Hi guys,

Anyone can share how you generally establish what facing length you 
choose for different pieces?
Would a bigger tip oppening work better with a longer facing and vice 
versa?
Do you choose your facing length acording to the baffle hight, angle 
steepness...etc?
Do you choose your facing length according to the chamber size, 
throat area ?

I had refaced a few pieces, and out of them some turned up to be 
pretty good, i mean it.  I have to mention and acknoledge Keith's 
facing schedule;
What a great tool !!!!!!!! Thank's Keith !

I would really appreciate any light shed on this isssue from anny of 
you guys !!!!

Kind regards,
Gabriel

I reface tenor sax mouthpieces with facing lengths around 22-24 mm (44-48 on the E. Brand scale).  For the larger sizes I use a little longer facing, 23-24 mm (46-48 E. Brand).
   
  Alto Sax, 21-22 (42-44 E. Brand).
   
  Baritone Sax, 25-26 mm (50-52 E. Brand).
   
  Soprano Sax, 16-18 mm (32-26 E. Brand).
   
  Bass Saxophone, 29-31 mm (58-62 E. Brand).
   
  Paul

gabivatavu1976 <gabivatavu1976@...> wrote:
          Hi guys,

Anyone can share how you generally establish what facing length you 
choose for different pieces?
Would a bigger tip oppening work better with a longer facing and vice 
versa?
Do you choose your facing length acording to the baffle hight, angle 
steepness...etc?
Do you choose your facing length according to the chamber size, 
throat area ?

I had refaced a few pieces, and out of them some turned up to be 
pretty good, i mean it. I have to mention and acknoledge Keith's 
facing schedule;
What a great tool !!!!!!!! Thank's Keith !

I would really appreciate any light shed on this isssue from anny of 
you guys !!!!

Kind regards,
Gabriel



                           


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@...
       

Thanks a lot for your reply Paul,

That's about the ranges I use too ! I probably preffer more the tenor 
facings around the 50 mark ( E.Brand); or at least it generally 
worked better for me.
I gues wat I was after was, let's take for example an ALTO piece, how 
do you decide what facing lenght would work best? We know that you 
can have a great sounding piece with a facing length of #40 and also 
a differend piece would sound well with a facing of #44. We also know 
that the difference between #40 and #44 it's huge and would have 
dramatic effects on a piece.
Studying a bit some of the Meyer New York facings, I noticed that 
they used a facing length of #36 on the S (small chamber) models, 
#41.2 on the M models, and #46 for the L models.
Is that what you reffered too when you said you choose longer facings 
for the "larger sizes" ?

Also I'll give you another example : 
I play on my bary sax a Meyer New York (refaced) with a lenght of #61,
I recently mesured a Selmer G and it mesured #43. You see what I 
mean, the range can be quite extreme.

Why I started this discution in the first place, was because I'm 
working on a vintage selmer soloist bari sax mouthpiece.
I started with a facing of #50, brought the rest of the mesurements 
in accordance with Keith's facing schedule; the piece responds well, 
it's even, but I feel it could give so much more. Dinamicaly it's 
quite restricted. I have the feeling that with a shorter facing would 
be a much more desirable piece. What do you guys think?

Regards to all of you,
Gabriel









--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "Paul C." <tenorman1952@...> 
wrote:
>
> I reface tenor sax mouthpieces with facing lengths around 22-24 mm 
(44-48 on the E. Brand scale).  For the larger sizes I use a little 
longer facing, 23-24 mm (46-48 E. Brand).
>    
>   Alto Sax, 21-22 (42-44 E. Brand).
>    
>   Baritone Sax, 25-26 mm (50-52 E. Brand).
>    
>   Soprano Sax, 16-18 mm (32-26 E. Brand).
>    
>   Bass Saxophone, 29-31 mm (58-62 E. Brand).
>    
>   Paul
> 
> gabivatavu1976 <gabivatavu1976@...> wrote:
>           Hi guys,
> 
> Anyone can share how you generally establish what facing length you 
> choose for different pieces?
> Would a bigger tip oppening work better with a longer facing and 
vice 
> versa?
> Do you choose your facing length acording to the baffle hight, 
angle 
> steepness...etc?
> Do you choose your facing length according to the chamber size, 
> throat area ?
> 
> I had refaced a few pieces, and out of them some turned up to be 
> pretty good, i mean it. I have to mention and acknoledge Keith's 
> facing schedule;
> What a great tool !!!!!!!! Thank's Keith !
> 
> I would really appreciate any light shed on this isssue from anny 
of 
> you guys !!!!
> 
> Kind regards,
> Gabriel
> 
> 
> 
>                            
> 
> 
> Link to Paul's articles from Main page of "Saxgourmet":
> 		http://www.saxgourmet.com
> Listen to Paul's MP3's and view saxophone photos at:
>            http://briefcase.yahoo.com/tenorman1952
> 
> Paul Coats is the sole US importer of SAXRAX products from 
> http://www.saxrax.com 
> For SAXRAX products, email Paul at saxraxus@...
>

The longer facings favor the low register.  The bari sax spends most of its time in the low register, and the longer facing is of benefit.
   
  Paul

gabivatavu1976 <gabivatavu1976@...> wrote:
          
Thanks a lot for your reply Paul,

That's about the ranges I use too ! I probably preffer more the tenor 
facings around the 50 mark ( E.Brand); or at least it generally 
worked better for me.
I gues wat I was after was, let's take for example an ALTO piece, how 
do you decide what facing lenght would work best? We know that you 
can have a great sounding piece with a facing length of #40 and also 
a differend piece would sound well with a facing of #44. We also know 
that the difference between #40 and #44 it's huge and would have 
dramatic effects on a piece.
Studying a bit some of the Meyer New York facings, I noticed that 
they used a facing length of #36 on the S (small chamber) models, 
#41.2 on the M models, and #46 for the L models.
Is that what you reffered too when you said you choose longer facings 
for the "larger sizes" ?

Also I'll give you another example : 
I play on my bary sax a Meyer New York (refaced) with a lenght of #61,
I recently mesured a Selmer G and it mesured #43. You see what I 
mean, the range can be quite extreme.

Why I started this discution in the first place, was because I'm 
working on a vintage selmer soloist bari sax mouthpiece.
I started with a facing of #50, brought the rest of the mesurements 
in accordance with Keith's facing schedule; the piece responds well, 
it's even, but I feel it could give so much more. Dinamicaly it's 
quite restricted. I have the feeling that with a shorter facing would 
be a much more desirable piece. What do you guys think?

Regards to all of you,
Gabriel

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "Paul C." <tenorman1952@...> 
wrote:
>
> I reface tenor sax mouthpieces with facing lengths around 22-24 mm 
(44-48 on the E. Brand scale). For the larger sizes I use a little 
longer facing, 23-24 mm (46-48 E. Brand).
> 
> Alto Sax, 21-22 (42-44 E. Brand).
> 
> Baritone Sax, 25-26 mm (50-52 E. Brand).
> 
> Soprano Sax, 16-18 mm (32-26 E. Brand).
> 
> Bass Saxophone, 29-31 mm (58-62 E. Brand).
> 
> Paul
> 
> gabivatavu1976 <gabivatavu1976@...> wrote:
> Hi guys,
> 
> Anyone can share how you generally establish what facing length you 
> choose for different pieces?
> Would a bigger tip oppening work better with a longer facing and 
vice 
> versa?
> Do you choose your facing length acording to the baffle hight, 
angle 
> steepness...etc?
> Do you choose your facing length according to the chamber size, 
> throat area ?
> 
> I had refaced a few pieces, and out of them some turned up to be 
> pretty good, i mean it. I have to mention and acknoledge Keith's 
> facing schedule;
> What a great tool !!!!!!!! Thank's Keith !
> 
> I would really appreciate any light shed on this isssue from anny 
of 
> you guys !!!!
> 
> Kind regards,
> Gabriel
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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@...
>



                           


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@...
       

I tend to use the ranges Paul listed for classical and student mouthpieces.  For more open tipped mouthpieces, I go up to another 4 longer.  Sometimes even 54 on .125+ tenor mouthpieces.  But some reed cuts will start to leak air out the sides with very long facing curves.  


      

This is approximate...
   
  The numbers I quoted are, of course, for the .0015" feeler ( 0.040 mm).
   
  The .010" feeler (0.25 mm) should measure about 5 mm (10 on the E. Brand) shorter than the .0015".
   
  The .014" feeler (0.35 mm) should measure 2 mm shorter than the .010".
   
  This is just general, and can vary a little, but you will find it does not vary by much.
   
  Paul

Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:
                    I tend to use the ranges Paul listed for classical and student mouthpieces.  For more open tipped mouthpieces, I go up to another 4 longer.  Sometimes even 54 on .125+ tenor mouthpieces.  But some reed cuts will start to leak air out the sides with very long facing curves.  



                           


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@...
       

Thanks to Paul Coats and the other posters for giving their "general"
facing lengths...these are pretty much the same ones I use
 
The following are some generalities I would like to see discussed:
 
A thin tip rail is brighter
Thin side rails articulate quicker
A thinner beak projects better
 
What about a large window such as is used by Rovner and on the Jody Jazz DV?
 
What are some other "general truths" about mouthpiece design?

  _____  

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Paul C.
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 8:16 AM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] facing length




This is approximate...
 
The numbers I quoted are, of course, for the .0015" feeler ( 0.040 mm).
 
The .010" feeler (0.25 mm) should measure about 5 mm (10 on the E. Brand)
shorter than the .0015".
 
The .014" feeler (0.35 mm) should measure 2 mm shorter than the .010".
 
This is just general, and can vary a little, but you will find it does not
vary by much.
 
Paul

Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:


I tend to use the ranges Paul listed for classical and student mouthpieces.
For more open tipped mouthpieces, I go up to another 4 longer.  Sometimes
even 54 on .125+ tenor mouthpieces.  But some reed cuts will start to leak
air out the sides with very long facing curves.  





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@... 

 

Re: MP "Facts". Presently on our Clarinet BBoard is a thread {Hans} with 2  
references  to mp generalities [I believe], so I'd suggest giving them a  
look-see.  May be some value/help here?  Enjoy the discussions,   Don



**************It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel 
deal here.      
(http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047)

I have found that a longer window tends to allow the low notes, such as 
the bell notes, to speak easier. It kind of gives it a "beefier" tone.  
I have also found that if you go to extremes and extend the window too 
much, the same notes sound a little "bladdy" and don't sound too 
pleasing.

On some mouthpieces I have reworked, I have extended the window down a 
little and flatten the bottom of the window.  Typically the bottom of 
the window is curved and semi-circular.  You kind of have to play test 
it, extend the window a little and play test again.

I am curious if anyone has played one of the large window Rovners and 
what their feedback is.  My own empirical experience has been that the 
large window makes the the tone raspy...

Willis

 --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, " STEVE GOODSON" 
<saxgourmet@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks to Paul Coats and the other posters for giving their "general"
> facing lengths...these are pretty much the same ones I use
>  
> The following are some generalities I would like to see discussed:
>  
> A thin tip rail is brighter
> Thin side rails articulate quicker
> A thinner beak projects better
>  
> What about a large window such as is used by Rovner and on the Jody 
Jazz DV?
>  
> What are some other "general truths" about mouthpiece design?

Hi Willis,

you wrote: My own empirical experience has been that the 
large window makes the the tone raspy...
______________________

I don't know the Rovner how it sounds but did you try a Barone
Hollywood  made some years ago and called Limited edition? That have a
big and long window but Phil told me it's just to give darker tone.

...and I've in mind the Guardala with a big window with so thin rails
and even until the arc! Maybe I mistake but I don't think that are raspy

Gian

--- On Mon, 8/25/08, STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...> wrote:
The following are some generalities I would like to see discussed:
 
A thin tip rail is brighter

>>> A little since more of the tip of the reed is allowed to make sound instead of beating against a thick tip rail.  Also I think it articulates faster.  But I rarely go for very thin tip rails.  They can squeak for some players and they can limit your reed choice... or you need to shape your reeds to match the tip rail.

Thin side rails articulate quicker

>>> A little.  Thin side rails near the tip do more than thin side rails away from the tip.  The main benefit of thin side rails is they allow you to make a wider window.  This gives a bigger sound since more of the reed area is participating in generating the standing wave.

A thinner beak projects better

>>> A little.  Not enough to make you want to create a sharp point.


>>> Sometimes mouthpiece work/design is like tuning up an old car.  If you just do one thing you may not notice much difference.  But when you do the entire tune-up, the car works significantly better.
 
What about a large window such as is used by Rovner and on the Jody Jazz DV?

>>> I think there are several changes at play here.  This makes the chamber volume larger.  It may make some warped reeds seal better.  It also moves the base of the window "U" farther away from the tip.  This has a similar effect to undercutting the base of the window "U".  There are some diagrams in the Ferron book showing how the sound path can reflect off this "wall".  These diagrams portray what is going on inside the mouthpiece better than any visualization based on aerodynamics, streamlines and turbulence.  It is a series of 3D acoustic sound paths bouncing around.  The Ferron book shows a few 2D paths, but they are pretty good.
 
What are some other "general truths" about mouthpiece design?

>>> There often are exceptions to general truths.



      

Concerning the large window

> ... It also moves the base of the window "U" farther away from the 
tip.  This has a similar effect to undercutting the base of the 
window "U". There are some diagrams in the Ferron book showing how 
the sound path can reflect off this "wall". These diagrams portray 
what is going on inside the mouthpiece better than any visualization 
based on aerodynamics, streamlines and turbulence. It is a series of 
3D acoustic sound paths bouncing around. The Ferron book shows a few 
2D paths, but they are pretty good.

-I personally think this is the most interesting part of the Keith 
answer. I discovered the same thing about one year ago and changed 
the design of my mouthpieces accordingly. Concerning the Ferron 
diagrams it should not work that way but... belive me... it works!!! 
Anyway I prefer to use a wide/long window. The trick is to find the 
rigth proportions. It is not necessary at all to undercut the base of 
the window but please remember... everything should be well balanced.
All the best,

Dan

[ Attachment content not displayed ]

Hi sorry, I was not clear. I will PM you OK?

Dan

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "John Delia" <bzalto@...> 
wrote:
>
> Dan, Are you talking about redoing or manufacturing your own brand 
mpce?  If
> so, what is the name of your brand?  Hard rubber or?  Thanks, John
> 
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 5:24 PM, lcchtt <Letydan@...> wrote:
> 
> >   Concerning the large window
> >
> > > ... It also moves the base of the window "U" farther away from 
the
> > tip. This has a similar effect to undercutting the base of the
> > window "U". There are some diagrams in the Ferron book showing how
> > the sound path can reflect off this "wall". These diagrams portray
> > what is going on inside the mouthpiece better than any 
visualization
> > based on aerodynamics, streamlines and turbulence. It is a series 
of
> > 3D acoustic sound paths bouncing around. The Ferron book shows a 
few
> > 2D paths, but they are pretty good.
> >
> > -I personally think this is the most interesting part of the Keith
> > answer. I discovered the same thing about one year ago and changed
> > the design of my mouthpieces accordingly. Concerning the Ferron
> > diagrams it should not work that way but... belive me... it 
works!!!
> > Anyway I prefer to use a wide/long window. The trick is to find 
the
> > rigth proportions. It is not necessary at all to undercut the 
base of
> > the window but please remember... everything should be well 
balanced.
> > All the best,
> >
> > Dan
> >
> >  
> >
>

OK


On 8/28/08, lcchtt <Letydan@...> wrote:
> Hi sorry, I was not clear. I will PM you OK?
>
> Dan
>
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "John Delia" <bzalto@...>
> wrote:
>>
>> Dan, Are you talking about redoing or manufacturing your own brand
> mpce?  If
>> so, what is the name of your brand?  Hard rubber or?  Thanks, John
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 5:24 PM, lcchtt <Letydan@...> wrote:
>>
>> >   Concerning the large window
>> >
>> > > ... It also moves the base of the window "U" farther away from
> the
>> > tip. This has a similar effect to undercutting the base of the
>> > window "U". There are some diagrams in the Ferron book showing how
>> > the sound path can reflect off this "wall". These diagrams portray
>> > what is going on inside the mouthpiece better than any
> visualization
>> > based on aerodynamics, streamlines and turbulence. It is a series
> of
>> > 3D acoustic sound paths bouncing around. The Ferron book shows a
> few
>> > 2D paths, but they are pretty good.
>> >
>> > -I personally think this is the most interesting part of the Keith
>> > answer. I discovered the same thing about one year ago and changed
>> > the design of my mouthpieces accordingly. Concerning the Ferron
>> > diagrams it should not work that way but... belive me... it
> works!!!
>> > Anyway I prefer to use a wide/long window. The trick is to find
> the
>> > rigth proportions. It is not necessary at all to undercut the
> base of
>> > the window but please remember... everything should be well
> balanced.
>> > All the best,
>> >
>> > Dan
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>

It is not good to focus on just one detail and say, If you do this, the mouthpiece will do that."
   
  You also have to take the mouthpiece as a whole, how well do all the features work together, or do they work against each other.
   
  For example, you are building a street rod and have equipped the engine with a cam and intake manifold that works for 3000 - 7000 RPM, but you have a small carburetor that won't flow that much, and the wrong gear ratio in the rear end.  The car will perform miserably.  It would perform much better with a cam and intake manifold that works in the 1500-5500 RPM range.  
   
  Each part of the mouthpiece affect the other, and the overall performance.  You would not make a high baffle rock and roll tenor sax mouthpiece, then choke it down with .080" tip opening.
   
  Consider the balance of the whole mouthpiece.
   
  And Generally Accepted Facts... I have seen mouthpieces that will fool you.  In my grab bag of fun clinic things to do, I show the students a slim metal mouthpiece, and a more conventional looking hard rubber mouthpiece.  "Which is the concert band mouthpiece, and which is the rock and roll mouthpiece?"  Well, I get them every time... the metal mouthpiece is the Selmer classical model (I forget the number, like the one Fred Hemke plays), and the hard rubber looking piece is a Runyon Bionix.
   
  But even looking at mouthpiece chambers (not in the case of the two mouthpieces just mentioned) I have been fooled more than a few times.
   
  Paul




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@...
       

http://web.archive.org/web/20020402212155/jonvanwie.com/mpcfacts/factmain.html














      

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> 
wrote:
>
> 
http://web.archive.org/web/20020402212155/jonvanwie.com/mpcfacts/factmai
n.html
>

Thank you Keith for the precious link. 
I know I am "nobody from nowhere" and I know how good was Jon Vanwie 
but I still don't understand how a concave table can help the reed 
sealing. Maybe we should discuss more in detail this point. If it 
really helps I could slightly change the table curvature but I also 
experienced how good a flat table works so now I am a bit confused 
because my personal experience is in contrast with this "accepted fact".

Dan

I think there is a school of thought that says that if the center of the
table is concave it helps to hold the reed in place by creating a
suction......I'm NOT saying I buy into this, but will say that it couldn't
hurt provided the table seals around the reed

  _____  

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of lcchtt
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 2:53 PM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Generally accepted facts



--- In MouthpieceWork@ <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
yahoogroups.com, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> 
wrote:
>
> 
http://web.archive.
<http://web.archive.org/web/20020402212155/jonvanwie.com/mpcfacts/factmai>
org/web/20020402212155/jonvanwie.com/mpcfacts/factmai
n.html
>

Thank you Keith for the precious link. 
I know I am "nobody from nowhere" and I know how good was Jon Vanwie 
but I still don't understand how a concave table can help the reed 
sealing. Maybe we should discuss more in detail this point. If it 
really helps I could slightly change the table curvature but I also 
experienced how good a flat table works so now I am a bit confused 
because my personal experience is in contrast with this "accepted fact".

Dan



 

Interesting thoughts, Steve... however, only experimentation would 
give us the true answer. Through experience I have learnt that a 
perfectly flat table creates an excellent seal, so I have not found 
the need to try a concave one. I personally have doubts that a 
concave table creates suction, thereby holding a reed in place. And 
even if it did, how would that reed then work on a flat table? It 
would be distorted and therefore could not create a seal. In my 
opinion (humble as it may be) a concave table has more to do with the 
ebonite  shrinkage process than a precise project. The temperature 
increases during the table flattening process, after which the system 
returns to a lower temperature, resulting in shrinkage and a concave 
table.

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, " STEVE GOODSON" 
<saxgourmet@...> wrote:
>
> I think there is a school of thought that says that if the center 
of the
> table is concave it helps to hold the reed in place by creating a
> suction......I'm NOT saying I buy into this, but will say that it 
couldn't
> hurt provided the table seals around the reed
> 
>   _____  
> 
> From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
[mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of lcchtt
> Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 2:53 PM
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Generally accepted facts
> 
> 
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@ <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
> yahoogroups.com, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@> 
> wrote:
> >
> > 
> http://web.archive.
> 
<http://web.archive.org/web/20020402212155/jonvanwie.com/mpcfacts/fact
mai>
> org/web/20020402212155/jonvanwie.com/mpcfacts/factmai
> n.html
> >
> 
> Thank you Keith for the precious link. 
> I know I am "nobody from nowhere" and I know how good was Jon 
Vanwie 
> but I still don't understand how a concave table can help the reed 
> sealing. Maybe we should discuss more in detail this point. If it 
> really helps I could slightly change the table curvature but I also 
> experienced how good a flat table works so now I am a bit confused 
> because my personal experience is in contrast with this "accepted 
fact".
> 
> Dan
>

This html message parsed with html2text ---------------------------I've noticed two different topologies referred to as a "concave table". One is
a table which has a depression in the center, but is flat at the edges. So
you'd get the table completely flat, then sand a little "lake" into the middle
while leaving the perimeter alone. The second is a table which is straight
across side-to-side, but arches from the heel to the break point. Many metal
Links seem to have this - the first pass across the sandpaper shows a shiny
sanded spot on the rails at the break point (back end of the facing), and a
shiny sanded spot at the heel, with nothing in between contacting the paper.  
  
I have a Pillinger/Wanne tenor piece with a very visible oval "lake"
concavity. A lot (most?) metal Links I've worked on have the second type. I
also worked on an Ernie Northway mouthpiece which had the Link-like concavity
(deliberate according to Mr. Northway).  
  
Dan T  
  
STEVE GOODSON wrote:

> **_I think there is a school of thought that says that if the center of the
> table is concave it helps to hold the reed in place by creating a
> suction......I'm NOT saying I buy into this, but will say that it couldn't
> hurt provided the table seals around the reed_**
>
>  
>
>
> * * *
>
> **From:** MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> [[mailto:MouthpieceW](mailto:MouthpieceW)ork@yahoogroups.com] **On Behalf
> Of** lcchtt  
>  **Sent:** Thursday, August 28, 2008 2:53 PM  
>  **To:** MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com  
>  **Subject:** [MouthpieceWork] Re: Generally accepted facts  
>  
>
>
> \\--- In
> [MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com](mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com),
> Keith Bradbury ...>  
>  wrote:  
>  >  
>  >  
>
> [http://web.archive.org/web/20020402212155/jonvanwie.com/mpcfacts/factmai](http://web.archive.org/web/20020402212155/jonvanwie.com/mpcfacts/factmai)  
>  n.html  
>  >  
>  
>  Thank you Keith for the precious link.  
>  I know I am "nobody from nowhere" and I know how good was Jon Vanwie  
>  but I still don't understand how a concave table can help the reed  
>  sealing. Maybe we should discuss more in detail this point. If it  
>  really helps I could slightly change the table curvature but I also  
>  experienced how good a flat table works so now I am a bit confused  
>  because my personal experience is in contrast with this "accepted fact".  
>  
>  Dan  
>  
>

I just make the table as flat as I can.
   
  Paul

lcchtt <Letydan@...> wrote:
          Interesting thoughts, Steve... however, only experimentation would 
give us the true answer. Through experience I have learnt that a 
perfectly flat table creates an excellent seal, so I have not found 
the need to try a concave one. I personally have doubts that a 
concave table creates suction, thereby holding a reed in place. And 
even if it did, how would that reed then work on a flat table? It 
would be distorted and therefore could not create a seal. In my 
opinion (humble as it may be) a concave table has more to do with the 
ebonite shrinkage process than a precise project. The temperature 
increases during the table flattening process, after which the system 
returns to a lower temperature, resulting in shrinkage and a concave 
table.

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, " STEVE GOODSON" 
<saxgourmet@...> wrote:
>
> I think there is a school of thought that says that if the center 
of the
> table is concave it helps to hold the reed in place by creating a
> suction......I'm NOT saying I buy into this, but will say that it 
couldn't
> hurt provided the table seals around the reed
> 
> _____ 
> 
> From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
[mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of lcchtt
> Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 2:53 PM
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Generally accepted facts
> 
> 
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@ <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
> yahoogroups.com, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@> 
> wrote:
> >
> > 
> http://web.archive.
> 
<http://web.archive.org/web/20020402212155/jonvanwie.com/mpcfacts/fact
mai>
> org/web/20020402212155/jonvanwie.com/mpcfacts/factmai
> n.html
> >
> 
> Thank you Keith for the precious link. 
> I know I am "nobody from nowhere" and I know how good was Jon 
Vanwie 
> but I still don't understand how a concave table can help the reed 
> sealing. Maybe we should discuss more in detail this point. If it 
> really helps I could slightly change the table curvature but I also 
> experienced how good a flat table works so now I am a bit confused 
> because my personal experience is in contrast with this "accepted 
fact".
> 
> Dan
>



                           


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@...
       

There are some old posts on the subject.  Do a search on "concave 
table" and click on "Next" to get back to posts in the 4000 range 
(2006).  

I've seen quite a few with a little "lake" as you describe it in the center
of the table....the edges are flat, but the center of the table is cut out a
bit....All of the mouthpieces we manufacture at Saxgourmet have flat tables,
no lakes, valleys, or craters!
 
I can see a theoretical advantage to the center cut out, but cannot see the
advantage to the arched table you describe on Links. Maybe my vision of this
is not clear. How does this help?

  _____  

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Dan Torosian
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 4:21 PM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Generally accepted facts - concavity



I've noticed two different topologies referred to as a "concave table".  One
is a table which has a depression in the center, but is flat at the edges.
So you'd get the table completely flat, then sand a little "lake" into the
middle while leaving the perimeter alone.  The second is a table which is
straight across side-to-side, but arches from the heel to the break point.
Many metal Links seem to have this - the first pass across the sandpaper
shows a shiny sanded spot on the rails at the break point (back end of the
facing), and a shiny sanded spot at the heel, with nothing in between
contacting the paper.

I have a Pillinger/Wanne tenor piece with a very visible oval "lake"
concavity.  A lot (most?) metal Links I've worked on have the second type.
I also worked on an Ernie Northway mouthpiece which had the Link-like
concavity (deliberate according to Mr. Northway).

Dan T

 STEVE GOODSON wrote: 




I think there is a school of thought that says that if the center of the
table is concave it helps to hold the reed in place by creating a
suction......I'm NOT saying I buy into this, but will say that it couldn't
hurt provided the table seals around the reed

  _____  

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of lcchtt
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 2:53 PM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Generally accepted facts



--- In MouthpieceWork@ <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
yahoogroups.com, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> 
wrote:
>
> 
http://web.archive.
<http://web.archive.org/web/20020402212155/jonvanwie.com/mpcfacts/factmai>
org/web/20020402212155/jonvanwie.com/mpcfacts/factmai
n.html
>

Thank you Keith for the precious link. 
I know I am "nobody from nowhere" and I know how good was Jon Vanwie 
but I still don't understand how a concave table can help the reed 
sealing. Maybe we should discuss more in detail this point. If it 
really helps I could slightly change the table curvature but I also 
experienced how good a flat table works so now I am a bit confused 
because my personal experience is in contrast with this "accepted fact".

Dan



 

This html message parsed with html2text ---------------------------Although my experience is limited compared to many on this group, I'd venture
to say that it doesn't help - it may not even be intentional, but just be a
manufacturing flaw. I think Keith described this type of table as "insurance
against having a convex table", which might be a bigger problem. At any rate,
I have found the most success following Paul's and Keith's suggestion in this
regard, and just getting the table flat.  
  
