>>>>>>>>>
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.)
<<<<<<<<<

The Bernoulli effect makes the reed speak easier.  It focuses the players air velocity in a way that creates a vacuum to get the reed moving with less effort by the player.  It is not an acoustic effect but a fluid mechanics effect.

Any brightness would need to be explained from acoustics, such as wave reflections/reinforcement.

The Ferron book has a few diagrams of simple 2D wave reflection diagrams in mouthpieces and frequency spectrums for the same mouthpieces.  I think he was on to something.



      

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:
> The Ferron book has a few diagrams of simple 2D wave reflection diagrams in mouthpieces and frequency spectrums for the same mouthpieces.  I think he was on to something.<

I found that section interesting as well, thus the simple Maya model/ray tracing to verify his diagrams.

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:
> The Ferron book has a few diagrams of simple 2D wave reflection diagrams in mouthpieces and frequency spectrums for the same mouthpieces.  I think he was on to something.
>


Or are you referring specifically to his diagram of the ramp (as he calls it) as an obstruction and the resultant frequency spectrum showing non-harmonic partials?

on 6/30/09 1:59 PM, Keith Bradbury at kwbradbury@... wrote:

> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
> 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.)
> <<<<<<<<<
> 
> The Bernoulli effect makes the reed speak easier.  It focuses the players air
> velocity in a way that creates a vacuum to get the reed moving with less
> effort by the player.  It is not an acoustic effect but a fluid mechanics
> effect.
> 
> Any brightness would need to be explained from acoustics, such as wave
> reflections/reinforcement.



A mouthpiece with a baffle insert that has a cross section somewhat like a
curved airfoil or half of a nozzle plays differently depending on whether it
is placed closer to the tip or base of the reed.  Closer to the tip, it's a
brighter sound. At least, that's what I find, when experimenting on baffle
placement.

Different placement changes where the vacuum forces are applied to the reed,
so the reed responds differently, and the sax sounds and plays differently.
I don't see that this primarily is a wave-reflection effect, although there
will also be sound reflection from a baffle.

Without Bernoulli, there wouldn't be any reed motion at all, nor could airplanes fly.

Toby

Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:                                           

              
 >>>>>>>>>
 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.)
 <<<<<<<<<
 
 The Bernoulli effect makes the reed speak easier.  It focuses the players air velocity in a way that creates a vacuum to get the reed moving with less effort by the player.  It is not an acoustic effect but a fluid mechanics effect.
 
 Any brightness would need to be explained from acoustics, such as wave reflections/reinforcement.
 
 The Ferron book has a few diagrams of simple 2D wave reflection diagrams in mouthpieces and frequency spectrums for the same mouthpieces.  I think he was on to something.
 
 
        
             
                          
 

Scavone has this to say:

"Given the analysis of Benade and Richards (1983), it is reasonable to expect that a saxophone mouthpiece which produces a characteristically "dark" tone quality destructively influences the higher partials of the air column. In this sense, a long and narrow mouthpiece chamber may form
a better continuation of the conical bore to its apex, and allow more high harmonic participation in the regime of oscillation. ...The mouthpieces appear to impose formants on the air column resonant structure."

Barry Levine <barrylevine@...> wrote:                                           

              on 6/30/09 1:59 PM, Keith Bradbury at kwbradbury@... wrote:
 
 > 
 >>>>>>>>>> 
 > 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.)
 > <<<<<<<<<
 > 
 > The Bernoulli effect makes the reed speak easier.  It focuses the players air
 > velocity in a way that creates a vacuum to get the reed moving with less
 > effort by the player.  It is not an acoustic effect but a fluid mechanics
 > effect.
 > 
 > Any brightness would need to be explained from acoustics, such as wave
 > reflections/reinforcement.
 
 A mouthpiece with a baffle insert that has a cross section somewhat like a
 curved airfoil or half of a nozzle plays differently depending on whether it
 is placed closer to the tip or base of the reed.  Closer to the tip, it's a
 brighter sound. At least, that's what I find, when experimenting on baffle
 placement.
 
 Different placement changes where the vacuum forces are applied to the reed,
 so the reed responds differently, and the sax sounds and plays differently.
 I don't see that this primarily is a wave-reflection effect, although there
 will also be sound reflection from a baffle.
 
 
        
             
                          
 

As to Bernoulli forces, Nederveen states, "Worman (1971) calculates the magnitude of the Bernoulli forces which supposedly influence the balance of forces on the reed.  In a single reed, with it's relatively short slit, these forces are negligible, but in a double reed, with it's relatively long and narrow slit, they would have to be dealt with."

Scavone:  Aside from Scavone's personal observations regarding the effects of reed dampening and high register playing, the bulk of the acoustical analysis of single reed instruments in his thesis, is basically a synopsis of the studies made by other acousticians. Regarding the treatment of mouthpiece types and design in his modeling study, he states, "It is likely that the mouthpiece geometries could be modified to produce better resonance alignment, though the purpose of this analysis was simply to determine any signicant differences between the two designs. (fat vs. narrow)  

As such I question if one should consider Scavone's thesis as the "End All" of acoustical thought as regards the saxophone and saxophone mouthpiece design.

Nederveen states that the total oscillative flow entering the instrument consists of the oscillative flow through the slit (player supplied air pressure interrupted by reed valve) combined with the oscillative flow caused by the transverse motion of the reed itself.  He goes on to say that instead of viewing the reed motion as a fictitious cavity at the tip of the reed, one can translate the reed motion into a "corresponding widening of the bore over the length which is bounded by the reed.  Note that the pressures over the whole length of the reed are practically constant as there is a node here.  Then a position-dependent volume increase of the cross sectional area.....can be calculated..."

It is this transverse vibration of the reed surface which Ferron compares (without the conditional math, though I'm inclined to believe he could have provided it) to a vibrating metal bar held in a vise, and it's 90 degree from any point on the tangent of the lay advancing pressure wave, which would reflect off the inclined baffle shape in the incident angle equals reflective angle manner.  He postulates that tracing the reflective route of the wave from any point on the reed can server to better understand some of what takes place inside the mouthpiece, and that through correctly focusing and directing the wave, by means of the baffle angle and ramp design, one can improve the mouthpiece's resonance and response.  

This is Ferron's theory, not mine. (so attack it if you will, but direct the attack appropriately)  He certainly had an advanced degree of practical insight into the saxophone and clarinet.  I see no reason to disregard his contribution to the saxophone/mouthpiece conversation simply because he did not provide advanced math to entertain the physicists.  The fact is, he went to depths (baffle focus and tone hole chimney height tuning) of specific acoustic analysis, as a result of extensive personal experimentation and experience, that others have yet to bother to even consider.
















--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
>
> Scavone has this to say:
> 
> "Given the analysis of Benade and Richards (1983), it is reasonable to expect that a saxophone mouthpiece which produces a characteristically "dark" tone quality destructively influences the higher partials of the air column. In this sense, a long and narrow mouthpiece chamber may form
> a better continuation of the conical bore to its apex, and allow more high harmonic participation in the regime of oscillation. ...The mouthpieces appear to impose formants on the air column resonant structure."
> 
> Barry Levine <barrylevine@...> wrote:                                           
> 
>               on 6/30/09 1:59 PM, Keith Bradbury at kwbradbury@... wrote:
>  
>  > 
>  >>>>>>>>>> 
>  > 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.)
>  > <<<<<<<<<
>  > 
>  > The Bernoulli effect makes the reed speak easier.  It focuses the players air
>  > velocity in a way that creates a vacuum to get the reed moving with less
>  > effort by the player.  It is not an acoustic effect but a fluid mechanics
>  > effect.
>  > 
>  > Any brightness would need to be explained from acoustics, such as wave
>  > reflections/reinforcement.
>  
>  A mouthpiece with a baffle insert that has a cross section somewhat like a
>  curved airfoil or half of a nozzle plays differently depending on whether it
>  is placed closer to the tip or base of the reed.  Closer to the tip, it's a
>  brighter sound. At least, that's what I find, when experimenting on baffle
>  placement.
>  
>  Different placement changes where the vacuum forces are applied to the reed,
>  so the reed responds differently, and the sax sounds and plays differently.
>  I don't see that this primarily is a wave-reflection effect, although there
>  will also be sound reflection from a baffle.
>

That's interesting about Bernoulli forces. I read
something rather different, which I will try to dig up. 

I am willing to concede that I have not read Ferron and
really can't comment further. I find it strange that none
of the other literature I have run across pursues these
ideas. I will look into this further, and post anything
interesting I might find.

Toby

Some good links I have never seen, including Signor
Bernoulli's role and excellent analyses of the whole
process (especially the first link). No comments until I
study them further.

1) google "Musical aero-acoustics of the clarinet"--pdf
link is elided and unreproduceable

http://www.music.mcgill.ca/~gary/618/week9/node9.html

Toby

Bernoulli is a simple and useful equation for some basic, incompressible fluid flows (around the reed) .  It is a simplification of the Navier-Stokes equation which is needed for more complete fluid flow and pressure calculations (like airplane flight).
 
I'm not sure what the go-to equations are for acoustic waves.  But I would think they need to take compressible flow into consideration since that is what is going on in the instrument.  I think there is a compressible flow version of Navier-Stokes equation.  But I never had to mess with that one during my engineering life.


      

We basically need a good set of differential equations, initial conditions and a good software to solve them :). Ok! I have the software... some idea?

Stan
 
--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:
>
> Bernoulli is a simple and useful equation for some basic, incompressible fluid flows (around the reed) .  It is a simplification of the Navier-Stokes equation which is needed for more complete fluid flow and pressure calculations (like airplane flight).
>  
> I'm not sure what the go-to equations are for acoustic waves.  But I would think they need to take compressible flow into consideration since that is what is going on in the instrument.  I think there is a compressible flow version of Navier-Stokes equation.  But I never had to mess with that one during my engineering life.
>

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
>
> Scavone has this to say:
> 
> "Given the analysis of Benade and Richards (1983), it is reasonable to expect that a saxophone mouthpiece which produces a characteristically "dark" tone quality destructively influences the higher partials of the air column. In this sense, a long and narrow mouthpiece chamber may form
> a better continuation of the conical bore to its apex, and allow more high harmonic participation in the regime of oscillation. ...The mouthpieces appear to impose formants on the air column resonant structure."

Have any of you actually done this?  Constructed mouthpieces with short, fat chambers vs long tapered chambers?

I have.  This is what happens.  

Start with a mouthpiece that plays well in tune, the palm keys play in tune relative to the rest of the instrument, etc.  Such a mouthpiece would have a "medium" chamber... and this would be regardless of baffle, etc.  

