better if a portion does not reflect back to the tip before finding its way. 



________________________________
 From: mdc5220 <chedoggy@earthlink. net>
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Sat, November 14, 2009 1:26:02 PM
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Saxophone acoustics website

  

In searching for an answer before posting I came across some discussions concerning undercutting a blunt floor at the base of the U -- take Guardalas as an example, which are undercut significantly. Has any one experimented with under cutting the floors of Vandoren Javas or V5s? if so, what results. 

tia

mike 

--- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@ ...> wrote:
>
> > ...If memory serves well, Ernest Ferron addresses 
> > this matter in his book "The saxophone is my voice" in the mouthpiece 
> > section that ideally the baffle should reflect the wave back into the 
> > chamber. The spoiler that Paul mentions might serve this function. 
> > So ideally, How important is it that the baffle reflect to the 
> > chamber? And Why?
> > 
> > -Greg
> 
> I think the mouthpiece diagrams Ferron has in his book offer some good
> insights not found in other references. I think they illustrate how the
> path of the standing waves are bounced off the mouthpiece interior geometry
> and the reed. There are actually many more 3D paths going on
> simultaneously that would be too complex to show.
> 
> I think if the paths make their way into the neck with fewer bounces, the
> tone is clearer with fewer upper partials that are not harmonics of the
> fundamental (less "noise" or edge). I'm not saying this is how it should
> be. It is just an observation that might help with mouthpiece
> understanding and design.
> 
> I recently worked on a Yanagisawa metal tenor mouthpiece. It had a large
> blunt "wall" at the base of the window "U". I usually undercut the wall
> away but before I did I decided to play test it before and after. I had
> been a while since I checked what this change does. It was very
> significant and yielded a more projecting sound with less effort. One of
> Ferron's diagrams shows where this wall reflects a portion of the wave back
> towards the reed tip (where it must reflect some more before finding its
> way down the sax). By undercutting this wall, more of the sound wave makes
> it down the sax on the first pass. I think this is an example of how the
> process understanding can guide changes and explain the effects of the
> changes. It is no substitute for playing experience and practice. But it
> can enrich the mouthpiece design process beyond what trial and error can do.
> 
> 
> ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
> Be a better friend, newshound, and 
> know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile. yahoo.com/ ;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR 8HDtDypao8Wcj9tA cJ
>



 


      

In terms of freeing up the blowing--another area to consider in some mpc designs is the point where the chamber turns into the throat. If you have a look up the throat towards the tip you might see a sharply cut wall at that point on both sides. In my limited experiments, I found that rounding (or
 completely removing) that edge made the mpc considerably more free-blowing. 

This was marked with a Runyon Jaguar alto mpc which I quite liked, but which I found very resistant. I was hesitant to do a lot of alteration inside, since I quite liked the way it played, but when I found that the internal volume was too small to tune correctly at AD0, I took my Dremel in hand
 for some drastic action. I took down the side walls just at the beginning of the throat so that there was a smooth transition. Not only did this help my tuning problem, but I found that it reduced mpc resistance considerably. It made the sound a bit "mellower" (I think), but not overly so, and
 luckily it did not change the ease of altissimos, which I found to be a fortunate characteristic of this particular mpc.

I'm thinking that this might also be an interesting mod for clarinet mpcs, which seem to all have a sharp edge at this point. I have an old one that I will experiment on when I have time.

Has anyone else done this mod? What were the results?

Toby

MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:                                           
I experimented to some extent with altering the "U" or Ramp area on various mouthpieces, to the extent of even filling in the curved "U" window completely, with an abrupt wall the same thickness as the table.  Here's a summary of my findings:

1. any sharp, exposed edges cause turbulence and resistance.

