I've been experimenting with enlarging windows. I'm not sure I completely
understand the logic/theory of the jumbo sized windows used on the Rovner
and Jody Jazz DV pieces. I know they play well. Is too much always better
than not enough when it comes to window size? Does anyone have any
guidelines? Is there any real math relevant to this subject? Enlarging the
window by around 15% seems to improve response.
 
STEVE GOODSON
SAXOPHONE DESIGNER TO THE STARS
 
SKYPE TO SAXGOURMET for video calls
 

BASIC SHOP RATE................$100/HR
IF YOU WATCH.....................$125/HR
IF YOU ASK QUESTIONS......$150/HR
IF I HAVE TO LISTEN TO A CONCERT 
LONGER THAN FIVE MINUTES WHEN
YOU PICK UP YOUR HORN....$250/HR
 
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is
for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential
and privileged information or otherwise protected by law. Any unauthorized
review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy
all copies of the original message.
 

You might talk to Ron Caravan about that.  When I studied refacing with him
that was one of the variables. Small window=more resistance and larger=less
resistance.  I would bet that extremes in either direction would give bad
results.  Only experimentation will give the best answers. John

On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 7:05 PM, STEVE "SAXGOURMET" GOODSON <
saxgourmet@cox.net> wrote:

>
>
>   I’ve been experimenting with enlarging windows. I’m not sure I
> completely understand the logic/theory of the jumbo sized windows used on
> the Rovner and Jody Jazz DV pieces. I know they play well. Is too much
> always better than not enough when it comes to window size? Does anyone have
> any guidelines? Is there any real math relevant to this subject? Enlarging
> the window by around 15% seems to improve response.
>
>
>
> *STEVE GOODSON*
>
> *SAXOPHONE DESIGNER TO THE STARS***
>
> * *
>
> *SKYPE TO **SAXGOURMET** **for video calls*
>
>
>
> ****
>
> *BASIC SHOP RATE................$100/HR*
>
> *IF YOU WATCH.....................$125/HR*
>
> *IF YOU ASK QUESTIONS......$150/HR*
>
> *IF I HAVE TO LISTEN TO A CONCERT *
>
> *LONGER THAN FIVE MINUTES WHEN*
>
> *YOU PICK UP YOUR HORN....$250/HR*
>
> * *
>
> *CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments,
> is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain
> confidential and privileged information or otherwise protected by law. Any
> unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you
> are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail
> and destroy all copies of the original message*.
>
>
>  
>

I find undercutting the window helps lower resistance and improves projection in sax mouthpieces.   I think making a window longer has a similar effect, but it makes the chamber volume larger, which may or may not be wanted.
 
See the Ferron book for some diagrams on what undercuting (and baffles) can do to the path of the sound waves and the resulting sound spectrum.

--- On Mon, 4/27/09, STEVE "SAXGOURMET" GOODSON <saxgourmet@cox.net> wrote:


From: STEVE "SAXGOURMET" GOODSON <saxgourmet@...>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Larger windows
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, April 27, 2009, 7:05 PM








 

I’ve been experimenting with enlarging windows. I’m not sure I completely understand the logic/theory of the jumbo sized windows used on the Rovner and Jody Jazz DV pieces. I know they play well. Is too much always better than not enough when it comes to window size? Does anyone have any guidelines? Is there any real math relevant to this subject? Enlarging the window by around 15% seems to improve response.
 
STEVE GOODSON
SAXOPHONE DESIGNER TO THE STARS
 
SKYPE TO SAXGOURMET for video calls
 

BASIC SHOP RATE........ ........$ 100/HR
IF YOU WATCH....... ......... .....$125/ HR
IF YOU ASK QUESTIONS... ...$150/HR
IF I HAVE TO LISTEN TO A CONCERT 
LONGER THAN FIVE MINUTES WHEN
YOU PICK UP YOUR HORN....$250/ HR
 
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information or otherwise protected by law. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
 















      

It was the Ferron book that I used as a guideline for my initial experiments…..I’ve always undercut windows, and now believe that enlarging them has a beneficial effect. I’m interested in the theory applied on the really BIG windows used by Rovner and JodyJazz
 
From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Keith Bradbury
Sent: Monday, April 27, 2009 8:29 PM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Larger windows
 

I find undercutting the window helps lower resistance and improves projection in sax mouthpieces.   I think making a window longer has a similar effect, but it makes the chamber volume larger, which may or may not be wanted.
 
See the Ferron book for some diagrams on what undercuting (and baffles) can do to the path of the sound waves and the resulting sound spectrum.

--- On Mon, 4/27/09, STEVE "SAXGOURMET" GOODSON <saxgourmet@...> wrote:

From: STEVE "SAXGOURMET" GOODSON <saxgourmet@...>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Larger windows
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, April 27, 2009, 7:05 PM

I’ve been experimenting with enlarging windows. I’m not sure I completely understand the logic/theory of the jumbo sized windows used on the Rovner and Jody Jazz DV pieces. I know they play well. Is too much always better than not enough when it comes to window size? Does anyone have any guidelines? Is there any real math relevant to this subject? Enlarging the window by around 15% seems to improve response.
 