Use a bit close to the "bore" size and go in from the shank or butt end, and extend the bore into the chamber area.  Let me say here, any bore exposed past the end of the neck is part of chamber volume.

Now get out the Dremel tool and start carving away sidewalls, and grinding away what you can reach from the window.

What you end up with is something similar to the old Buescher, Conn, Caravan, Rasher, etc mouthpiece type.  

No matter how much material you remove, in order to tune up with the usual tuning notes, you have to push the mouthpiece onto the cork (now very far onto the cork) so that the volume past the end of the neck is equal to the missing conical section.  

Play the mouthpiece... what happens?  It is reasonably in tune over most of the range, but when you begin to play on the short end of the tube, the palm key notes, it is very sharp.  The mouthpiece is now too short, though the volume is correct.  

It seems that the low register, with the way the nodes and antinodes lie, it tunes by mouthpiece volume.

But the upper register tunes by length, too.

OK, let's go the opposite way... let's get out the putty and start filling in, making a long narrow "pea shooter" mouthpiece.  Put it on the cork and tune up.  Now you have to pull out, to gain volume inside, so that once again the volume past the end of the neck is equal to the missing conical section.  You have the regular tuning note well tuned, but the mouthpiece is barely hanging onto the end of the neck cork.

Play the instrument and you will see that when you get to the short end of the tube, the palm key notes are... flat!  The mouthpiece is too long, though the volume is correct.

I've been through this process in experimenting with bass sax, soprano sax, and tenor sax mouthpieces, noting tuning tendencies.  I had even constructed a soprano sax mouthpiece with removable inserts of various length (inserted into the bore, shoved up to the throat area) to change volume and length relationship.  I still have that mouthpiece around somewhere, but in the end I glued in the best insert.

If anyone would like to experiment with this, I suggest getting 3 Runyon Model 22 alto or tenor mouthpieces.  I can get a basic unmarked but faced mouthpiece for you quite cheaply.  Leave one unmodified.  Fill in the baffle, chamber, and throat on one.  Hog out the other one with your Dremel tool.  Check the results for yourself.

In the end, like Goldilocks, the mouthpiece must be neither too hot, nor too cold, nor too hard, nor too soft... it must be "just right".

Paul

Just a quick note here. In order to be reasonably in tune
in the palm notes, there is a second condition that a mpc
has to fulfill in addition to having the correct volume to
mimic the truncated cone. For the notes where 1/4
wavelength is the same as or shorter than the length of
the truncation it is important that the Helmholtz
resonance of the mpc be similar to that of the truncated
apex. In order to do this you need a constriction at the
end of the chamber. The volume of the chamber (and baffle
area) plus constriction (throat) must still equal the
volume of the apex, but by playing with the diameter of
the constriction those palm notes can be brought into
tune.

Toby

--- tenorman1952 <tenorman1952@...> wrote:

> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com,
> <kymarto123@...> wrote:
> >
> > Scavone has this to say:
> > 
> > "Given the analysis of Benade and Richards (1983),
> it is reasonable to expect that a saxophone
> mouthpiece which produces a characteristically
> "dark" tone quality destructively influences
> the higher partials of the air column. In this
> sense, a long and narrow mouthpiece chamber may form
> > a better continuation of the conical bore to its
> apex, and allow more high harmonic participation in
> the regime of oscillation. ...The mouthpieces appear
> to impose formants on the air column resonant
> structure."
> 
> Have any of you actually done this?  Constructed
> mouthpieces with short, fat chambers vs long tapered
> chambers?
> 
> I have.  This is what happens.  
> 
> Start with a mouthpiece that plays well in tune, the
> palm keys play in tune relative to the rest of the
> instrument, etc.  Such a mouthpiece would have a
> "medium" chamber... and this would be regardless of
> baffle, etc.  
> 
> Use a bit close to the "bore" size and go in from
> the shank or butt end, and extend the bore into the
> chamber area.  Let me say here, any bore exposed
> past the end of the neck is part of chamber volume.
> 
> Now get out the Dremel tool and start carving away
> sidewalls, and grinding away what you can reach from
> the window.
> 
> What you end up with is something similar to the old
> Buescher, Conn, Caravan, Rasher, etc mouthpiece
> type.  
> 
> No matter how much material you remove, in order to
> tune up with the usual tuning notes, you have to
> push the mouthpiece onto the cork (now very far onto
> the cork) so that the volume past the end of the
> neck is equal to the missing conical section.  
> 
> Play the mouthpiece... what happens?  It is
> reasonably in tune over most of the range, but when
> you begin to play on the short end of the tube, the
> palm key notes, it is very sharp.  The mouthpiece is
> now too short, though the volume is correct.  
> 
> It seems that the low register, with the way the
> nodes and antinodes lie, it tunes by mouthpiece
> volume.
> 
> But the upper register tunes by length, too.
> 
> OK, let's go the opposite way... let's get out the
> putty and start filling in, making a long narrow
> "pea shooter" mouthpiece.  Put it on the cork and
> tune up.  Now you have to pull out, to gain volume
> inside, so that once again the volume past the end
> of the neck is equal to the missing conical section.
>  You have the regular tuning note well tuned, but
> the mouthpiece is barely hanging onto the end of the
> neck cork.
> 
> Play the instrument and you will see that when you
> get to the short end of the tube, the palm key notes
> are... flat!  The mouthpiece is too long, though the
> volume is correct.
> 
> I've been through this process in experimenting with
> bass sax, soprano sax, and tenor sax mouthpieces,
> noting tuning tendencies.  I had even constructed a
> soprano sax mouthpiece with removable inserts of
> various length (inserted into the bore, shoved up to
> the throat area) to change volume and length
> relationship.  I still have that mouthpiece around
> somewhere, but in the end I glued in the best
> insert.
> 
> If anyone would like to experiment with this, I
> suggest getting 3 Runyon Model 22 alto or tenor
> mouthpieces.  I can get a basic unmarked but faced
> mouthpiece for you quite cheaply.  Leave one
> unmodified.  Fill in the baffle, chamber, and throat
> on one.  Hog out the other one with your Dremel
> tool.  Check the results for yourself.
> 
> In the end, like Goldilocks, the mouthpiece must be
> neither too hot, nor too cold, nor too hard, nor too
> soft... it must be "just right".
> 
> Paul
> 
> 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Just a quick note here. In order to be reasonably in tune
in the palm notes,....you need a constriction at the
end of the chamber. .....
Toby
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

I have seen this "requirement" before.  But in practice there are many mouthpieces (like Links) that play "reasonably in tune" that have no constriction.  Unless the end of the neck counts as a constriction.  Then it is not a mouthpiece requirement.


      

I'm sure it was mentioned before - Benade considers the neck as the constriction.  

Oboe: reed + staple (constriction) = missing cone volume
Bassoon: reed + bocal (constriction)= missing  cone volume
Saxophone: mpc + neck (constriction = missing cone volume

Further, in order to satisfy production of the higher modes, the played frequency Frs of the reed cavity attached to it's constriction (sax mouthpiece on neck) must equal the frequency of the theoretical missing cone, the length of which can be calculated by the body taper and diameter information.  Small changes in the shape of the reed cavity and constricting tube (neck) to improve accuracy of this imitation.

Additionally, Nederveen cites Rockaboy (1989) and Gokhshtien (1982 nad 1995), stating that for conical instruments (both single and double reeds) the ratio of the time the reed is closed to the time the reed is open is approximately equal to the ratio of length of truncation of the cone to the length of the tube to the apex. 

So it looks like the neck is the constriction.





--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
>
> Just a quick note here. In order to be reasonably in tune
> in the palm notes, there is a second condition that a mpc
> has to fulfill in addition to having the correct volume to
> mimic the truncated cone. For the notes where 1/4
> wavelength is the same as or shorter than the length of
> the truncation it is important that the Helmholtz
> resonance of the mpc be similar to that of the truncated
> apex. In order to do this you need a constriction at the
> end of the chamber. The volume of the chamber (and baffle
> area) plus constriction (throat) must still equal the
> volume of the apex, but by playing with the diameter of
> the constriction those palm notes can be brought into
> tune.
> 
> Toby
> 
> --- tenorman1952 <tenorman1952@...> wrote:
> 
> > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com,
> > <kymarto123@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Scavone has this to say:
> > > 
> > > "Given the analysis of Benade and Richards (1983),
> > it is reasonable to expect that a saxophone
> > mouthpiece which produces a characteristically
> > "dark" tone quality destructively influences
> > the higher partials of the air column. In this
> > sense, a long and narrow mouthpiece chamber may form
> > > a better continuation of the conical bore to its
> > apex, and allow more high harmonic participation in
> > the regime of oscillation. ...The mouthpieces appear
> > to impose formants on the air column resonant
> > structure."
> > 
> > Have any of you actually done this?  Constructed
> > mouthpieces with short, fat chambers vs long tapered
> > chambers?
> > 
> > I have.  This is what happens.  
> > 
> > Start with a mouthpiece that plays well in tune, the
> > palm keys play in tune relative to the rest of the
> > instrument, etc.  Such a mouthpiece would have a
> > "medium" chamber... and this would be regardless of
> > baffle, etc.  
> > 
> > Use a bit close to the "bore" size and go in from
> > the shank or butt end, and extend the bore into the
> > chamber area.  Let me say here, any bore exposed
> > past the end of the neck is part of chamber volume.
> > 
> > Now get out the Dremel tool and start carving away
> > sidewalls, and grinding away what you can reach from
> > the window.
> > 
> > What you end up with is something similar to the old
> > Buescher, Conn, Caravan, Rasher, etc mouthpiece
> > type.  
> > 
> > No matter how much material you remove, in order to
> > tune up with the usual tuning notes, you have to
> > push the mouthpiece onto the cork (now very far onto
> > the cork) so that the volume past the end of the
> > neck is equal to the missing conical section.  
> > 
> > Play the mouthpiece... what happens?  It is
> > reasonably in tune over most of the range, but when
> > you begin to play on the short end of the tube, the
> > palm key notes, it is very sharp.  The mouthpiece is
> > now too short, though the volume is correct.  
> > 
> > It seems that the low register, with the way the
> > nodes and antinodes lie, it tunes by mouthpiece
> > volume.
> > 
> > But the upper register tunes by length, too.
> > 
> > OK, let's go the opposite way... let's get out the
> > putty and start filling in, making a long narrow
> > "pea shooter" mouthpiece.  Put it on the cork and
> > tune up.  Now you have to pull out, to gain volume
> > inside, so that once again the volume past the end
> > of the neck is equal to the missing conical section.
> >  You have the regular tuning note well tuned, but
> > the mouthpiece is barely hanging onto the end of the
> > neck cork.
> > 
> > Play the instrument and you will see that when you
> > get to the short end of the tube, the palm key notes
> > are... flat!  The mouthpiece is too long, though the
> > volume is correct.
> > 
> > I've been through this process in experimenting with
> > bass sax, soprano sax, and tenor sax mouthpieces,
> > noting tuning tendencies.  I had even constructed a
> > soprano sax mouthpiece with removable inserts of
> > various length (inserted into the bore, shoved up to
> > the throat area) to change volume and length
> > relationship.  I still have that mouthpiece around
> > somewhere, but in the end I glued in the best
> > insert.
> > 
> > If anyone would like to experiment with this, I
> > suggest getting 3 Runyon Model 22 alto or tenor
> > mouthpieces.  I can get a basic unmarked but faced
> > mouthpiece for you quite cheaply.  Leave one
> > unmodified.  Fill in the baffle, chamber, and throat
> > on one.  Hog out the other one with your Dremel
> > tool.  Check the results for yourself.
> > 
> > In the end, like Goldilocks, the mouthpiece must be
> > neither too hot, nor too cold, nor too hard, nor too
> > soft... it must be "just right".
> > 
> > Paul
> > 
> >
>

So, if one really loves the spread sound of that big fat, but too short mouthpiece, then perhaps lengthening the neck with a cylindrical section would make the short tube notes manageable.