Dan T  
  
STEVE GOODSON wrote:

> **_I've seen quite a few with a little "lake" as you describe it in the
> center of the table....the edges are flat, but the center of the table is
> cut out a bit....All of the mouthpieces we manufacture at Saxgourmet have
> flat tables, no lakes, valleys, or craters!_**
>
> **__**
>
> **_I can see a theoretical advantage to the center cut out, but cannot see
> the advantage to the arched table you describe on Links. Maybe my vision of
> this is not clear. How does this help?_**
>
>  
>
>
> * * *
>
> **From:** MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> [[mailto:MouthpieceW](mailto:MouthpieceW)ork@yahoogroups.com] **On Behalf
> Of** Dan Torosian  
>  **Sent:** Thursday, August 28, 2008 4:21 PM  
>  **To:** MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com  
>  **Subject:** Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Generally accepted facts - concavity  
>  
>
>
> I've noticed two different topologies referred to as a "concave table". One
> is a table which has a depression in the center, but is flat at the edges.
> So you'd get the table completely flat, then sand a little "lake" into the
> middle while leaving the perimeter alone. The second is a table which is
> straight across side-to- side, but arches from the heel to the break point.
> Many metal Links seem to have this - the first pass across the sandpaper
> shows a shiny sanded spot on the rails at the break point (back end of the
> facing), and a shiny sanded spot at the heel, with nothing in between
> contacting the paper.  
>  
>  I have a Pillinger/Wanne tenor piece with a very visible oval "lake"
> concavity. A lot (most?) metal Links I've worked on have the second type. I
> also worked on an Ernie Northway mouthpiece which had the Link-like
> concavity (deliberate according to Mr. Northway).  
>  
>  Dan T  
>  
>  STEVE GOODSON wrote:
>

>> **_I think there is a school of thought that says that if the center of the
table is concave it helps to hold the reed in place by creating a
suction......I'm NOT saying I buy into this, but will say that it couldn't
hurt provided the table seals around the reed_**

>>

>>  
>
>>

>> * * *

>>

>> **From:** MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
[[mailto:MouthpieceW](mailto:MouthpieceW)ork@yahoogroups.com] **On Behalf Of**
lcchtt  
>  **Sent:** Thursday, August 28, 2008 2:53 PM  
>  **To:** MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com  
>  **Subject:** [MouthpieceWork] Re: Generally accepted facts  
>  
>
>>

>> \\--- In
[MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com](mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com),
Keith Bradbury ...>  
>  wrote:  
>  >  
>  >  
>
> [http://web.archive.org/web/20020402212155/jonvanwie.com/mpcfacts/factmai](http://web.archive.org/web/20020402212155/jonvanwie.com/mpcfacts/factmai)  
>  n.html  
>  >  
>  
>  Thank you Keith for the precious link.  
>  I know I am "nobody from nowhere" and I know how good was Jon Vanwie  
>  but I still don't understand how a concave table can help the reed  
>  sealing. Maybe we should discuss more in detail this point. If it  
>  really helps I could slightly change the table curvature but I also  
>  experienced how good a flat table works so now I am a bit confused  
>  because my personal experience is in contrast with this "accepted fact".  
>  
>  Dan  
>  
>

When a table is cut, the material gets hot and expands.  It does so more in what becomes the middle of the table as that is the deepest (it is cutting a flat in a roughly cylindrical shape).  When it cools, it shrinks and that makes it concave there.  So, for some mouthpieces it is a result of production technique.
   
  Some manufacturers actually cut a depression there.
   
  Paul

Dan Torosian <dtorosian@...> wrote:
          Although my experience is limited compared to many on this group, I'd venture to say that it doesn't help - it may not even be intentional, but just be a manufacturing flaw.  I think Keith described this type of table as "insurance against having a convex table", which might be a bigger problem.  At any rate, I have found the most success following Paul's and Keith's suggestion in this regard, and just getting the table flat.

Dan T

 STEVE GOODSON wrote:       
  I've seen quite a few with a little "lake" as you describe it in the center of the table....the edges are flat, but the center of the table is cut out a bit....All of the mouthpieces we manufacture at Saxgourmet have flat tables, no lakes, valleys, or craters!
   
  I can see a theoretical advantage to the center cut out, but cannot see the advantage to the arched table you describe on Links. Maybe my vision of this is not clear. How does this help?

    
---------------------------------
  From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Dan Torosian
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 4:21 PM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Generally accepted facts - concavity


    I've noticed two different topologies referred to as a "concave table".  One is a table which has a depression in the center, but is flat at the edges.  So you'd get the table completely flat, then sand a little "lake" into the middle while leaving the perimeter alone.  The second is a table which is straight across side-to-side, but arches from the heel to the break point.  Many metal Links seem to have this - the first pass across the sandpaper shows a shiny sanded spot on the rails at the break point (back end of the facing), and a shiny sanded spot at the heel, with nothing in between contacting the paper.

I have a Pillinger/Wanne tenor piece with a very visible oval "lake" concavity.  A lot (most?) metal Links I've worked on have the second type.  I also worked on an Ernie Northway mouthpiece which had the Link-like concavity (deliberate according to Mr. Northway).

Dan T

 STEVE GOODSON wrote: 
      I think there is a school of thought that says that if the center of the table is concave it helps to hold the reed in place by creating a suction......I'm NOT saying I buy into this, but will say that it couldn't hurt provided the table seals around the reed

    
---------------------------------
  From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of lcchtt
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 2:53 PM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Generally accepted facts


    --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> 
wrote:
>
> 
http://web.archive.org/web/20020402212155/jonvanwie.com/mpcfacts/factmai
n.html
>

Thank you Keith for the precious link. 
I know I am "nobody from nowhere" and I know how good was Jon Vanwie 
but I still don't understand how a concave table can help the reed 
sealing. Maybe we should discuss more in detail this point. If it 
really helps I could slightly change the table curvature but I also 
experienced how good a flat table works so now I am a bit confused 
because my personal experience is in contrast with this "accepted fact".

Dan






  

                           


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@...
       

Any possible benefits of an intentionally concave table are eliminated 
once the reeds becomes wet enough and the fibers expand enough to fill 
the crater. So this practice of sanding a depression into a table 
hoping to effect a better seal is basically a waste of time.

The money is all in having the reed seal at the window and being held firmly to the table. There can definitely be problems if the table has a high spot behind the window, as this might affect the seal at the window and rails, and might allow the reed to shift as only a part of it is in contact
 with the table. As Keith says, a slightly concave table is insurance against a high spot in the middle, which is possible if the mpc is not held completely firmly when the table is cut. But I seriously doubt whether there is any benefit at all from concavity as such.

Toby

Greg Wier <gregwier@...> wrote:                             Any possible benefits of an intentionally concave table are eliminated 
 once the reeds becomes wet enough and the fibers expand enough to fill 
 the crater. So this practice of sanding a depression into a table 
 hoping to effect a better seal is basically a waste of time.
 
 
     
                                       
 

It seems to me that if one is dedicated to the craft of making a mouthpiece, the better person plays their instrument or understands their instrument , the more they will know what a mouthpiece needs to do. Also the more styles that technician can perform the more the understanding of the total picture of what any particular mouthpiece will need to do in any given circumstance.

Technique in making a mouthpiece has a direct correlation to the understanding of the technician on an artistic level. 

The best oboe players make the best reeds. There is a reason. They know more about what the reed needs to do. The more they practice music and the more they make reeds the better the reeds they make.

Same with mouthpieces. 

My 2cents.


Mike Vaccaro
www.MikeVaccaro.Com

IMO, this is not the same with sax mouthpieces.  The best players do not make the best mouthpieces.  It helps to to have good chops, but it is not required.

I think the main qualities of a good refacer/maker are: 
1. analytical 
2. knowledge/experiance 
3. craftmanship 
4. can play well enough to test the work 

If you are deficient in one area, you can somethimes compensate in the other three.  But having all four is best.

Then there are good business qualities: Good communications, fair pricing and turnaround, honesty, follow-up customer service.

--- On Fri, 8/29/08, Mike Vaccaro <mike@mikevaccaro.com> wrote:
 
The best oboe players make the best reeds. There is a reason. They know more about what the reed needs to do. The more they practice music and the more they make reeds the better the reeds they make.
 
Same with mouthpieces. 



      

I quote everything you said!!!

Dan

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Keith Bradbury 
<kwbradbury@...> wrote:
>
> IMO, this is not the same with sax mouthpieces.  The best players 
do not make the best mouthpieces.  It helps to to have good chops, 
but it is not required.
> 
> I think the main qualities of a good refacer/maker are: 
> 1. analytical 
> 2. knowledge/experiance 
> 3. craftmanship 
> 4. can play well enough to test the work 
> 
> If you are deficient in one area, you can somethimes compensate in 
the other three.  But having all four is best.
> 
> Then there are good business qualities: Good communications, fair 
pricing and turnaround, honesty, follow-up customer service.
> 
> --- On Fri, 8/29/08, Mike Vaccaro <mike@...> wrote:
>  
> The best oboe players make the best reeds. There is a reason. They 
know more about what the reed needs to do. The more they practice 
music and the more they make reeds the better the reeds they make.
>  
> Same with mouthpieces.
>

[ Attachment content not displayed ]

There is no substitute for knowlege, experience, refined skills, good 
judgement and dedication in any field of endeavor in life.  With 
these qualities the elements of chance or gambling are controlled and 
your results rise above a dice game.

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "John Delia" <bzalto@...> 
wrote:
>
> I have heard that Tabuteau used to confiscate reeds from his 
students when
> he heard one he liked.  There is also a lot of luck involved in 
mouthpiece
> making/refacing and reed making/adjusting. Life is a crapshoot.
> 
> On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 9:48 AM, lcchtt <Letydan@...> wrote:
> 
> >   I quote everything you said!!!
> >
> > Dan
> >
> > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com <MouthpieceWork%
40yahoogroups.com>,
> > Keith Bradbury
> > <kwbradbury@> wrote:
> > >
> > > IMO, this is not the same with sax mouthpieces. The best players
> > do not make the best mouthpieces. It helps to to have good chops,
> > but it is not required.
> > >
> > > I think the main qualities of a good refacer/maker are:
> > > 1. analytical
> > > 2. knowledge/experiance
> > > 3. craftmanship
> > > 4. can play well enough to test the work
> > >
> > > If you are deficient in one area, you can somethimes compensate 
in
> > the other three. But having all four is best.
> > >
> > > Then there are good business qualities: Good communications, 
fair
> > pricing and turnaround, honesty, follow-up customer service.
> > >
> > > --- On Fri, 8/29/08, Mike Vaccaro <mike@> wrote:
> > >
> > > The best oboe players make the best reeds. There is a reason. 
They
> > know more about what the reed needs to do. The more they practice
> > music and the more they make reeds the better the reeds they make.
> > >
> > > Same with mouthpieces.
> > >
> >
> >  
> >
>

A possible use of the concavity on the mouthpiece table is that the bottom
of a reed tends to become somewhat convex after use.

This is an observation by Ray Reed, which explains why cane reeds repeatedly
lose their flatness and require some sanding and polishing of the bottom. A
slight concavity in the table could compensate for the tendency, up to a
point, anyway.

BL

> The money is all in having the reed seal at the window and being held firmly
> to the table. There can definitely be problems if the table has a high spot
> behind the window, as this might affect the seal at the window and rails, and
> might allow the reed to shift as only a part of it is in contact
> with the table. As Keith says, a slightly concave table is insurance against a
> high spot in the middle, which is possible if the mpc is not held completely
> firmly when the table is cut. But I seriously doubt whether there is any
> benefit at all from concavity as such.
> 
> Toby
> 
> Greg Wier <gregwier@...> wrote:                             Any
> possible benefits of an intentionally concave table are eliminated
> once the reeds becomes wet enough and the fibers expand enough to fill
> the crater. So this practice of sanding a depression into a table
> hoping to effect a better seal is basically a waste of time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

[ Attachment content not displayed ]

Keith really hit it on the head.
   
  Oh, and for those that have not heard him, Keith can play, too.
   
  Paul

lcchtt <Letydan@...> wrote:
          I quote everything you said!!!

Dan

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Keith Bradbury 
<kwbradbury@...> wrote:
>
> IMO, this is not the same with sax mouthpieces. The best players 
do not make the best mouthpieces. It helps to to have good chops, 
but it is not required.
> 
> I think the main qualities of a good refacer/maker are: 
> 1. analytical 
> 2. knowledge/experiance 
> 3. craftmanship 
> 4. can play well enough to test the work 
> 
> If you are deficient in one area, you can somethimes compensate in 
the other three. But having all four is best.
> 
> Then there are good business qualities: Good communications, fair 
pricing and turnaround, honesty, follow-up customer service.
> 
> --- On Fri, 8/29/08, Mike Vaccaro <mike@...> wrote:
>  
> The best oboe players make the best reeds. There is a reason. They 
know more about what the reed needs to do. The more they practice 
music and the more they make reeds the better the reeds they make.
>  
> Same with mouthpieces.
>



                           


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@...
       

I just stick on a Fibracell and let 'er rip.
   
  Like Forest Gump, "Well, that's one less thing I have to worry about."
   
  Paul

John Delia <bzalto@...> wrote:
            I have heard that Tabuteau used to confiscate reeds from his students when he heard one he liked.  There is also a lot of luck involved in mouthpiece making/refacing and reed making/adjusting. Life is a crapshoot.

  On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 9:48 AM, lcchtt <Letydan@...> wrote:
            I quote everything you said!!!

Dan

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Keith Bradbury 

  <kwbradbury@...> wrote:
>
> IMO, this is not the same with sax mouthpieces. The best players 
do not make the best mouthpieces. It helps to to have good chops, 
but it is not required.
> 
> I think the main qualities of a good refacer/maker are: 
> 1. analytical 
> 2. knowledge/experiance 
> 3. craftmanship 
> 4. can play well enough to test the work 
> 
> If you are deficient in one area, you can somethimes compensate in 
the other three. But having all four is best.
> 
> Then there are good business qualities: Good communications, fair 
pricing and turnaround, honesty, follow-up customer service.
> 

  > --- On Fri, 8/29/08, Mike Vaccaro <mike@...> wrote:
>  
> The best oboe players make the best reeds. There is a reason. They 
know more about what the reed needs to do. The more they practice 
music and the more they make reeds the better the reeds they make.
>  
> Same with mouthpieces.
>









  

                           


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@...
       

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
>
> The money is all in having the reed seal at the window and being
held firmly to the table. There can definitely be problems if the
table has a high spot behind the window, as this might affect the seal
at the window and rails, and might allow the reed to shift as only a
part of it is in contact
>  with the table. As Keith says, a slightly concave table is
insurance against a high spot in the middle, which is possible if the
mpc is not held completely firmly when the table is cut. But I
seriously doubt whether there is any benefit at all from concavity as
such.
> 
> Toby
> 
> Greg Wier <gregwier@...> wrote:                             Any
possible benefits of an intentionally concave table are eliminated 
>  once the reeds becomes wet enough and the fibers expand enough to fill 
>  the crater. So this practice of sanding a depression into a table 
>  hoping to effect a better seal is basically a waste of time.

All concerned,

I think it's just a marketing scheme, by the companies that
intentionally make their tables concave.  I'd say that more than 50%
of the people owning saxophones don't ever use a reed file or
sandpaper to level the surface of their swollen reeds.  Their reeds
will seal better on a mouthpiece with a concave table and thus, they
will find these mouthpieces to be "better" than those with flat
tables.  The manufacturer's surely thought of this, since they want to
sell more mouthpieces.  
>

Get a nice glob of spit on there, and that will seal between the reed and mouthpiece.
   
  
   
  Paul

lancelotburt <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
          --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
>
> The money is all in having the reed seal at the window and being
held firmly to the table. There can definitely be problems if the
table has a high spot behind the window, as this might affect the seal
at the window and rails, and might allow the reed to shift as only a
part of it is in contact
> with the table. As Keith says, a slightly concave table is
insurance against a high spot in the middle, which is possible if the
mpc is not held completely firmly when the table is cut. But I
seriously doubt whether there is any benefit at all from concavity as
such.
> 
> Toby
> 
> Greg Wier <gregwier@...> wrote: Any
possible benefits of an intentionally concave table are eliminated 
> once the reeds becomes wet enough and the fibers expand enough to fill 
> the crater. So this practice of sanding a depression into a table 
> hoping to effect a better seal is basically a waste of time.

All concerned,

I think it's just a marketing scheme, by the companies that
intentionally make their tables concave. I'd say that more than 50%
of the people owning saxophones don't ever use a reed file or
sandpaper to level the surface of their swollen reeds. Their reeds
will seal better on a mouthpiece with a concave table and thus, they
will find these mouthpieces to be "better" than those with flat
tables. The manufacturer's surely thought of this, since they want to
sell more mouthpieces. 
>



                           


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@...
       

--- On Wed, 9/3/08, lancelotburt <lancelotburt@...> wrote:

>>>I think it's just a marketing scheme, by the companies that
intentionally make their tables concave.

I think it is more that they unintentionally make them concave.  The surface gets warm and contacts and/or the tool path and fixturing is not good.  So instead of fixing it with costly hand finishing, they let it go as a "feature".  But I do not recall any company marketing this feature.


      

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...>
wrote:
>
> 
> --- On Wed, 9/3/08, lancelotburt <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
> 
> >>>I think it's just a marketing scheme, by the companies that
> intentionally make their tables concave.
> 
> I think it is more that they unintentionally make them concave.  The
surface gets warm and contacts and/or the tool path and fixturing is
not good.  So instead of fixing it with costly hand finishing, they
let it go as a "feature".  But I do not recall any company marketing
this feature.
>

Maybe they ought to... It would increase sales to lazy saxophonists.

Hi guys,
I'm hoping this will stir up a bit of a discution amongst us;

I've recently opened up an old brilhart tenor piece, one of the white 
plastic ones. I've openet it up to a 0.105 inch and initialy I put a 
facing length of 25mm (50 on the 0.015 gage); followed all the specs 
generated by Keith's spread sheet ( by the way, thanks a lot Keith, 
that's gold......offered me a great starting point). It all turned up 
beautifull !!! Great player ! really responsive, lots of 
character...etc.

However, my gut feeling, after playing the thing was telling me that 
a slightly shorter facing length will make it even better. I than 
sand it down to a 49 facing, and from a beautiful mouthpiece it 
turned in to an absolute monster !!!
The facing just shortened a little bit, added so much more juicyness 
to the sound. It added that reedy texture to it.....awww ! Great 
stuff !

Now, my questions to you, the more experienced mouthpiece guys are:

 How do you decide what facing length you are going to put on 
mouthpiece. Lets say on a tenor you can choose somewhere between 42 
and 50 length (on the 0.0015 feeler) Are you in the habbit of doing 
it all at 50, or some of you 48....etc? Or do you do a baffle/ 
floor/throught/chamber analysis and than decide " OK this will work 
good with "XX" facing.

I really appreciate all your opinions!
Have a great 2009 everyone, and may you be in great demand !
Cheers,
Gabriel.

I don't like "long" facings, nor do I like "short" facings, in general.  But for specific mouthpieces, sometimes a short or long facing will work.
 
Generally, I like, regardless of tip opening:
 
Soprano, 17-18 mm (34-36 on the E.Brand scale)
 
Alto, 20-22 mm
 
Tenor 22-23 mm, for very large tip openings, 24.
 
Bari 25-26 mm
 
Bass 29-31 mm
 
But I have played some tenor mouthpieces with .105"-.110" tip openings that played well with a 25 mm facing, very long.  And perhaps it was the shape of the baffle that determined this.
 
I have also played a very easy blowing tenor mouthpiece... .095" tip and only 19 mm (38) facing length.  It played easily, even in the low end where short facings fail miserably.  The tone was effortless, medium bright, very fast response, just a great playing mouthpiece.  That was a Brilhart "Velvet Brass"... it belonged to sax great Boots Randolph, the mouthpiece he recorded Yakety Sax, Rock Around the Christmas Tree (Brenda Lee), and others.
 
I measured that facing carefully, tried it on other mouthpieces.  Let me save you the trouble, it did not work on other mouthpieces.  Not a bit.
 
I replaced the bite plate, and just generally cleaned it up.  It is now on display on Boots' old Mk VI, at the Country Music Hall of Fame.
 
Paul

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@...

--- On Tue, 12/30/08, gabivatavu1976 <gabivatavu1976@...> wrote:

From: gabivatavu1976 <gabivatavu1976@...>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] facing length
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, December 30, 2008, 10:48 PM






Hi guys,
I'm hoping this will stir up a bit of a discution amongst us;

I've recently opened up an old brilhart tenor piece, one of the white 
plastic ones. I've openet it up to a 0.105 inch and initialy I put a 
facing length of 25mm (50 on the 0.015 gage); followed all the specs 
generated by Keith's spread sheet ( by the way, thanks a lot Keith, 
that's gold......offered me a great starting point). It all turned up 
beautifull !!! Great player ! really responsive, lots of 
character... etc.

However, my gut feeling, after playing the thing was telling me that 
a slightly shorter facing length will make it even better. I than 
sand it down to a 49 facing, and from a beautiful mouthpiece it 
turned in to an absolute monster !!!
The facing just shortened a little bit, added so much more juicyness 
to the sound. It added that reedy texture to it.....awww ! Great 
stuff !

Now, my questions to you, the more experienced mouthpiece guys are:

How do you decide what facing length you are going to put on 
mouthpiece. Lets say on a tenor you can choose somewhere between 42 
and 50 length (on the 0.0015 feeler) Are you in the habbit of doing 
it all at 50, or some of you 48....etc? Or do you do a baffle/ 
floor/throught/ chamber analysis and than decide " OK this will work 
good with "XX" facing.

I really appreciate all your opinions!
Have a great 2009 everyone, and may you be in great demand !
Cheers,
Gabriel.

 














      

I had just been considering messing around with a white Brilhart I have.  It is a 3*, a quite short facing and not that open.  It plays strongly, but with no flexibility at all.  It is good to hear that others have had success that way.  I was figuring on something around a Link 7* facing to match most of the other pieces I play regularly.

Bill Hausmann

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

--- On Wed, 12/31/08, Paul C. <tenorman1952@...> wrote:

From: Paul C. <tenorman1952@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] facing length
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, December 31, 2008, 2:02 AM











I don't like "long" facings, nor do I like "short" facings, in general.  But for specific mouthpieces, sometimes a short or long facing will work.
 
Generally, I like, regardless of tip opening:
 
Soprano, 17-18 mm (34-36 on the E.Brand scale)
 
Alto, 20-22 mm
 
Tenor 22-23 mm, for very large tip openings, 24.
 
Bari 25-26 mm
 
Bass 29-31 mm
 
But I have played some tenor mouthpieces with .105"-.110" tip openings that played well with a 25 mm facing, very long.  And perhaps it was the shape of the baffle that determined this.
 
I have also played a very easy blowing tenor mouthpiece... .095" tip and only 19 mm (38) facing length.  It played easily, even in the low end where short facings fail miserably.  The tone was effortless, medium bright, very fast response, just a great playing mouthpiece.  That was a Brilhart "Velvet Brass"... it belonged to sax great Boots Randolph, the mouthpiece he recorded Yakety Sax, Rock Around the Christmas Tree (Brenda Lee), and others.
 
I measured that facing carefully, tried it on other mouthpieces.  Let me save you the trouble, it did not work on other mouthpieces.  Not a bit.
 
I replaced the bite plate, and just generally cleaned it up.  It is now on display on Boots' old Mk VI, at the Country Music Hall of Fame.
 
Paul

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@...

--- On Tue, 12/30/08, gabivatavu1976 <gabivatavu1976@...> wrote:

From: gabivatavu1976 <gabivatavu1976@...>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] facing length
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, December 30, 2008, 10:48 PM




Hi guys,
I'm hoping this will stir up a bit of a discution amongst us;

I've recently opened up an old brilhart tenor piece, one of the white 
plastic ones. I've openet it up to a 0.105 inch and initialy I put a 
facing length of 25mm (50 on the 0.015 gage); followed all the specs 
generated by Keith's spread sheet ( by the way, thanks a lot Keith, 
that's gold......offered me a great starting point). It all turned up 
beautifull !!! Great player ! really responsive, lots of 
character... etc.

However, my gut feeling, after playing the thing was telling me that 
a slightly shorter facing length will make it even better. I than 
sand it down to a 49 facing, and from a beautiful mouthpiece it 
turned in to an absolute monster !!!
The facing just shortened a little bit, added so much more juicyness 
to the sound. It added that reedy texture to it.....awww ! Great 
stuff !

Now, my questions to you, the more experienced mouthpiece guys are:

How do you decide what facing length you are going to put on 
mouthpiece. Lets say on a tenor you can choose somewhere between 42 
and 50 length (on the 0.0015 feeler) Are you in the habbit of doing 
it all at 50, or some of you 48....etc? Or do you do a baffle/ 
floor/throught/ chamber analysis and than decide " OK this will work 
good with "XX" facing.

I really appreciate all your opinions!
Have a great 2009 everyone, and may you be in great demand !
Cheers,
Gabriel.


 


      

Bill H. --
 
The Brilhart, tenor or alto?
 
Paul

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@...

--- On Wed, 12/31/08, Bill Hausmann <zoot51@...> wrote:

From: Bill Hausmann <zoot51@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] facing length
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, December 31, 2008, 6:21 PM










I had just been considering messing around with a white Brilhart I have.  It is a 3*, a quite short facing and not that open.  It plays strongly, but with no flexibility at all.  It is good to hear that others have had success that way.  I was figuring on something around a Link 7* facing to match most of the other pieces I play regularly.

Bill Hausmann

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

--- On Wed, 12/31/08, Paul C. <tenorman1952@ yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Paul C. <tenorman1952@ yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] facing length
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Wednesday, December 31, 2008, 2:02 AM







I don't like "long" facings, nor do I like "short" facings, in general.  But for specific mouthpieces, sometimes a short or long facing will work.
 
Generally, I like, regardless of tip opening:
 
Soprano, 17-18 mm (34-36 on the E.Brand scale)
 
Alto, 20-22 mm
 
Tenor 22-23 mm, for very large tip openings, 24.
 
Bari 25-26 mm
 
Bass 29-31 mm
 
But I have played some tenor mouthpieces with .105"-.110" tip openings that played well with a 25 mm facing, very long.  And perhaps it was the shape of the baffle that determined this.
 
I have also played a very easy blowing tenor mouthpiece.. . .095" tip and only 19 mm (38) facing length.  It played easily, even in the low end where short facings fail miserably.  The tone was effortless, medium bright, very fast response, just a great playing mouthpiece.  That was a Brilhart "Velvet Brass"... it belonged to sax great Boots Randolph, the mouthpiece he recorded Yakety Sax, Rock Around the Christmas Tree (Brenda Lee), and others.
 
I measured that facing carefully, tried it on other mouthpieces.  Let me save you the trouble, it did not work on other mouthpieces.  Not a bit.
 
I replaced the bite plate, and just generally cleaned it up.  It is now on display on Boots' old Mk VI, at the Country Music Hall of Fame.
 
Paul

Link to Paul's articles from Main page of "Saxgourmet" :
http://www.saxgourm et.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@saxrax. com

--- On Tue, 12/30/08, gabivatavu1976 <gabivatavu1976@ yahoo.com> wrote:

From: gabivatavu1976 <gabivatavu1976@ yahoo.com>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] facing length
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Tuesday, December 30, 2008, 10:48 PM




Hi guys,
I'm hoping this will stir up a bit of a discution amongst us;

I've recently opened up an old brilhart tenor piece, one of the white 
plastic ones. I've openet it up to a 0.105 inch and initialy I put a 
facing length of 25mm (50 on the 0.015 gage); followed all the specs 
generated by Keith's spread sheet ( by the way, thanks a lot Keith, 
that's gold......offered me a great starting point). It all turned up 
beautifull !!! Great player ! really responsive, lots of 
character... etc.

However, my gut feeling, after playing the thing was telling me that 
a slightly shorter facing length will make it even better. I than 
sand it down to a 49 facing, and from a beautiful mouthpiece it 
turned in to an absolute monster !!!
The facing just shortened a little bit, added so much more juicyness 
to the sound. It added that reedy texture to it.....awww ! Great 
stuff !

Now, my questions to you, the more experienced mouthpiece guys are:

How do you decide what facing length you are going to put on 
mouthpiece. Lets say on a tenor you can choose somewhere between 42 
and 50 length (on the 0.0015 feeler) Are you in the habbit of doing 
it all at 50, or some of you 48....etc? Or do you do a baffle/ 
floor/throught/ chamber analysis and than decide " OK this will work 
good with "XX" facing.

I really appreciate all your opinions!
Have a great 2009 everyone, and may you be in great demand !
Cheers,
Gabriel.



 














      

Tenor.

Bill Hausmann

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

--- On Wed, 12/31/08, Paul C. <tenorman1952@...> wrote:

From: Paul C. <tenorman1952@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] facing length
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, December 31, 2008, 9:27 PM











Bill H. --
 
The Brilhart, tenor or alto?
 
Paul

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@...

--- On Wed, 12/31/08, Bill Hausmann <zoot51@...> wrote:

From: Bill Hausmann <zoot51@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] facing length
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, December 31, 2008, 6:21 PM








I had just been considering messing around with a white Brilhart I have.  It is a 3*, a quite short facing and not that open.  It plays strongly, but with no flexibility at all.  It is good to hear that others have had success that way.  I was figuring on something around a Link 7* facing to match most of the other pieces I play regularly.