2. If the table wall is thick (HR mouthpiece with small chamber for example), then excessive rounding or angling of the ramp wall will dramatically reduce resistance but will also cause the intonation and feel of tonal character of the mouthpiece to become uncentered.  It's better to just slightly
 round any sharp edge at the ramp wall/throat junction

3 If the table wall is thin (STM Link for example) then angling of the ramp has mostly beneficial  results.





---------------------------------
From: Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, November 14, 2009 3:24:34 PM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Undercutting the Base of the window "U"

                                      

 I do this as a routine part of a refacing job on all mouthpieces.  I do not do many classical mouthpiece.  That is the case where I might be concerned with altering the resistance without discussing this with the client.
  
 I had a metal Yana tenor MP last year that had a nice facing on it.  The only change I made was to undercut this area leading in to one side of the square-ish throat.  The change was stunning in this case.  Much more free-blowing and resonant.  According to Ferron, sound can refect off the "wall"
 at the base of the window U.  He has diagrams showing this effect.   The sound eventually makes its way down the sax but it is better if a portion does not reflect back to the tip before finding its way. 
 
  
---------------------------------
 From: mdc5220 <chedoggy@earthlink. net>
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Sat, November 14, 2009 1:26:02 PM
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Saxophone acoustics website

    
In searching for an answer before posting I came across some discussions concerning undercutting a blunt floor at the base of the U -- take Guardalas as an example, which are undercut significantly. Has any one experimented with under cutting the floors of Vandoren Javas or V5s? if so, what
 results. 

tia

mike 

--- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@ ...> wrote:
>
> > ...If memory serves well, Ernest Ferron addresses 
> > this matter in his book "The saxophone is my voice" in the mouthpiece 
> > section that ideally the baffle should reflect the wave back into the 
> > chamber. The spoiler that Paul mentions might serve this function. 
> > So ideally, How important is it that the baffle reflect to the 
>  >  chamber? And Why?
> > 
> > -Greg
> 
> I think the mouthpiece diagrams Ferron has in his book offer some good
> insights not found in other references. I think they illustrate how the
> path of the standing waves are bounced off the mouthpiece interior geometry
> and the reed. There are actually many more 3D paths going on
> simultaneously that would be too complex to show.
> 
> I think if the paths make their way into the neck with fewer bounces, the
> tone is clearer with fewer upper partials that are not harmonics of the
> fundamental (less "noise" or edge). I'm not saying this is how it should
> be. It is just an observation that might help with mouthpiece
> understanding and design.
> 
> I recently worked on a Yanagisawa metal tenor mouthpiece. It had a large
> blunt "wall" at the base of the window "U". I usually undercut the wall
>  away but before I did I decided to play test it before and after. I had
> been a while since I checked what this change does. It was very
> significant and yielded a more projecting sound with less effort. One of
> Ferron's diagrams shows where this wall reflects a portion of the wave back
> towards the reed tip (where it must reflect some more before finding its
> way down the sax). By undercutting this wall, more of the sound wave makes
> it down the sax on the first pass. I think this is an example of how the
> process understanding can guide changes and explain the effects of the
> changes. It is no substitute for playing experience and practice. But it
> can enrich the mouthpiece design process beyond what trial and error can do.
> 
> 
> ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
> Be a better friend, newshound, and 
> know-it-all with Yahoo!  Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile. yahoo.com/ ;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR 8HDtDypao8Wcj9tA cJ
>







              
           

  

          
      
                 
                 
 

With some trepidation, I rounded off the edge of the "U" on my Ponzol M1
tenor piece.

Definitely more free-blowing, glad I did it.
Either that or my reeds just somehow got a whole lot better.