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "lancelotburt" <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
>
> I'm sure it was mentioned before - Benade considers the neck as the constriction.  
> 
> Oboe: reed + staple (constriction) = missing cone volume
> Bassoon: reed + bocal (constriction)= missing  cone volume
> Saxophone: mpc + neck (constriction = missing cone volume
> 
> Further, in order to satisfy production of the higher modes, the played frequency Frs of the reed cavity attached to it's constriction (sax mouthpiece on neck) must equal the frequency of the theoretical missing cone, the length of which can be calculated by the body taper and diameter information.  Small changes in the shape of the reed cavity and constricting tube (neck) to improve accuracy of this imitation.
> 
> Additionally, Nederveen cites Rockaboy (1989) and Gokhshtien (1982 nad 1995), stating that for conical instruments (both single and double reeds) the ratio of the time the reed is closed to the time the reed is open is approximately equal to the ratio of length of truncation of the cone to the length of the tube to the apex. 
> 
> So it looks like the neck is the constriction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@> wrote:
> >
> > Just a quick note here. In order to be reasonably in tune
> > in the palm notes, there is a second condition that a mpc
> > has to fulfill in addition to having the correct volume to
> > mimic the truncated cone. For the notes where 1/4
> > wavelength is the same as or shorter than the length of
> > the truncation it is important that the Helmholtz
> > resonance of the mpc be similar to that of the truncated
> > apex. In order to do this you need a constriction at the
> > end of the chamber. The volume of the chamber (and baffle
> > area) plus constriction (throat) must still equal the
> > volume of the apex, but by playing with the diameter of
> > the constriction those palm notes can be brought into
> > tune.
> > 
> > Toby
> > 
> > --- tenorman1952 <tenorman1952@> wrote:
> > 
> > > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com,
> > > <kymarto123@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Scavone has this to say:
> > > > 
> > > > "Given the analysis of Benade and Richards (1983),
> > > it is reasonable to expect that a saxophone
> > > mouthpiece which produces a characteristically
> > > "dark" tone quality destructively influences
> > > the higher partials of the air column. In this
> > > sense, a long and narrow mouthpiece chamber may form
> > > > a better continuation of the conical bore to its
> > > apex, and allow more high harmonic participation in
> > > the regime of oscillation. ...The mouthpieces appear
> > > to impose formants on the air column resonant
> > > structure."
> > > 
> > > Have any of you actually done this?  Constructed
> > > mouthpieces with short, fat chambers vs long tapered
> > > chambers?
> > > 
> > > I have.  This is what happens.  
> > > 
> > > Start with a mouthpiece that plays well in tune, the
> > > palm keys play in tune relative to the rest of the
> > > instrument, etc.  Such a mouthpiece would have a
> > > "medium" chamber... and this would be regardless of
> > > baffle, etc.  
> > > 
> > > Use a bit close to the "bore" size and go in from
> > > the shank or butt end, and extend the bore into the
> > > chamber area.  Let me say here, any bore exposed
> > > past the end of the neck is part of chamber volume.
> > > 
> > > Now get out the Dremel tool and start carving away
> > > sidewalls, and grinding away what you can reach from
> > > the window.
> > > 
> > > What you end up with is something similar to the old
> > > Buescher, Conn, Caravan, Rasher, etc mouthpiece
> > > type.  
> > > 
> > > No matter how much material you remove, in order to
> > > tune up with the usual tuning notes, you have to
> > > push the mouthpiece onto the cork (now very far onto
> > > the cork) so that the volume past the end of the
> > > neck is equal to the missing conical section.  
> > > 
> > > Play the mouthpiece... what happens?  It is
> > > reasonably in tune over most of the range, but when
> > > you begin to play on the short end of the tube, the
> > > palm key notes, it is very sharp.  The mouthpiece is
> > > now too short, though the volume is correct.  
> > > 
> > > It seems that the low register, with the way the
> > > nodes and antinodes lie, it tunes by mouthpiece
> > > volume.
> > > 
> > > But the upper register tunes by length, too.
> > > 
> > > OK, let's go the opposite way... let's get out the
> > > putty and start filling in, making a long narrow
> > > "pea shooter" mouthpiece.  Put it on the cork and
> > > tune up.  Now you have to pull out, to gain volume
> > > inside, so that once again the volume past the end
> > > of the neck is equal to the missing conical section.
> > >  You have the regular tuning note well tuned, but
> > > the mouthpiece is barely hanging onto the end of the
> > > neck cork.
> > > 
> > > Play the instrument and you will see that when you
> > > get to the short end of the tube, the palm key notes
> > > are... flat!  The mouthpiece is too long, though the
> > > volume is correct.
> > > 
> > > I've been through this process in experimenting with
> > > bass sax, soprano sax, and tenor sax mouthpieces,
> > > noting tuning tendencies.  I had even constructed a
> > > soprano sax mouthpiece with removable inserts of
> > > various length (inserted into the bore, shoved up to
> > > the throat area) to change volume and length
> > > relationship.  I still have that mouthpiece around
> > > somewhere, but in the end I glued in the best
> > > insert.
> > > 
> > > If anyone would like to experiment with this, I
> > > suggest getting 3 Runyon Model 22 alto or tenor
> > > mouthpieces.  I can get a basic unmarked but faced
> > > mouthpiece for you quite cheaply.  Leave one
> > > unmodified.  Fill in the baffle, chamber, and throat
> > > on one.  Hog out the other one with your Dremel
> > > tool.  Check the results for yourself.
> > > 
> > > In the end, like Goldilocks, the mouthpiece must be
> > > neither too hot, nor too cold, nor too hard, nor too
> > > soft... it must be "just right".
> > > 
> > > Paul
> > > 
> > >
> >
>

Check out Benade's 1977 paper on the evolution of wind
instruments. It is on pg 21 IIRC. It is at MARL on the
Benade Archive page under Writings>70s

Here is a quote from Fletcher and Rossing:

"While the saxophone has a single reed like the clarinet,
the mouthpiece effectively truncates the conical taper of
the main bore and introduces significant changes in tone
color. In order that the horn modes be as nearly harmonic
as possible, it is desirable that the mouthpiece mimic the
acoustic behavior of the missing apex of the cone. This
can be done at two frequencies, and then fits reasonably
well over the whole range. At low frequencies, the
matching is achieved if the internal volume of the
mouthpiece is equal to that of the missing conical apex,
which requires that the mouthpiece have a slightly bulbous
internal shape so that it actually constitutes a sort of
Helmholtz resonator. The high-frequency match can then be
achieved by arranging the shape of the constriction where
it joins the main part of the instrument so that the
Helmholtz resonance frequency of the mouthpiece is the
same as the first resonance of the missing conical apex,
at which it is half a wavelength long."

Of course this includes the point where the mouthpiece
joins the conical body of the instrument at the neck end,
and the diameter of the neck at that point.

This is analogous to the dead space between the embouchure
hole and crown stopper on the flute: the Helmholtz
resonance of this space must be correct to bring the high
end of the flute into tune, otherwise the third register
is around a quarter tone sharp.

Toby

--- Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:

> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> Just a quick note here. In order to be reasonably in
> tune
> in the palm notes,....you need a constriction at the
> end of the chamber. .....
> Toby
> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
> 
> I have seen this "requirement" before.  But in
> practice there are many mouthpieces (like Links)
> that play "reasonably in tune" that have no
> constriction.  Unless the end of the neck counts as
> a constriction.  Then it is not a mouthpiece
> requirement.
> 
> 
>       
> 

Yes, it's true that the constriction happens at the
smallest point: the end of the neck. My guess is that if
one removes too much material in the chamber, it creates a
mismatch between the volume and the constriction. Don't
forget that the Helmholtz resonance can vary for the same
volume as a function of the diameter of the exit hole, and
likewise a HH resonance can be adjusted for a given exit
hole by changing the volume.

This is not to say that the length of the mpc does not
play a part, but I have just finished finding out that
long/short tube intonation mismatches in conical woodwinds
are primarily due to volume mismatches, which change
frequency ratios between the modes differently depending
on tube length, and only secondarily to changes in the
actual length (to my surprise).