Bill Hausmann

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

--- On Wed, 12/31/08, Paul C. <tenorman1952@ yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Paul C. <tenorman1952@ yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] facing length
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Wednesday, December 31, 2008, 2:02 AM







I don't like "long" facings, nor do I like "short" facings, in general.  But for specific mouthpieces, sometimes a short or long facing will work.
 
Generally, I like, regardless of tip opening:
 
Soprano, 17-18 mm (34-36 on the E.Brand scale)
 
Alto, 20-22 mm
 
Tenor 22-23 mm, for very large tip openings, 24.
 
Bari 25-26 mm
 
Bass 29-31 mm
 
But I have played some tenor mouthpieces with .105"-.110" tip openings that played well with a 25 mm facing, very long.  And perhaps it was the shape of the baffle that determined this.
 
I have also played a very easy blowing tenor mouthpiece.. . .095" tip and only 19 mm (38) facing length.  It played easily, even in the low end where short facings fail miserably.  The tone was effortless, medium bright, very fast response, just a great playing mouthpiece.  That was a Brilhart "Velvet Brass"... it belonged to sax great Boots Randolph, the mouthpiece he recorded Yakety Sax, Rock Around the Christmas Tree (Brenda Lee), and others.
 
I measured that facing carefully, tried it on other mouthpieces.  Let me save you the trouble, it did not work on other mouthpieces.  Not a bit.
 
I replaced the bite plate, and just generally cleaned it up.  It is now on display on Boots' old Mk VI, at the Country Music Hall of Fame.
 
Paul

Link to Paul's articles from Main page of "Saxgourmet" :
http://www.saxgourm et.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@saxrax. com

--- On Tue, 12/30/08, gabivatavu1976 <gabivatavu1976@ yahoo.com> wrote:

From: gabivatavu1976 <gabivatavu1976@ yahoo.com>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] facing length
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Tuesday, December 30, 2008, 10:48 PM




Hi guys,
I'm hoping this will stir up a bit of a discution amongst us;

I've recently opened up an old brilhart tenor piece, one of the white 
plastic ones. I've openet it up to a 0.105 inch and initialy I put a 
facing length of 25mm (50 on the 0.015 gage); followed all the specs 
generated by Keith's spread sheet ( by the way, thanks a lot Keith, 
that's gold......offered me a great starting point). It all turned up 
beautifull !!! Great player ! really responsive, lots of 
character... etc.

However, my gut feeling, after playing the thing was telling me that 
a slightly shorter facing length will make it even better. I than 
sand it down to a 49 facing, and from a beautiful mouthpiece it 
turned in to an absolute monster !!!
The facing just shortened a little bit, added so much more juicyness 
to the sound. It added that reedy texture to it.....awww ! Great 
stuff !

Now, my questions to you, the more experienced mouthpiece guys are:

How do you decide what facing length you are going to put on 
mouthpiece. Lets say on a tenor you can choose somewhere between 42 
and 50 length (on the 0.0015 feeler) Are you in the habbit of doing 
it all at 50, or some of you 48....etc? Or do you do a baffle/ 
floor/throught/ chamber analysis and than decide " OK this will work 
good with "XX" facing.

I really appreciate all your opinions!
Have a great 2009 everyone, and may you be in great demand !
Cheers,
Gabriel.




 


      

Brilhart 3* tenor is .080" tip opening
 
Link 7* tenor is .105" tip opening
 
You'd be opening .025".  That's a lot.  Measure the thickness with dial caliper, from the tip rail to the top side of the beak.  How much material do you have available?  Make this measurement at the middle and each corner.
 
Paul

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@...

--- On Wed, 12/31/08, Bill Hausmann <zoot51@...> wrote:

From: Bill Hausmann <zoot51@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] facing length
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, December 31, 2008, 6:37 PM










Tenor.

Bill Hausmann

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

--- On Wed, 12/31/08, Paul C. <tenorman1952@ yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Paul C. <tenorman1952@ yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] facing length
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Wednesday, December 31, 2008, 9:27 PM







Bill H. --
 
The Brilhart, tenor or alto?
 
Paul

Link to Paul's articles from Main page of "Saxgourmet" :
http://www.saxgourm et.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@saxrax. com

--- On Wed, 12/31/08, Bill Hausmann <zoot51@yahoo. com> wrote:

From: Bill Hausmann <zoot51@yahoo. com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] facing length
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Wednesday, December 31, 2008, 6:21 PM








I had just been considering messing around with a white Brilhart I have.  It is a 3*, a quite short facing and not that open.  It plays strongly, but with no flexibility at all.  It is good to hear that others have had success that way.  I was figuring on something around a Link 7* facing to match most of the other pieces I play regularly.

Bill Hausmann

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

--- On Wed, 12/31/08, Paul C. <tenorman1952@ yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Paul C. <tenorman1952@ yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] facing length
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Wednesday, December 31, 2008, 2:02 AM







I don't like "long" facings, nor do I like "short" facings, in general.  But for specific mouthpieces, sometimes a short or long facing will work.
 
Generally, I like, regardless of tip opening:
 
Soprano, 17-18 mm (34-36 on the E.Brand scale)
 
Alto, 20-22 mm
 
Tenor 22-23 mm, for very large tip openings, 24.
 
Bari 25-26 mm
 
Bass 29-31 mm
 
But I have played some tenor mouthpieces with .105"-.110" tip openings that played well with a 25 mm facing, very long.  And perhaps it was the shape of the baffle that determined this.
 
I have also played a very easy blowing tenor mouthpiece.. . .095" tip and only 19 mm (38) facing length.  It played easily, even in the low end where short facings fail miserably.  The tone was effortless, medium bright, very fast response, just a great playing mouthpiece.  That was a Brilhart "Velvet Brass"... it belonged to sax great Boots Randolph, the mouthpiece he recorded Yakety Sax, Rock Around the Christmas Tree (Brenda Lee), and others.
 
I measured that facing carefully, tried it on other mouthpieces.  Let me save you the trouble, it did not work on other mouthpieces.  Not a bit.
 
I replaced the bite plate, and just generally cleaned it up.  It is now on display on Boots' old Mk VI, at the Country Music Hall of Fame.
 
Paul

Link to Paul's articles from Main page of "Saxgourmet" :
http://www.saxgourm et.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@saxrax. com

--- On Tue, 12/30/08, gabivatavu1976 <gabivatavu1976@ yahoo.com> wrote:

From: gabivatavu1976 <gabivatavu1976@ yahoo.com>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] facing length
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Tuesday, December 30, 2008, 10:48 PM




Hi guys,
I'm hoping this will stir up a bit of a discution amongst us;

I've recently opened up an old brilhart tenor piece, one of the white 
plastic ones. I've openet it up to a 0.105 inch and initialy I put a 
facing length of 25mm (50 on the 0.015 gage); followed all the specs 
generated by Keith's spread sheet ( by the way, thanks a lot Keith, 
that's gold......offered me a great starting point). It all turned up 
beautifull !!! Great player ! really responsive, lots of 
character... etc.

However, my gut feeling, after playing the thing was telling me that 
a slightly shorter facing length will make it even better. I than 
sand it down to a 49 facing, and from a beautiful mouthpiece it 
turned in to an absolute monster !!!
The facing just shortened a little bit, added so much more juicyness 
to the sound. It added that reedy texture to it.....awww ! Great 
stuff !

Now, my questions to you, the more experienced mouthpiece guys are:

How do you decide what facing length you are going to put on 
mouthpiece. Lets say on a tenor you can choose somewhere between 42 
and 50 length (on the 0.0015 feeler) Are you in the habbit of doing 
it all at 50, or some of you 48....etc? Or do you do a baffle/ 
floor/throught/ chamber analysis and than decide " OK this will work 
good with "XX" facing.

I really appreciate all your opinions!
Have a great 2009 everyone, and may you be in great demand !
Cheers,
Gabriel.





 














      

Thanks for the tip!

Bill Hausmann

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

--- On Wed, 12/31/08, Paul C. <tenorman1952@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Paul C. <tenorman1952@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] facing length
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, December 31, 2008, 9:43 PM











Brilhart 3* tenor is .080" tip opening
 
Link 7* tenor is .105" tip opening
 
You'd be opening .025".  That's a lot.  Measure the thickness with dial caliper, from the tip rail to the top side of the beak.  How much material do you have available?  Make this measurement at the middle and each corner.
 
Paul

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@...m

--- On Wed, 12/31/08, Bill Hausmann <zoot51@...> wrote:

From: Bill Hausmann <zoot51@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] facing length
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, December 31, 2008, 6:37 PM








Tenor.

Bill Hausmann

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

--- On Wed, 12/31/08, Paul C. <tenorman1952@ yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Paul C. <tenorman1952@ yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] facing length
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Wednesday, December 31, 2008, 9:27 PM







Bill H. --
 
The Brilhart, tenor or alto?
 
Paul

Link to Paul's articles from Main page of "Saxgourmet" :
http://www.saxgourm et.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@saxrax. com

--- On Wed, 12/31/08, Bill Hausmann <zoot51@yahoo. com> wrote:

From: Bill Hausmann <zoot51@yahoo. com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] facing length
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Wednesday, December 31, 2008, 6:21 PM








I had just been considering messing around with a white Brilhart I have.  It is a 3*, a quite short facing and not that open.  It plays strongly, but with no flexibility at all.  It is good to hear that others have had success that way.  I was figuring on something around a Link 7* facing to match most of the other pieces I play regularly.

Bill Hausmann

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

--- On Wed, 12/31/08, Paul C. <tenorman1952@ yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Paul C. <tenorman1952@ yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] facing length
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Wednesday, December 31, 2008, 2:02 AM







I don't like "long" facings, nor do I like "short" facings, in general.  But for specific mouthpieces, sometimes a short or long facing will work.
 
Generally, I like, regardless of tip opening:
 
Soprano, 17-18 mm (34-36 on the E.Brand scale)
 
Alto, 20-22 mm
 
Tenor 22-23 mm, for very large tip openings, 24.
 
Bari 25-26 mm
 
Bass 29-31 mm
 
But I have played some tenor mouthpieces with .105"-.110" tip openings that played well with a 25 mm facing, very long.  And perhaps it was the shape of the baffle that determined this.
 
I have also played a very easy blowing tenor mouthpiece.. . .095" tip and only 19 mm (38) facing length.  It played easily, even in the low end where short facings fail miserably.  The tone was effortless, medium bright, very fast response, just a great playing mouthpiece.  That was a Brilhart "Velvet Brass"... it belonged to sax great Boots Randolph, the mouthpiece he recorded Yakety Sax, Rock Around the Christmas Tree (Brenda Lee), and others.
 
I measured that facing carefully, tried it on other mouthpieces.  Let me save you the trouble, it did not work on other mouthpieces.  Not a bit.
 
I replaced the bite plate, and just generally cleaned it up.  It is now on display on Boots' old Mk VI, at the Country Music Hall of Fame.
 
Paul

Link to Paul's articles from Main page of "Saxgourmet" :
http://www.saxgourm et.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@saxrax. com

--- On Tue, 12/30/08, gabivatavu1976 <gabivatavu1976@ yahoo.com> wrote:

From: gabivatavu1976 <gabivatavu1976@ yahoo.com>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] facing length
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Tuesday, December 30, 2008, 10:48 PM




Hi guys,
I'm hoping this will stir up a bit of a discution amongst us;

I've recently opened up an old brilhart tenor piece, one of the white 
plastic ones. I've openet it up to a 0.105 inch and initialy I put a 
facing length of 25mm (50 on the 0.015 gage); followed all the specs 
generated by Keith's spread sheet ( by the way, thanks a lot Keith, 
that's gold......offered me a great starting point). It all turned up 
beautifull !!! Great player ! really responsive, lots of 
character... etc.

However, my gut feeling, after playing the thing was telling me that 
a slightly shorter facing length will make it even better. I than 
sand it down to a 49 facing, and from a beautiful mouthpiece it 
turned in to an absolute monster !!!
The facing just shortened a little bit, added so much more juicyness 
to the sound. It added that reedy texture to it.....awww ! Great 
stuff !

Now, my questions to you, the more experienced mouthpiece guys are:

How do you decide what facing length you are going to put on 
mouthpiece. Lets say on a tenor you can choose somewhere between 42 
and 50 length (on the 0.0015 feeler) Are you in the habbit of doing 
it all at 50, or some of you 48....etc? Or do you do a baffle/ 
floor/throught/ chamber analysis and than decide " OK this will work 
good with "XX" facing.

I really appreciate all your opinions!
Have a great 2009 everyone, and may you be in great demand !
Cheers,
Gabriel.






 


      

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
--- On Wed, 12/31/08, gabivatavu1976 <gabivatavu1976@...> wrote:
How do you decide what facing length you are going to put on 
mouthpiece. Lets say on a tenor you can choose somewhere between 42 
and 50 length (on the 0.0015 feeler) Are you in the habbit of doing 
it all at 50, or some of you 48....etc? Or do you do a baffle/ 
floor/throught/ chamber analysis and than decide " OK this will work 
good with "XX" facing.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

All other things being equal (they rarely are) I doubt most players could tell a 49 facing length from a 50.  They may prefer one mouthpiece over the other, but it may not be due to this small difference in facing length.

I like fairly long facing lengths.  The only disadvantage I get is that some reed cuts might leak air out the sides since they do not flex much where the long facing starts.  If you keep going longer this eventually has to happen.  Even if it does, the mouthpiece can still play great.  But it will not do well with the seal test, which I do not use.

Short facing are traditionally touted as being good for fast articulation.  Especially when matched with a close tip and a hard reed.  But low note response will be more difficult and honky.  

I think I can make long facings articulate well by using elliptical facing curves.  These offer more resistance at the tip that is found in short facing curves.

I do not know of any way to make short facing curves have better low note response.

I use a variety of factors to select a facing length for a client.  I steer the mouthpiece towards my biases but I do not make extreme changes if the client is basically happy with the mouthpiece.  So I may take the facing length half way between where it is and where I think I would like it.  This is part of the art.  We want improvement, but not a shock to the existing embouchure.

On tenor, I like 49-52.  I use Fibracell reeds, but my clients use all kinds of different reeds.  FYI, Guardala LTs are mostly at 52.  A current decent Link STM is 46-48, but they vary a lot.

The tip opening also affects my facing length target.  A huge tip opening will get the longest facing curve.  Like a .125" will get a 52-54.  

Conversely, a Tenor C* tip opening (yuk) might need a 44 length if it has a radial facing and the player is already using fairly stiff reeds on it.  But, I do not get much call for working on "classical" mouthpieces.  


      

[ Attachment content not displayed ]

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "Sakshama Koloski" 
<sakshama1@...> wrote:
>
> Hi!
> I have found for me that a link facing curve works well for links. 
Somehow I
> fell with another one it looses its identity and sounds less linkish. 
What
> are your thoughts about it?

There is no single Link facing curve.  Everyone I have seen is differnt.

[ Attachment content not displayed ]

sorry Paul, the brilhart was a tenor one 

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "Paul C." <tenorman1952@...> 
wrote:
>
> Bill H. --
>  
> The Brilhart, tenor or alto?
>  
> Paul
> 
> 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@...
> 
> --- On Wed, 12/31/08, Bill Hausmann <zoot51@...> wrote:
> 
> From: Bill Hausmann <zoot51@...>
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] facing length
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Wednesday, December 31, 2008, 6:21 PM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I had just been considering messing around with a white Brilhart I 
have.  It is a 3*, a quite short facing and not that open.  It plays 
strongly, but with no flexibility at all.  It is good to hear that 
others have had success that way.  I was figuring on something around 
a Link 7* facing to match most of the other pieces I play regularly.
> 
> Bill Hausmann
> 
> If you have to mic a saxophone, the rest of the band is TOO LOUD!
> 
> --- On Wed, 12/31/08, Paul C. <tenorman1952@ yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> From: Paul C. <tenorman1952@ yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] facing length
> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> Date: Wednesday, December 31, 2008, 2:02 AM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't like "long" facings, nor do I like "short" facings, in 
general.  But for specific mouthpieces, sometimes a short or long 
facing will work.
>  
> Generally, I like, regardless of tip opening:
>  
> Soprano, 17-18 mm (34-36 on the E.Brand scale)
>  
> Alto, 20-22 mm
>  
> Tenor 22-23 mm, for very large tip openings, 24.
>  
> Bari 25-26 mm
>  
> Bass 29-31 mm
>  
> But I have played some tenor mouthpieces with .105"-.110" tip 
openings that played well with a 25 mm facing, very long.  And 
perhaps it was the shape of the baffle that determined this.
>  
> I have also played a very easy blowing tenor mouthpiece.. . .095" 
tip and only 19 mm (38) facing length.  It played easily, even in the 
low end where short facings fail miserably.  The tone was effortless, 
medium bright, very fast response, just a great playing mouthpiece.  
That was a Brilhart "Velvet Brass"... it belonged to sax great Boots 
Randolph, the mouthpiece he recorded Yakety Sax, Rock Around the 
Christmas Tree (Brenda Lee), and others.
>  
> I measured that facing carefully, tried it on other mouthpieces.  
Let me save you the trouble, it did not work on other mouthpieces.  
Not a bit.
>  
> I replaced the bite plate, and just generally cleaned it up.  It is 
now on display on Boots' old Mk VI, at the Country Music Hall of Fame.
>  
> Paul
> 
> Link to Paul's articles from Main page of "Saxgourmet" :
> http://www.saxgourm et.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@saxrax. com
> 
> --- On Tue, 12/30/08, gabivatavu1976 <gabivatavu1976@ yahoo.com> 
wrote:
> 
> From: gabivatavu1976 <gabivatavu1976@ yahoo.com>
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] facing length
> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> Date: Tuesday, December 30, 2008, 10:48 PM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi guys,
> I'm hoping this will stir up a bit of a discution amongst us;
> 
> I've recently opened up an old brilhart tenor piece, one of the 
white 
> plastic ones. I've openet it up to a 0.105 inch and initialy I put 
a 
> facing length of 25mm (50 on the 0.015 gage); followed all the 
specs 
> generated by Keith's spread sheet ( by the way, thanks a lot Keith, 
> that's gold......offered me a great starting point). It all turned 
up 
> beautifull !!! Great player ! really responsive, lots of 
> character... etc.
> 
> However, my gut feeling, after playing the thing was telling me 
that 
> a slightly shorter facing length will make it even better. I than 
> sand it down to a 49 facing, and from a beautiful mouthpiece it 
> turned in to an absolute monster !!!
> The facing just shortened a little bit, added so much more 
juicyness 
> to the sound. It added that reedy texture to it.....awww ! Great 
> stuff !
> 
> Now, my questions to you, the more experienced mouthpiece guys are:
> 
> How do you decide what facing length you are going to put on 
> mouthpiece. Lets say on a tenor you can choose somewhere between 42 
> and 50 length (on the 0.0015 feeler) Are you in the habbit of doing 
> it all at 50, or some of you 48....etc? Or do you do a baffle/ 
> floor/throught/ chamber analysis and than decide " OK this will 
work 
> good with "XX" facing.
> 
> I really appreciate all your opinions!
> Have a great 2009 everyone, and may you be in great demand !
> Cheers,
> Gabriel.
>

Thanks a lot Keith; That's valuable information !


--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Keith Bradbury 
<kwbradbury@...> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> --- On Wed, 12/31/08, gabivatavu1976 <gabivatavu1976@...> wrote:
> How do you decide what facing length you are going to put on 
> mouthpiece. Lets say on a tenor you can choose somewhere between 42 
> and 50 length (on the 0.0015 feeler) Are you in the habbit of doing 
> it all at 50, or some of you 48....etc? Or do you do a baffle/ 
> floor/throught/ chamber analysis and than decide " OK this will 
work 
> good with "XX" facing.
> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
> 
> All other things being equal (they rarely are) I doubt most players 
could tell a 49 facing length from a 50.  They may prefer one 
mouthpiece over the other, but it may not be due to this small 
difference in facing length.
> 
> I like fairly long facing lengths.  The only disadvantage I get is 
that some reed cuts might leak air out the sides since they do not 
flex much where the long facing starts.  If you keep going longer 
this eventually has to happen.  Even if it does, the mouthpiece can 
still play great.  But it will not do well with the seal test, which 
I do not use.
> 
> Short facing are traditionally touted as being good for fast 
articulation.  Especially when matched with a close tip and a hard 
reed.  But low note response will be more difficult and honky.  
> 
> I think I can make long facings articulate well by using elliptical 
facing curves.  These offer more resistance at the tip that is found 
in short facing curves.
> 
> I do not know of any way to make short facing curves have better 
low note response.
> 
> I use a variety of factors to select a facing length for a client.  
I steer the mouthpiece towards my biases but I do not make extreme 
changes if the client is basically happy with the mouthpiece.  So I 
may take the facing length half way between where it is and where I 
think I would like it.  This is part of the art.  We want 
improvement, but not a shock to the existing embouchure.
> 
> On tenor, I like 49-52.  I use Fibracell reeds, but my clients use 
all kinds of different reeds.  FYI, Guardala LTs are mostly at 52.  A 
current decent Link STM is 46-48, but they vary a lot.
> 
> The tip opening also affects my facing length target.  A huge tip 
opening will get the longest facing curve.  Like a .125" will get a 
52-54.  
> 
> Conversely, a Tenor C* tip opening (yuk) might need a 44 length if 
it has a radial facing and the player is already using fairly stiff 
reeds on it.  But, I do not get much call for working on "classical" 
mouthpieces.
>

I've had great results with having Links (metal and H rubber) with 
longer facings. They still kept their main sound core, only much more 
responsive.
What I sometimes do, to add some character is, cut a perfect curve to 
start with; by that i mean folowing Keith's spread sheet 
measurements, and than take some material from under the tip rail (in 
small increments and play testing the piece often, to hear what 
difference it made) So basicaly a make the oppening sligtly bigger 
and leave the curve untouched.With this technique I give links back 
some of their darkness.

I have the feeling that the New York Meyer's had that going. The 
specs of the curve are as if the tip oppening was closer, but in fact 
isn't.....if that makes sense.

Any coments on that .....?
Cheers 
Gabriel.




--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "Sakshama Koloski" 
<sakshama1@...> wrote:
>
> Hi!
> I have found for me that a link facing curve works well for links. 
Somehow I
> fell with another one it looses its identity and sounds less 
linkish. What
> are your thoughts about it?
> Greetings,
> Sakshama
> 
> 
> On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 3:42 PM, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> 
wrote:
> 
> >   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > --- On Wed, 12/31/08, gabivatavu1976 
<gabivatavu1976@...<gabivatavu1976%40yahoo.com>>
> > wrote:
> > How do you decide what facing length you are going to put on
> > mouthpiece. Lets say on a tenor you can choose somewhere between 
42
> > and 50 length (on the 0.0015 feeler) Are you in the habbit of 
doing
> > it all at 50, or some of you 48....etc? Or do you do a baffle/
> > floor/throught/ chamber analysis and than decide " OK this will 
work
> > good with "XX" facing.
> > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
> >
> > All other things being equal (they rarely are) I doubt most 
players could
> > tell a 49 facing length from a 50. They may prefer one mouthpiece 
over the
> > other, but it may not be due to this small difference in facing 
length.
> >
> > I like fairly long facing lengths. The only disadvantage I get is 
that some
> > reed cuts might leak air out the sides since they do not flex 
much where the
> > long facing starts. If you keep going longer this eventually has 
to happen.
> > Even if it does, the mouthpiece can still play great. But it will 
not do
> > well with the seal test, which I do not use.
> >
> > Short facing are traditionally touted as being good for fast 
articulation.
> > Especially when matched with a close tip and a hard reed. But low 
note
> > response will be more difficult and honky.
> >
> > I think I can make long facings articulate well by using 
elliptical facing
> > curves. These offer more resistance at the tip that is found in 
short facing
> > curves.
> >
> > I do not know of any way to make short facing curves have better 
low note
> > response.
> >
> > I use a variety of factors to select a facing length for a 
client. I steer
> > the mouthpiece towards my biases but I do not make extreme 
changes if the
> > client is basically happy with the mouthpiece. So I may take the 
facing
> > length half way between where it is and where I think I would 
like it. This
> > is part of the art. We want improvement, but not a shock to the 
existing
> > embouchure.
> >
> > On tenor, I like 49-52. I use Fibracell reeds, but my clients use 
all kinds
> > of different reeds. FYI, Guardala LTs are mostly at 52. A current 
decent
> > Link STM is 46-48, but they vary a lot.
> >
> > The tip opening also affects my facing length target. A huge tip 
opening
> > will get the longest facing curve. Like a .125" will get a 52-54.
> >
> > Conversely, a Tenor C* tip opening (yuk) might need a 44 length 
if it has a
> > radial facing and the player is already using fairly stiff reeds 
on it. But,
> > I do not get much call for working on "classical" mouthpieces.
> >
> >  
> >
>

After re-reading the Ferron mouthpiece section again, I modeled various mouthpiece/reed designs in Maya and traced the photon reflection paths of a very narrow spotlight, emitted at 90 degrees from various tangent points of the lay with the reed closed.  Interestingly (and as per Ferron's observation), the roll-over designs which I have found I like the best - free blowing, with edge and very responsive - were all shaped so that most of the photon paths reflected off the back of the reed only once before bouncing off the ramp or entering the throat of the mouthpiece.  That's one reflection off the baffle, once off the back of the reed, once more off the baffle, and then reflecting off the ramp or entering the throat.  The high flat baffled design caused multiple reflections off the back of the reed.  More resistance here.











--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "John Delia" <bzalto@...> wrote:
>
> OK
> 
> 
> On 8/28/08, lcchtt <Letydan@...> wrote:
> > Hi sorry, I was not clear. I will PM you OK?
> >
> > Dan
> >
> > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "John Delia" <bzalto@>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Dan, Are you talking about redoing or manufacturing your own brand
> > mpce?  If
> >> so, what is the name of your brand?  Hard rubber or?  Thanks, John
> >>
> >> On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 5:24 PM, lcchtt <Letydan@> wrote:
> >>
> >> >   Concerning the large window
> >> >
> >> > > ... It also moves the base of the window "U" farther away from
> > the
> >> > tip. This has a similar effect to undercutting the base of the
> >> > window "U". There are some diagrams in the Ferron book showing how
> >> > the sound path can reflect off this "wall". These diagrams portray
> >> > what is going on inside the mouthpiece better than any
> > visualization
> >> > based on aerodynamics, streamlines and turbulence. It is a series
> > of
> >> > 3D acoustic sound paths bouncing around. The Ferron book shows a
> > few
> >> > 2D paths, but they are pretty good.
> >> >
> >> > -I personally think this is the most interesting part of the Keith
> >> > answer. I discovered the same thing about one year ago and changed
> >> > the design of my mouthpieces accordingly. Concerning the Ferron
> >> > diagrams it should not work that way but... belive me... it
> > works!!!
> >> > Anyway I prefer to use a wide/long window. The trick is to find
> > the
> >> > rigth proportions. It is not necessary at all to undercut the
> > base of
> >> > the window but please remember... everything should be well
> > balanced.
> >> > All the best,
> >> >
> >> > Dan
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>

Makes sense, Lance.  I've been thinking about doing just this sort of thing recently, but it means learning the modelling software so it is taking some time.  
One thing that occured to me is that a spotlight is a pretty rudimentary model for a soundwave, right?  I'm thinking to model wave behavior from any one plane tangent to the facing curve you maybe want something shaped like half a disk.  Have you done any 3-d modelling of wave behavior with this your Maya models yet? 