Barry


> I experimented to some extent with altering the "U" or Ramp area on various
> mouthpieces, to the extent of even filling in the curved "U" window
> completely, with an abrupt wall the same thickness as the table.  Here's a
> summary of my findings:
> 
> 1. any sharp, exposed edges cause turbulence and resistance.
> 
> 2. If the table wall is thick (HR mouthpiece with small chamber for example),
> then excessive rounding or angling of the ramp wall will dramatically reduce
> resistance but will also cause the intonation and feel of tonal character of
> the mouthpiece to become uncentered.  It's better to just slightly round any
> sharp edge at the ramp wall/throat junction
> 
> 3 If the table wall is thin (STM Link for example) then angling of the ramp
> has mostly beneficial results.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...>
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sat, November 14, 2009 3:24:34 PM
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Undercutting the Base of the window "U"
> 
> 
> I do this as a routine part of a refacing job on all mouthpieces.  I do not do
> many classical mouthpiece.  That is the case where I might be concerned with
> altering the resistance without discussing this with the client.
> 
> I had a metal Yana tenor MP last year that had a nice facing on it.  The only
> change I made was to undercut this area leading in to one side of the
> square-ish throat.  The change was stunning in this case.  Much more
> free-blowing and resonant.  According to Ferron, sound can refect off the
> "wall" at the base of the window U.  He has diagrams showing this effect.
> The sound eventually makes its way down the sax but it is better if a portion
> does not reflect back to the tip before finding its way.
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: mdc5220 <chedoggy@earthlink. net>
> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Sat, November 14, 2009 1:26:02 PM
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Saxophone acoustics website
> 
> 
> 
> In searching for an answer before posting I came across some discussions
> concerning undercutting a blunt floor at the base of the U -- take Guardalas
> as an example, which are undercut significantly. Has any one experimented with
> under cutting the floors of Vandoren Javas or V5s? if so, what results.
> 
> tia
> 
> mike 
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@ ...>
> wrote:
>> 
>>> ...If memory serves well, Ernest Ferron addresses
>>> this matter in his book "The saxophone is my voice" in the mouthpiece
>>> section that ideally the baffle should reflect the wave back into the
>>> chamber. The spoiler that Paul mentions might serve this function.
>>> So ideally, How important is it that the baffle reflect to the
>>> chamber? And Why?
>>> 
>>> -Greg
>> 
>> I think the mouthpiece diagrams Ferron has in his book offer some good
>> insights not found in other references. I think they illustrate how the
>> path of the standing waves are bounced off the mouthpiece interior geometry
>> and the reed. There are actually many more 3D paths going on
>> simultaneously that would be too complex to show.
>> 
>> I think if the paths make their way into the neck with fewer bounces, the
>> tone is clearer with fewer upper partials that are not harmonics of the
>> fundamental (less "noise" or edge). I'm not saying this is how it should
>> be. It is just an observation that might help with mouthpiece
>> understanding and design.
>> 
>> I recently worked on a Yanagisawa metal tenor mouthpiece. It had a large
>> blunt "wall" at the base of the window "U". I usually undercut the wall
>> away but before I did I decided to play test it before and after. I had
>> been a while since I checked what this change does. It was very
>> significant and yielded a more projecting sound with less effort. One of
>> Ferron's diagrams shows where this wall reflects a portion of the wave back
>> towards the reed tip (where it must reflect some more before finding its
>> way down the sax). By undercutting this wall, more of the sound wave makes
>> it down the sax on the first pass. I think this is an example of how the
>> process understanding can guide changes and explain the effects of the
>> changes. It is no substitute for playing experience and practice. But it
>> can enrich the mouthpiece design process beyond what trial and error can do.
>> 
>> 
>> ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
>> Be a better friend, newshound, and
>> know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile. yahoo.com/
>> ;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR 8HDtDypao8Wcj9tA cJ
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Barry, 

I did something similar the vandoren java I had mentioned and found it made an immediate improvement and it did not change the pitch.  I did not remove a lot of material either, leaving plenty to support the table at the U. 

regards

mike 


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Barry Levine 
  To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 6:18 PM
  Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Undercutting the Base of the window "U"


    
  With some trepidation, I rounded off the edge of the "U" on my Ponzol M1
  tenor piece.

  Definitely more free-blowing, glad I did it.
  Either that or my reeds just somehow got a whole lot better.