Toby

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

> I'm sure it was mentioned before - Benade considers
> the neck as the constriction.  
> 
> Oboe: reed + staple (constriction) = missing cone
> volume
> Bassoon: reed + bocal (constriction)= missing  cone
> volume
> Saxophone: mpc + neck (constriction = missing cone
> volume
> 
> Further, in order to satisfy production of the
> higher modes, the played frequency Frs of the reed
> cavity attached to it's constriction (sax mouthpiece
> on neck) must equal the frequency of the theoretical
> missing cone, the length of which can be calculated
> by the body taper and diameter information.  Small
> changes in the shape of the reed cavity and
> constricting tube (neck) to improve accuracy of this
> imitation.
> 
> Additionally, Nederveen cites Rockaboy (1989) and
> Gokhshtien (1982 nad 1995), stating that for conical
> instruments (both single and double reeds) the ratio
> of the time the reed is closed to the time the reed
> is open is approximately equal to the ratio of
> length of truncation of the cone to the length of
> the tube to the apex. 
> 
> So it looks like the neck is the constriction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com,
> <kymarto123@...> wrote:
> >
> > Just a quick note here. In order to be reasonably
> in tune
> > in the palm notes, there is a second condition
> that a mpc
> > has to fulfill in addition to having the correct
> volume to
> > mimic the truncated cone. For the notes where 1/4
> > wavelength is the same as or shorter than the
> length of
> > the truncation it is important that the Helmholtz
> > resonance of the mpc be similar to that of the
> truncated
> > apex. In order to do this you need a constriction
> at the
> > end of the chamber. The volume of the chamber (and
> baffle
> > area) plus constriction (throat) must still equal
> the
> > volume of the apex, but by playing with the
> diameter of
> > the constriction those palm notes can be brought
> into
> > tune.
> > 
> > Toby
> > 
> > --- tenorman1952 <tenorman1952@...> wrote:
> > 
> > > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com,
> > > <kymarto123@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Scavone has this to say:
> > > > 
> > > > "Given the analysis of Benade and Richards
> (1983),
> > > it is reasonable to expect that a saxophone
> > > mouthpiece which produces a characteristically
> > > "dark" tone quality destructively
> influences
> > > the higher partials of the air column. In this
> > > sense, a long and narrow mouthpiece chamber may
> form
> > > > a better continuation of the conical bore to
> its
> > > apex, and allow more high harmonic participation
> in
> > > the regime of oscillation. ...The mouthpieces
> appear
> > > to impose formants on the air column resonant
> > > structure."
> > > 
> > > Have any of you actually done this?  Constructed
> > > mouthpieces with short, fat chambers vs long
> tapered
> > > chambers?
> > > 
> > > I have.  This is what happens.  
> > > 
> > > Start with a mouthpiece that plays well in tune,
> the
> > > palm keys play in tune relative to the rest of
> the
> > > instrument, etc.  Such a mouthpiece would have a
> > > "medium" chamber... and this would be regardless
> of
> > > baffle, etc.  
> > > 
> > > Use a bit close to the "bore" size and go in
> from
> > > the shank or butt end, and extend the bore into
> the
> > > chamber area.  Let me say here, any bore exposed
> > > past the end of the neck is part of chamber
> volume.
> > > 
> > > Now get out the Dremel tool and start carving
> away
> > > sidewalls, and grinding away what you can reach
> from
> > > the window.
> > > 
> > > What you end up with is something similar to the
> old
> > > Buescher, Conn, Caravan, Rasher, etc mouthpiece
> > > type.  
> > > 
> > > No matter how much material you remove, in order
> to
> > > tune up with the usual tuning notes, you have to
> > > push the mouthpiece onto the cork (now very far
> onto
> > > the cork) so that the volume past the end of the
> > > neck is equal to the missing conical section.  
> > > 
> > > Play the mouthpiece... what happens?  It is
> > > reasonably in tune over most of the range, but
> when
> > > you begin to play on the short end of the tube,
> the
> > > palm key notes, it is very sharp.  The
> mouthpiece is
> > > now too short, though the volume is correct.  
> > > 
> > > It seems that the low register, with the way the
> > > nodes and antinodes lie, it tunes by mouthpiece
> > > volume.
> > > 
> > > But the upper register tunes by length, too.
> > > 
> > > OK, let's go the opposite way... let's get out
> the
> > > putty and start filling in, making a long narrow
> > > "pea shooter" mouthpiece.  Put it on the cork
> and
> > > tune up.  Now you have to pull out, to gain
> volume
> > > inside, so that once again the volume past the
> end
> > > of the neck is equal to the missing conical
> section.
> > >  You have the regular tuning note well tuned,
> but
> > > the mouthpiece is barely hanging onto the end of
> the
> > > neck cork.
> > > 
> > > Play the instrument and you will see that when
> you
> > > get to the short end of the tube, the palm key
> notes
> > > are... flat!  The mouthpiece is too long, though
> the
> > > volume is correct.
> > > 
> > > I've been through this process in experimenting
> with
> > > bass sax, soprano sax, and tenor sax
> mouthpieces,
> > > noting tuning tendencies.  I had even
> constructed a
> > > soprano sax mouthpiece with removable inserts of
> > > various length (inserted into the bore, shoved
> up to
> > > the throat area) to change volume and length
> > > relationship.  I still have that mouthpiece
> around
> > > somewhere, but in the end I glued in the best
> > > insert.
> > > 
> > > If anyone would like to experiment with this, I
> > > suggest getting 3 Runyon Model 22 alto or tenor
> > > mouthpieces.  I can get a basic unmarked but
> faced
> > > mouthpiece for you quite cheaply.  Leave one
> > > unmodified.  Fill in the baffle, chamber, and
> throat
> > > on one.  Hog out the other one with your Dremel
> > > tool.  Check the results for yourself.
> > > 
> > > In the end, like Goldilocks, the mouthpiece must
> be
> > > neither too hot, nor too cold, nor too hard, nor
> too
> > > soft... it must be "just right".
> 
== $B0J2<$N%a%C%;!<%8$O>JN,$5$l$^$7$?(B =

Yeah! Same results and conclusions here :)
Just I made blanks by myself.

DannyG

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "tenorman1952" <tenorman1952@...> wrote:
>
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@> wrote:
> >
> > Scavone has this to say:
> > 
> > "Given the analysis of Benade and Richards (1983), it is reasonable to expect that a saxophone mouthpiece which produces a characteristically "dark" tone quality destructively influences the higher partials of the air column. In this sense, a long and narrow mouthpiece chamber may form
> > a better continuation of the conical bore to its apex, and allow more high harmonic participation in the regime of oscillation. ...The mouthpieces appear to impose formants on the air column resonant structure."
> 
> Have any of you actually done this?  Constructed mouthpieces with short, fat chambers vs long tapered chambers?
> 
> I have.  This is what happens.  
> 
> Start with a mouthpiece that plays well in tune, the palm keys play in tune relative to the rest of the instrument, etc.  Such a mouthpiece would have a "medium" chamber... and this would be regardless of baffle, etc.  
> 
> Use a bit close to the "bore" size and go in from the shank or butt end, and extend the bore into the chamber area.  Let me say here, any bore exposed past the end of the neck is part of chamber volume.
> 
> Now get out the Dremel tool and start carving away sidewalls, and grinding away what you can reach from the window.
> 
> What you end up with is something similar to the old Buescher, Conn, Caravan, Rasher, etc mouthpiece type.  
> 
> No matter how much material you remove, in order to tune up with the usual tuning notes, you have to push the mouthpiece onto the cork (now very far onto the cork) so that the volume past the end of the neck is equal to the missing conical section.  
> 
> Play the mouthpiece... what happens?  It is reasonably in tune over most of the range, but when you begin to play on the short end of the tube, the palm key notes, it is very sharp.  The mouthpiece is now too short, though the volume is correct.  
> 
> It seems that the low register, with the way the nodes and antinodes lie, it tunes by mouthpiece volume.
> 
> But the upper register tunes by length, too.
> 
> OK, let's go the opposite way... let's get out the putty and start filling in, making a long narrow "pea shooter" mouthpiece.  Put it on the cork and tune up.  Now you have to pull out, to gain volume inside, so that once again the volume past the end of the neck is equal to the missing conical section.  You have the regular tuning note well tuned, but the mouthpiece is barely hanging onto the end of the neck cork.
> 
> Play the instrument and you will see that when you get to the short end of the tube, the palm key notes are... flat!  The mouthpiece is too long, though the volume is correct.
> 
> I've been through this process in experimenting with bass sax, soprano sax, and tenor sax mouthpieces, noting tuning tendencies.  I had even constructed a soprano sax mouthpiece with removable inserts of various length (inserted into the bore, shoved up to the throat area) to change volume and length relationship.  I still have that mouthpiece around somewhere, but in the end I glued in the best insert.
> 
> If anyone would like to experiment with this, I suggest getting 3 Runyon Model 22 alto or tenor mouthpieces.  I can get a basic unmarked but faced mouthpiece for you quite cheaply.  Leave one unmodified.  Fill in the baffle, chamber, and throat on one.  Hog out the other one with your Dremel tool.  Check the results for yourself.
> 
> In the end, like Goldilocks, the mouthpiece must be neither too hot, nor too cold, nor too hard, nor too soft... it must be "just right".
> 
> Paul
>

But all volume is not created equal. Low baffle + small
chamber does not equal high baffle + big chamber in terms
of sound and response, even if the lay is the same and
ditto the internal volume. So isn't the "secret" in
distributing the volume between the tip rail and the
throat?

BTW if there is a length mismatch you should get the same
thing in the lower mode, with the short-tube notes getting
progressively sharper up to C#2 and then a big drop to D2.
If it is only in the palms, with reasonable tuning up to
C#3 then the cause is not necessarily the length.

--- lcchtt <Letydan@...> wrote:

> Yeah! Same results and conclusions here :)
> Just I made blanks by myself.
> 
> DannyG
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com,
> "tenorman1952" <tenorman1952@...> wrote:
> >
> > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com,
> <kymarto123@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Scavone has this to say:
> > > 
> > > "Given the analysis of Benade and Richards
> (1983), it is reasonable to expect that a saxophone
> mouthpiece which produces a characteristically
> "dark" tone quality destructively influences
> the higher partials of the air column. In this
> sense, a long and narrow mouthpiece chamber may form
> > > a better continuation of the conical bore to its
> apex, and allow more high harmonic participation in
> the regime of oscillation. ...The mouthpieces appear
> to impose formants on the air column resonant
> structure."
> > 
> > Have any of you actually done this?  Constructed
> mouthpieces with short, fat chambers vs long tapered
> chambers?
> > 
> > I have.  This is what happens.  
> > 
> > Start with a mouthpiece that plays well in tune,
> the palm keys play in tune relative to the rest of
> the instrument, etc.  Such a mouthpiece would have a
> "medium" chamber... and this would be regardless of
> baffle, etc.  
> > 
> > Use a bit close to the "bore" size and go in from
> the shank or butt end, and extend the bore into the
> chamber area.  Let me say here, any bore exposed
> past the end of the neck is part of chamber volume.
> > 
> > Now get out the Dremel tool and start carving away
> sidewalls, and grinding away what you can reach from
> the window.
> > 
> > What you end up with is something similar to the
> old Buescher, Conn, Caravan, Rasher, etc mouthpiece
> type.  
> > 
> > No matter how much material you remove, in order
> to tune up with the usual tuning notes, you have to
> push the mouthpiece onto the cork (now very far onto
> the cork) so that the volume past the end of the
> neck is equal to the missing conical section.  
> > 
> > Play the mouthpiece... what happens?  It is
> reasonably in tune over most of the range, but when
> you begin to play on the short end of the tube, the
> palm key notes, it is very sharp.  The mouthpiece is
> now too short, though the volume is correct.  
> > 
> > It seems that the low register, with the way the
> nodes and antinodes lie, it tunes by mouthpiece
> volume.
> > 
> > But the upper register tunes by length, too.
> > 
> > OK, let's go the opposite way... let's get out the
> putty and start filling in, making a long narrow
> "pea shooter" mouthpiece.  Put it on the cork and
> tune up.  Now you have to pull out, to gain volume
> inside, so that once again the volume past the end
> of the neck is equal to the missing conical section.
>  You have the regular tuning note well tuned, but
> the mouthpiece is barely hanging onto the end of the
> neck cork.
> > 
> > Play the instrument and you will see that when you
> get to the short end of the tube, the palm key notes
> are... flat!  The mouthpiece is too long, though the
> volume is correct.
> > 
> > I've been through this process in experimenting
> with bass sax, soprano sax, and tenor sax
> mouthpieces, noting tuning tendencies.  I had even
> constructed a soprano sax mouthpiece with removable
> inserts of various length (inserted into the bore,
> shoved up to the throat area) to change volume and
> length relationship.  I still have that mouthpiece
> around somewhere, but in the end I glued in the best
> insert.
> > 
> > If anyone would like to experiment with this, I
> suggest getting 3 Runyon Model 22 alto or tenor
> mouthpieces.  I can get a basic unmarked but faced
> mouthpiece for you quite cheaply.  Leave one
> unmodified.  Fill in the baffle, chamber, and throat
> on one.  Hog out the other one with your Dremel
> tool.  Check the results for yourself.
> > 
> > In the end, like Goldilocks, the mouthpiece must
> be neither too hot, nor too cold, nor too hard, nor
> too soft... it must be "just right".
> > 
> > Paul
> >
> 
> 
> 

Yes, it's true that the constriction happens at the
smallest point: the end of the neck. My guess is that if
one removes too much material in the chamber, it creates a
mismatch between the volume and the constriction. Don't
forget that the Helmholtz resonance can vary for the same
volume as a function of the diameter of the exit hole, and
likewise a HH resonance can be adjusted for a given exit
hole by changing the volume.

This is not to say that the length of the mpc does not
play a part, but I have just finished finding out that
long/short tube intonation mismatches in conical woodwinds
are primarily due to volume mismatches, which change
frequency ratios between the modes differently depending
on tube length, and only secondarily to changes in the
actual length (to my surprise).

Toby

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

> I'm sure it was mentioned before - Benade considers
> the neck as the constriction.  
> 
> Oboe: reed + staple (constriction) = missing cone
> volume
> Bassoon: reed + bocal (constriction)= missing  cone
> volume
> Saxophone: mpc + neck (constriction = missing cone
> volume
> 
> Further, in order to satisfy production of the
> higher modes, the played frequency Frs of the reed
> cavity attached to it's constriction (sax mouthpiece
> on neck) must equal the frequency of the theoretical
> missing cone, the length of which can be calculated
> by the body taper and diameter information.  Small
> changes in the shape of the reed cavity and
> constricting tube (neck) to improve accuracy of this
> imitation.
> 
> Additionally, Nederveen cites Rockaboy (1989) and
> Gokhshtien (1982 nad 1995), stating that for conical
> instruments (both single and double reeds) the ratio
> of the time the reed is closed to the time the reed
> is open is approximately equal to the ratio of
> length of truncation of the cone to the length of
> the tube to the apex. 
> 
> So it looks like the neck is the constriction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com,
> <kymarto123@...> wrote:
> >
> > Just a quick note here. In order to be reasonably
> in tune
> > in the palm notes, there is a second condition
> that a mpc
> > has to fulfill in addition to having the correct
> volume to
> > mimic the truncated cone. For the notes where 1/4
> > wavelength is the same as or shorter than the
> length of
> > the truncation it is important that the Helmholtz
> > resonance of the mpc be similar to that of the
> truncated
> > apex. In order to do this you need a constriction
> at the
> > end of the chamber. The volume of the chamber (and
> baffle
> > area) plus constriction (throat) must still equal
> the
> > volume of the apex, but by playing with the
> diameter of
> > the constriction those palm notes can be brought
> into
> > tune.
> > 
> > Toby
> > 
> > --- tenorman1952 <tenorman1952@...> wrote:
> > 
> > > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com,
> > > <kymarto123@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Scavone has this to say:
> > > > 
> > > > "Given the analysis of Benade and Richards
> (1983),
> > > it is reasonable to expect that a saxophone
> > > mouthpiece which produces a characteristically
> > > "dark" tone quality destructively
> influences
> > > the higher partials of the air column. In this
> > > sense, a long and narrow mouthpiece chamber may
> form
> > > > a better continuation of the conical bore to
> its
> > > apex, and allow more high harmonic participation
> in
> > > the regime of oscillation. ...The mouthpieces
> appear
> > > to impose formants on the air column resonant
> > > structure."
> > > 
> > > Have any of you actually done this?  Constructed
> > > mouthpieces with short, fat chambers vs long
> tapered
> > > chambers?
> > > 
> > > I have.  This is what happens.  
> > > 
> > > Start with a mouthpiece that plays well in tune,
> the
> > > palm keys play in tune relative to the rest of
> the
> > > instrument, etc.  Such a mouthpiece would have a
> > > "medium" chamber... and this would be regardless
> of
> > > baffle, etc.  
> > > 
> > > Use a bit close to the "bore" size and go in
> from
> > > the shank or butt end, and extend the bore into
> the
> > > chamber area.  Let me say here, any bore exposed
> > > past the end of the neck is part of chamber
> volume.
> > > 
> > > Now get out the Dremel tool and start carving
> away
> > > sidewalls, and grinding away what you can reach
> from
> > > the window.
> > > 
> > > What you end up with is something similar to the
> old
> > > Buescher, Conn, Caravan, Rasher, etc mouthpiece
> > > type.  
> > > 
> > > No matter how much material you remove, in order
> to
> > > tune up with the usual tuning notes, you have to
> > > push the mouthpiece onto the cork (now very far
> onto
> > > the cork) so that the volume past the end of the
> > > neck is equal to the missing conical section.  
> > > 
> > > Play the mouthpiece... what happens?  It is
> > > reasonably in tune over most of the range, but
> when
> > > you begin to play on the short end of the tube,
> the
> > > palm key notes, it is very sharp.  The
> mouthpiece is
> > > now too short, though the volume is correct.  
> > > 
> > > It seems that the low register, with the way the
> > > nodes and antinodes lie, it tunes by mouthpiece
> > > volume.
> > > 
> > > But the upper register tunes by length, too.
> > > 
> > > OK, let's go the opposite way... let's get out
> the
> > > putty and start filling in, making a long narrow
> > > "pea shooter" mouthpiece.  Put it on the cork
> and
> > > tune up.  Now you have to pull out, to gain
> volume
> > > inside, so that once again the volume past the
> end
> > > of the neck is equal to the missing conical
> section.
> > >  You have the regular tuning note well tuned,
> but
> > > the mouthpiece is barely hanging onto the end of
> the
> > > neck cork.
> > > 
> > > Play the instrument and you will see that when
> you
> > > get to the short end of the tube, the palm key
> notes
> > > are... flat!  The mouthpiece is too long, though
> the
> > > volume is correct.
> > > 
> > > I've been through this process in experimenting
> with
> > > bass sax, soprano sax, and tenor sax
> mouthpieces,
> > > noting tuning tendencies.  I had even
> constructed a
> > > soprano sax mouthpiece with removable inserts of
> > > various length (inserted into the bore, shoved
> up to
> > > the throat area) to change volume and length
> > > relationship.  I still have that mouthpiece
> around
> > > somewhere, but in the end I glued in the best
> > > insert.
> > > 
> > > If anyone would like to experiment with this, I
> > > suggest getting 3 Runyon Model 22 alto or tenor
> > > mouthpieces.  I can get a basic unmarked but
> faced
> > > mouthpiece for you quite cheaply.  Leave one
> > > unmodified.  Fill in the baffle, chamber, and
> throat
> > > on one.  Hog out the other one with your Dremel
> > > tool.  Check the results for yourself.
> > > 
> > > In the end, like Goldilocks, the mouthpiece must
> be
> > > neither too hot, nor too cold, nor too hard, nor
> too
> > > soft... it must be "just right".
> 
== $B0J2<$N%a%C%;!<%8$O>JN,$5$l$^$7$?(B =

Where's my sax's truncation start?  

Interestingly, as mentioned earlier, Nedvereen cites Rockaboy and Gokhshtien, stating that for conical instruments (both single and double reeds) the ratio of the time the reed is closed to the time the reed is open is equal to the ratio of length of truncation of the cone to the length of the tube to the apex. The simple explaination for this is:  When the reed is open, a compression wave travels the length of the tube and returns as a rarefraction and closes the reed.  With the reed now closed, the tube becomes a resonator, and the resonance frequency of the truncation (mouthpiece+constriction or compliance+inertance) comes into play.  The rarefraction will travel the length of the truncation, as far as the opening of the body tube and return as a compression wave, to open the reed, and the cycle of waves in a conical instrument begins again. So the reed stays closed for as long as it would take a wave to travel from the truncation to the theoretical apex and back, regardless of whatever note is being played. How is this information usefull to us?