--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "lancelotburt" <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
>
> 
> After re-reading the Ferron mouthpiece section again, I modeled various mouthpiece/reed designs in Maya and traced the photon reflection paths of a very narrow spotlight, emitted at 90 degrees from various tangent points of the lay with the reed closed.  Interestingly (and as per Ferron's observation), the roll-over designs which I have found I like the best - free blowing, with edge and very responsive - were all shaped so that most of the photon paths reflected off the back of the reed only once before bouncing off the ramp or entering the throat of the mouthpiece.  That's one reflection off the baffle, once off the back of the reed, once more off the baffle, and then reflecting off the ramp or entering the throat.  The high flat baffled design caused multiple reflections off the back of the reed.  More resistance here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "John Delia" <bzalto@> wrote:
> >
> > OK
> > 
> > 
> > On 8/28/08, lcchtt <Letydan@> wrote:
> > > Hi sorry, I was not clear. I will PM you OK?
> > >
> > > Dan
> > >
> > > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "John Delia" <bzalto@>
> > > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Dan, Are you talking about redoing or manufacturing your own brand
> > > mpce?  If
> > >> so, what is the name of your brand?  Hard rubber or?  Thanks, John
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 5:24 PM, lcchtt <Letydan@> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >   Concerning the large window
> > >> >
> > >> > > ... It also moves the base of the window "U" farther away from
> > > the
> > >> > tip. This has a similar effect to undercutting the base of the
> > >> > window "U". There are some diagrams in the Ferron book showing how
> > >> > the sound path can reflect off this "wall". These diagrams portray
> > >> > what is going on inside the mouthpiece better than any
> > > visualization
> > >> > based on aerodynamics, streamlines and turbulence. It is a series
> > > of
> > >> > 3D acoustic sound paths bouncing around. The Ferron book shows a
> > > few
> > >> > 2D paths, but they are pretty good.
> > >> >
> > >> > -I personally think this is the most interesting part of the Keith
> > >> > answer. I discovered the same thing about one year ago and changed
> > >> > the design of my mouthpieces accordingly. Concerning the Ferron
> > >> > diagrams it should not work that way but... belive me... it
> > > works!!!
> > >> > Anyway I prefer to use a wide/long window. The trick is to find
> > > the
> > >> > rigth proportions. It is not necessary at all to undercut the
> > > base of
> > >> > the window but please remember... everything should be well
> > > balanced.
> > >> > All the best,
> > >> >
> > >> > Dan
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Hi Lance,

Somehow it is always me raining on your parade :^(

I know that you are much too smart to think that particle modeling is going to give you the least bit of useful information about wave behavior. Particles and waves are two completely different animals, as the quantum physicists know so well. 

If you enjoy playing in Maya then don't let me stop you, but I believe that what you are doing is about as useful as trying to model wave behavior in the ocean by throwing a cork in the water and plotting its position over time.

Everything I have read indicates that there is, as yet, no good way to model what is happening in the mpc. Plotting isolated parameters, such as what you are doing, is useless if you do not know and cannot predict the influence of other interactive parameters. Don't forget that there is no
 interference in the particle model, but that it is all-important in the wave model. Amomg other things...

If you think I am wrong I would be happy to discuss it, as always ;-)

Toby

lancelotburt <lancelotburt@...> wrote:                                           

              
 After re-reading the Ferron mouthpiece section again, I modeled various mouthpiece/reed designs in Maya and traced the photon reflection paths of a very narrow spotlight, emitted at 90 degrees from various tangent points of the lay with the reed closed.  Interestingly (and as per Ferron's
 observation), the roll-over designs which I have found I like the best - free blowing, with edge and very responsive - were all shaped so that most of the photon paths reflected off the back of the reed only once before bouncing off the ramp or entering the throat of the mouthpiece.  That's one
 reflection off the baffle, once off the back of the reed, once more off the baffle, and then reflecting off the ramp or entering the throat.  The high flat baffled design caused multiple reflections off the back of the reed.  More resistance here.
 
 --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "John Delia" <bzalto@...> wrote:
 >
 > OK
 > 
 > 
 > On 8/28/08, lcchtt <Letydan@...> wrote:
 > > Hi sorry, I was not clear. I will PM you OK?
 > >
 > > Dan
 > >
 > > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "John Delia" <bzalto@>
 > > wrote:
 > >>
 > >> Dan, Are you talking about redoing or manufacturing your own brand
 > > mpce?  If
 > >> so, what is the name of your brand?  Hard rubber or?  Thanks, John
 > >>
 > >> On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 5:24 PM, lcchtt <Letydan@> wrote:
 > >>
 > >> >   Concerning the large window
 > >> >
 > >> > > ... It also moves the base of the window "U" farther away from
 > > the
 > >> > tip. This has a similar effect to undercutting the base of the
 > >> > window "U". There are some diagrams in the Ferron book showing how
 > >> > the sound path can reflect off this "wall". These diagrams portray
 > >> > what is going on inside the mouthpiece better than any
 > > visualization
 > >> > based on aerodynamics, streamlines and turbulence. It is a series
 > > of
 > >> > 3D acoustic sound paths bouncing around. The Ferron book shows a
 > > few
 > >> > 2D paths, but they are pretty good.
 > >> >
 > >> > -I personally think this is the most interesting part of the Keith
 > >> > answer. I discovered the same thing about one year ago and changed
 > >> > the design of my mouthpieces accordingly. Concerning the Ferron
 > >> > diagrams it should not work that way but... belive me... it
 > > works!!!
 > >> > Anyway I prefer to use a wide/long window. The trick is to find
 > > the
 > >> > rigth proportions. It is not necessary at all to undercut the
 > > base of
 > >> > the window but please remember... everything should be well
 > > balanced.
 > >> > All the best,
 > >> >
 > >> > Dan
 > >> >
 > >> >
 > >> >
 > >>
 > >
 > >
 > >
 >
 
 
        
             
                          
 

Hi Toby.

I do disagree.  I learned a great deal from the simulation, which reinforces that elephant that I have in my closet, my own personal experience (35 years) as a saxophonist and a roll-over baffle modifier.  Regardless of what other interferences there are, the vibrating reed still creates an advancing transverse wave parallel to it's surface and the inclined surface of the baffle will reflect a good portion of that wave energy according to optical laws, where the angle of incidence and the angle of reflection will be equal, at least for the first few reflections, which would be the strongest, and that was all I was interested in.  The simple animation was sufficient to show the difference between a roll over baffle and a high straight baffle, in that regard, and the importance the ramp plays in mouthpieces that have thick table walls.

Did you every actually read the Ferron book then?  You do like to disagree with him alot.


--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Lance,
> 
> Somehow it is always me raining on your parade :^(
> 
> I know that you are much too smart to think that particle modeling is going to give you the least bit of useful information about wave behavior. Particles and waves are two completely different animals, as the quantum physicists know so well. 
> 
> If you enjoy playing in Maya then don't let me stop you, but I believe that what you are doing is about as useful as trying to model wave behavior in the ocean by throwing a cork in the water and plotting its position over time.
> 
> Everything I have read indicates that there is, as yet, no good way to model what is happening in the mpc. Plotting isolated parameters, such as what you are doing, is useless if you do not know and cannot predict the influence of other interactive parameters. Don't forget that there is no
>  interference in the particle model, but that it is all-important in the wave model. Amomg other things...
> 
> If you think I am wrong I would be happy to discuss it, as always ;-)
> 
> Toby
> 
> lancelotburt <lancelotburt@...> wrote:                                           
> 
>               
>  After re-reading the Ferron mouthpiece section again, I modeled various mouthpiece/reed designs in Maya and traced the photon reflection paths of a very narrow spotlight, emitted at 90 degrees from various tangent points of the lay with the reed closed.  Interestingly (and as per Ferron's
>  observation), the roll-over designs which I have found I like the best - free blowing, with edge and very responsive - were all shaped so that most of the photon paths reflected off the back of the reed only once before bouncing off the ramp or entering the throat of the mouthpiece.  That's one
>  reflection off the baffle, once off the back of the reed, once more off the baffle, and then reflecting off the ramp or entering the throat.  The high flat baffled design caused multiple reflections off the back of the reed.  More resistance here.
>  
>  --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "John Delia" <bzalto@> wrote:
>  >
>  > OK
>  > 
>  > 
>  > On 8/28/08, lcchtt <Letydan@> wrote:
>  > > Hi sorry, I was not clear. I will PM you OK?
>  > >
>  > > Dan
>  > >
>  > > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "John Delia" <bzalto@>
>  > > wrote:
>  > >>
>  > >> Dan, Are you talking about redoing or manufacturing your own brand
>  > > mpce?  If
>  > >> so, what is the name of your brand?  Hard rubber or?  Thanks, John
>  > >>
>  > >> On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 5:24 PM, lcchtt <Letydan@> wrote:
>  > >>
>  > >> >   Concerning the large window
>  > >> >
>  > >> > > ... It also moves the base of the window "U" farther away from
>  > > the
>  > >> > tip. This has a similar effect to undercutting the base of the
>  > >> > window "U". There are some diagrams in the Ferron book showing how
>  > >> > the sound path can reflect off this "wall". These diagrams portray
>  > >> > what is going on inside the mouthpiece better than any
>  > > visualization
>  > >> > based on aerodynamics, streamlines and turbulence. It is a series
>  > > of
>  > >> > 3D acoustic sound paths bouncing around. The Ferron book shows a
>  > > few
>  > >> > 2D paths, but they are pretty good.
>  > >> >
>  > >> > -I personally think this is the most interesting part of the Keith
>  > >> > answer. I discovered the same thing about one year ago and changed
>  > >> > the design of my mouthpieces accordingly. Concerning the Ferron
>  > >> > diagrams it should not work that way but... belive me... it
>  > > works!!!
>  > >> > Anyway I prefer to use a wide/long window. The trick is to find
>  > > the
>  > >> > rigth proportions. It is not necessary at all to undercut the
>  > > base of
>  > >> > the window but please remember... everything should be well
>  > > balanced.
>  > >> > All the best,
>  > >> >
>  > >> > Dan
>  > >> >
>  > >> >
>  > >> >
>  > >>
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  >
>

Hi Lance,

Never did find Ferron while I was in the US. I'll have to order it the next time I do an Amazon shipment, which is rare. 

I guess I don't have to warn you about incomplete analyses reinforcing personal experience and belief ;^)

I think you might find it interesting to read Gary Scavone's thesis on waveguide modeling of woodwinds, which contains a detailed section on single-reed mouthpieces (google scavone thesis). Here is the introduction to that section:

"The single-reed mouthpiece forms an extension of the woodwind air column which allows the attachment of a wooden cane reed in such a way that it can function as a pressure controlled air valve.
The mouthpiece cavity does not form a uniform continuation to either a cylindrical or conical bore, and as a result, propagating sound waves within the chamber are scattered in complex ways. The inside geometry of the mouthpiece is critical in determining the response, timbre, and intonation of
 the overall instrument. Most attempts to accurately determine the specic relationships between geometric proportions and acoustical behavior, however, have failed."

I think I have to stress that angle of incidence equalling angle of refrlection is that cork bobbing on the surface. Point a hose at a wall and see if the stream bounces off at the correct angle of reflection in a nice coherent stream...

As I say, if you enjoy playing with Maya don't let me stop you, but this is a far cry from a serious investigation into the behavior of the reed/mpc/air column system and how it works in integration. Just by contrast, here is a short quote from Scavone, section 4.1.2 Mouthpiece Models:

"As discussed in Section 3.3.3, the lumped-section approach begins in the frequency domain. The appropriate transmission matrices which correspond to the individual sections are cascaded to pro-
duce a single, lumped transmission matrix characterization. These parameters are then transformed to waveguide coordinates via the substitutions documented throughout this study. It is particu-
larly important that the wave impedance for spherical traveling-wave components be conjugated for propagation toward the cone apex. When the input and/or output of the lumped section is given by a cylindrical segment, the relationships of Eqs. (3.53a){(3.53d) can be simplifed, in that Z0 and Z*0
 are equivalent for cylindrical pipes."

This is the level at which serious analysis is carried out, and even so attempts to model what happens in the mpc consistently fail.

And we still haven't even begun to talk about how all this affects the vibrating reed, and how it vibrates...

Just so you know what you are getting into ;*}

Toby







lancelotburt <lancelotburt@...> wrote:                                           

              Hi Toby.
 
 I do disagree.  I learned a great deal from the simulation, which reinforces that elephant that I have in my closet, my own personal experience (35 years) as a saxophonist and a roll-over baffle modifier.  Regardless of what other interferences there are, the vibrating reed still creates an
 advancing transverse wave parallel to it's surface and the inclined surface of the baffle will reflect a good portion of that wave energy according to optical laws, where the angle of incidence and the angle of reflection will be equal, at least for the first few reflections, which would be the
 strongest, and that was all I was interested in.  The simple animation was sufficient to show the difference between a roll over baffle and a high straight baffle, in that regard, and the importance the ramp plays in mouthpieces that have thick table walls.
 
 Did you every actually read the Ferron book then?  You do like to disagree with him alot.
 
 --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
 >
 > Hi Lance,
 > 
 > Somehow it is always me raining on your parade :^(
 > 
 > I know that you are much too smart to think that particle modeling is going to give you the least bit of useful information about wave behavior. Particles and waves are two completely different animals, as the quantum physicists know so well. 
 > 
 > If you enjoy playing in Maya then don't let me stop you, but I believe that what you are doing is about as useful as trying to model wave behavior in the ocean by throwing a cork in the water and plotting its position over time.
 > 
 > Everything I have read indicates that there is, as yet, no good way to model what is happening in the mpc. Plotting isolated parameters, such as what you are doing, is useless if you do not know and cannot predict the influence of other interactive parameters. Don't forget that there is no
 >  interference in the particle model, but that it is all-important in the wave model. Amomg other things...
 > 
 > If you think I am wrong I would be happy to discuss it, as always ;-)
 > 
 > Toby
 > 
 > lancelotburt <lancelotburt@...> wrote:                                           
 > 
 >               
 >  After re-reading the Ferron mouthpiece section again, I modeled various mouthpiece/reed designs in Maya and traced the photon reflection paths of a very narrow spotlight, emitted at 90 degrees from various tangent points of the lay with the reed closed.  Interestingly (and as per Ferron's
 >  observation), the roll-over designs which I have found I like the best - free blowing, with edge and very responsive - were all shaped so that most of the photon paths reflected off the back of the reed only once before bouncing off the ramp or entering the throat of the mouthpiece.  That's one
 >  reflection off the baffle, once off the back of the reed, once more off the baffle, and then reflecting off the ramp or entering the throat.  The high flat baffled design caused multiple reflections off the back of the reed.  More resistance here.
 >  
 >  --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "John Delia" <bzalto@> wrote:
 >  >
 >  > OK
 >  > 
 >  > 
 >  > On 8/28/08, lcchtt <Letydan@> wrote:
 >  > > Hi sorry, I was not clear. I will PM you OK?
 >  > >
 >  > > Dan
 >  > >
 >  > > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "John Delia" <bzalto@>
 >  > > wrote:
 >  > >>
 >  > >> Dan, Are you talking about redoing or manufacturing your own brand
 >  > > mpce?  If
 >  > >> so, what is the name of your brand?  Hard rubber or?  Thanks, John
 >  > >>
 >  > >> On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 5:24 PM, lcchtt <Letydan@> wrote:
 >  > >>
 >  > >> >   Concerning the large window
 >  > >> >
 >  > >> > > ... It also moves the base of the window "U" farther away from
 >  > > the
 >  > >> > tip. This has a similar effect to undercutting the base of the
 >  > >> > window "U". There are some diagrams in the Ferron book showing how
 >  > >> > the sound path can reflect off this "wall". These diagrams portray
 >  > >> > what is going on inside the mouthpiece better than any
 >  > > visualization
 >  > >> > based on aerodynamics, streamlines and turbulence. It is a series
 >  > > of
 >  > >> > 3D acoustic sound paths bouncing around. The Ferron book shows a
 >  > > few
 >  > >> > 2D paths, but they are pretty good.
 >  > >> >
 >  > >> > -I personally think this is the most interesting part of the Keith
 >  > >> > answer. I discovered the same thing about one year ago and changed
 >  > >> > the design of my mouthpieces accordingly. Concerning the Ferron
 >  > >> > diagrams it should not work that way but... belive me... it
 >  > > works!!!
 >  > >> > Anyway I prefer to use a wide/long window. The trick is to find
 >  > > the
 >  > >> > rigth proportions. It is not necessary at all to undercut the
 >  > > base of
 >  > >> > the window but please remember... everything should be well
 >  > > balanced.
 >  > >> > All the best,
 >  > >> >
 >  > >> > Dan
 >  > >> >
 >  > >> >
 >  > >> >
 >  > >>
 >  > >
 >  > >
 >  > >
 >  >
 >
 
 
        
             
                          
 

If you're looking for the Ferron, Curt Alarac at musicmedic.com has them.  As technically minded as you are, Toby, it makes little sense to leave that particular stone unturned.

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Lance,
> 
> Never did find Ferron while I was in the US. I'll have to order it the next time I do an Amazon shipment, which is rare. 
> 
> I guess I don't have to warn you about incomplete analyses reinforcing personal experience and belief ;^)
> 
> I think you might find it interesting to read Gary Scavone's thesis on waveguide modeling of woodwinds, which contains a detailed section on single-reed mouthpieces (google scavone thesis). Here is the introduction to that section:
> 
> "The single-reed mouthpiece forms an extension of the woodwind air column which allows the attachment of a wooden cane reed in such a way that it can function as a pressure controlled air valve.
> The mouthpiece cavity does not form a uniform continuation to either a cylindrical or conical bore, and as a result, propagating sound waves within the chamber are scattered in complex ways. The inside geometry of the mouthpiece is critical in determining the response, timbre, and intonation of
>  the overall instrument. Most attempts to accurately determine the specic relationships between geometric proportions and acoustical behavior, however, have failed."
> 
> I think I have to stress that angle of incidence equalling angle of refrlection is that cork bobbing on the surface. Point a hose at a wall and see if the stream bounces off at the correct angle of reflection in a nice coherent stream...
> 
> As I say, if you enjoy playing with Maya don't let me stop you, but this is a far cry from a serious investigation into the behavior of the reed/mpc/air column system and how it works in integration. Just by contrast, here is a short quote from Scavone, section 4.1.2 Mouthpiece Models:
> 
> "As discussed in Section 3.3.3, the lumped-section approach begins in the frequency domain. The appropriate transmission matrices which correspond to the individual sections are cascaded to pro-
> duce a single, lumped transmission matrix characterization. These parameters are then transformed to waveguide coordinates via the substitutions documented throughout this study. It is particu-
> larly important that the wave impedance for spherical traveling-wave components be conjugated for propagation toward the cone apex. When the input and/or output of the lumped section is given by a cylindrical segment, the relationships of Eqs. (3.53a){(3.53d) can be simplifed, in that Z0 and Z*0
>  are equivalent for cylindrical pipes."
> 
> This is the level at which serious analysis is carried out, and even so attempts to model what happens in the mpc consistently fail.
> 
> And we still haven't even begun to talk about how all this affects the vibrating reed, and how it vibrates...
> 
> Just so you know what you are getting into ;*}
> 
> Toby
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lancelotburt <lancelotburt@...> wrote:                                           
> 
>               Hi Toby.
>  
>  I do disagree.  I learned a great deal from the simulation, which reinforces that elephant that I have in my closet, my own personal experience (35 years) as a saxophonist and a roll-over baffle modifier.  Regardless of what other interferences there are, the vibrating reed still creates an
>  advancing transverse wave parallel to it's surface and the inclined surface of the baffle will reflect a good portion of that wave energy according to optical laws, where the angle of incidence and the angle of reflection will be equal, at least for the first few reflections, which would be the
>  strongest, and that was all I was interested in.  The simple animation was sufficient to show the difference between a roll over baffle and a high straight baffle, in that regard, and the importance the ramp plays in mouthpieces that have thick table walls.
>  
>  Did you every actually read the Ferron book then?  You do like to disagree with him alot.
>  
>  --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@> wrote:
>  >
>  > Hi Lance,
>  > 
>  > Somehow it is always me raining on your parade :^(
>  > 
>  > I know that you are much too smart to think that particle modeling is going to give you the least bit of useful information about wave behavior. Particles and waves are two completely different animals, as the quantum physicists know so well. 
>  > 
>  > If you enjoy playing in Maya then don't let me stop you, but I believe that what you are doing is about as useful as trying to model wave behavior in the ocean by throwing a cork in the water and plotting its position over time.
>  > 
>  > Everything I have read indicates that there is, as yet, no good way to model what is happening in the mpc. Plotting isolated parameters, such as what you are doing, is useless if you do not know and cannot predict the influence of other interactive parameters. Don't forget that there is no
>  >  interference in the particle model, but that it is all-important in the wave model. Amomg other things...
>  > 
>  > If you think I am wrong I would be happy to discuss it, as always ;-)
>  > 
>  > Toby
>  > 
>  > lancelotburt <lancelotburt@> wrote:                                           
>  > 
>  >               
>  >  After re-reading the Ferron mouthpiece section again, I modeled various mouthpiece/reed designs in Maya and traced the photon reflection paths of a very narrow spotlight, emitted at 90 degrees from various tangent points of the lay with the reed closed.  Interestingly (and as per Ferron's
>  >  observation), the roll-over designs which I have found I like the best - free blowing, with edge and very responsive - were all shaped so that most of the photon paths reflected off the back of the reed only once before bouncing off the ramp or entering the throat of the mouthpiece.  That's one
>  >  reflection off the baffle, once off the back of the reed, once more off the baffle, and then reflecting off the ramp or entering the throat.  The high flat baffled design caused multiple reflections off the back of the reed.  More resistance here.
>  >  
>  >  --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "John Delia" <bzalto@> wrote:
>  >  >
>  >  > OK
>  >  > 
>  >  > 
>  >  > On 8/28/08, lcchtt <Letydan@> wrote:
>  >  > > Hi sorry, I was not clear. I will PM you OK?
>  >  > >
>  >  > > Dan
>  >  > >
>  >  > > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "John Delia" <bzalto@>
>  >  > > wrote:
>  >  > >>
>  >  > >> Dan, Are you talking about redoing or manufacturing your own brand
>  >  > > mpce?  If
>  >  > >> so, what is the name of your brand?  Hard rubber or?  Thanks, John
>  >  > >>
>  >  > >> On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 5:24 PM, lcchtt <Letydan@> wrote:
>  >  > >>
>  >  > >> >   Concerning the large window
>  >  > >> >
>  >  > >> > > ... It also moves the base of the window "U" farther away from
>  >  > > the
>  >  > >> > tip. This has a similar effect to undercutting the base of the
>  >  > >> > window "U". There are some diagrams in the Ferron book showing how
>  >  > >> > the sound path can reflect off this "wall". These diagrams portray
>  >  > >> > what is going on inside the mouthpiece better than any
>  >  > > visualization
>  >  > >> > based on aerodynamics, streamlines and turbulence. It is a series
>  >  > > of
>  >  > >> > 3D acoustic sound paths bouncing around. The Ferron book shows a
>  >  > > few
>  >  > >> > 2D paths, but they are pretty good.
>  >  > >> >
>  >  > >> > -I personally think this is the most interesting part of the Keith
>  >  > >> > answer. I discovered the same thing about one year ago and changed
>  >  > >> > the design of my mouthpieces accordingly. Concerning the Ferron
>  >  > >> > diagrams it should not work that way but... belive me... it
>  >  > > works!!!
>  >  > >> > Anyway I prefer to use a wide/long window. The trick is to find
>  >  > > the
>  >  > >> > rigth proportions. It is not necessary at all to undercut the
>  >  > > base of
>  >  > >> > the window but please remember... everything should be well
>  >  > > balanced.
>  >  > >> > All the best,
>  >  > >> >
>  >  > >> > Dan
>  >  > >> >
>  >  > >> >
>  >  > >> >
>  >  > >>
>  >  > >
>  >  > >
>  >  > >
>  >  >
>  >
>

Toby,

I'd be more than happy to discuss the Ferron chapter I'm referring to with you, after you bother to read it.

Lance


--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Lance,
> 
> Never did find Ferron while I was in the US. I'll have to order it the next time I do an Amazon shipment, which is rare. 
> 
> I guess I don't have to warn you about incomplete analyses reinforcing personal experience and belief ;^)
> 
> I think you might find it interesting to read Gary Scavone's thesis on waveguide modeling of woodwinds, which contains a detailed section on single-reed mouthpieces (google scavone thesis). Here is the introduction to that section:
> 
> "The single-reed mouthpiece forms an extension of the woodwind air column which allows the attachment of a wooden cane reed in such a way that it can function as a pressure controlled air valve.
> The mouthpiece cavity does not form a uniform continuation to either a cylindrical or conical bore, and as a result, propagating sound waves within the chamber are scattered in complex ways. The inside geometry of the mouthpiece is critical in determining the response, timbre, and intonation of
>  the overall instrument. Most attempts to accurately determine the specic relationships between geometric proportions and acoustical behavior, however, have failed."
> 
> I think I have to stress that angle of incidence equalling angle of refrlection is that cork bobbing on the surface. Point a hose at a wall and see if the stream bounces off at the correct angle of reflection in a nice coherent stream...
> 
> As I say, if you enjoy playing with Maya don't let me stop you, but this is a far cry from a serious investigation into the behavior of the reed/mpc/air column system and how it works in integration. Just by contrast, here is a short quote from Scavone, section 4.1.2 Mouthpiece Models:
> 
> "As discussed in Section 3.3.3, the lumped-section approach begins in the frequency domain. The appropriate transmission matrices which correspond to the individual sections are cascaded to pro-
> duce a single, lumped transmission matrix characterization. These parameters are then transformed to waveguide coordinates via the substitutions documented throughout this study. It is particu-
> larly important that the wave impedance for spherical traveling-wave components be conjugated for propagation toward the cone apex. When the input and/or output of the lumped section is given by a cylindrical segment, the relationships of Eqs. (3.53a){(3.53d) can be simplifed, in that Z0 and Z*0
>  are equivalent for cylindrical pipes."
> 
> This is the level at which serious analysis is carried out, and even so attempts to model what happens in the mpc consistently fail.
> 
> And we still haven't even begun to talk about how all this affects the vibrating reed, and how it vibrates...
> 
> Just so you know what you are getting into ;*}
> 
> Toby
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lancelotburt <lancelotburt@...> wrote:                                           
> 
>               Hi Toby.
>  
>  I do disagree.  I learned a great deal from the simulation, which reinforces that elephant that I have in my closet, my own personal experience (35 years) as a saxophonist and a roll-over baffle modifier.  Regardless of what other interferences there are, the vibrating reed still creates an
>  advancing transverse wave parallel to it's surface and the inclined surface of the baffle will reflect a good portion of that wave energy according to optical laws, where the angle of incidence and the angle of reflection will be equal, at least for the first few reflections, which would be the
>  strongest, and that was all I was interested in.  The simple animation was sufficient to show the difference between a roll over baffle and a high straight baffle, in that regard, and the importance the ramp plays in mouthpieces that have thick table walls.
>  
>  Did you every actually read the Ferron book then?  You do like to disagree with him alot.
>  
>  --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@> wrote:
>  >
>  > Hi Lance,
>  > 
>  > Somehow it is always me raining on your parade :^(
>  > 
>  > I know that you are much too smart to think that particle modeling is going to give you the least bit of useful information about wave behavior. Particles and waves are two completely different animals, as the quantum physicists know so well. 
>  > 
>  > If you enjoy playing in Maya then don't let me stop you, but I believe that what you are doing is about as useful as trying to model wave behavior in the ocean by throwing a cork in the water and plotting its position over time.
>  > 
>  > Everything I have read indicates that there is, as yet, no good way to model what is happening in the mpc. Plotting isolated parameters, such as what you are doing, is useless if you do not know and cannot predict the influence of other interactive parameters. Don't forget that there is no
>  >  interference in the particle model, but that it is all-important in the wave model. Amomg other things...
>  > 
>  > If you think I am wrong I would be happy to discuss it, as always ;-)
>  > 
>  > Toby
>  > 
>  > lancelotburt <lancelotburt@> wrote:                                           
>  > 
>  >               
>  >  After re-reading the Ferron mouthpiece section again, I modeled various mouthpiece/reed designs in Maya and traced the photon reflection paths of a very narrow spotlight, emitted at 90 degrees from various tangent points of the lay with the reed closed.  Interestingly (and as per Ferron's
>  >  observation), the roll-over designs which I have found I like the best - free blowing, with edge and very responsive - were all shaped so that most of the photon paths reflected off the back of the reed only once before bouncing off the ramp or entering the throat of the mouthpiece.  That's one
>  >  reflection off the baffle, once off the back of the reed, once more off the baffle, and then reflecting off the ramp or entering the throat.  The high flat baffled design caused multiple reflections off the back of the reed.  More resistance here.
>  >  
>  >  --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "John Delia" <bzalto@> wrote:
>  >  >
>  >  > OK
>  >  > 
>  >  > 
>  >  > On 8/28/08, lcchtt <Letydan@> wrote:
>  >  > > Hi sorry, I was not clear. I will PM you OK?
>  >  > >
>  >  > > Dan
>  >  > >
>  >  > > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "John Delia" <bzalto@>
>  >  > > wrote:
>  >  > >>
>  >  > >> Dan, Are you talking about redoing or manufacturing your own brand
>  >  > > mpce?  If
>  >  > >> so, what is the name of your brand?  Hard rubber or?  Thanks, John
>  >  > >>
>  >  > >> On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 5:24 PM, lcchtt <Letydan@> wrote:
>  >  > >>
>  >  > >> >   Concerning the large window
>  >  > >> >
>  >  > >> > > ... It also moves the base of the window "U" farther away from
>  >  > > the
>  >  > >> > tip. This has a similar effect to undercutting the base of the
>  >  > >> > window "U". There are some diagrams in the Ferron book showing how
>  >  > >> > the sound path can reflect off this "wall". These diagrams portray
>  >  > >> > what is going on inside the mouthpiece better than any
>  >  > > visualization
>  >  > >> > based on aerodynamics, streamlines and turbulence. It is a series
>  >  > > of
>  >  > >> > 3D acoustic sound paths bouncing around. The Ferron book shows a
>  >  > > few
>  >  > >> > 2D paths, but they are pretty good.
>  >  > >> >
>  >  > >> > -I personally think this is the most interesting part of the Keith
>  >  > >> > answer. I discovered the same thing about one year ago and changed
>  >  > >> > the design of my mouthpieces accordingly. Concerning the Ferron
>  >  > >> > diagrams it should not work that way but... belive me... it
>  >  > > works!!!
>  >  > >> > Anyway I prefer to use a wide/long window. The trick is to find
>  >  > > the
>  >  > >> > rigth proportions. It is not necessary at all to undercut the
>  >  > > base of
>  >  > >> > the window but please remember... everything should be well
>  >  > > balanced.
>  >  > >> > All the best,
>  >  > >> >
>  >  > >> > Dan
>  >  > >> >
>  >  > >> >
>  >  > >> >
>  >  > >>
>  >  > >
>  >  > >
>  >  > >
>  >  >
>  >
>

Toby,

As to Scavone's impressive thesis:  I read this some time ago.  Re-reading it with mouthpiece baffle/ramp design particularly in mind, one notices that the discussion of mouthpiece baffle design is of the most utterly basic nature.  No distinction is made between a roll-over or a high straight baffle, and the function/effect of the ramp area is not addressed at all.  Further, as regards mouthpiece modeling, while he states that, "It was seen there that mouthpiece geometry variations can have signicant influence on the timbre and intonation of a musical instrument."  and, "Mouthpiece geometry variations and their associated timbral effects can be explored and implemented in a stable form using the \lumped-section" approach."  "The lumped-section mouthpiece implementation demonstrated here demands high-order digital filters to accurately model. For real-time digital waveguide implementations under current computer processor capabilities, it is unclear whether the benefits of such mouthpiece design flexibility are worth the added computational cost."