STEVE GOODSON
SAXOPHONE DESIGNER TO THE STARS
 
SKYPE TO SAXGOURMET for video calls
 

BASIC SHOP RATE........ ........$ 100/HR
IF YOU WATCH....... ......... .....$125/ HR
IF YOU ASK QUESTIONS... ...$150/HR
IF I HAVE TO LISTEN TO A CONCERT 
LONGER THAN FIVE MINUTES WHEN
YOU PICK UP YOUR HORN....$250/ HR
 
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information or otherwise protected by law. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
 
 

I doubt Rovner had a sound accoustic theory reason for doing it.  Just some trial and error work.  Some of Rovners designs feature a box-like chamber.  The longer window gave them access for a mill to get in there and machine this type of chamber.
 
Jody Jazz calls upon the mystical properties of DaVinci's Phi.  It is as good a reason as any to try something sorta different.  

--- On Tue, 4/28/09, STEVE "SAXGOURMET" GOODSON <saxgourmet@...> wrote:


From: STEVE "SAXGOURMET" GOODSON <saxgourmet@...>
Subject: RE: [MouthpieceWork] Larger windows
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, April 28, 2009, 9:40 AM










It was the Ferron book that I used as a guideline for my initial experiments…..I’ve always undercut windows, and now believe that enlarging them has a beneficial effect. I’m interested in the theory applied on the really BIG windows used by Rovner and JodyJazz
 

From: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:MouthpieceW ork@yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of Keith Bradbury
Sent: Monday, April 27, 2009 8:29 PM
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Larger windows
 





I find undercutting the window helps lower resistance and improves projection in sax mouthpieces.   I think making a window longer has a similar effect, but it makes the chamber volume larger, which may or may not be wanted.

 

See the Ferron book for some diagrams on what undercuting (and baffles) can do to the path of the sound waves and the resulting sound spectrum.

--- On Mon, 4/27/09, STEVE "SAXGOURMET" GOODSON <saxgourmet@cox. net> wrote:


From: STEVE "SAXGOURMET" GOODSON <saxgourmet@cox. net>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Larger windows
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Monday, April 27, 2009, 7:05 PM





I’ve been experimenting with enlarging windows. I’m not sure I completely understand the logic/theory of the jumbo sized windows used on the Rovner and Jody Jazz DV pieces. I know they play well. Is too much always better than not enough when it comes to window size? Does anyone have any guidelines? Is there any real math relevant to this subject? Enlarging the window by around 15% seems to improve response.
 
STEVE GOODSON
SAXOPHONE DESIGNER TO THE STARS
 
SKYPE TO SAXGOURMET for video calls
 

BASIC SHOP RATE........ ........$ 100/HR
IF YOU WATCH....... ......... .....$125/ HR
IF YOU ASK QUESTIONS... ...$150/HR
IF I HAVE TO LISTEN TO A CONCERT 
LONGER THAN FIVE MINUTES WHEN
YOU PICK UP YOUR HORN....$250/ HR
 
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information or otherwise protected by law. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
 
 















      

One other thought.  The Wyman paper has a small test where he undercut the window of an alto HR mouthpiece twice.  He tested it before, after cut #1 and after cut #2.  I think he concluded that the sound was "better" before the changes.  But this test was not as thorough as the other tests in his paper.  I think he said it would need further study to make some good conclusions.  I think so too since I find the sound "better" after undercutting.  Even on classical mouthpieces.  Perhaps there was a loss in resistance that he liked for classical playing.


      

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:
>
> 
> One other thought.  The Wyman paper has a small test where he undercut the window of an alto HR mouthpiece twice.  He tested it before, after cut #1 and after cut #2.  I think he concluded that the sound was "better" before the changes.  But this test was not as thorough as the other tests in his paper.  I think he said it would need further study to make some good conclusions.  I think so too since I find the sound "better" after undercutting.  Even on classical mouthpieces.  Perhaps there was a loss in resistance that he liked for classical playing.
>

By 'undercutting', are we talking about enlarging the chamber directly under the table, or making a deep depression in the table directly behind the window (forgot whose pieces I saw like this, maybe Claude Humber?)?

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:
>
> 
> One other thought.  The Wyman paper has a small test where he undercut the window of an alto HR mouthpiece twice.  He tested it before, after cut #1 and after cut #2.  I think he concluded that the sound was "better" before the changes.  But this test was not as thorough as the other tests in his paper.  I think he said it would need further study to make some good conclusions.  I think so too since I find the sound "better" after undercutting.  Even on classical mouthpieces.  Perhaps there was a loss in resistance that he liked for classical playing.
>

I'm inclined to think this is the case.  It sounds like he found it harder to control, and a worse sound (whatever that means).  My experience, which (it sounds like) agrees with yours, and Ferron's reasoned argument for a shallow angle on the ramp, is that less material at the ramp is generally better.  