  







--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, it's true that the constriction happens at the
> smallest point: the end of the neck. My guess is that if
> one removes too much material in the chamber, it creates a
> mismatch between the volume and the constriction. Don't
> forget that the Helmholtz resonance can vary for the same
> volume as a function of the diameter of the exit hole, and
> likewise a HH resonance can be adjusted for a given exit
> hole by changing the volume.
> 
> This is not to say that the length of the mpc does not
> play a part, but I have just finished finding out that
> long/short tube intonation mismatches in conical woodwinds
> are primarily due to volume mismatches, which change
> frequency ratios between the modes differently depending
> on tube length, and only secondarily to changes in the
> actual length (to my surprise).
> 
> Toby
> 
> --- lancelotburt <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
> 
> > I'm sure it was mentioned before - Benade considers
> > the neck as the constriction.  
> > 
> > Oboe: reed + staple (constriction) = missing cone
> > volume
> > Bassoon: reed + bocal (constriction)= missing  cone
> > volume
> > Saxophone: mpc + neck (constriction = missing cone
> > volume
> > 
> > Further, in order to satisfy production of the
> > higher modes, the played frequency Frs of the reed
> > cavity attached to it's constriction (sax mouthpiece
> > on neck) must equal the frequency of the theoretical
> > missing cone, the length of which can be calculated
> > by the body taper and diameter information.  Small
> > changes in the shape of the reed cavity and
> > constricting tube (neck) to improve accuracy of this
> > imitation.
> > 
> > Additionally, Nederveen cites Rockaboy (1989) and
> > Gokhshtien (1982 nad 1995), stating that for conical
> > instruments (both single and double reeds) the ratio
> > of the time the reed is closed to the time the reed
> > is open is approximately equal to the ratio of
> > length of truncation of the cone to the length of
> > the tube to the apex. 
> > 
> > So it looks like the neck is the constriction.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com,
> > <kymarto123@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Just a quick note here. In order to be reasonably
> > in tune
> > > in the palm notes, there is a second condition
> > that a mpc
> > > has to fulfill in addition to having the correct
> > volume to
> > > mimic the truncated cone. For the notes where 1/4
> > > wavelength is the same as or shorter than the
> > length of
> > > the truncation it is important that the Helmholtz
> > > resonance of the mpc be similar to that of the
> > truncated
> > > apex. In order to do this you need a constriction
> > at the
> > > end of the chamber. The volume of the chamber (and
> > baffle
> > > area) plus constriction (throat) must still equal
> > the
> > > volume of the apex, but by playing with the
> > diameter of
> > > the constriction those palm notes can be brought
> > into
> > > tune.
> > > 
> > > Toby
> > > 
> > > --- tenorman1952 <tenorman1952@> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com,
> > > > <kymarto123@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Scavone has this to say:
> > > > > 
> > > > > "Given the analysis of Benade and Richards
> > (1983),
> > > > it is reasonable to expect that a saxophone
> > > > mouthpiece which produces a characteristically
> > > > "dark" tone quality destructively
> > influences
> > > > the higher partials of the air column. In this
> > > > sense, a long and narrow mouthpiece chamber may
> > form
> > > > > a better continuation of the conical bore to
> > its
> > > > apex, and allow more high harmonic participation
> > in
> > > > the regime of oscillation. ...The mouthpieces
> > appear
> > > > to impose formants on the air column resonant
> > > > structure."
> > > > 
> > > > Have any of you actually done this?  Constructed
> > > > mouthpieces with short, fat chambers vs long
> > tapered
> > > > chambers?
> > > > 
> > > > I have.  This is what happens.  
> > > > 
> > > > Start with a mouthpiece that plays well in tune,
> > the
> > > > palm keys play in tune relative to the rest of
> > the
> > > > instrument, etc.  Such a mouthpiece would have a
> > > > "medium" chamber... and this would be regardless
> > of
> > > > baffle, etc.  
> > > > 
> > > > Use a bit close to the "bore" size and go in
> > from
> > > > the shank or butt end, and extend the bore into
> > the
> > > > chamber area.  Let me say here, any bore exposed
> > > > past the end of the neck is part of chamber
> > volume.
> > > > 
> > > > Now get out the Dremel tool and start carving
> > away
> > > > sidewalls, and grinding away what you can reach
> > from
> > > > the window.
> > > > 
> > > > What you end up with is something similar to the
> > old
> > > > Buescher, Conn, Caravan, Rasher, etc mouthpiece
> > > > type.  
> > > > 
> > > > No matter how much material you remove, in order
> > to
> > > > tune up with the usual tuning notes, you have to
> > > > push the mouthpiece onto the cork (now very far
> > onto
> > > > the cork) so that the volume past the end of the
> > > > neck is equal to the missing conical section.  
> > > > 
> > > > Play the mouthpiece... what happens?  It is
> > > > reasonably in tune over most of the range, but
> > when
> > > > you begin to play on the short end of the tube,
> > the
> > > > palm key notes, it is very sharp.  The
> > mouthpiece is
> > > > now too short, though the volume is correct.  
> > > > 
> > > > It seems that the low register, with the way the
> > > > nodes and antinodes lie, it tunes by mouthpiece
> > > > volume.
> > > > 
> > > > But the upper register tunes by length, too.
> > > > 
> > > > OK, let's go the opposite way... let's get out
> > the
> > > > putty and start filling in, making a long narrow
> > > > "pea shooter" mouthpiece.  Put it on the cork
> > and
> > > > tune up.  Now you have to pull out, to gain
> > volume
> > > > inside, so that once again the volume past the
> > end
> > > > of the neck is equal to the missing conical
> > section.
> > > >  You have the regular tuning note well tuned,
> > but
> > > > the mouthpiece is barely hanging onto the end of
> > the
> > > > neck cork.
> > > > 
> > > > Play the instrument and you will see that when
> > you
> > > > get to the short end of the tube, the palm key
> > notes
> > > > are... flat!  The mouthpiece is too long, though
> > the
> > > > volume is correct.
> > > > 
> > > > I've been through this process in experimenting
> > with
> > > > bass sax, soprano sax, and tenor sax
> > mouthpieces,
> > > > noting tuning tendencies.  I had even
> > constructed a
> > > > soprano sax mouthpiece with removable inserts of
> > > > various length (inserted into the bore, shoved
> > up to
> > > > the throat area) to change volume and length
> > > > relationship.  I still have that mouthpiece
> > around
> > > > somewhere, but in the end I glued in the best
> > > > insert.
> > > > 
> > > > If anyone would like to experiment with this, I
> > > > suggest getting 3 Runyon Model 22 alto or tenor
> > > > mouthpieces.  I can get a basic unmarked but
> > faced
> > > > mouthpiece for you quite cheaply.  Leave one
> > > > unmodified.  Fill in the baffle, chamber, and
> > throat
> > > > on one.  Hog out the other one with your Dremel
> > > > tool.  Check the results for yourself.
> > > > 
> > > > In the end, like Goldilocks, the mouthpiece must
> > be
> > > > neither too hot, nor too cold, nor too hard, nor
> > too
> > > > soft... it must be "just right".
> > 
> === °Ê²¼¤Î¥á¥Ã¥»¡¼¥¸¤Ï¾Êά¤µ¤ì¤Þ¤·¤¿ ===
>

Wow, all of you seem to have an impressive amount of knowledge.  Too bad
someone can't come up with a piece as good as the old Brilhart white with
the serial numbers, especially the Great Neck models. Consistent practice
will enable ANY player to overcome the inherent flaws of EVERY mouthpiece.
The bickering going on here is a bit much. John

On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 1:04 PM, lancelotburt <lancelotburt@...> wrote:

>
>
> Where's my sax's truncation start?
>
> Interestingly, as mentioned earlier, Nedvereen cites Rockaboy and
> Gokhshtien, stating that for conical instruments (both single and double
> reeds) the ratio of the time the reed is closed to the time the reed is open
> is equal to the ratio of length of truncation of the cone to the length of
> the tube to the apex. The simple explaination for this is: When the reed is
> open, a compression wave travels the length of the tube and returns as a
> rarefraction and closes the reed. With the reed now closed, the tube becomes
> a resonator, and the resonance frequency of the truncation
> (mouthpiece+constriction or compliance+inertance) comes into play. The
> rarefraction will travel the length of the truncation, as far as the opening
> of the body tube and return as a compression wave, to open the reed, and the
> cycle of waves in a conical instrument begins again. So the reed stays
> closed for as long as it would take a wave to travel from the truncation to
> the theoretical apex and back, regardless of whatever note is being played.
> How is this information usefull to us?
>
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com <MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>,
> <kymarto123@...> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, it's true that the constriction happens at the
> > smallest point: the end of the neck. My guess is that if
> > one removes too much material in the chamber, it creates a
> > mismatch between the volume and the constriction. Don't
> > forget that the Helmholtz resonance can vary for the same
> > volume as a function of the diameter of the exit hole, and
> > likewise a HH resonance can be adjusted for a given exit
> > hole by changing the volume.
> >
> > This is not to say that the length of the mpc does not
> > play a part, but I have just finished finding out that
> > long/short tube intonation mismatches in conical woodwinds
> > are primarily due to volume mismatches, which change
> > frequency ratios between the modes differently depending
> > on tube length, and only secondarily to changes in the
> > actual length (to my surprise).
> >
> > Toby
> >
> > --- lancelotburt <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
> >
> > > I'm sure it was mentioned before - Benade considers
> > > the neck as the constriction.
> > >
> > > Oboe: reed + staple (constriction) = missing cone
> > > volume
> > > Bassoon: reed + bocal (constriction)= missing cone
> > > volume
> > > Saxophone: mpc + neck (constriction = missing cone
> > > volume
> > >
> > > Further, in order to satisfy production of the
> > > higher modes, the played frequency Frs of the reed
> > > cavity attached to it's constriction (sax mouthpiece
> > > on neck) must equal the frequency of the theoretical
> > > missing cone, the length of which can be calculated
> > > by the body taper and diameter information. Small
> > > changes in the shape of the reed cavity and
> > > constricting tube (neck) to improve accuracy of this
> > > imitation.
> > >
> > > Additionally, Nederveen cites Rockaboy (1989) and
> > > Gokhshtien (1982 nad 1995), stating that for conical
> > > instruments (both single and double reeds) the ratio
> > > of the time the reed is closed to the time the reed
> > > is open is approximately equal to the ratio of
> > > length of truncation of the cone to the length of
> > > the tube to the apex.
> > >
> > > So it looks like the neck is the constriction.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com<MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
> ,
> > > <kymarto123@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Just a quick note here. In order to be reasonably
> > > in tune
> > > > in the palm notes, there is a second condition
> > > that a mpc
> > > > has to fulfill in addition to having the correct
> > > volume to
> > > > mimic the truncated cone. For the notes where 1/4
> > > > wavelength is the same as or shorter than the
> > > length of
> > > > the truncation it is important that the Helmholtz
> > > > resonance of the mpc be similar to that of the
> > > truncated
> > > > apex. In order to do this you need a constriction
> > > at the
> > > > end of the chamber. The volume of the chamber (and
> > > baffle
> > > > area) plus constriction (throat) must still equal
> > > the
> > > > volume of the apex, but by playing with the
> > > diameter of
> > > > the constriction those palm notes can be brought
> > > into
> > > > tune.
> > > >
> > > > Toby
> > > >
> > > > --- tenorman1952 <tenorman1952@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com<MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
> ,
> > > > > <kymarto123@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Scavone has this to say:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Given the analysis of Benade and Richards
> > > (1983),
> > > > > it is reasonable to expect that a saxophone
> > > > > mouthpiece which produces a characteristically
> > > > > "dark" tone quality destructively
> > > influences
> > > > > the higher partials of the air column. In this
> > > > > sense, a long and narrow mouthpiece chamber may
> > > form
> > > > > > a better continuation of the conical bore to
> > > its
> > > > > apex, and allow more high harmonic participation
> > > in
> > > > > the regime of oscillation. ...The mouthpieces
> > > appear
> > > > > to impose formants on the air column resonant
> > > > > structure."
> > > > >
> > > > > Have any of you actually done this? Constructed
> > > > > mouthpieces with short, fat chambers vs long
> > > tapered
> > > > > chambers?
> > > > >
> > > > > I have. This is what happens.
> > > > >
> > > > > Start with a mouthpiece that plays well in tune,
> > > the
> > > > > palm keys play in tune relative to the rest of
> > > the
> > > > > instrument, etc. Such a mouthpiece would have a
> > > > > "medium" chamber... and this would be regardless
> > > of
> > > > > baffle, etc.
> > > > >
> > > > > Use a bit close to the "bore" size and go in
> > > from
> > > > > the shank or butt end, and extend the bore into
> > > the
> > > > > chamber area. Let me say here, any bore exposed
> > > > > past the end of the neck is part of chamber
> > > volume.
> > > > >
> > > > > Now get out the Dremel tool and start carving
> > > away
> > > > > sidewalls, and grinding away what you can reach
> > > from
> > > > > the window.
> > > > >
> > > > > What you end up with is something similar to the
> > > old
> > > > > Buescher, Conn, Caravan, Rasher, etc mouthpiece
> > > > > type.
> > > > >
> > > > > No matter how much material you remove, in order
> > > to
> > > > > tune up with the usual tuning notes, you have to
> > > > > push the mouthpiece onto the cork (now very far
> > > onto
> > > > > the cork) so that the volume past the end of the
> > > > > neck is equal to the missing conical section.
> > > > >
> > > > > Play the mouthpiece... what happens? It is
> > > > > reasonably in tune over most of the range, but
> > > when
> > > > > you begin to play on the short end of the tube,
> > > the
> > > > > palm key notes, it is very sharp. The
> > > mouthpiece is
> > > > > now too short, though the volume is correct.
> > > > >
> > > > > It seems that the low register, with the way the
> > > > > nodes and antinodes lie, it tunes by mouthpiece
> > > > > volume.
> > > > >
> > > > > But the upper register tunes by length, too.
> > > > >
> > > > > OK, let's go the opposite way... let's get out
> > > the
> > > > > putty and start filling in, making a long narrow
> > > > > "pea shooter" mouthpiece. Put it on the cork
> > > and
> > > > > tune up. Now you have to pull out, to gain
> > > volume
> > > > > inside, so that once again the volume past the
> > > end
> > > > > of the neck is equal to the missing conical
> > > section.
> > > > > You have the regular tuning note well tuned,
> > > but
> > > > > the mouthpiece is barely hanging onto the end of
> > > the
> > > > > neck cork.
> > > > >
> > > > > Play the instrument and you will see that when
> > > you
> > > > > get to the short end of the tube, the palm key
> > > notes
> > > > > are... flat! The mouthpiece is too long, though
> > > the
> > > > > volume is correct.
> > > > >
> > > > > I've been through this process in experimenting
> > > with
> > > > > bass sax, soprano sax, and tenor sax
> > > mouthpieces,
> > > > > noting tuning tendencies. I had even
> > > constructed a
> > > > > soprano sax mouthpiece with removable inserts of
> > > > > various length (inserted into the bore, shoved
> > > up to
> > > > > the throat area) to change volume and length
> > > > > relationship. I still have that mouthpiece
> > > around
> > > > > somewhere, but in the end I glued in the best
> > > > > insert.
> > > > >
> > > > > If anyone would like to experiment with this, I
> > > > > suggest getting 3 Runyon Model 22 alto or tenor
> > > > > mouthpieces. I can get a basic unmarked but
> > > faced
> > > > > mouthpiece for you quite cheaply. Leave one
> > > > > unmodified. Fill in the baffle, chamber, and
> > > throat
> > > > > on one. Hog out the other one with your Dremel
> > > > > tool. Check the results for yourself.
> > > > >
> > > > > In the end, like Goldilocks, the mouthpiece must
> > > be
> > > > > neither too hot, nor too cold, nor too hard, nor
> > > too
> > > > > soft... it must be "just right".
> > >
> > === °Ê²¼¤Î¥á¥Ã¥»¡¼¥¸¤Ï¾Êά¤µ¤ì¤Þ¤·¤¿ ===
> >
>
>  
>

I do not consider the exchange going on as "bickering".  As discussion here of what is known about mouthpiece acoustics is long overdue IMO.
 
I have a great respect for theory.  Unfortunately, little to none can be used to make a better mouthpiece.  Experimentation leads the way and the theory lags behind.



      

I don't think I have this one quite right, but it's interesting.  


--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "lancelotburt" <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
>
> Where's my sax's truncation start?  
> 
> Interestingly, as mentioned earlier, Nedvereen cites Rockaboy and Gokhshtien, stating that for conical instruments (both single and double reeds) the ratio of the time the reed is closed to the time the reed is open is equal to the ratio of length of truncation of the cone to the length of the tube to the apex. The simple explaination for this is:  When the reed is open, a compression wave travels the length of the tube and returns as a rarefraction and closes the reed.  With the reed now closed, the tube becomes a resonator, and the resonance frequency of the truncation (mouthpiece+constriction or compliance+inertance) comes into play.  The rarefraction will travel the length of the truncation, as far as the opening of the body tube and return as a compression wave, to open the reed, and the cycle of waves in a conical instrument begins again. So the reed stays closed for as long as it would take a wave to travel from the truncation to the theoretical apex and back, regardless of whatever note is being played. How is this information usefull to us?
> 
>   
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, it's true that the constriction happens at the
> > smallest point: the end of the neck. My guess is that if
> > one removes too much material in the chamber, it creates a
> > mismatch between the volume and the constriction. Don't
> > forget that the Helmholtz resonance can vary for the same
> > volume as a function of the diameter of the exit hole, and
> > likewise a HH resonance can be adjusted for a given exit
> > hole by changing the volume.
> > 
> > This is not to say that the length of the mpc does not
> > play a part, but I have just finished finding out that
> > long/short tube intonation mismatches in conical woodwinds
> > are primarily due to volume mismatches, which change
> > frequency ratios between the modes differently depending
> > on tube length, and only secondarily to changes in the
> > actual length (to my surprise).
> > 
> > Toby
> > 
> > --- lancelotburt <lancelotburt@> wrote:
> > 
> > > I'm sure it was mentioned before - Benade considers
> > > the neck as the constriction.  
> > > 
> > > Oboe: reed + staple (constriction) = missing cone
> > > volume
> > > Bassoon: reed + bocal (constriction)= missing  cone
> > > volume
> > > Saxophone: mpc + neck (constriction = missing cone
> > > volume
> > > 
> > > Further, in order to satisfy production of the
> > > higher modes, the played frequency Frs of the reed
> > > cavity attached to it's constriction (sax mouthpiece
> > > on neck) must equal the frequency of the theoretical
> > > missing cone, the length of which can be calculated
> > > by the body taper and diameter information.  Small
> > > changes in the shape of the reed cavity and
> > > constricting tube (neck) to improve accuracy of this
> > > imitation.
> > > 
> > > Additionally, Nederveen cites Rockaboy (1989) and
> > > Gokhshtien (1982 nad 1995), stating that for conical
> > > instruments (both single and double reeds) the ratio
> > > of the time the reed is closed to the time the reed
> > > is open is approximately equal to the ratio of
> > > length of truncation of the cone to the length of
> > > the tube to the apex. 
> > > 
> > > So it looks like the neck is the constriction.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com,
> > > <kymarto123@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Just a quick note here. In order to be reasonably
> > > in tune
> > > > in the palm notes, there is a second condition
> > > that a mpc
> > > > has to fulfill in addition to having the correct
> > > volume to
> > > > mimic the truncated cone. For the notes where 1/4
> > > > wavelength is the same as or shorter than the
> > > length of
> > > > the truncation it is important that the Helmholtz
> > > > resonance of the mpc be similar to that of the
> > > truncated
> > > > apex. In order to do this you need a constriction
> > > at the
> > > > end of the chamber. The volume of the chamber (and
> > > baffle
> > > > area) plus constriction (throat) must still equal
> > > the
> > > > volume of the apex, but by playing with the
> > > diameter of
> > > > the constriction those palm notes can be brought
> > > into
> > > > tune.
> > > > 
> > > > Toby
> > > > 
> > > > --- tenorman1952 <tenorman1952@> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com,
> > > > > <kymarto123@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Scavone has this to say:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > "Given the analysis of Benade and Richards
> > > (1983),
> > > > > it is reasonable to expect that a saxophone
> > > > > mouthpiece which produces a characteristically
> > > > > "dark" tone quality destructively
> > > influences
> > > > > the higher partials of the air column. In this
> > > > > sense, a long and narrow mouthpiece chamber may
> > > form
> > > > > > a better continuation of the conical bore to
> > > its
> > > > > apex, and allow more high harmonic participation
> > > in
> > > > > the regime of oscillation. ...The mouthpieces
> > > appear
> > > > > to impose formants on the air column resonant
> > > > > structure."
> > > > > 
> > > > > Have any of you actually done this?  Constructed
> > > > > mouthpieces with short, fat chambers vs long
> > > tapered
> > > > > chambers?
> > > > > 
> > > > > I have.  This is what happens.  
> > > > > 
> > > > > Start with a mouthpiece that plays well in tune,
> > > the
> > > > > palm keys play in tune relative to the rest of
> > > the
> > > > > instrument, etc.  Such a mouthpiece would have a
> > > > > "medium" chamber... and this would be regardless
> > > of
> > > > > baffle, etc.  
> > > > > 
> > > > > Use a bit close to the "bore" size and go in
> > > from
> > > > > the shank or butt end, and extend the bore into
> > > the
> > > > > chamber area.  Let me say here, any bore exposed
> > > > > past the end of the neck is part of chamber
> > > volume.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Now get out the Dremel tool and start carving
> > > away
> > > > > sidewalls, and grinding away what you can reach
> > > from
> > > > > the window.
> > > > > 
> > > > > What you end up with is something similar to the
> > > old
> > > > > Buescher, Conn, Caravan, Rasher, etc mouthpiece
> > > > > type.  
> > > > > 
> > > > > No matter how much material you remove, in order
> > > to
> > > > > tune up with the usual tuning notes, you have to
> > > > > push the mouthpiece onto the cork (now very far
> > > onto
> > > > > the cork) so that the volume past the end of the
> > > > > neck is equal to the missing conical section.  
> > > > > 
> > > > > Play the mouthpiece... what happens?  It is
> > > > > reasonably in tune over most of the range, but
> > > when
> > > > > you begin to play on the short end of the tube,
> > > the
> > > > > palm key notes, it is very sharp.  The
> > > mouthpiece is
> > > > > now too short, though the volume is correct.  
> > > > > 
> > > > > It seems that the low register, with the way the
> > > > > nodes and antinodes lie, it tunes by mouthpiece
> > > > > volume.
> > > > > 
> > > > > But the upper register tunes by length, too.
> > > > > 
> > > > > OK, let's go the opposite way... let's get out
> > > the
> > > > > putty and start filling in, making a long narrow
> > > > > "pea shooter" mouthpiece.  Put it on the cork
> > > and
> > > > > tune up.  Now you have to pull out, to gain
> > > volume
> > > > > inside, so that once again the volume past the
> > > end
> > > > > of the neck is equal to the missing conical
> > > section.
> > > > >  You have the regular tuning note well tuned,
> > > but
> > > > > the mouthpiece is barely hanging onto the end of
> > > the
> > > > > neck cork.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Play the instrument and you will see that when
> > > you
> > > > > get to the short end of the tube, the palm key
> > > notes
> > > > > are... flat!  The mouthpiece is too long, though
> > > the
> > > > > volume is correct.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I've been through this process in experimenting
> > > with
> > > > > bass sax, soprano sax, and tenor sax
> > > mouthpieces,
> > > > > noting tuning tendencies.  I had even
> > > constructed a
> > > > > soprano sax mouthpiece with removable inserts of
> > > > > various length (inserted into the bore, shoved
> > > up to
> > > > > the throat area) to change volume and length
> > > > > relationship.  I still have that mouthpiece
> > > around
> > > > > somewhere, but in the end I glued in the best
> > > > > insert.
> > > > > 
> > > > > If anyone would like to experiment with this, I
> > > > > suggest getting 3 Runyon Model 22 alto or tenor
> > > > > mouthpieces.  I can get a basic unmarked but
> > > faced
> > > > > mouthpiece for you quite cheaply.  Leave one
> > > > > unmodified.  Fill in the baffle, chamber, and
> > > throat
> > > > > on one.  Hog out the other one with your Dremel
> > > > > tool.  Check the results for yourself.
> > > > > 
> > > > > In the end, like Goldilocks, the mouthpiece must
> > > be
> > > > > neither too hot, nor too cold, nor too hard, nor
> > > too
> > > > > soft... it must be "just right".
> > > 
> > === °Ê²¼¤Î¥á¥Ã¥»¡¼¥¸¤Ï¾Êά¤µ¤ì¤Þ¤·¤¿ ===
> >
>