A serious study?  Yes.  As specifically applied to mouthpiece baffle/ramp design, modeling, and analysis? Not an exhaustive study perhaps.

Lance






--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "lancelotburt" <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
>
> Toby,
> 
> I'd be more than happy to discuss the Ferron chapter I'm referring to with you, after you bother to read it.
> 
> Lance
> 
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Lance,
> > 
> > Never did find Ferron while I was in the US. I'll have to order it the next time I do an Amazon shipment, which is rare. 
> > 
> > I guess I don't have to warn you about incomplete analyses reinforcing personal experience and belief ;^)
> > 
> > I think you might find it interesting to read Gary Scavone's thesis on waveguide modeling of woodwinds, which contains a detailed section on single-reed mouthpieces (google scavone thesis). Here is the introduction to that section:
> > 
> > "The single-reed mouthpiece forms an extension of the woodwind air column which allows the attachment of a wooden cane reed in such a way that it can function as a pressure controlled air valve.
> > The mouthpiece cavity does not form a uniform continuation to either a cylindrical or conical bore, and as a result, propagating sound waves within the chamber are scattered in complex ways. The inside geometry of the mouthpiece is critical in determining the response, timbre, and intonation of
> >  the overall instrument. Most attempts to accurately determine the specic relationships between geometric proportions and acoustical behavior, however, have failed."
> > 
> > I think I have to stress that angle of incidence equalling angle of refrlection is that cork bobbing on the surface. Point a hose at a wall and see if the stream bounces off at the correct angle of reflection in a nice coherent stream...
> > 
> > As I say, if you enjoy playing with Maya don't let me stop you, but this is a far cry from a serious investigation into the behavior of the reed/mpc/air column system and how it works in integration. Just by contrast, here is a short quote from Scavone, section 4.1.2 Mouthpiece Models:
> > 
> > "As discussed in Section 3.3.3, the lumped-section approach begins in the frequency domain. The appropriate transmission matrices which correspond to the individual sections are cascaded to pro-
> > duce a single, lumped transmission matrix characterization. These parameters are then transformed to waveguide coordinates via the substitutions documented throughout this study. It is particu-
> > larly important that the wave impedance for spherical traveling-wave components be conjugated for propagation toward the cone apex. When the input and/or output of the lumped section is given by a cylindrical segment, the relationships of Eqs. (3.53a){(3.53d) can be simplifed, in that Z0 and Z*0
> >  are equivalent for cylindrical pipes."
> > 
> > This is the level at which serious analysis is carried out, and even so attempts to model what happens in the mpc consistently fail.
> > 
> > And we still haven't even begun to talk about how all this affects the vibrating reed, and how it vibrates...
> > 
> > Just so you know what you are getting into ;*}
> > 
> > Toby
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > lancelotburt <lancelotburt@> wrote:                                           
> > 
> >               Hi Toby.
> >  
> >  I do disagree.  I learned a great deal from the simulation, which reinforces that elephant that I have in my closet, my own personal experience (35 years) as a saxophonist and a roll-over baffle modifier.  Regardless of what other interferences there are, the vibrating reed still creates an
> >  advancing transverse wave parallel to it's surface and the inclined surface of the baffle will reflect a good portion of that wave energy according to optical laws, where the angle of incidence and the angle of reflection will be equal, at least for the first few reflections, which would be the
> >  strongest, and that was all I was interested in.  The simple animation was sufficient to show the difference between a roll over baffle and a high straight baffle, in that regard, and the importance the ramp plays in mouthpieces that have thick table walls.
> >  
> >  Did you every actually read the Ferron book then?  You do like to disagree with him alot.
> >  
> >  --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@> wrote:
> >  >
> >  > Hi Lance,
> >  > 
> >  > Somehow it is always me raining on your parade :^(
> >  > 
> >  > I know that you are much too smart to think that particle modeling is going to give you the least bit of useful information about wave behavior. Particles and waves are two completely different animals, as the quantum physicists know so well. 
> >  > 
> >  > If you enjoy playing in Maya then don't let me stop you, but I believe that what you are doing is about as useful as trying to model wave behavior in the ocean by throwing a cork in the water and plotting its position over time.
> >  > 
> >  > Everything I have read indicates that there is, as yet, no good way to model what is happening in the mpc. Plotting isolated parameters, such as what you are doing, is useless if you do not know and cannot predict the influence of other interactive parameters. Don't forget that there is no
> >  >  interference in the particle model, but that it is all-important in the wave model. Amomg other things...
> >  > 
> >  > If you think I am wrong I would be happy to discuss it, as always ;-)
> >  > 
> >  > Toby
> >  > 
> >  > lancelotburt <lancelotburt@> wrote:                                           
> >  > 
> >  >               
> >  >  After re-reading the Ferron mouthpiece section again, I modeled various mouthpiece/reed designs in Maya and traced the photon reflection paths of a very narrow spotlight, emitted at 90 degrees from various tangent points of the lay with the reed closed.  Interestingly (and as per Ferron's
> >  >  observation), the roll-over designs which I have found I like the best - free blowing, with edge and very responsive - were all shaped so that most of the photon paths reflected off the back of the reed only once before bouncing off the ramp or entering the throat of the mouthpiece.  That's one
> >  >  reflection off the baffle, once off the back of the reed, once more off the baffle, and then reflecting off the ramp or entering the throat.  The high flat baffled design caused multiple reflections off the back of the reed.  More resistance here.
> >  >  
> >  >  --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "John Delia" <bzalto@> wrote:
> >  >  >
> >  >  > OK
> >  >  > 
> >  >  > 
> >  >  > On 8/28/08, lcchtt <Letydan@> wrote:
> >  >  > > Hi sorry, I was not clear. I will PM you OK?
> >  >  > >
> >  >  > > Dan
> >  >  > >
> >  >  > > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "John Delia" <bzalto@>
> >  >  > > wrote:
> >  >  > >>
> >  >  > >> Dan, Are you talking about redoing or manufacturing your own brand
> >  >  > > mpce?  If
> >  >  > >> so, what is the name of your brand?  Hard rubber or?  Thanks, John
> >  >  > >>
> >  >  > >> On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 5:24 PM, lcchtt <Letydan@> wrote:
> >  >  > >>
> >  >  > >> >   Concerning the large window
> >  >  > >> >
> >  >  > >> > > ... It also moves the base of the window "U" farther away from
> >  >  > > the
> >  >  > >> > tip. This has a similar effect to undercutting the base of the
> >  >  > >> > window "U". There are some diagrams in the Ferron book showing how
> >  >  > >> > the sound path can reflect off this "wall". These diagrams portray
> >  >  > >> > what is going on inside the mouthpiece better than any
> >  >  > > visualization
> >  >  > >> > based on aerodynamics, streamlines and turbulence. It is a series
> >  >  > > of
> >  >  > >> > 3D acoustic sound paths bouncing around. The Ferron book shows a
> >  >  > > few
> >  >  > >> > 2D paths, but they are pretty good.
> >  >  > >> >
> >  >  > >> > -I personally think this is the most interesting part of the Keith
> >  >  > >> > answer. I discovered the same thing about one year ago and changed
> >  >  > >> > the design of my mouthpieces accordingly. Concerning the Ferron
> >  >  > >> > diagrams it should not work that way but... belive me... it
> >  >  > > works!!!
> >  >  > >> > Anyway I prefer to use a wide/long window. The trick is to find
> >  >  > > the
> >  >  > >> > rigth proportions. It is not necessary at all to undercut the
> >  >  > > base of
> >  >  > >> > the window but please remember... everything should be well
> >  >  > > balanced.
> >  >  > >> > All the best,
> >  >  > >> >
> >  >  > >> > Dan
> >  >  > >> >
> >  >  > >> >
> >  >  > >> >
> >  >  > >>
> >  >  > >
> >  >  > >
> >  >  > >
> >  >  >
> >  >
> >
>

Hi Lance,

I agree that Scavone doesn't really address the finer points of mpc design, except to say the the scattering of sound waves is complex and not readily amenable to analysis. I merely wanted to point out that modeling things in Maya with particles hardly addresses those complexities adequately. 

As to Ferron--who knows when I will finally bite the bullet and make an Amazon order, so that discussion will have to wait.

Toby

lancelotburt <lancelotburt@...> wrote:                                           

              Toby,
 
 As to Scavone's impressive thesis:  I read this some time ago.  Re-reading it with mouthpiece baffle/ramp design particularly in mind, one notices that the discussion of mouthpiece baffle design is of the most utterly basic nature.  No distinction is made between a roll-over or a high straight
 baffle, and the function/effect of the ramp area is not addressed at all.  Further, as regards mouthpiece modeling, while he states that, "It was seen there that mouthpiece geometry variations can have signi cant influence on the timbre and intonation of a musical instrument."  and, "Mouthpiece
 geometry variations and their associated timbral effects can be explored and implemented in a stable form using the \lumped-section" approach."  "The lumped-section mouthpiece implementation demonstrated here demands high-order digital filters to accurately model. For real-time digital waveguide
 implementations under current computer processor capabilities, it is unclear whether the benefi ts of such mouthpiece design flexibility are worth the added computational cost."
 
 A serious study?  Yes.  As specifically applied to mouthpiece baffle/ramp design, modeling, and analysis? Not an exhaustive study perhaps.
 
 Lance
 
 --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "lancelotburt" <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
 >
 > Toby,
 > 
 > I'd be more than happy to discuss the Ferron chapter I'm referring to with you, after you bother to read it.
 > 
 > Lance
 > 
 > 
 > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@> wrote:
 > >
 > > Hi Lance,
 > > 
 > > Never did find Ferron while I was in the US. I'll have to order it the next time I do an Amazon shipment, which is rare. 
 > > 
 > > I guess I don't have to warn you about incomplete analyses reinforcing personal experience and belief ;^)
 > > 
 > > I think you might find it interesting to read Gary Scavone's thesis on waveguide modeling of woodwinds, which contains a detailed section on single-reed mouthpieces (google scavone thesis). Here is the introduction to that section:
 > > 
 > > "The single-reed mouthpiece forms an extension of the woodwind air column which allows the attachment of a wooden cane reed in such a way that it can function as a pressure controlled air valve.
 > > The mouthpiece cavity does not form a uniform continuation to either a cylindrical or conical bore, and as a result, propagating sound waves within the chamber are scattered in complex ways. The inside geometry of the mouthpiece is critical in determining the response, timbre, and intonation
 of
 > >  the overall instrument. Most attempts to accurately determine the specic relationships between geometric proportions and acoustical behavior, however, have failed."
 > > 
 > > I think I have to stress that angle of incidence equalling angle of refrlection is that cork bobbing on the surface. Point a hose at a wall and see if the stream bounces off at the correct angle of reflection in a nice coherent stream...
 > > 
 > > As I say, if you enjoy playing with Maya don't let me stop you, but this is a far cry from a serious investigation into the behavior of the reed/mpc/air column system and how it works in integration. Just by contrast, here is a short quote from Scavone, section 4.1.2 Mouthpiece Models:
 > > 
 > > "As discussed in Section 3.3.3, the lumped-section approach begins in the frequency domain. The appropriate transmission matrices which correspond to the individual sections are cascaded to pro-
 > > duce a single, lumped transmission matrix characterization. These parameters are then transformed to waveguide coordinates via the substitutions documented throughout this study. It is particu-
 > > larly important that the wave impedance for spherical traveling-wave components be conjugated for propagation toward the cone apex. When the input and/or output of the lumped section is given by a cylindrical segment, the relationships of Eqs. (3.53a){(3.53d) can be simplifed, in that Z0 and
 Z*0
 > >  are equivalent for cylindrical pipes."
 > > 
 > > This is the level at which serious analysis is carried out, and even so attempts to model what happens in the mpc consistently fail.
 > > 
 > > And we still haven't even begun to talk about how all this affects the vibrating reed, and how it vibrates...
 > > 
 > > Just so you know what you are getting into ;*}
 > > 
 > > Toby
 > > 
 > > 
 > > 
 > > 
 > > 
 > > 
 > > 
 > > lancelotburt <lancelotburt@> wrote:                                           
 > > 
 > >               Hi Toby.
 > >  
 > >  I do disagree.  I learned a great deal from the simulation, which reinforces that elephant that I have in my closet, my own personal experience (35 years) as a saxophonist and a roll-over baffle modifier.  Regardless of what other interferences there are, the vibrating reed still creates an
 > >  advancing transverse wave parallel to it's surface and the inclined surface of the baffle will reflect a good portion of that wave energy according to optical laws, where the angle of incidence and the angle of reflection will be equal, at least for the first few reflections, which would be
 the
 > >  strongest, and that was all I was interested in.  The simple animation was sufficient to show the difference between a roll over baffle and a high straight baffle, in that regard, and the importance the ramp plays in mouthpieces that have thick table walls.
 > >  
 > >  Did you every actually read the Ferron book then?  You do like to disagree with him alot.
 > >  
 > >  --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@> wrote:
 > >  >
 > >  > Hi Lance,
 > >  > 
 > >  > Somehow it is always me raining on your parade :^(
 > >  > 
 > >  > I know that you are much too smart to think that particle modeling is going to give you the least bit of useful information about wave behavior. Particles and waves are two completely different animals, as the quantum physicists know so well. 
 > >  > 
 > >  > If you enjoy playing in Maya then don't let me stop you, but I believe that what you are doing is about as useful as trying to model wave behavior in the ocean by throwing a cork in the water and plotting its position over time.
 > >  > 
 > >  > Everything I have read indicates that there is, as yet, no good way to model what is happening in the mpc. Plotting isolated parameters, such as what you are doing, is useless if you do not know and cannot predict the influence of other interactive parameters. Don't forget that there is no
 > >  >  interference in the particle model, but that it is all-important in the wave model. Amomg other things...
 > >  > 
 > >  > If you think I am wrong I would be happy to discuss it, as always ;-)
 > >  > 
 > >  > Toby
 > >  > 
 > >  > lancelotburt <lancelotburt@> wrote:                                           
 > >  > 
 > >  >               
 > >  >  After re-reading the Ferron mouthpiece section again, I modeled various mouthpiece/reed designs in Maya and traced the photon reflection paths of a very narrow spotlight, emitted at 90 degrees from various tangent points of the lay with the reed closed.  Interestingly (and as per Ferron's
 > >  >  observation), the roll-over designs which I have found I like the best - free blowing, with edge and very responsive - were all shaped so that most of the photon paths reflected off the back of the reed only once before bouncing off the ramp or entering the throat of the mouthpiece. 
 That's one
 > >  >  reflection off the baffle, once off the back of the reed, once more off the baffle, and then reflecting off the ramp or entering the throat.  The high flat baffled design caused multiple reflections off the back of the reed.  More resistance here.
 > >  >  
 > >  >  --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "John Delia" <bzalto@> wrote:
 > >  >  >
 > >  >  > OK
 > >  >  > 
 > >  >  > 
 > >  >  > On 8/28/08, lcchtt <Letydan@> wrote:
 > >  >  > > Hi sorry, I was not clear. I will PM you OK?
 > >  >  > >
 > >  >  > > Dan
 > >  >  > >
 > >  >  > > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "John Delia" <bzalto@>
 > >  >  > > wrote:
 > >  >  > >>
 > >  >  > >> Dan, Are you talking about redoing or manufacturing your own brand
 > >  >  > > mpce?  If
 > >  >  > >> so, what is the name of your brand?  Hard rubber or?  Thanks, John
 > >  >  > >>
 > >  >  > >> On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 5:24 PM, lcchtt <Letydan@> wrote:
 > >  >  > >>
 > >  >  > >> >   Concerning the large window
 > >  >  > >> >
 > >  >  > >> > > ... It also moves the base of the window "U" farther away from
 > >  >  > > the
 > >  >  > >> > tip. This has a similar effect to undercutting the base of the
 > >  >  > >> > window "U". There are some diagrams in the Ferron book showing how
 > >  >  > >> > the sound path can reflect off this "wall". These diagrams portray
 > >  >  > >> > what is going on inside the mouthpiece better than any
 > >  >  > > visualization
 > >  >  > >> > based on aerodynamics, streamlines and turbulence. It is a series
 > >  >  > > of
 > >  >  > >> > 3D acoustic sound paths bouncing around. The Ferron book shows a
 > >  >  > > few
 > >  >  > >> > 2D paths, but they are pretty good.
 > >  >  > >> >
 > >  >  > >> > -I personally think this is the most interesting part of the Keith
 > >  >  > >> > answer. I discovered the same thing about one year ago and changed
 > >  >  > >> > the design of my mouthpieces accordingly. Concerning the Ferron
 > >  >  > >> > diagrams it should not work that way but... belive me... it
 > >  >  > > works!!!
 > >  >  > >> > Anyway I prefer to use a wide/long window. The trick is to find
 > >  >  > > the
 > >  >  > >> > rigth proportions. It is not necessary at all to undercut the
 > >  >  > > base of
 > >  >  > >> > the window but please remember... everything should be well
 > >  >  > > balanced.
 > >  >  > >> > All the best,
 > >  >  > >> >
 > >  >  > >> > Dan
 > >  >  > >> >
 > >  >  > >> >
 > >  >  > >> >
 > >  >  > >>
 > >  >  > >
 > >  >  > >
 > >  >  > >
 > >  >  >
 > >  >
 > >
 >
 
 
        
             
                          
 

I find the Scarvone thesis to be a most interesting work, well worth
reading, which raises many questions. The Ferron book, which is well worth
having, is not highly technical or scholarly. It's a pretty good place to
get your feet wet.

 

Over the years I've had numerous discussions with Santy Runyon, Ron Cohelo,
Paul Coats and others about how to figure out what is really going on inside
the mouthpiece. I don't know that we ever found the answer.

 

Toby, I thought your analogy of a garden hose spraying on a wall was
excellent!

 

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of kymarto123@...
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:38 AM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Generally accepted facts

 






Hi Lance,

I agree that Scavone doesn't really address the finer points of mpc design,
except to say the the scattering of sound waves is complex and not readily
amenable to analysis. I merely wanted to point out that modeling things in
Maya with particles hardly addresses those complexities adequately. 

As to Ferron--who knows when I will finally bite the bullet and make an
Amazon order, so that discussion will have to wait.

Toby

lancelotburt <lancelotburt@...> wrote:

Toby,

As to Scavone's impressive thesis: I read this some time ago. Re-reading it
with mouthpiece baffle/ramp design particularly in mind, one notices that
the discussion of mouthpiece baffle design is of the most utterly basic
nature. No distinction is made between a roll-over or a high straight
baffle, and the function/effect of the ramp area is not addressed at all.
Further, as regards mouthpiece modeling, while he states that, "It was seen
there that mouthpiece geometry variations can have signi cant influence on
the timbre and intonation of a musical instrument." and, "Mouthpiece
geometry variations and their associated timbral effects can be explored and
implemented in a stable form using the \lumped-section" approach." "The
lumped-section mouthpiece implementation demonstrated here demands
high-order digital filters to accurately model. For real-time digital
waveguide implementations under current computer processor capabilities, it
is unclear whether the benefi ts of such mouthpiece design flexibility are
worth the added computational cost."

A serious study? Yes. As specifically applied to mouthpiece baffle/ramp
design, modeling, and analysis? Not an exhaustive study perhaps.

Lance

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> , "lancelotburt"
<lancelotburt@...> wrote:
>
> Toby,
> 
> I'd be more than happy to discuss the Ferron chapter I'm referring to with
you, after you bother to read it.
> 
> Lance
> 
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> , <kymarto123@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Lance,
> > 
> > Never did find Ferron while I was in the US. I'll have to order it the
next time I do an Amazon shipment, which is rare. 
> > 
> > I guess I don't have to warn you about incomplete analyses reinforcing
personal experience and belief ;^)
> > 
> > I think you might find it interesting to read Gary Scavone's thesis on
waveguide modeling of woodwinds, which contains a detailed section on
single-reed mouthpieces (google scavone thesis). Here is the introduction to
that section:
> > 
> > "The single-reed mouthpiece forms an extension of the woodwind air
column which allows the attachment of a wooden cane reed in such a way that
it can function as a pressure controlled air valve.
> > The mouthpiece cavity does not form a uniform continuation to either a
cylindrical or conical bore, and as a result, propagating sound waves within
the chamber are scattered in complex ways. The inside geometry of the
mouthpiece is critical in determining the response, timbre, and intonation
of
> > the overall instrument. Most attempts to accurately determine the specic
relationships between geometric proportions and acoustical behavior,
however, have failed."
> > 
> > I think I have to stress that angle of incidence equalling angle of
refrlection is that cork bobbing on the surface. Point a hose at a wall and
see if the stream bounces off at the correct angle of reflection in a nice
coherent stream...
> > 
> > As I say, if you enjoy playing with Maya don't let me stop you, but this
is a far cry from a serious investigation into the behavior of the
reed/mpc/air column system and how it works in integration. Just by
contrast, here is a short quote from Scavone, section 4.1.2 Mouthpiece
Models:
> > 
> > "As discussed in Section 3.3.3, the lumped-section approach begins in
the frequency domain. The appropriate transmission matrices which correspond
to the individual sections are cascaded to pro-
> > duce a single, lumped transmission matrix characterization. These
parameters are then transformed to waveguide coordinates via the
substitutions documented throughout this study. It is particu-
> > larly important that the wave impedance for spherical traveling-wave
components be conjugated for propagation toward the cone apex. When the
input and/or output of the lumped section is given by a cylindrical segment,
the relationships of Eqs. (3.53a){(3.53d) can be simplifed, in that Z0 and
Z*0
> > are equivalent for cylindrical pipes."
> > 
> > This is the level at which serious analysis is carried out, and even so
attempts to model what happens in the mpc consistently fail.
> > 
> > And we still haven't even begun to talk about how all this affects the
vibrating reed, and how it vibrates...
> > 
> > Just so you know what you are getting into ;*}
> > 
> > Toby
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > lancelotburt <lancelotburt@> wrote: 
> > 
> > Hi Toby.
> > 
> > I do disagree. I learned a great deal from the simulation, which
reinforces that elephant that I have in my closet, my own personal
experience (35 years) as a saxophonist and a roll-over baffle modifier.
Regardless of what other interferences there are, the vibrating reed still
creates an
> > advancing transverse wave parallel to it's surface and the inclined
surface of the baffle will reflect a good portion of that wave energy
according to optical laws, where the angle of incidence and the angle of
reflection will be equal, at least for the first few reflections, which
would be the
> > strongest, and that was all I was interested in. The simple animation
was sufficient to show the difference between a roll over baffle and a high
straight baffle, in that regard, and the importance the ramp plays in
mouthpieces that have thick table walls.
> > 
> > Did you every actually read the Ferron book then? You do like to
disagree with him alot.
> > 
> > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> , <kymarto123@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Lance,
> > > 
> > > Somehow it is always me raining on your parade :^(
> > > 
> > > I know that you are much too smart to think that particle modeling is
going to give you the least bit of useful information about wave behavior.
Particles and waves are two completely different animals, as the quantum
physicists know so well. 
> > > 
> > > If you enjoy playing in Maya then don't let me stop you, but I believe
that what you are doing is about as useful as trying to model wave behavior
in the ocean by throwing a cork in the water and plotting its position over
time.
> > > 
> > > Everything I have read indicates that there is, as yet, no good way to
model what is happening in the mpc. Plotting isolated parameters, such as
what you are doing, is useless if you do not know and cannot predict the
influence of other interactive parameters. Don't forget that there is no
> > > interference in the particle model, but that it is all-important in
the wave model. Amomg other things...
> > > 
> > > If you think I am wrong I would be happy to discuss it, as always ;-)
> > > 
> > > Toby
> > > 
> > > lancelotburt <lancelotburt@> wrote: 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > After re-reading the Ferron mouthpiece section again, I modeled
various mouthpiece/reed designs in Maya and traced the photon reflection
paths of a very narrow spotlight, emitted at 90 degrees from various tangent
points of the lay with the reed closed. Interestingly (and as per Ferron's
> > > observation), the roll-over designs which I have found I like the best
- free blowing, with edge and very responsive - were all shaped so that most
of the photon paths reflected off the back of the reed only once before
bouncing off the ramp or entering the throat of the mouthpiece. That's one
> > > reflection off the baffle, once off the back of the reed, once more
off the baffle, and then reflecting off the ramp or entering the throat. The
high flat baffled design caused multiple reflections off the back of the
reed. More resistance here.
> > > 
> > > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> , "John Delia" <bzalto@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > OK
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > On 8/28/08, lcchtt <Letydan@> wrote:
> > > > > Hi sorry, I was not clear. I will PM you OK?
> > > > >
> > > > > Dan
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> , "John Delia" <bzalto@>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Dan, Are you talking about redoing or manufacturing your own
brand
> > > > > mpce? If
> > > > >> so, what is the name of your brand? Hard rubber or? Thanks, John
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 5:24 PM, lcchtt <Letydan@> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > Concerning the large window
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > ... It also moves the base of the window "U" farther away
from
> > > > > the
> > > > >> > tip. This has a similar effect to undercutting the base of the
> > > > >> > window "U". There are some diagrams in the Ferron book showing
how
> > > > >> > the sound path can reflect off this "wall". These diagrams
portray
> > > > >> > what is going on inside the mouthpiece better than any
> > > > > visualization
> > > > >> > based on aerodynamics, streamlines and turbulence. It is a
series
> > > > > of
> > > > >> > 3D acoustic sound paths bouncing around. The Ferron book shows
a
> > > > > few
> > > > >> > 2D paths, but they are pretty good.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > -I personally think this is the most interesting part of the
Keith
> > > > >> > answer. I discovered the same thing about one year ago and
changed
> > > > >> > the design of my mouthpieces accordingly. Concerning the Ferron
> > > > >> > diagrams it should not work that way but... belive me... it
> > > > > works!!!
> > > > >> > Anyway I prefer to use a wide/long window. The trick is to find
> > > > > the
> > > > >> > rigth proportions. It is not necessary at all to undercut the
> > > > > base of
> > > > >> > the window but please remember... everything should be well
> > > > > balanced.
> > > > >> > All the best,
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Dan
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

 

 

Ferron was a great repairer and inventor 

http://www.hsm-mouthpieces.com/viewpoint/ernest.html
http://www.hsm-mouthpieces.com/viewpoint/innovative.html

He gave in his book some general advice on how the soundwaves could bounce and how this phenomenon could be used to improve the design and the responce. I personally think it is a bit reductive to speak only in terms of zig-zag patterns. There is something of interesting inside the Larry Teal classic book (every sax player should have) 

http://www.saxontheweb.net/Store.html

concerning the wave propagation inside a saxophone neck and bore. There are also a couple of experiments every people can try at home. I've found the Larry Teal approach scientifically correct and easy to understand also for non scientists.
In any case these studies require time and skills in many fields whereas almost everything we know today is based on the personal experience of every mouthpiece maker. Nothing more, nothing less.
In any case the Ferron book is amazing, as someone else said it can be found in the musicmedic store.