  Barry

  > I experimented to some extent with altering the "U" or Ramp area on various
  > mouthpieces, to the extent of even filling in the curved "U" window
  > completely, with an abrupt wall the same thickness as the table. Here's a
  > summary of my findings:
  > 
  > 1. any sharp, exposed edges cause turbulence and resistance.
  > 
  > 2. If the table wall is thick (HR mouthpiece with small chamber for example),
  > then excessive rounding or angling of the ramp wall will dramatically reduce
  > resistance but will also cause the intonation and feel of tonal character of
  > the mouthpiece to become uncentered. It's better to just slightly round any
  > sharp edge at the ramp wall/throat junction
  > 
  > 3 If the table wall is thin (STM Link for example) then angling of the ramp
  > has mostly beneficial results.
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > ________________________________
  > From: Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...>
  > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
  > Sent: Sat, November 14, 2009 3:24:34 PM
  > Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Undercutting the Base of the window "U"
  > 
  > 
  > I do this as a routine part of a refacing job on all mouthpieces. I do not do
  > many classical mouthpiece. That is the case where I might be concerned with
  > altering the resistance without discussing this with the client.
  > 
  > I had a metal Yana tenor MP last year that had a nice facing on it. The only
  > change I made was to undercut this area leading in to one side of the
  > square-ish throat. The change was stunning in this case. Much more
  > free-blowing and resonant. According to Ferron, sound can refect off the
  > "wall" at the base of the window U. He has diagrams showing this effect.
  > The sound eventually makes its way down the sax but it is better if a portion
  > does not reflect back to the tip before finding its way.
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > ________________________________
  > From: mdc5220 <chedoggy@earthlink. net>
  > To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
  > Sent: Sat, November 14, 2009 1:26:02 PM
  > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Saxophone acoustics website
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > In searching for an answer before posting I came across some discussions
  > concerning undercutting a blunt floor at the base of the U -- take Guardalas
  > as an example, which are undercut significantly. Has any one experimented with
  > under cutting the floors of Vandoren Javas or V5s? if so, what results.
  > 
  > tia
  > 
  > mike 
  > 
  > --- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@ ...>
  > wrote:
  >> 
  >>> ...If memory serves well, Ernest Ferron addresses
  >>> this matter in his book "The saxophone is my voice" in the mouthpiece
  >>> section that ideally the baffle should reflect the wave back into the
  >>> chamber. The spoiler that Paul mentions might serve this function.
  >>> So ideally, How important is it that the baffle reflect to the
  >>> chamber? And Why?
  >>> 
  >>> -Greg
  >> 
  >> I think the mouthpiece diagrams Ferron has in his book offer some good
  >> insights not found in other references. I think they illustrate how the
  >> path of the standing waves are bounced off the mouthpiece interior geometry
  >> and the reed. There are actually many more 3D paths going on
  >> simultaneously that would be too complex to show.
  >> 
  >> I think if the paths make their way into the neck with fewer bounces, the
  >> tone is clearer with fewer upper partials that are not harmonics of the
  >> fundamental (less "noise" or edge). I'm not saying this is how it should
  >> be. It is just an observation that might help with mouthpiece
  >> understanding and design.
  >> 
  >> I recently worked on a Yanagisawa metal tenor mouthpiece. It had a large
  >> blunt "wall" at the base of the window "U". I usually undercut the wall
  >> away but before I did I decided to play test it before and after. I had
  >> been a while since I checked what this change does. It was very
  >> significant and yielded a more projecting sound with less effort. One of
  >> Ferron's diagrams shows where this wall reflects a portion of the wave back
  >> towards the reed tip (where it must reflect some more before finding its
  >> way down the sax). By undercutting this wall, more of the sound wave makes
  >> it down the sax on the first pass. I think this is an example of how the
  >> process understanding can guide changes and explain the effects of the
  >> changes. It is no substitute for playing experience and practice. But it
  >> can enrich the mouthpiece design process beyond what trial and error can do.
  >> 
  >> 
  >> ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
  >> Be a better friend, newshound, and
  >> know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile. yahoo.com/
  >> ;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR 8HDtDypao8Wcj9tA cJ
  >> 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  >