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "STEVE \"SAXGOURMET\" GOODSON" <saxgourmet@...> wrote:
>
> It was the Ferron book that I used as a guideline for my initial experiments…..I’ve always undercut windows, and now believe that enlarging them has a beneficial effect. I’m interested in the theory applied on the really BIG windows used by Rovner and JodyJazz
>  

One obvious thing relating to Ferron is that the ramp will be moved away from the tip considerably, so the effect of the wall at the end of the window may be mitigated.  It also compensates some for the chamber size related pitch issues high baffle pieces tend to have. I don't think there's a great deal of practical value to really huge windows, except for the practicalities of getting a tool in there in the first place.   

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "frymorgan" <frymorgan@...> wrote:
>
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "STEVE \"SAXGOURMET\" GOODSON" <saxgourmet@> wrote:
> >
> > It was the Ferron book that I used as a guideline for my initial experiments…..I’ve always undercut windows, and now believe that enlarging them has a beneficial effect. I’m interested in the theory applied on the really BIG windows used by Rovner and JodyJazz
> >  
> 
> One obvious thing relating to Ferron is that the ramp will be moved away from the tip considerably, so the effect of the wall at the end of the window may be mitigated.  It also compensates some for the chamber size related pitch issues high baffle pieces tend to have. I don't think there's a great deal of practical value to really huge windows, except for the practicalities of getting a tool in there in the first place.
>

I moved ramp away for the same reason and it worked fine. Mmmmm it works very well indeed :)
Anyway there is an energy conversion near the tip area... I don't really belive to all those zig-zag patterns. But to be honest.... it works :)

DannyG 

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, John Delia <bzalto@...> wrote:
>
> You might talk to Ron Caravan about that.  When I studied refacing with him
> that was one of the variables. Small window=more resistance and larger=less
> resistance.  I would bet that extremes in either direction would give bad
> results.  Only experimentation will give the best answers. John


  I've been experimenting very, *very* simple mouthpiece designs - just sanding pieces of diagonally cut aluminium tubing (diameter more or less equal to that of alto/tenor sax reeds and 2mm wall thickness), and some PVC tubing to connect it to the bocal.
  Obviously, the window has a strange shape and gets ridiculously narrow at the tip.
  I didn't find it too resistant, but that might be because I'm used to Selmer C* mouthpieces.
  I got a bright and unexpectedly loud sound. Low tones were quite troublesome, but I suspect that's due to my unaccountably poor facing job - I only had my eyes to check, no prior experience, and little time...

I'm not replying to anyone in particular, just in general.

There is a huge misconception among players that bigger is better, whether in reference to the "bore", the chamber, the throat, or the window.

"It ain't necessarily so," says the song.  

If anyone believes that, I'll gladly hog out their favorite mouthpiece for them to try.  They will be greatly disappointed.

Some people pay me good money to fill in the chambers of their older Links.  When I'm done, they have faster response, a more focused tone (rather than "spread" or "tubby"), and better intonation.

Just my opinion, but in years past I had ruined a number of good mouthpieces thinking bigger was better.

Paul Coats

Your post reminded me of the PVC Clarinet:

http://www.geocities.com/danielbruner/instruments/clarA3.html

I have not made one of these, but I did make a few PVC flutes (in G)which worked quite well.

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "cosnefroymilan" <fous.Milan@...> wrote:
>
>   I've been experimenting very, *very* simple mouthpiece designs - just sanding pieces of diagonally cut aluminium tubing (diameter more or less equal to that of alto/tenor sax reeds and 2mm wall thickness), and some PVC tubing to connect it to the bocal.
>   Obviously, the window has a strange shape and gets ridiculously narrow at the tip.
>   I didn't find it too resistant, but that might be because I'm used to Selmer C* mouthpieces.
>   I got a bright and unexpectedly loud sound. Low tones were quite troublesome, but I suspect that's due to my unaccountably poor facing job - I only had my eyes to check, no prior experience, and little time...
>

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "Keith Bradbury" <kwbradbury@...> wrote:
>
> Your post reminded me of the PVC Clarinet:
> 
> http://www.geocities.com/danielbruner/instruments/clarA3.html
> 
> I have not made one of these, but I did make a few PVC flutes (in G)which worked quite well.
> 

Well, that's partly where I got the idea, the other part being
http://www.geocities.com/tpe123/folkurban/clarinet/step4.html

I've worked some more on my tenor sax mouthpiece, I can now actually use it, though low notes still tend to jump up when playing softly.

Both a fellow sax player and I tried it; I really liked the sound, and he said he was impressed by the result...