DannyG

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Lance,
> 
> I agree that Scavone doesn't really address the finer points of mpc design, except to say the the scattering of sound waves is complex and not readily amenable to analysis. I merely wanted to point out that modeling things in Maya with particles hardly addresses those complexities adequately. 
> 
> As to Ferron--who knows when I will finally bite the bullet and make an Amazon order, so that discussion will have to wait.
> 
> Toby
> 
> lancelotburt <lancelotburt@...> wrote:                                           
> 
>               Toby,
>  
>  As to Scavone's impressive thesis:  I read this some time ago.  Re-reading it with mouthpiece baffle/ramp design particularly in mind, one notices that the discussion of mouthpiece baffle design is of the most utterly basic nature.  No distinction is made between a roll-over or a high straight
>  baffle, and the function/effect of the ramp area is not addressed at all.  Further, as regards mouthpiece modeling, while he states that, "It was seen there that mouthpiece geometry variations can have signi cant influence on the timbre and intonation of a musical instrument."  and, "Mouthpiece
>  geometry variations and their associated timbral effects can be explored and implemented in a stable form using the \lumped-section" approach."  "The lumped-section mouthpiece implementation demonstrated here demands high-order digital filters to accurately model. For real-time digital waveguide
>  implementations under current computer processor capabilities, it is unclear whether the benefi ts of such mouthpiece design flexibility are worth the added computational cost."
>  
>  A serious study?  Yes.  As specifically applied to mouthpiece baffle/ramp design, modeling, and analysis? Not an exhaustive study perhaps.
>  
>  Lance
>  
>  --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "lancelotburt" <lancelotburt@> wrote:
>  >
>  > Toby,
>  > 
>  > I'd be more than happy to discuss the Ferron chapter I'm referring to with you, after you bother to read it.
>  > 
>  > Lance
>  > 
>  > 
>  > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@> wrote:
>  > >
>  > > Hi Lance,
>  > > 
>  > > Never did find Ferron while I was in the US. I'll have to order it the next time I do an Amazon shipment, which is rare. 
>  > > 
>  > > I guess I don't have to warn you about incomplete analyses reinforcing personal experience and belief ;^)
>  > > 
>  > > I think you might find it interesting to read Gary Scavone's thesis on waveguide modeling of woodwinds, which contains a detailed section on single-reed mouthpieces (google scavone thesis). Here is the introduction to that section:
>  > > 
>  > > "The single-reed mouthpiece forms an extension of the woodwind air column which allows the attachment of a wooden cane reed in such a way that it can function as a pressure controlled air valve.
>  > > The mouthpiece cavity does not form a uniform continuation to either a cylindrical or conical bore, and as a result, propagating sound waves within the chamber are scattered in complex ways. The inside geometry of the mouthpiece is critical in determining the response, timbre, and intonation
>  of
>  > >  the overall instrument. Most attempts to accurately determine the specic relationships between geometric proportions and acoustical behavior, however, have failed."
>  > > 
>  > > I think I have to stress that angle of incidence equalling angle of refrlection is that cork bobbing on the surface. Point a hose at a wall and see if the stream bounces off at the correct angle of reflection in a nice coherent stream...
>  > > 
>  > > As I say, if you enjoy playing with Maya don't let me stop you, but this is a far cry from a serious investigation into the behavior of the reed/mpc/air column system and how it works in integration. Just by contrast, here is a short quote from Scavone, section 4.1.2 Mouthpiece Models:
>  > > 
>  > > "As discussed in Section 3.3.3, the lumped-section approach begins in the frequency domain. The appropriate transmission matrices which correspond to the individual sections are cascaded to pro-
>  > > duce a single, lumped transmission matrix characterization. These parameters are then transformed to waveguide coordinates via the substitutions documented throughout this study. It is particu-
>  > > larly important that the wave impedance for spherical traveling-wave components be conjugated for propagation toward the cone apex. When the input and/or output of the lumped section is given by a cylindrical segment, the relationships of Eqs. (3.53a){(3.53d) can be simplifed, in that Z0 and
>  Z*0
>  > >  are equivalent for cylindrical pipes."
>  > > 
>  > > This is the level at which serious analysis is carried out, and even so attempts to model what happens in the mpc consistently fail.
>  > > 
>  > > And we still haven't even begun to talk about how all this affects the vibrating reed, and how it vibrates...
>  > > 
>  > > Just so you know what you are getting into ;*}
>  > > 
>  > > Toby
>  > > 
>  > > 
>  > > 
>  > > 
>  > > 
>  > > 
>  > > 
>  > > lancelotburt <lancelotburt@> wrote:                                           
>  > > 
>  > >               Hi Toby.
>  > >  
>  > >  I do disagree.  I learned a great deal from the simulation, which reinforces that elephant that I have in my closet, my own personal experience (35 years) as a saxophonist and a roll-over baffle modifier.  Regardless of what other interferences there are, the vibrating reed still creates an
>  > >  advancing transverse wave parallel to it's surface and the inclined surface of the baffle will reflect a good portion of that wave energy according to optical laws, where the angle of incidence and the angle of reflection will be equal, at least for the first few reflections, which would be
>  the
>  > >  strongest, and that was all I was interested in.  The simple animation was sufficient to show the difference between a roll over baffle and a high straight baffle, in that regard, and the importance the ramp plays in mouthpieces that have thick table walls.
>  > >  
>  > >  Did you every actually read the Ferron book then?  You do like to disagree with him alot.
>  > >  
>  > >  --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@> wrote:
>  > >  >
>  > >  > Hi Lance,
>  > >  > 
>  > >  > Somehow it is always me raining on your parade :^(
>  > >  > 
>  > >  > I know that you are much too smart to think that particle modeling is going to give you the least bit of useful information about wave behavior. Particles and waves are two completely different animals, as the quantum physicists know so well. 
>  > >  > 
>  > >  > If you enjoy playing in Maya then don't let me stop you, but I believe that what you are doing is about as useful as trying to model wave behavior in the ocean by throwing a cork in the water and plotting its position over time.
>  > >  > 
>  > >  > Everything I have read indicates that there is, as yet, no good way to model what is happening in the mpc. Plotting isolated parameters, such as what you are doing, is useless if you do not know and cannot predict the influence of other interactive parameters. Don't forget that there is no
>  > >  >  interference in the particle model, but that it is all-important in the wave model. Amomg other things...
>  > >  > 
>  > >  > If you think I am wrong I would be happy to discuss it, as always ;-)
>  > >  > 
>  > >  > Toby
>  > >  > 
>  > >  > lancelotburt <lancelotburt@> wrote:                                           
>  > >  > 
>  > >  >               
>  > >  >  After re-reading the Ferron mouthpiece section again, I modeled various mouthpiece/reed designs in Maya and traced the photon reflection paths of a very narrow spotlight, emitted at 90 degrees from various tangent points of the lay with the reed closed.  Interestingly (and as per Ferron's
>  > >  >  observation), the roll-over designs which I have found I like the best - free blowing, with edge and very responsive - were all shaped so that most of the photon paths reflected off the back of the reed only once before bouncing off the ramp or entering the throat of the mouthpiece. 
>  That's one
>  > >  >  reflection off the baffle, once off the back of the reed, once more off the baffle, and then reflecting off the ramp or entering the throat.  The high flat baffled design caused multiple reflections off the back of the reed.  More resistance here.
>  > >  >  
>  > >  >  --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "John Delia" <bzalto@> wrote:
>  > >  >  >
>  > >  >  > OK
>  > >  >  > 
>  > >  >  > 
>  > >  >  > On 8/28/08, lcchtt <Letydan@> wrote:
>  > >  >  > > Hi sorry, I was not clear. I will PM you OK?
>  > >  >  > >
>  > >  >  > > Dan
>  > >  >  > >
>  > >  >  > > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "John Delia" <bzalto@>
>  > >  >  > > wrote:
>  > >  >  > >>
>  > >  >  > >> Dan, Are you talking about redoing or manufacturing your own brand
>  > >  >  > > mpce?  If
>  > >  >  > >> so, what is the name of your brand?  Hard rubber or?  Thanks, John
>  > >  >  > >>
>  > >  >  > >> On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 5:24 PM, lcchtt <Letydan@> wrote:
>  > >  >  > >>
>  > >  >  > >> >   Concerning the large window
>  > >  >  > >> >
>  > >  >  > >> > > ... It also moves the base of the window "U" farther away from
>  > >  >  > > the
>  > >  >  > >> > tip. This has a similar effect to undercutting the base of the
>  > >  >  > >> > window "U". There are some diagrams in the Ferron book showing how
>  > >  >  > >> > the sound path can reflect off this "wall". These diagrams portray
>  > >  >  > >> > what is going on inside the mouthpiece better than any
>  > >  >  > > visualization
>  > >  >  > >> > based on aerodynamics, streamlines and turbulence. It is a series
>  > >  >  > > of
>  > >  >  > >> > 3D acoustic sound paths bouncing around. The Ferron book shows a
>  > >  >  > > few
>  > >  >  > >> > 2D paths, but they are pretty good.
>  > >  >  > >> >
>  > >  >  > >> > -I personally think this is the most interesting part of the Keith
>  > >  >  > >> > answer. I discovered the same thing about one year ago and changed
>  > >  >  > >> > the design of my mouthpieces accordingly. Concerning the Ferron
>  > >  >  > >> > diagrams it should not work that way but... belive me... it
>  > >  >  > > works!!!
>  > >  >  > >> > Anyway I prefer to use a wide/long window. The trick is to find
>  > >  >  > > the
>  > >  >  > >> > rigth proportions. It is not necessary at all to undercut the
>  > >  >  > > base of
>  > >  >  > >> > the window but please remember... everything should be well
>  > >  >  > > balanced.
>  > >  >  > >> > All the best,
>  > >  >  > >> >
>  > >  >  > >> > Dan
>  > >  >  > >> >
>  > >  >  > >> >
>  > >  >  > >> >
>  > >  >  > >>
>  > >  >  > >
>  > >  >  > >
>  > >  >  > >
>  > >  >  >
>  > >  >
>  > >
>  >
>

I think the garden hose is a bit lacking as an analogy.  If sound waves were as affected by gravity much as water is, this forum would not exist, though some saxophones and mouthpieces sound as if they might almost be that heavy and difficult to get going.  If I stand at the edge of the Grand Canyon, I can yell, "Hello", at the other side, a mile away, and unbelievably, some of the sound waves will reflect off the jagged wall and come straight back to my ears, and I hear a clear, undistorted echo of my voice.  I'll also hear secondary and tertiary echoes from other parts of the canyon.  If I had a garden hose with enough pressure to hit the opposite wall, I would have no concerns about reflected water from the opposite wall getting me wet, much less from up the canyon.

True, the scattering of sound waves is very complex and a fool would believe that someone would sincerely attempt to explain the totality of a mouthpiece's acoustical characteristics by modeling a baffle and a ramp in Maya and tracing initial light reflections.  The fact remains however, that the sound starts with that first oscillation of the reed, advancing at 90 degrees from the reed's surface/degree of arc and that first sound wave will hit the baffle at whatever angle of incidence that exists and be reflected/scattered.  Though it will scatter, without a doubt, the area of highest reflected sound pressure for that initial wave will be at the equal angle of reflection, and I suspect that it might be the case for the following few reflections.  This is what Ferron believes, and if this is in fact the case, then we can determine where the area of highest sound pressure will be after, say the first 4 initial wave reflections with this method, important, as one place may not be as acoustically efficient as another.

If I take recordings of 20 famous saxophonists playing any one note, chop off the attack, and make a loop out of the middle of the note, they will all sound the same.  I could even mix in some different instruments and it would be difficult to tell.  The point is, it's the attack, the way the sound begins, that determines, for our ears, the main characteristics of the note.  

The same goes for the player.  The way the reed, mouthpiece, and horn set up a stabile harmonic regime in the first micro seconds of reed oscillation has a lot to say about if we like a mouthpiece or not.



--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "STEVE GOODSON" <saxgourmet@...> wrote:
>
> I find the Scarvone thesis to be a most interesting work, well worth
> reading, which raises many questions. The Ferron book, which is well worth
> having, is not highly technical or scholarly. It's a pretty good place to
> get your feet wet.
> 
>  
> 
> Over the years I've had numerous discussions with Santy Runyon, Ron Cohelo,
> Paul Coats and others about how to figure out what is really going on inside
> the mouthpiece. I don't know that we ever found the answer.
> 
>  
> 
> Toby, I thought your analogy of a garden hose spraying on a wall was
> excellent!
> 
>  
> 
> From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of kymarto123@...
> Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:38 AM
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Generally accepted facts
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Lance,
> 
> I agree that Scavone doesn't really address the finer points of mpc design,
> except to say the the scattering of sound waves is complex and not readily
> amenable to analysis. I merely wanted to point out that modeling things in
> Maya with particles hardly addresses those complexities adequately. 
> 
> As to Ferron--who knows when I will finally bite the bullet and make an
> Amazon order, so that discussion will have to wait.
> 
> Toby
> 
> lancelotburt <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
> 
> Toby,
> 
> As to Scavone's impressive thesis: I read this some time ago. Re-reading it
> with mouthpiece baffle/ramp design particularly in mind, one notices that
> the discussion of mouthpiece baffle design is of the most utterly basic
> nature. No distinction is made between a roll-over or a high straight
> baffle, and the function/effect of the ramp area is not addressed at all.
> Further, as regards mouthpiece modeling, while he states that, "It was seen
> there that mouthpiece geometry variations can have signi cant influence on
> the timbre and intonation of a musical instrument." and, "Mouthpiece
> geometry variations and their associated timbral effects can be explored and
> implemented in a stable form using the \lumped-section" approach." "The
> lumped-section mouthpiece implementation demonstrated here demands
> high-order digital filters to accurately model. For real-time digital
> waveguide implementations under current computer processor capabilities, it
> is unclear whether the benefi ts of such mouthpiece design flexibility are
> worth the added computational cost."
> 
> A serious study? Yes. As specifically applied to mouthpiece baffle/ramp
> design, modeling, and analysis? Not an exhaustive study perhaps.
> 
> Lance
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> , "lancelotburt"
> <lancelotburt@> wrote:
> >
> > Toby,
> > 
> > I'd be more than happy to discuss the Ferron chapter I'm referring to with
> you, after you bother to read it.
> > 
> > Lance
> > 
> > 
> > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> , <kymarto123@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Lance,
> > > 
> > > Never did find Ferron while I was in the US. I'll have to order it the
> next time I do an Amazon shipment, which is rare. 
> > > 
> > > I guess I don't have to warn you about incomplete analyses reinforcing
> personal experience and belief ;^)
> > > 
> > > I think you might find it interesting to read Gary Scavone's thesis on
> waveguide modeling of woodwinds, which contains a detailed section on
> single-reed mouthpieces (google scavone thesis). Here is the introduction to
> that section:
> > > 
> > > "The single-reed mouthpiece forms an extension of the woodwind air
> column which allows the attachment of a wooden cane reed in such a way that
> it can function as a pressure controlled air valve.
> > > The mouthpiece cavity does not form a uniform continuation to either a
> cylindrical or conical bore, and as a result, propagating sound waves within
> the chamber are scattered in complex ways. The inside geometry of the
> mouthpiece is critical in determining the response, timbre, and intonation
> of
> > > the overall instrument. Most attempts to accurately determine the specic
> relationships between geometric proportions and acoustical behavior,
> however, have failed."
> > > 
> > > I think I have to stress that angle of incidence equalling angle of
> refrlection is that cork bobbing on the surface. Point a hose at a wall and
> see if the stream bounces off at the correct angle of reflection in a nice
> coherent stream...
> > > 
> > > As I say, if you enjoy playing with Maya don't let me stop you, but this
> is a far cry from a serious investigation into the behavior of the
> reed/mpc/air column system and how it works in integration. Just by
> contrast, here is a short quote from Scavone, section 4.1.2 Mouthpiece
> Models:
> > > 
> > > "As discussed in Section 3.3.3, the lumped-section approach begins in
> the frequency domain. The appropriate transmission matrices which correspond
> to the individual sections are cascaded to pro-
> > > duce a single, lumped transmission matrix characterization. These
> parameters are then transformed to waveguide coordinates via the
> substitutions documented throughout this study. It is particu-
> > > larly important that the wave impedance for spherical traveling-wave
> components be conjugated for propagation toward the cone apex. When the
> input and/or output of the lumped section is given by a cylindrical segment,
> the relationships of Eqs. (3.53a){(3.53d) can be simplifed, in that Z0 and
> Z*0
> > > are equivalent for cylindrical pipes."
> > > 
> > > This is the level at which serious analysis is carried out, and even so
> attempts to model what happens in the mpc consistently fail.
> > > 
> > > And we still haven't even begun to talk about how all this affects the
> vibrating reed, and how it vibrates...
> > > 
> > > Just so you know what you are getting into ;*}
> > > 
> > > Toby
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > lancelotburt <lancelotburt@> wrote: 
> > > 
> > > Hi Toby.
> > > 
> > > I do disagree. I learned a great deal from the simulation, which
> reinforces that elephant that I have in my closet, my own personal
> experience (35 years) as a saxophonist and a roll-over baffle modifier.
> Regardless of what other interferences there are, the vibrating reed still
> creates an
> > > advancing transverse wave parallel to it's surface and the inclined
> surface of the baffle will reflect a good portion of that wave energy
> according to optical laws, where the angle of incidence and the angle of
> reflection will be equal, at least for the first few reflections, which
> would be the
> > > strongest, and that was all I was interested in. The simple animation
> was sufficient to show the difference between a roll over baffle and a high
> straight baffle, in that regard, and the importance the ramp plays in
> mouthpieces that have thick table walls.
> > > 
> > > Did you every actually read the Ferron book then? You do like to
> disagree with him alot.
> > > 
> > > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> , <kymarto123@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Lance,
> > > > 
> > > > Somehow it is always me raining on your parade :^(
> > > > 
> > > > I know that you are much too smart to think that particle modeling is
> going to give you the least bit of useful information about wave behavior.
> Particles and waves are two completely different animals, as the quantum
> physicists know so well. 
> > > > 
> > > > If you enjoy playing in Maya then don't let me stop you, but I believe
> that what you are doing is about as useful as trying to model wave behavior
> in the ocean by throwing a cork in the water and plotting its position over
> time.
> > > > 
> > > > Everything I have read indicates that there is, as yet, no good way to
> model what is happening in the mpc. Plotting isolated parameters, such as
> what you are doing, is useless if you do not know and cannot predict the
> influence of other interactive parameters. Don't forget that there is no
> > > > interference in the particle model, but that it is all-important in
> the wave model. Amomg other things...
> > > > 
> > > > If you think I am wrong I would be happy to discuss it, as always ;-)
> > > > 
> > > > Toby
> > > > 
> > > > lancelotburt <lancelotburt@> wrote: 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > After re-reading the Ferron mouthpiece section again, I modeled
> various mouthpiece/reed designs in Maya and traced the photon reflection
> paths of a very narrow spotlight, emitted at 90 degrees from various tangent
> points of the lay with the reed closed. Interestingly (and as per Ferron's
> > > > observation), the roll-over designs which I have found I like the best
> - free blowing, with edge and very responsive - were all shaped so that most
> of the photon paths reflected off the back of the reed only once before
> bouncing off the ramp or entering the throat of the mouthpiece. That's one
> > > > reflection off the baffle, once off the back of the reed, once more
> off the baffle, and then reflecting off the ramp or entering the throat. The
> high flat baffled design caused multiple reflections off the back of the
> reed. More resistance here.
> > > > 
> > > > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> , "John Delia" <bzalto@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > OK
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > On 8/28/08, lcchtt <Letydan@> wrote:
> > > > > > Hi sorry, I was not clear. I will PM you OK?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dan
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> , "John Delia" <bzalto@>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Dan, Are you talking about redoing or manufacturing your own
> brand
> > > > > > mpce? If
> > > > > >> so, what is the name of your brand? Hard rubber or? Thanks, John
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 5:24 PM, lcchtt <Letydan@> wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > Concerning the large window
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > ... It also moves the base of the window "U" farther away
> from
> > > > > > the
> > > > > >> > tip. This has a similar effect to undercutting the base of the
> > > > > >> > window "U". There are some diagrams in the Ferron book showing
> how
> > > > > >> > the sound path can reflect off this "wall". These diagrams
> portray
> > > > > >> > what is going on inside the mouthpiece better than any
> > > > > > visualization
> > > > > >> > based on aerodynamics, streamlines and turbulence. It is a
> series
> > > > > > of
> > > > > >> > 3D acoustic sound paths bouncing around. The Ferron book shows
> a
> > > > > > few
> > > > > >> > 2D paths, but they are pretty good.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > -I personally think this is the most interesting part of the
> Keith
> > > > > >> > answer. I discovered the same thing about one year ago and
> changed
> > > > > >> > the design of my mouthpieces accordingly. Concerning the Ferron
> > > > > >> > diagrams it should not work that way but... belive me... it
> > > > > > works!!!
> > > > > >> > Anyway I prefer to use a wide/long window. The trick is to find
> > > > > > the
> > > > > >> > rigth proportions. It is not necessary at all to undercut the
> > > > > > base of
> > > > > >> > the window but please remember... everything should be well
> > > > > > balanced.
> > > > > >> > All the best,
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Dan
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

my 2 cents:

> I think the garden hose is a bit lacking as an analogy.  If sound waves were
> as affected by gravity much as water is, this forum would not exist, though
> some saxophones and mouthpieces sound as if they might almost be that heavy
> and difficult to get going.

Water has huge inertia and viscosity compared to air - I don't see it is a
useful modeling analogy in this case.
> 
> The fact remains however, that the sound starts
> with that first oscillation of the reed, advancing at 90 degrees from the
> reed's surface/degree of arc and that first sound wave will hit the baffle at
> whatever angle of incidence that exists and be reflected/scattered.

Actually, I wonder what the actual motion of the reed is, given its tapered
cross section and the limits to its motion created by the mouthpiece facing
and the embouchure. It's not rigid; some degree of curl or ripple  towards
the tip seems possible.

Also, re baffles, I wonder if one can parse out reflection effects vs.
bernoulli effects, both are going on.  I've experimented alot with baffle
inserts that are not just wedges, but rather are bernoulli bumps in terms of
shape. Placing them towards the tip of the mouthpiece brightens a piece
considerably - is this a reflective effect, or because the bernoulli effect
is now more prounounced behind the region closer to the reed tip (which,
when thinned, makes a reed brighter.)

BL

Hi Lance,

However, so is the echo analogy a bit lacking, since this is happening at ambient pressure. Within the mpc we have a complex, pressurized system, which must be so in fact for the reed to oscillate. There are Bernoulli forces to consider, critical airspeed parameters which define the pressure
 differential on the two sides of the reed and determine how the reed behaves as a function of modulating the air pressure and embouchure. Maya doesn't take any of this into account, as far as I can see. This is aerodynamics mixed with material properties mixed with geometry. And this doesn't even
 begin to account for what is coming back up the tube and creating the reverse pressure to open the reed back up for the next cycle.

You are much too intelligent not to get what I am saying ;-)

 I have also been playing the sax for some 40 years, and I have instead a preference for a straighter baffle just behind the tip, which I find much more responsive and controllable than a rollover, if not quite as edgy. On a rollover I almost always take down the area just behind the tip rail, as
 I find this allows me to blow harder with a more relaxed embouchure with less chance of lateral vibrations of the reed, which cause chirping. Too high just behind baffle, and things get unstable too quickly if the reed is not highly damped. This, then, is partly an embouchure question as well.

If you like rollovers more power to you. Different strokes and all that, but be careful of drawing conclusions prematurely based on overly simplistic models. I am not saying this to put you down, but because you will eventually save yourself a lot of time and energy by following sound procedures
 and drawing responsible conclusions. You shouldn't waste your tremendous talent.

At least that's my take on it.
Toby


lancelotburt <lancelotburt@...> wrote:                                           

              I think the garden hose is a bit lacking as an analogy.  If sound waves were as affected by gravity much as water is, this forum would not exist, though some saxophones and mouthpieces sound as if they might almost be that heavy and difficult to get going.  If I stand at the edge of
 the Grand Canyon, I can yell, "Hello", at the other side, a mile away, and unbelievably, some of the sound waves will reflect off the jagged wall and come straight back to my ears, and I hear a clear, undistorted echo of my voice.  I'll also hear secondary and tertiary echoes from other parts of
 the canyon.  If I had a garden hose with enough pressure to hit the opposite wall, I would have no concerns about reflected water from the opposite wall getting me wet, much less from up the canyon.
 
 True, the scattering of sound waves is very complex and a fool would believe that someone would sincerely attempt to explain the totality of a mouthpiece's acoustical characteristics by modeling a baffle and a ramp in Maya and tracing initial light reflections.  The fact remains however, that the
 sound starts with that first oscillation of the reed, advancing at 90 degrees from the reed's surface/degree of arc and that first sound wave will hit the baffle at whatever angle of incidence that exists and be reflected/scattered.  Though it will scatter, without a doubt, the area of highest
 reflected sound pressure for that initial wave will be at the equal angle of reflection, and I suspect that it might be the case for the following few reflections.  This is what Ferron believes, and if this is in fact the case, then we can determine where the area of highest sound pressure will
 be after, say the first 4 initial wave reflections with this method, important, as one place may not be as acoustically efficient as another.
 
 If I take recordings of 20 famous saxophonists playing any one note, chop off the attack, and make a loop out of the middle of the note, they will all sound the same.  I could even mix in some different instruments and it would be difficult to tell.  The point is, it's the attack, the way the
 sound begins, that determines, for our ears, the main characteristics of the note.  
 
 The same goes for the player.  The way the reed, mouthpiece, and horn set up a stabile harmonic regime in the first micro seconds of reed oscillation has a lot to say about if we like a mouthpiece or not.
 
 --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "STEVE GOODSON" <saxgourmet@...> wrote:
 >
 > I find the Scarvone thesis to be a most interesting work, well worth
 > reading, which raises many questions. The Ferron book, which is well worth
 > having, is not highly technical or scholarly. It's a pretty good place to
 > get your feet wet.
 > 
 >  
 > 
 > Over the years I've had numerous discussions with Santy Runyon, Ron Cohelo,
 > Paul Coats and others about how to figure out what is really going on inside
 > the mouthpiece. I don't know that we ever found the answer.
 > 
 >  
 > 
 > Toby, I thought your analogy of a garden hose spraying on a wall was
 > excellent!
 > 
 >  
 > 
 > From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
 > On Behalf Of kymarto123@...
 > Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:38 AM
 > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
 > Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Generally accepted facts
 > 
 >  
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > Hi Lance,
 > 
 > I agree that Scavone doesn't really address the finer points of mpc design,
 > except to say the the scattering of sound waves is complex and not readily
 > amenable to analysis. I merely wanted to point out that modeling things in
 > Maya with particles hardly addresses those complexities adequately. 
 > 
 > As to Ferron--who knows when I will finally bite the bullet and make an
 > Amazon order, so that discussion will have to wait.
 > 
 > Toby
 > 
 > lancelotburt <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
 > 
 > Toby,
 > 
 > As to Scavone's impressive thesis: I read this some time ago. Re-reading it
 > with mouthpiece baffle/ramp design particularly in mind, one notices that
 > the discussion of mouthpiece baffle design is of the most utterly basic
 > nature. No distinction is made between a roll-over or a high straight
 > baffle, and the function/effect of the ramp area is not addressed at all.
 > Further, as regards mouthpiece modeling, while he states that, "It was seen
 > there that mouthpiece geometry variations can have signi cant influence on
 > the timbre and intonation of a musical instrument." and, "Mouthpiece
 > geometry variations and their associated timbral effects can be explored and
 > implemented in a stable form using the \lumped-section" approach." "The
 > lumped-section mouthpiece implementation demonstrated here demands
 > high-order digital filters to accurately model. For real-time digital
 > waveguide implementations under current computer processor capabilities, it
 > is unclear whether the benefi ts of such mouthpiece design flexibility are
 > worth the added computational cost."
 > 
 > A serious study? Yes. As specifically applied to mouthpiece baffle/ramp
 > design, modeling, and analysis? Not an exhaustive study perhaps.
 > 
 > Lance
 > 
 > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
 > <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> , "lancelotburt"
 > <lancelotburt@> wrote:
 > >
 > > Toby,
 > > 
 > > I'd be more than happy to discuss the Ferron chapter I'm referring to with
 > you, after you bother to read it.
 > > 
 > > Lance
 > > 
 > > 
 > > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
 > <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> , <kymarto123@> wrote:
 > > >
 > > > Hi Lance,
 > > > 
 > > > Never did find Ferron while I was in the US. I'll have to order it the
 > next time I do an Amazon shipment, which is rare. 
 > > > 
 > > > I guess I don't have to warn you about incomplete analyses reinforcing
 > personal experience and belief ;^)
 > > > 
 > > > I think you might find it interesting to read Gary Scavone's thesis on
 > waveguide modeling of woodwinds, which contains a detailed section on
 > single-reed mouthpieces (google scavone thesis). Here is the introduction to
 > that section:
 > > > 
 > > > "The single-reed mouthpiece forms an extension of the woodwind air
 > column which allows the attachment of a wooden cane reed in such a way that
 > it can function as a pressure controlled air valve.
 > > > The mouthpiece cavity does not form a uniform continuation to either a
 > cylindrical or conical bore, and as a result, propagating sound waves within
 > the chamber are scattered in complex ways. The inside geometry of the
 > mouthpiece is critical in determining the response, timbre, and intonation
 > of
 > > > the overall instrument. Most attempts to accurately determine the specic
 > relationships between geometric proportions and acoustical behavior,
 > however, have failed."
 > > > 
 > > > I think I have to stress that angle of incidence equalling angle of
 > refrlection is that cork bobbing on the surface. Point a hose at a wall and
 > see if the stream bounces off at the correct angle of reflection in a nice
 > coherent stream...
 > > > 
 > > > As I say, if you enjoy playing with Maya don't let me stop you, but this
 > is a far cry from a serious investigation into the behavior of the
 > reed/mpc/air column system and how it works in integration. Just by
 > contrast, here is a short quote from Scavone, section 4.1.2 Mouthpiece
 > Models:
 > > > 
 > > > "As discussed in Section 3.3.3, the lumped-section approach begins in
 > the frequency domain. The appropriate transmission matrices which correspond
 > to the individual sections are cascaded to pro-
 > > > duce a single, lumped transmission matrix characterization. These
 > parameters are then transformed to waveguide coordinates via the
 > substitutions documented throughout this study. It is particu-
 > > > larly important that the wave impedance for spherical traveling-wave
 > components be conjugated for propagation toward the cone apex. When the
 > input and/or output of the lumped section is given by a cylindrical segment,
 > the relationships of Eqs. (3.53a){(3.53d) can be simplifed, in that Z0 and
 > Z*0
 > > > are equivalent for cylindrical pipes."
 > > > 
 > > > This is the level at which serious analysis is carried out, and even so
 > attempts to model what happens in the mpc consistently fail.
 > > > 
 > > > And we still haven't even begun to talk about how all this affects the
 > vibrating reed, and how it vibrates...
 > > > 
 > > > Just so you know what you are getting into ;*}
 > > > 
 > > > Toby
 > > > 
 > > > 
 > > > 
 > > > 
 > > > 
 > > > 
 > > > 
 > > > lancelotburt <lancelotburt@> wrote: 
 > > > 
 > > > Hi Toby.
 > > > 
 > > > I do disagree. I learned a great deal from the simulation, which
 > reinforces that elephant that I have in my closet, my own personal
 > experience (35 years) as a saxophonist and a roll-over baffle modifier.
 > Regardless of what other interferences there are, the vibrating reed still
 > creates an
 > > > advancing transverse wave parallel to it's surface and the inclined
 > surface of the baffle will reflect a good portion of that wave energy
 > according to optical laws, where the angle of incidence and the angle of
 > reflection will be equal, at least for the first few reflections, which
 > would be the
 > > > strongest, and that was all I was interested in. The simple animation
 > was sufficient to show the difference between a roll over baffle and a high
 > straight baffle, in that regard, and the importance the ramp plays in
 > mouthpieces that have thick table walls.
 > > > 
 > > > Did you every actually read the Ferron book then? You do like to
 > disagree with him alot.
 > > > 
 > > > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
 > <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> , <kymarto123@> wrote:
 > > > >
 > > > > Hi Lance,
 > > > > 
 > > > > Somehow it is always me raining on your parade :^(
 > > > > 
 > > > > I know that you are much too smart to think that particle modeling is
 > going to give you the least bit of useful information about wave behavior.
 > Particles and waves are two completely different animals, as the quantum
 > physicists know so well. 
 > > > > 
 > > > > If you enjoy playing in Maya then don't let me stop you, but I believe
 > that what you are doing is about as useful as trying to model wave behavior
 > in the ocean by throwing a cork in the water and plotting its position over
 > time.
 > > > > 
 > > > > Everything I have read indicates that there is, as yet, no good way to
 > model what is happening in the mpc. Plotting isolated parameters, such as
 > what you are doing, is useless if you do not know and cannot predict the
 > influence of other interactive parameters. Don't forget that there is no
 > > > > interference in the particle model, but that it is all-important in
 > the wave model. Amomg other things...
 > > > > 
 > > > > If you think I am wrong I would be happy to discuss it, as always ;-)
 > > > > 
 > > > > Toby
 > > > > 
 > > > > lancelotburt <lancelotburt@> wrote: 
 > > > > 
 > > > > 
 > > > > After re-reading the Ferron mouthpiece section again, I modeled
 > various mouthpiece/reed designs in Maya and traced the photon reflection
 > paths of a very narrow spotlight, emitted at 90 degrees from various tangent
 > points of the lay with the reed closed. Interestingly (and as per Ferron's
 > > > > observation), the roll-over designs which I have found I like the best
 > - free blowing, with edge and very responsive - were all shaped so that most
 > of the photon paths reflected off the back of the reed only once before
 > bouncing off the ramp or entering the throat of the mouthpiece. That's one
 > > > > reflection off the baffle, once off the back of the reed, once more
 > off the baffle, and then reflecting off the ramp or entering the throat. The
 > high flat baffled design caused multiple reflections off the back of the
 > reed. More resistance here.
 > > > > 
 > > > > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
 > <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> , "John Delia" <bzalto@> wrote:
 > > > > >
 > > > > > OK
 > > > > > 
 > > > > > 
 > > > > > On 8/28/08, lcchtt <Letydan@> wrote:
 > > > > > > Hi sorry, I was not clear. I will PM you OK?
 > > > > > >
 > > > > > > Dan
 > > > > > >
 > > > > > > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
 > <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> , "John Delia" <bzalto@>
 > > > > > > wrote:
 > > > > > >>
 > > > > > >> Dan, Are you talking about redoing or manufacturing your own
 > brand
 > > > > > > mpce? If
 > > > > > >> so, what is the name of your brand? Hard rubber or? Thanks, John
 > > > > > >>
 > > > > > >> On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 5:24 PM, lcchtt <Letydan@> wrote:
 > > > > > >>
 > > > > > >> > Concerning the large window
 > > > > > >> >
 > > > > > >> > > ... It also moves the base of the window "U" farther away
 > from
 > > > > > > the
 > > > > > >> > tip. This has a similar effect to undercutting the base of the
 > > > > > >> > window "U". There are some diagrams in the Ferron book showing
 > how
 > > > > > >> > the sound path can reflect off this "wall". These diagrams
 > portray
 > > > > > >> > what is going on inside the mouthpiece better than any
 > > > > > > visualization
 > > > > > >> > based on aerodynamics, streamlines and turbulence. It is a
 > series
 > > > > > > of
 > > > > > >> > 3D acoustic sound paths bouncing around. The Ferron book shows
 > a
 > > > > > > few
 > > > > > >> > 2D paths, but they are pretty good.
 > > > > > >> >
 > > > > > >> > -I personally think this is the most interesting part of the
 > Keith
 > > > > > >> > answer. I discovered the same thing about one year ago and
 > changed
 > > > > > >> > the design of my mouthpieces accordingly. Concerning the Ferron
 > > > > > >> > diagrams it should not work that way but... belive me... it
 > > > > > > works!!!
 > > > > > >> > Anyway I prefer to use a wide/long window. The trick is to find
 > > > > > > the
 > > > > > >> > rigth proportions. It is not necessary at all to undercut the
 > > > > > > base of
 > > > > > >> > the window but please remember... everything should be well
 > > > > > > balanced.
 > > > > > >> > All the best,
 > > > > > >> >
 > > > > > >> > Dan
 > > > > > >> >
 > > > > > >> >
 > > > > > >> >
 > > > > > >>
 > > > > > >
 > > > > > >
 > > > > > >
 > > > > >
 > > > >
 > > >
 > >
 >
 
 
        
             
                          
 

There are quite detailed descriptions of the reed motion, which differs considerably between the sax and the clarinet because of the bore shape. Scavone's thesis is a good place to start. 

The brightening of the sound with a high baffle is, as I understand it, an effect of reinforcement and cancellation of partials.

Toby

Barry Levine <barrylevine@...> wrote:                                           

              my 2 cents:
 
 > I think the garden hose is a bit lacking as an analogy.  If sound waves were
 > as affected by gravity much as water is, this forum would not exist, though
 > some saxophones and mouthpieces sound as if they might almost be that heavy
 > and difficult to get going.
 
 Water has huge inertia and viscosity compared to air - I don't see it is a
 useful modeling analogy in this case.
 > 
 > The fact remains however, that the sound starts
 > with that first oscillation of the reed, advancing at 90 degrees from the
 > reed's surface/degree of arc and that first sound wave will hit the baffle at
 > whatever angle of incidence that exists and be reflected/scattered.
 
 Actually, I wonder what the actual motion of the reed is, given its tapered
 cross section and the limits to its motion created by the mouthpiece facing
 and the embouchure. It's not rigid; some degree of curl or ripple  towards
 the tip seems possible.
 
 Also, re baffles, I wonder if one can parse out reflection effects vs.
 bernoulli effects, both are going on.  I've experimented alot with baffle
 inserts that are not just wedges, but rather are bernoulli bumps in terms of
 shape. Placing them towards the tip of the mouthpiece brightens a piece
 considerably - is this a reflective effect, or because the bernoulli effect
 is now more prounounced behind the region closer to the reed tip (which,
 when thinned, makes a reed brighter.)
 
 BL
 
 
        
             
                          
 

Lance, I think I must be misunderstanding what you are saying in the following part of your statement below.

"If I take recordings of 20 famous saxophonists playing any one note, chop off the attack, and make a loop out of the middle of the note, they will all sound the same. ... The point is, it's the attack, the way the sound begins, that determines, for our ears, the main characteristics of the note. "

For this to be true, different saxophones, different mouthpiece configurations and materials, different reeds and different physical characteristics of the operators would not make a difference. All 20 famous saxophonists would make the same wave form if looked at on an oscilliscope or listened to with a sensitive ear.

The tone or timbre of a sustained note can be greatly changed merely by how far the mouthpiece and reed is inserted into the user's mouth and if the bottom lip is stuck out or how much is over the bottom teeth. And that is all without changing the facing, chamber or baffle, spoiler, etc. of just the mouthpiece. 

I mostly agree with your last paragraph and liking a set up largely because of "how it speaks" is what I'll call it, but I must be missing something in between. 



--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "lancelotburt" <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
>
> I think the garden hose is a bit lacking as an analogy.  If sound waves were as affected by gravity much as water is, this forum would not exist, though some saxophones and mouthpieces sound as if they might almost be that heavy and difficult to get going.  If I stand at the edge of the Grand Canyon, I can yell, "Hello", at the other side, a mile away, and unbelievably, some of the sound waves will reflect off the jagged wall and come straight back to my ears, and I hear a clear, undistorted echo of my voice.  I'll also hear secondary and tertiary echoes from other parts of the canyon.  If I had a garden hose with enough pressure to hit the opposite wall, I would have no concerns about reflected water from the opposite wall getting me wet, much less from up the canyon.
> 
> True, the scattering of sound waves is very complex and a fool would believe that someone would sincerely attempt to explain the totality of a mouthpiece's acoustical characteristics by modeling a baffle and a ramp in Maya and tracing initial light reflections.  The fact remains however, that the sound starts with that first oscillation of the reed, advancing at 90 degrees from the reed's surface/degree of arc and that first sound wave will hit the baffle at whatever angle of incidence that exists and be reflected/scattered.  Though it will scatter, without a doubt, the area of highest reflected sound pressure for that initial wave will be at the equal angle of reflection, and I suspect that it might be the case for the following few reflections.  This is what Ferron believes, and if this is in fact the case, then we can determine where the area of highest sound pressure will be after, say the first 4 initial wave reflections with this method, important, as one place may not be as acoustically efficient as another.
> 
> If I take recordings of 20 famous saxophonists playing any one note, chop off the attack, and make a loop out of the middle of the note, they will all sound the same.  I could even mix in some different instruments and it would be difficult to tell.  The point is, it's the attack, the way the sound begins, that determines, for our ears, the main characteristics of the note.  
> 
> The same goes for the player.  The way the reed, mouthpiece, and horn set up a stabile harmonic regime in the first micro seconds of reed oscillation has a lot to say about if we like a mouthpiece or not.
> 

The different saxophones, different mouthpiece configurations and materials, different reeds and different physical characteristics do indeed make a difference, but much more so in the rapidly changing waveforms of the attack.  Once the not is stable, and if the player just holds it steady, without any inflections, vibrato, or other ornamental alterations, they will sound VERY MUCH the same to your ears.  It is the way all the components respond to alterations (attacks, inflections, vibrato, etc., that give the note it's character.  If you have ever worked with a sampler, you know this.  We learned this in Music Lab 101 at school using analog tape loops.



--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "fidlershorns" <grassinospam@...> wrote:
>
> Lance, I think I must be misunderstanding what you are saying in the following part of your statement below.
> 
> "If I take recordings of 20 famous saxophonists playing any one note, chop off the attack, and make a loop out of the middle of the note, they will all sound the same. ... The point is, it's the attack, the way the sound begins, that determines, for our ears, the main characteristics of the note. "
> 
> For this to be true, different saxophones, different mouthpiece configurations and materials, different reeds and different physical characteristics of the operators would not make a difference. All 20 famous saxophonists would make the same wave form if looked at on an oscilliscope or listened to with a sensitive ear.
> 
> The tone or timbre of a sustained note can be greatly changed merely by how far the mouthpiece and reed is inserted into the user's mouth and if the bottom lip is stuck out or how much is over the bottom teeth. And that is all without changing the facing, chamber or baffle, spoiler, etc. of just the mouthpiece. 
> 
> I mostly agree with your last paragraph and liking a set up largely because of "how it speaks" is what I'll call it, but I must be missing something in between. 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "lancelotburt" <lancelotburt@> wrote:
> >
> > I think the garden hose is a bit lacking as an analogy.  If sound waves were as affected by gravity much as water is, this forum would not exist, though some saxophones and mouthpieces sound as if they might almost be that heavy and difficult to get going.  If I stand at the edge of the Grand Canyon, I can yell, "Hello", at the other side, a mile away, and unbelievably, some of the sound waves will reflect off the jagged wall and come straight back to my ears, and I hear a clear, undistorted echo of my voice.  I'll also hear secondary and tertiary echoes from other parts of the canyon.  If I had a garden hose with enough pressure to hit the opposite wall, I would have no concerns about reflected water from the opposite wall getting me wet, much less from up the canyon.
> > 
> > True, the scattering of sound waves is very complex and a fool would believe that someone would sincerely attempt to explain the totality of a mouthpiece's acoustical characteristics by modeling a baffle and a ramp in Maya and tracing initial light reflections.  The fact remains however, that the sound starts with that first oscillation of the reed, advancing at 90 degrees from the reed's surface/degree of arc and that first sound wave will hit the baffle at whatever angle of incidence that exists and be reflected/scattered.  Though it will scatter, without a doubt, the area of highest reflected sound pressure for that initial wave will be at the equal angle of reflection, and I suspect that it might be the case for the following few reflections.  This is what Ferron believes, and if this is in fact the case, then we can determine where the area of highest sound pressure will be after, say the first 4 initial wave reflections with this method, important, as one place may not be as acoustically efficient as another.
> > 
> > If I take recordings of 20 famous saxophonists playing any one note, chop off the attack, and make a loop out of the middle of the note, they will all sound the same.  I could even mix in some different instruments and it would be difficult to tell.  The point is, it's the attack, the way the sound begins, that determines, for our ears, the main characteristics of the note.  
> > 
> > The same goes for the player.  The way the reed, mouthpiece, and horn set up a stabile harmonic regime in the first micro seconds of reed oscillation has a lot to say about if we like a mouthpiece or not.
> >
>

In fact a test was done some years ago in which the attack
and decay transients were removed from the notes of
instruments from the oboe to the violin to the sax to the
flute, etc. And people had trouble identifying the
instrument.

There are differences in the steady-state waveforms, but
most of the information we get as to the "character" of
the instrument is contained in the attack and decay.

On a tangential, but related, subject, y'all might get a
kick reading this page about the strike note of bells.
When is a pitch not a pitch?

http://www.mmk.e-technik.tu-muenchen.de/persons/ter/top/strikenote.html

Toby

--- lancelotburt <lancelotburt@...> wrote:

> The different saxophones, different mouthpiece
> configurations and materials, different reeds and
> different physical characteristics do indeed make a
> difference, but much more so in the rapidly changing
> waveforms of the attack.  Once the not is stable,
> and if the player just holds it steady, without any
> inflections, vibrato, or other ornamental
> alterations, they will sound VERY MUCH the same to
> your ears.  It is the way all the components respond
> to alterations (attacks, inflections, vibrato, etc.,
> that give the note it's character.  If you have ever
> worked with a sampler, you know this.  We learned
> this in Music Lab 101 at school using analog tape
> loops.
> 
> 
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com,
> "fidlershorns" <grassinospam@...> wrote:
> >
> > Lance, I think I must be misunderstanding what you
> are saying in the following part of your statement
> below.
> > 
> > "If I take recordings of 20 famous saxophonists
> playing any one note, chop off the attack, and make
> a loop out of the middle of the note, they will all
> sound the same. ... The point is, it's the attack,
> the way the sound begins, that determines, for our
> ears, the main characteristics of the note. "
> > 
> > For this to be true, different saxophones,
> different mouthpiece configurations and materials,
> different reeds and different physical
> characteristics of the operators would not make a
> difference. All 20 famous saxophonists would make
> the same wave form if looked at on an oscilliscope
> or listened to with a sensitive ear.
> > 
> > The tone or timbre of a sustained note can be
> greatly changed merely by how far the mouthpiece and
> reed is inserted into the user's mouth and if the
> bottom lip is stuck out or how much is over the
> bottom teeth. And that is all without changing the
> facing, chamber or baffle, spoiler, etc. of just the
> mouthpiece. 
> > 
> > I mostly agree with your last paragraph and liking
> a set up largely because of "how it speaks" is what
> I'll call it, but I must be missing something in
> between. 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com,
> "lancelotburt" <lancelotburt@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I think the garden hose is a bit lacking as an
> analogy.  If sound waves were as affected by gravity
> much as water is, this forum would not exist, though
> some saxophones and mouthpieces sound as if they
> might almost be that heavy and difficult to get
> going.  If I stand at the edge of the Grand Canyon,
> I can yell, "Hello", at the other side, a mile away,
> and unbelievably, some of the sound waves will
> reflect off the jagged wall and come straight back
> to my ears, and I hear a clear, undistorted echo of
> my voice.  I'll also hear secondary and tertiary
> echoes from other parts of the canyon.  If I had a
> garden hose with enough pressure to hit the opposite
> wall, I would have no concerns about reflected water
> from the opposite wall getting me wet, much less
> from up the canyon.
> > > 
> > > True, the scattering of sound waves is very
> complex and a fool would believe that someone would
> sincerely attempt to explain the totality of a
> mouthpiece's acoustical characteristics by modeling
> a baffle and a ramp in Maya and tracing initial
> light reflections.  The fact remains however, that
> the sound starts with that first oscillation of the
> reed, advancing at 90 degrees from the reed's
> surface/degree of arc and that first sound wave will
> hit the baffle at whatever angle of incidence that
> exists and be reflected/scattered.  Though it will
> scatter, without a doubt, the area of highest
> reflected sound pressure for that initial wave will
> be at the equal angle of reflection, and I suspect
> that it might be the case for the following few
> reflections.  This is what Ferron believes, and if
> this is in fact the case, then we can determine
> where the area of highest sound pressure will be
> after, say the first 4 initial wave reflections with
> this method, important, as one place may not be as
> acoustically efficient as another.
> > > 
> > > If I take recordings of 20 famous saxophonists
> playing any one note, chop off the attack, and make
> a loop out of the middle of the note, they will all
> sound the same.  I could even mix in some different
> instruments and it would be difficult to tell.  The
> point is, it's the attack, the way the sound begins,
> that determines, for our ears, the main
> characteristics of the note.  
> > > 
> > > The same goes for the player.  The way the reed,
> mouthpiece, and horn set up a stabile harmonic
> regime in the first micro seconds of reed
> oscillation has a lot to say about if we like a
> mouthpiece or not.
> > >
> >
> 
> 
> 

This html message parsed with html2text ---------------------------A little off topic observation:  
As sampling technology became more prevalent in recording studios, there was
still recording work for sax players because there weren't good samples of sax
sounds. Even good samples sounded like an accordion when you stacked them in a
chord. In addition to the attack/decay "signature", I think our sound changes
a little moment-to-moment; overtones, vibrato, intonation, volume. Less
"monolithic" than a straight, no-vibrato flute or trumpet sound, for example,
so harder to model digitally perhaps. I always thought this was mainly what
identified an individual player's sound.  
  
DT  
  
[kymarto123@...](mailto:kymarto123@...) wrote:

> In fact a test was done some years ago in which the attack  
>  and decay transients were removed from the notes of  
>  instruments from the oboe to the violin to the sax to the  
>  flute, etc. And people had trouble identifying the  
>  instrument.  
>  
>  There are differences in the steady-state waveforms, but  
>  most of the information we get as to the "character" of  
>  the instrument is contained in the attack and decay.  
>  
>  On a tangential, but related, subject, y'all might get a  
>  kick reading this page about the strike note of bells.  
>  When is a pitch not a pitch?  
>  
>  [http://www.mmk.e-technik.tu-
> muenchen.de/persons/ter/top/strikenote.html](http://www.mmk.e-technik.tu-
muenchen.de/persons/ter/top/strikenote.html)  
>  
>  Toby  
>  
>  \\--- lancelotburt
> <[lancelotburt@yahoo.com](mailto:lancelotburt%40yahoo.com)> wrote:  
>  
>  > The different saxophones, different mouthpiece  
>  > configurations and materials, different reeds and  
>  > different physical characteristics do indeed make a  
>  > difference, but much more so in the rapidly changing  
>  > waveforms of the attack. Once the not is stable,  
>  > and if the player just holds it steady, without any  
>  > inflections, vibrato, or other ornamental  
>  > alterations, they will sound VERY MUCH the same to  
>  > your ears. It is the way all the components respond  
>  > to alterations (attacks, inflections, vibrato, etc.,  
>  > that give the note it's character. If you have ever  
>  > worked with a sampler, you know this. We learned  
>  > this in Music Lab 101 at school using analog tape  
>  > loops.  
>  >  
>  >  
>  >  
>  > \\--- In
> [MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com](mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com),  
>  > "fidlershorns" ...> wrote:  
>  > >  
>  > > Lance, I think I must be misunderstanding what you  
>  > are saying in the following part of your statement  
>  > below.  
>  > >  
>  > > "If I take recordings of 20 famous saxophonists  
>  > playing any one note, chop off the attack, and make  
>  > a loop out of the middle of the note, they will all  
>  > sound the same. ... The point is, it's the attack,  
>  > the way the sound begins, that determines, for our  
>  > ears, the main characteristics of the note. "  
>  > >  
>  > > For this to be true, different saxophones,  
>  > different mouthpiece configurations and materials,  
>  > different reeds and different physical  
>  > characteristics of the operators would not make a  
>  > difference. All 20 famous saxophonists would make  
>  > the same wave form if looked at on an oscilliscope  
>  > or listened to with a sensitive ear.  
>  > >  
>  > > The tone or timbre of a sustained note can be  
>  > greatly changed merely by how far the mouthpiece and  
>  > reed is inserted into the user's mouth and if the  
>  > bottom lip is stuck out or how much is over the  
>  > bottom teeth. And that is all without changing the  
>  > facing, chamber or baffle, spoiler, etc. of just the  
>  > mouthpiece.  
>  > >  
>  > > I mostly agree with your last paragraph and liking  
>  > a set up largely because of "how it speaks" is what  
>  > I'll call it, but I must be missing something in  
>  > between.  
>  > >  
>  > >  
>  > >  
>  > > \\--- In
> [MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com](mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com),  
>  > "lancelotburt" > wrote:  
>  > > >  
>  > > > I think the garden hose is a bit lacking as an  
>  > analogy. If sound waves were as affected by gravity  
>  > much as water is, this forum would not exist, though  
>  > some saxophones and mouthpieces sound as if they  
>  > might almost be that heavy and difficult to get  
>  > going. If I stand at the edge of the Grand Canyon,  
>  > I can yell, "Hello", at the other side, a mile away,  
>  > and unbelievably, some of the sound waves will  
>  > reflect off the jagged wall and come straight back  
>  > to my ears, and I hear a clear, undistorted echo of  
>  > my voice. I'll also hear secondary and tertiary  
>  > echoes from other parts of the canyon. If I had a  
>  > garden hose with enough pressure to hit the opposite  
>  > wall, I would have no concerns about reflected water  
>  > from the opposite wall getting me wet, much less  
>  > from up the canyon.  
>  > > >  
>  > > > True, the scattering of sound waves is very  
>  > complex and a fool would believe that someone would  
>  > sincerely attempt to explain the totality of a  
>  > mouthpiece's acoustical characteristics by modeling  
>  > a baffle and a ramp in Maya and tracing initial  
>  > light reflections. The fact remains however, that  
>  > the sound starts with that first oscillation of the  
>  > reed, advancing at 90 degrees from the reed's  
>  > surface/degree of arc and that first sound wave will  
>  > hit the baffle at whatever angle of incidence that  
>  > exists and be reflected/scattered. Though it will  
>  > scatter, without a doubt, the area of highest  
>  > reflected sound pressure for that initial wave will  
>  > be at the equal angle of reflection, and I suspect  
>  > that it might be the case for the following few  
>  > reflections. This is what Ferron believes, and if  
>  > this is in fact the case, then we can determine  
>  > where the area of highest sound pressure will be  
>  > after, say the first 4 initial wave reflections with  
>  > this method, important, as one place may not be as  
>  > acoustically efficient as another.  
>  > > >  
>  > > > If I take recordings of 20 famous saxophonists  
>  > playing any one note, chop off the attack, and make  
>  > a loop out of the middle of the note, they will all  
>  > sound the same. I could even mix in some different  
>  > instruments and it would be difficult to tell. The  
>  > point is, it's the attack, the way the sound begins,  
>  > that determines, for our ears, the main  
>  > characteristics of the note.  
>  > > >  
>  > > > The same goes for the player. The way the reed,  
>  > mouthpiece, and horn set up a stabile harmonic  
>  > regime in the first micro seconds of reed  
>  > oscillation has a lot to say about if we like a  
>  > mouthpiece or not.  
>  > > >  
>  > >  
>  >  
>  >  
>  >  
>  
>

I too witnessed how drum machines/samplers/sequencers/computers changed the recording industry.  There is still a place for the soloist though, the distinct sound, the distinct style.

I agree. The sax, like the shakuhachi, is characterized by
the fact that the intonation "floats", is controlled by
the player. This is especially true using a loose
embouchure where the pitch center is based on the muscular
tension in the embouchure. This is much less the case with
other wind instruments IMO. In addition, the timbre is
changeable, based on the blowing pressure, the embouchure
tension and to some extent the shape of the player's oral
cavity. A good player can really make the instrument sing,
and that is very difficult to reproduce with sampling,
even multilevel sampling.

Toby

--- Dan Torosian <dtorosian@...> wrote:

> 
> ---------------------------------
>                             
> 
>             
> A little off topic observation:
> As sampling technology became more prevalent in
> recording studios,there was still recording work for
> sax players because there weren'tgood samples of sax
> sounds.  Even good samples sounded like anaccordion
> when you stacked them in a chord.  In addition to
> theattack/decay "signature", I think our sound
> changes a littlemoment-to-moment; overtones,
> vibrato, intonation, volume.  Less"monolithic" than
> a straight, no-vibrato flute or trumpet sound,
> forexample, so harder to model digitally perhaps. I
> always thought thiswas mainly what identified an
> individual player's sound.
> 
> DT
> 
> kymarto123@... wrote:    
> In fact a test was done some years ago in which the
> attack
> and decay transients were removed from the notes of
> instruments from the oboe to the violin to the sax
> to the
> flute, etc. And people had trouble identifying the
> instrument.
>   
> There are differences in the steady-state waveforms,
> but
> most of the information we get as to the "character"
> of
> the instrument is contained in the attack and decay.
>   
> On a tangential, but related, subject, y'all might
> get a
> kick reading this page about the strike note of
> bells.
> When is a pitch not a pitch?
>   
>  
>
http://www.mmk.e-technik.tu-muenchen.de/persons/ter/top/strikenote.html
>   
> Toby
>   
> --- lancelotburt <lancelotburt@...>wrote:
>   
> > The different saxophones, different mouthpiece
> > configurations and materials, different reeds and
> > different physical characteristics do indeed make
> a
> > difference, but much more so in the rapidly
> changing
> > waveforms of the attack. Once the not is stable,
> > and if the player just holds it steady, without
> any
> > inflections, vibrato, or other ornamental
> > alterations, they will sound VERY MUCH the same to
> > your ears. It is the way all the components
> respond
> > to alterations (attacks, inflections, vibrato,
> etc.,
> > that give the note it's character. If you have
> ever
> > worked with a sampler, you know this. We learned
> > this in Music Lab 101 at school using analog tape
> > loops.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com,
> > "fidlershorns" <grassinospam@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > Lance, I think I must be misunderstanding what
> you
> > are saying in the following part of your statement
> > below.
> > > 
> > > "If I take recordings of 20 famous saxophonists
> > playing any one note, chop off the attack, and
> make
> > a loop out of the middle of the note, they will
> all
> > sound the same. ... The point is, it's the attack,
> > the way the sound begins, that determines, for our
> > ears, the main characteristics of the note. "
> > > 
> > > For this to be true, different saxophones,
> > different mouthpiece configurations and materials,
> > different reeds and different physical
> > characteristics of the operators would not make a
> > difference. All 20 famous saxophonists would make
> > the same wave form if looked at on an oscilliscope
> > or listened to with a sensitive ear.
> > > 
> > > The tone or timbre of a sustained note can be
> > greatly changed merely by how far the mouthpiece
> and
> > reed is inserted into the user's mouth and if the
> > bottom lip is stuck out or how much is over the
> > bottom teeth. And that is all without changing the
> > facing, chamber or baffle, spoiler, etc. of just
> the
> > mouthpiece. 
> > > 
> > > I mostly agree with your last paragraph and
> liking
> > a set up largely because of "how it speaks" is
> what
> > I'll call it, but I must be missing something in
> > between. 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com,
> > "lancelotburt" <lancelotburt@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I think the garden hose is a bit lacking as an
> > analogy. If sound waves were as affected by
> gravity
> > much as water is, this forum would not exist,
> though
> > some saxophones and mouthpieces sound as if they
> > might almost be that heavy and difficult to get
> > going. If I stand at the edge of the Grand Canyon,
> > I can yell, "Hello", at the other side, a mile
> away,
> > and unbelievably, some of the sound waves will
> > reflect off the jagged wall and come straight back
> > to my ears, and I hear a clear, undistorted echo
> of
> > my voice. I'll also hear secondary and tertiary
> > echoes from other parts of the canyon. If I had a
> > garden hose with enough pressure to hit the
> opposite
> > wall, I would have no concerns about reflected
> water
> > from the opposite wall getting me wet, much less
> > from up the canyon.
> > > > 
> > > > True, the scattering of sound waves is very
> > complex and a fool would believe that someone
> would
> > sincerely attempt to explain the totality of a
> > mouthpiece's acoustical characteristics by
> modeling
> > a baffle and a ramp in Maya and tracing initial
> > light reflections. The fact remains however, that
> > the sound starts with that first oscillation of
> the
> > reed, advancing at 90 degrees from the reed's
> > surface/degree of arc and that first sound wave
> will
> > hit the baffle at whatever angle of incidence that
> > exists and be reflected/scattered. Though it will
> > scatter, without a doubt, the area of highest
> > reflected sound pressure for that initial wave
> will
> > be at the equal angle of reflection, and I suspect
> > that it might be the case for the following few
> > reflections. This is what Ferron believes, and if
> > this is in fact the case, then we can determine
> > where the area of highest sound pressure will be
> > after, say the first 4 initial wave reflections
> with
> > this method, important, as one place may not be as
> > acoustically efficient as another.
> > > > 
> > > > If I take recordings of 20 famous saxophonists
> > playing any one note, chop off the attack, and
> make
> > a loop out of the middle of the note, they will
> all
> > sound the same. I could even mix in some different
> > instruments and it would be difficult to tell. The
> > point is, it's the attack, the way the sound
> begins,
> > that determines, for our ears, the main
> > characteristics of the note. 
> > > > 
> > > > The same goes for the player. The way the
> reed,
> > mouthpiece, and horn set up a stabile harmonic
> > regime in the first micro seconds of reed
> > oscillation has a lot to say about if we like a
> > mouthpiece or not.
> > > >
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > 
>   
>   
>   
>  
>      
>           
>                                                     
>         Messages in this topic           (74)       
>  
== $B0J2<$N%a%C%;!<%8$O>JN,$5$l$^$7$?(B =

This html message parsed with html2text ---------------------------My own amateur theory about this is that we're using so many different muscles
to control so many variables, that you'd need midi controllers to control each
one - keyboard keys and mod wheels and foot pedals & knee levers or something
equally Rube Goldberg / Dr. Seuss-like - at which point you realize it might
be easier to learn to play the saxophone instead.  
  
[kymarto123@...](mailto:kymarto123@...) wrote:

> I agree. The sax, like the shakuhachi, is characterized by  
>  the fact that the intonation "floats", is controlled by  
>  the player. This is especially true using a loose  
>  embouchure where the pitch center is based on the muscular  
>  tension in the embouchure. This is much less the case with  
>  other wind instruments IMO. In addition, the timbre is  
>  changeable, based on the blowing pressure, the embouchure  
>  tension and to some extent the shape of the player's oral  
>  cavity. A good player can really make the instrument sing,  
>  and that is very difficult to reproduce with sampling,  
>  even multilevel sampling.  
>  
>  Toby  
>  
>  \\--- Dan Torosian
> <[dtorosian@sbcglobal.net](mailto:dtorosian%40sbcglobal.net)> wrote:  
>  
>  >  
>  > \\------------\\---------\\---------\\---  
>  >  
>  >  
>  >  
>  > A little off topic observation:  
>  > As sampling technology became more prevalent in  
>  > recording studios,there was still recording work for  
>  > sax players because there weren'tgood samples of sax  
>  > sounds. Even good samples sounded like anaccordion  
>  > when you stacked them in a chord. In addition to  
>  > theattack/decay "signature", I think our sound  
>  > changes a littlemoment-to-moment; overtones,  
>  > vibrato, intonation, volume. Less"monolithic" than  
>  > a straight, no-vibrato flute or trumpet sound,  
>  > forexample, so harder to model digitally perhaps. I  
>  > always thought thiswas mainly what identified an  
>  > individual player's sound.  
>  >  
>  > DT  
>  >  
>  > [kymarto123@ybb.ne.jp](mailto:kymarto123%40ybb.ne.jp) wrote:  
>  > In fact a test was done some years ago in which the  
>  > attack  
>  > and decay transients were removed from the notes of  
>  > instruments from the oboe to the violin to the sax  
>  > to the  
>  > flute, etc. And people had trouble identifying the  
>  > instrument.  
>  >  
>  > There are differences in the steady-state waveforms,  
>  > but  
>  > most of the information we get as to the "character"  
>  > of  
>  > the instrument is contained in the attack and decay.  
>  >  
>  > On a tangential, but related, subject, y'all might  
>  > get a  
>  > kick reading this page about the strike note of  
>  > bells.  
>  > When is a pitch not a pitch?  
>  >  
>  >  
>  >  
>  [http://www.mmk.e-technik.tu-
> muenchen.de/persons/ter/top/strikenote.html](http://www.mmk.e-technik.tu-
muenchen.de/persons/ter/top/strikenote.html)  
>  >  
>  > Toby  
>  >  
>  > \\--- lancelotburt
> <[lancelotburt@yahoo.com](mailto:lancelotburt%40yahoo.com)>wrote:  
>  >  
>  > > The different saxophones, different mouthpiece  
>  > > configurations and materials, different reeds and  
>  > > different physical characteristics do indeed make  
>  > a  
>  > > difference, but much more so in the rapidly  
>  > changing  
>  > > waveforms of the attack. Once the not is stable,  
>  > > and if the player just holds it steady, without  
>  > any  
>  > > inflections, vibrato, or other ornamental  
>  > > alterations, they will sound VERY MUCH the same to  
>  > > your ears. It is the way all the components  
>  > respond  
>  > > to alterations (attacks, inflections, vibrato,  
>  > etc.,  
>  > > that give the note it's character. If you have  
>  > ever  
>  > > worked with a sampler, you know this. We learned  
>  > > this in Music Lab 101 at school using analog tape  
>  > > loops.  
>  > >  
>  > >  
>  > >  
>  > > \\--- In
> [MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com](mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com),  
>  > > "fidlershorns" ...> wrote:  
>  > > >  
>  > > > Lance, I think I must be misunderstanding what  
>  > you  
>  > > are saying in the following part of your statement  
>  > > below.  
>  > > >  
>  > > > "If I take recordings of 20 famous saxophonists  
>  > > playing any one note, chop off the attack, and  
>  > make  
>  > > a loop out of the middle of the note, they will  
>  > all  
>  > > sound the same. ... The point is, it's the attack,  
>  > > the way the sound begins, that determines, for our  
>  > > ears, the main characteristics of the note. "  
>  > > >  
>  > > > For this to be true, different saxophones,  
>  > > different mouthpiece configurations and materials,  
>  > > different reeds and different physical  
>  > > characteristics of the operators would not make a  
>  > > difference. All 20 famous saxophonists would make  
>  > > the same wave form if looked at on an oscilliscope  
>  > > or listened to with a sensitive ear.  
>  > > >  
>  > > > The tone or timbre of a sustained note can be  
>  > > greatly changed merely by how far the mouthpiece  
>  > and  
>  > > reed is inserted into the user's mouth and if the  
>  > > bottom lip is stuck out or how much is over the  
>  > > bottom teeth. And that is all without changing the  
>  > > facing, chamber or baffle, spoiler, etc. of just  
>  > the  
>  > > mouthpiece.  
>  > > >  
>  > > > I mostly agree with your last paragraph and  
>  > liking  
>  > > a set up largely because of "how it speaks" is  
>  > what  
>  > > I'll call it, but I must be missing something in  
>  > > between.  
>  > > >  
>  > > >  
>  > > >  
>  > > > \\--- In
> [MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com](mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com),  
>  > > "lancelotburt" > wrote:  
>  > > > >  
>  > > > > I think the garden hose is a bit lacking as an  
>  > > analogy. If sound waves were as affected by  
>  > gravity  
>  > > much as water is, this forum would not exist,  
>  > though  
>  > > some saxophones and mouthpieces sound as if they  
>  > > might almost be that heavy and difficult to get  
>  > > going. If I stand at the edge of the Grand Canyon,  
>  > > I can yell, "Hello", at the other side, a mile  
>  > away,  
>  > > and unbelievably, some of the sound waves will  
>  > > reflect off the jagged wall and come straight back  
>  > > to my ears, and I hear a clear, undistorted echo  
>  > of  
>  > > my voice. I'll also hear secondary and tertiary  
>  > > echoes from other parts of the canyon. If I had a  
>  > > garden hose with enough pressure to hit the  
>  > opposite  
>  > > wall, I would have no concerns about reflected  
>  > water  
>  > > from the opposite wall getting me wet, much less  
>  > > from up the canyon.  
>  > > > >  
>  > > > > True, the scattering of sound waves is very  
>  > > complex and a fool would believe that someone  
>  > would  
>  > > sincerely attempt to explain the totality of a  
>  > > mouthpiece's acoustical characteristics by  
>  > modeling  
>  > > a baffle and a ramp in Maya and tracing initial  
>  > > light reflections. The fact remains however, that  
>  > > the sound starts with that first oscillation of  
>  > the  
>  > > reed, advancing at 90 degrees from the reed's  
>  > > surface/degree of arc and that first sound wave  
>  > will  
>  > > hit the baffle at whatever angle of incidence that  
>  > > exists and be reflected/scattered. Though it will  
>  > > scatter, without a doubt, the area of highest  
>  > > reflected sound pressure for that initial wave  
>  > will  
>  > > be at the equal angle of reflection, and I suspect  
>  > > that it might be the case for the following few  
>  > > reflections. This is what Ferron believes, and if  
>  > > this is in fact the case, then we can determine  
>  > > where the area of highest sound pressure will be  
>  > > after, say the first 4 initial wave reflections  
>  > with  
>  > > this method, important, as one place may not be as  
>  > > acoustically efficient as another.  
>  > > > >  
>  > > > > If I take recordings of 20 famous saxophonists  
>  > > playing any one note, chop off the attack, and  
>  > make  
>  > > a loop out of the middle of the note, they will  
>  > all  
>  > > sound the same. I could even mix in some different  
>  > > instruments and it would be difficult to tell. The  
>  > > point is, it's the attack, the way the sound  
>  > begins,  
>  > > that determines, for our ears, the main  
>  > > characteristics of the note.  
>  > > > >  
>  > > > > The same goes for the player. The way the  
>  > reed,  
>  > > mouthpiece, and horn set up a stabile harmonic  
>  > > regime in the first micro seconds of reed  
>  > > oscillation has a lot to say about if we like a  
>  > > mouthpiece or not.  
>  > > > >  
>  > > >  
>  > >  
>  > >  
>  > >  
>  >  
>  >  
>  >  
>  >  
>  >  
>  >  
>  >  
>  > Messages in this topic (74)  
>  >  
>  == $B0J2<$N%a%C%;!<%8$O>JN,$5$l$^$7$?(B ==  
>  
>

It is a good thing for us live musicians, conductors, educators and equipment makers and manufacturers that a large amount of the general public, even if they can not spell, pronounce or define "timber",  hear and value these differences.

I will not defend my point by my credentials and passed classes, but will instead offer some simple evidence that you are undererestimating tone in order to make a point on the other important variables.

Point one: I still sound like me if I play staccato, legato, marcato or slur.  If I change my equipment, I do not sound quite as much like me. Let someone else play my changed equipment, it can still sound like a sax (or trombone or whatever I'm getting paid to play that day.) But it will not sound like I'm playing it. Even if they miss the same b double sharp!

Point two: If synthesied sounds were the cat's meow, wind controlers and the latest electroncis would be all that you hear, and people would be happier to listen to it. All Synth bands died in pop music in the 80's after the novelty wore off. Broadway shows, circuses, and rodeos are using electroncis in the pits for cost reasons, not because people are enjoying the canned stuff. Ever heard someone happy that the violin solo in the show was covered on the keyboard? We have more demand than supply for groups with good, live musicians around here. Cost is the issue, not quality.

In a releated note, Rob Thomas, newly rich pop star, appeared on the Today Show to promote his second album. He said something to the effect that he and his producer needed more than programmed (drum) loops, - live musicians -  to get the feel (and "rhythmic urgency").
 http://music.rightcelebrity.com/?p&78
Score a big one for us live musicians and the whole package we offer!

Now can we please get back to making a better mouthpiece?

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "lancelotburt" <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
>
> The different saxophones, different mouthpiece configurations and materials, different reeds and different physical characteristics do indeed make a difference, but much more so in the rapidly changing waveforms of the attack.  Once the not is stable, and if the player just holds it steady, without any inflections, vibrato, or other ornamental alterations, they will sound VERY MUCH the same to your ears.  It is the way all the components respond to alterations (attacks, inflections, vibrato, etc., that give the note it's character.  If you have ever worked with a sampler, you know this.  We learned this in Music Lab 101 at school using analog tape loops.
> 
>

OK.  I'll  make up a little blindfold test for you.


--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "fidlershorns" <grassinospam@...> wrote:
>
> It is a good thing for us live musicians, conductors, educators and equipment makers and manufacturers that a large amount of the general public, even if they can not spell, pronounce or define "timber",  hear and value these differences.
> 
> I will not defend my point by my credentials and passed classes, but will instead offer some simple evidence that you are undererestimating tone in order to make a point on the other important variables.
> 
> Point one: I still sound like me if I play staccato, legato, marcato or slur.  If I change my equipment, I do not sound quite as much like me. Let someone else play my changed equipment, it can still sound like a sax (or trombone or whatever I'm getting paid to play that day.) But it will not sound like I'm playing it. Even if they miss the same b double sharp!
> 
> Point two: If synthesied sounds were the cat's meow, wind controlers and the latest electroncis would be all that you hear, and people would be happier to listen to it. All Synth bands died in pop music in the 80's after the novelty wore off. Broadway shows, circuses, and rodeos are using electroncis in the pits for cost reasons, not because people are enjoying the canned stuff. Ever heard someone happy that the violin solo in the show was covered on the keyboard? We have more demand than supply for groups with good, live musicians around here. Cost is the issue, not quality.
> 
> In a releated note, Rob Thomas, newly rich pop star, appeared on the Today Show to promote his second album. He said something to the effect that he and his producer needed more than programmed (drum) loops, - live musicians -  to get the feel (and "rhythmic urgency").
>  http://music.rightcelebrity.com/?p&78
> Score a big one for us live musicians and the whole package we offer!
> 
> Now can we please get back to making a better mouthpiece?
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "lancelotburt" <lancelotburt@> wrote:
> >
> > The different saxophones, different mouthpiece configurations and materials, different reeds and different physical characteristics do indeed make a difference, but much more so in the rapidly changing waveforms of the attack.  Once the not is stable, and if the player just holds it steady, without any inflections, vibrato, or other ornamental alterations, they will sound VERY MUCH the same to your ears.  It is the way all the components respond to alterations (attacks, inflections, vibrato, etc., that give the note it's character.  If you have ever worked with a sampler, you know this.  We learned this in Music Lab 101 at school using analog tape loops.
> > 
> >
>

This html message parsed with html2text ---------------------------Thought you might enjoy a side note, no need to drop it on the whole group
though ..

We have been dividing by (almost) zero since Leibniz and Newton (famous for an
apple that fell on his head) invented calculus. Oh, it is European & American
historians who credit these modern European mathematicians for this invention.
The English & Americans try to avoid giving any credit to Leibniz the German,
and act as if Isaac Newton was the first person who ever though of math ad
science in a logical manner. We completely ignore the Chinese, Egyptian, Greek
and Arabic mathematicians who did what we now call calculus several hunderds
of years before Newton.

Not really & truly divide by zero of course. :)

But some aspect of calculus are based on strange suppositions like "OK, not
zero ... but what if we divide some increasingly, vanishingly small number?
The behavior of mathematically described physical systems, at so called
limits, or boundary conditions like "divide by almost zero" are truly
interesting conditions.

So what if instead of dividing by 0, we were to divide by 0.00001? What about
divide by 0.00000000001?

There does become a limit at which the accuracy of manufacture and measurement
are coarer thn the calculation. This is the point at which most analysis stop.

Anyway, I don't need to waste your time and mine wih more ramblings about
strange math history ...

  
\\------ Original Message ------  
**Received:** Wed, 13 Jan 2010 07:53:13 PM EST  
**From:** MartinMods  
**To:** MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com  
**Subject:** Re: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron

> Toby,  
>  
> Since when can we divide by 0? Your x0 = 0 renders the formula invalid so
> the terms do not cancel. What it says is that the frequency of the the
> truncated cone, for any fn, is a factor of the tube's taper. Plug it into
> excel. It does exactly what Ferron describes.  
>  
> L-MM  
>  
>  
>  
>
>
> * * *
>
> **From:** "kymarto123@ybb.ne.jp" ne.jp>  
> **To:** MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com  
> **Sent:** Wed, January 13, 2010 7:21:50 PM  
> **Subject:** Re: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron  
>  
>
>
> It doesn't. If you look at Benade's formula it says:  
>  
> Fn = c/4L* sqrt((2n-1)^ 2+(8/pi^2) *(L/x0)), where Fn is the frequency of
> the mode n, c = speed of sound, L = length and x0 = length of end
> truncation, not length of 'correct end substitution'.  
>  
> When the cone is complete, x0 = 0, which cancels out the last two terms, and
> the formula then becomes simply Fn = c/4L * sqrt((2n-1)^ 2).  
>  
> Benade's formula therefore is the way to find the frequency of an incomplete
> cone, and only applies until the truncation length is ~1/3 the length of the
> complete cone, after which some different things happen to determine Fn.  
>  
> Toby  
>  
>  
> **MartinMods yahoo.com>** wrote:
>

>> I imagine that Ferron's discussion of the changing frequencies of
theoretically increasing the taper of an incomplete cone (with a correct x0
substitution) , pp 14-15, will be one of the first things that some find
objectionable. I would ask those who disagree with his view, that they then
please explain why Benade's formula for determining fn for his straight-sided
expanding cone substantiates Ferron's statement - [https://ccrma. stanford.
edu/marl/ Benade/documents /Benade-Physics3
23-1977.pdf](https://ccrma.stanford.edu/marl/Benade/documents/Benade-

Physics323-1977.pdf)  
>  
> page 3.  
>
>>

>>  
>
>>

>> * * *

>>

>> **From:** "kymarto123@ [ybb.ne.jp](http://ybb.ne.jp)" ne.jp>  
> **To:** MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com  
> **Sent:** Wed, January 13, 2010 8:14:19 AM  
> **Subject:** [MouthpieceWork] Ferron  
>  
>
>>

>> I just received my copy of Ferron's book. OMG. It is far worse than I
imagined it could be. I strongly suggest that people who are interested in
acoustics completely ignore it and read Nederveen or other credible books.
While there are some parts that are reasonably accurate, there is so much
misinformation in there that it is basically useless.  
>  
> If people are interested I can list some of the stuff I have found that is
> not and cannot be true, as well as other things that sound extremely fishy
> to me.  
>  
> Toby  
>
>>

>>  
>
>
>  
>
>
>  
>
>
>  
>

  

Thanks for the interesting side note. Calculus and the
idea of limits is devilishly ingenious.

One interesting side effect of making the cone narrower is
that you quickly increase the truncation ratio if you keep
the neck diameter the same. I struggled thru the formulae
for infinite and finite cylinders and cones. I won't
pretend that I could follow it all, but what is clear is
that spherical waves add immense complexity to the
equation, and there are lots of terms which change rapidly
in certain ranges of cone angle, making blanket statements
about the behavior of generic cones vs cylinders rather
difficult. Add to this real-world concerns like air mass
and wall losses and easy statements go south rather
quickly.

What is clear is that an increasing cone angle, except for
one specific species of Bessel horn, will raise all modes,
with higher modes being raised more. But this depends on
the fact that such an arrangement forces an expansion of
the spherical wavefront in a non-linear manner, meaning
that different frequencies will reflect back at different
points in the bore, as far as I understand it. This does
not happen in a straight-sided cone.

If cone angle alone is a determinant of pitch and mode
relationships, I invite anyone who believes this to then
answer the question of why a bassoon with a semi-angle of
0.4 degrees, an oboe of 0.8 degrees and a sax of 3.0
degrees all overblow good octaves, and further why the
length of the bassoon, playing 2 octaves below the oboe,
is exactly four times as long (within 6 mm in a bore well
over 2 m long), even though the cone angle is half that of
the oboe.

Toby
--- Edward Branham <ebb@...> wrote:

> 
> ---------------------------------
>                          
> 
> Thought you might enjoy a side note, no need to drop
> it on the whole group though ..
> 
> We have been dividing by (almost) zero since Leibniz
> and Newton (famous for an apple that fell on his
> head) invented calculus.  Oh, it is European &
> American historians who credit these modern European
> mathematicians for this invention.  The English &
> Americans try to avoid giving any credit to Leibniz
> the German, and act as if Isaac Newton was the first
> person who ever though of math ad science in a
> logical manner.  We completely ignore the Chinese,
> Egyptian, Greek and Arabic mathematicians who did
> what we now call calculus several hunderds of years
> before Newton. 
> 
> Not really & truly divide by zero of course.   :)
> 
> But some aspect of calculus are based on strange
> suppositions like "OK, not zero ... but what if we
> divide some increasingly, vanishingly small number? 
> The behavior of mathematically described physical
> systems, at so called limits, or boundary conditions
> like "divide by almost zero" are truly interesting
> conditions.
> 
> So what if instead of dividing by 0, we were to
> divide by 0.00001?  What about divide by
> 0.00000000001?
> 
> There does become a limit at which the accuracy of
> manufacture and measurement are coarer thn the
> calculation.  This is the point at which most
> analysis stop.
> 
> Anyway, I don't need to  waste your time and mine
> wih more ramblings about strange math history ...
> 
>   
> ------ Original Message ------  
> Received: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 07:53:13 PM EST  
> From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>  
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com  
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron
>                        
>                           Toby,                
>                 
> Since when can we divide by 0?  Your x0 = 0 renders
> the formula invalid so the terms do not cancel. 
> What it says is that the frequency of the the
> truncated cone, for any fn, is a factor of the
> tube's taper.  Plug it into excel.  It does exactly
> what Ferron describes.                
>                 
> L-MM                
>                 
>                 
>                 
>                                   
> ---------------------------------
>  From: "kymarto123@..." <kymarto123@...>
>                  
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com                  
> Sent: Wed, January 13, 2010 7:21:50 PM              
>    
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron                
>  
>                   
>                                        
> It doesn't. If you look at Benade's formula it says:
>                      
>                       
> Fn = c/4L* sqrt((2n-1)^ 2+(8/pi^2) *(L/x0)), where
> Fn is the frequency of the mode n, c = speed of
> sound, L = length and x0 = length of end truncation,
> not length of 'correct end substitution'.           
>           
>                       
> When the cone is complete, x0 = 0, which cancels out
> the last two terms, and the formula then becomes
> simply  Fn = c/4L * sqrt((2n-1)^ 2).                
>      
>                       
> Benade's formula therefore is the way to find the
> frequency of an incomplete cone, and only applies
> until the truncation length is ~1/3 the length of
> the complete cone, after which some different things
> happen to determine Fn.                      
>                       
> Toby                      
>                       
>                       
> MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:         
>           
>                                                     
>                                       
>                                                   I
> imagine that Ferron's discussion of the changing
> frequencies of theoretically increasing the taper of
> an incomplete cone (with a correct x0 substitution)
> , pp 14-15, will be one of the first things that
> some find objectionable.  I would ask those who
> disagree with his view, that they then please
> explain why Benade's formula for determining fn for
> his straight-sided expanding cone substantiates
> Ferron's statement - https://ccrma. stanford.
> edu/marl/ Benade/documents /Benade-Physics3
> 23-1977.pdf                            
>                             
> page 3.                            
>                           
>                                                     
>  
>                                                     
>      
> ---------------------------------
>  From: "kymarto123@ ybb.ne.jp" <kymarto123@ybb.
> ne.jp>                              
> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com                
>              
> Sent: Wed, January 13, 2010 8:14:19 AM              
>                
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron                    
>          
>                               
>                                                     
>           I just received my copy of Ferron's book.
> OMG. It is far worse than I imagined it could be. I
> strongly suggest that people who are interested in
> acoustics completely ignore it and read Nederveen or
> other credible books. While there are some parts
> that are reasonably accurate, there is so much
> misinformation in there that it is basically
> useless.                                  
>                                   
> If people are interested I can list some of the
> stuff I have found that is not and cannot be true,
> as well as other things that sound extremely fishy
> to me.                                  
>                                   
> Toby                                  
>                                 
>                                                     
>             
>                               
>                             
>                           
>                         
>                         
>                                                 
>                       
>                                         
>                                          
>                   
>                 
>               
>             
>             
>             
>             
>           
>       
>     
>   
> 
>     
>              
>                                          Reply to
> sender          |         Reply to group      
>                 Messages in this topic          (80)
>          
>        Recent Activity:                
>          New Members      2                  
>          New Photos      3                          
>                
>           Visit Your Group    Start a New Topic  
> 
>                     Got a Mouthpiece Work question? 
> Send it to MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> 
> Visit the site at
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MouthpieceWork to see
> the Files, Photos and Bookmarks relating to
> Mouthpiece Work.
> 
> To see and modify your groups, go to
> http://groups.yahoo.com/mygroups          
>                   MARKETPLACE
>                                     
> Going Green: Your Yahoo! Groups resource for green
> living
>           
>                               
>     
>       Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest •
> Unsubscribe • Terms of Use
> 
> 
== $B0J2<$N%a%C%;!<%8$O>JN,$5$l$^$7$?(B =