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, John Delia <bzalto@...> wrote:
>
>Consistent practice
> will enable ANY player to overcome the inherent flaws of EVERY mouthpiece.
>  John


Sure John, but consider:

1. not every mouthpiece complements every horn or player
2. many players are still weeding out what doesn't work for them and why
3. practicing on a mouthpiece that compliments you and your instrument is time and energy better spent than making just anything work.
4. thus, time spent weeding isn't necessarily wasted.

Hi everyone, - I find this discussion very interesting, and I do have a
question about the end of the neck. -- What influence would it have on
tuning the sax, especially on the palm keys, if one made a very short cone
on the end of the neck. I just noticed that an old Martin Handcraft Alto
saxophone from -27 that I had for a full restoration. This one was made with
a short cone that was widened out as much as the thickness of the cork on
the neck. I just wondered since I have just seen this on a very few modern
Saxes today, and that has been on soprano saxophones. I guess that must have
a bit to say what kind of mouthpiece one put on the neck. 

 

Best Helge

  _____  

Fra: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
På vegne av Keith Bradbury
Sendt: 2. juli 2009 20:28
Til: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Emne: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Mouthpiece acoustics

 







I do not consider the exchange going on as "bickering".  As discussion here
of what is known about mouthpiece acoustics is long overdue IMO.

 

I have a great respect for theory.  Unfortunately, little to none can be
used to make a better mouthpiece.  Experimentation leads the way and the
theory lags behind.

 

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
>
> But all volume is not created equal. Low baffle + small
> chamber does not equal high baffle + big chamber in terms
> of sound and response, even if the lay is the same and
> ditto the internal volume. 

****So isn't the "secret" in
> distributing the volume between the tip rail and the
> throat?****

YES!!!  I was waiting for someone to say this.


And Toby's comparison of the "dead space" by the end of the neck and the flute, from embouchure hole to end plug is also right on.

See, guys?  Now we're getting somewhere, and we don't even need math equations or computer modeling!

Paul

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "Helge Solvang" <helgsolv@...> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone, - I find this discussion very interesting, and I do have a
> question about the end of the neck. -- What influence would it have on
> tuning the sax, especially on the palm keys, if one made a very short cone
> on the end of the neck. I just noticed that an old Martin Handcraft Alto
> saxophone from -27 that I had for a full restoration. This one was made with
> a short cone that was widened out as much as the thickness of the cork on
> the neck. I just wondered since I have just seen this on a very few modern
> Saxes today, and that has been on soprano saxophones. I guess that must have
> a bit to say what kind of mouthpiece one put on the neck. 
> 
>  
> 
> Best Helge

Steve Goodson has these for sale, called the "Neck Enhancer".

http://www.nationofmusic.com/index.cfm?action=product_info&item6&SiteCode=sgoods

Paul

"But all volume is not created equal"

Some observations:

1. Lengthening or widening chamber increases Vtotal and lowers Frs.
2. Shortening constriction tube decreases Vtotal and raises Frs
3. Enlarging constriction increases Vtotal and raises Frs.
4. Chamber is a compression anti-node.
5. Constriction is a displacement anti-node.
6. Changing Frs affects nodes (higher frequency) in the area of constriction
7. Reed closed time determined by Frs

Vtotal = volume of truncation (chamber + constriction)
Frs = resonant frequency of truncation (chamber + constriction)

In ideal cone, body tube sees the displacement anti-node of the constriction, above the body tube entrance for high frequencies and moving down into the upper body tube for lower frequencies.

Thanks for your reply Paul, I do know of these neck enhancer that Steve is
selling, but that was actually not what my question was about, but the last
post from lancelotburt give me some hint on what impact the widening of the
neck’s end will have on the pitch of some notes.

 

Best Helge 

 

  _____  

Fra: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
På vegne av tenorman1952
Sendt: 3. juli 2009 01:31
Til: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Emne: SV: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Mouthpiece acoustics

 






--- In MouthpieceWork@ <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
yahoogroups.com, "Helge Solvang" <helgsolv@...> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone, - I find this discussion very interesting, and I do have a
> question about the end of the neck. -- What influence would it have on
> tuning the sax, especially on the palm keys, if one made a very short cone
> on the end of the neck. I just noticed that an old Martin Handcraft Alto
> saxophone from -27 that I had for a full restoration. This one was made
with
> a short cone that was widened out as much as the thickness of the cork on
> the neck. I just wondered since I have just seen this on a very few modern
> Saxes today, and that has been on soprano saxophones. I guess that must
have
> a bit to say what kind of mouthpiece one put on the neck. 
> 
> 
> 
> Best Helge

Steve Goodson has these for sale, called the "Neck Enhancer".

http://www.nationof
<http://www.nationofmusic.com/index.cfm?action=product_info&item=106&SiteCod
e=sgoods> music.com/index.cfm?action=product_info&item=106&SiteCode=sgoods

Paul

Volume Observation:

8. Raising Frs decreases reed closed time and increases acoustical power, and at the cost of intonational stability if raised above the theoretical Frs of the body cone.


 --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "lancelotburt" <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
>
> "But all volume is not created equal"
> 
> Some observations:
> 
> 1. Lengthening or widening chamber increases Vtotal and lowers Frs.
> 2. Shortening constriction tube decreases Vtotal and raises Frs
> 3. Enlarging constriction increases Vtotal and raises Frs.
> 4. Chamber is a compression anti-node.
> 5. Constriction is a displacement anti-node.
> 6. Changing Frs affects nodes (higher frequency) in the area of constriction
> 7. Reed closed time determined by Frs
> 
> Vtotal = volume of truncation (chamber + constriction)
> Frs = resonant frequency of truncation (chamber + constriction)
> 
> In ideal cone, body tube sees the displacement anti-node of the constriction, above the body tube entrance for high frequencies and moving down into the upper body tube for lower frequencies.
>

> 1. Lengthening or widening chamber increases Vtotal and lowers Frs.

I can see how to make this mod by hogging out the chamber or pulling out tht mouthpiece.

> 2. Shortening constriction tube decreases Vtotal and raises Frs

I'm not sure what this modification would entail.  Shortening the sax neck does not sound right.  If a mouthpiece has a squeeze chamber, how would it be "shortened".  It is a diameter change?

> 3. Enlarging constriction increases Vtotal and raises Frs.

This sounds more like a diameter change.

> 4. Chamber is a compression anti-node.
> 5. Constriction is a displacement anti-node.

> 6. Changing Frs affects nodes (higher frequency) in the area of constriction

Which would be the notes shown on the end of the neck diagrams in Ferron?

> 7. Reed closed time determined by Frs

Would the this effect the (saw-tooth triangle) wave shape of the sax sound?  If the reed is closed more during the cycle, does the tone sound more edgy?  Less of a sine wave tone?

> 8. Raising Frs decreases reed closed time and increases acoustical power, and at the cost of intonational stability if raised above the theoretical Frs of the body cone.

So we need to know the "theoretical Frs" to make use of this.

> 
> Vtotal = volume of truncation (chamber + constriction)
> Frs = resonant frequency of truncation (chamber + constriction)
> 
> In ideal cone, body tube sees the displacement anti-node of the constriction, above the body tube entrance for high frequencies and moving down into the upper body tube for lower frequencies.
>

Now we need a detailed W curve chart for the truncation (chamber + constriction), based on exact cross-sectional volume measurements, including the baffle, sidewalls, chamber, ramp, throat, and constriction.

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "lancelotburt" <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
>
> Volume Observation:
> 
> 8. Raising Frs decreases reed closed time and increases acoustical power, and at the cost of intonational stability if raised above the theoretical Frs of the body cone.
> 
> 
>  --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "lancelotburt" <lancelotburt@> wrote:
> >
> > "But all volume is not created equal"
> > 
> > Some observations:
> > 
> > 1. Lengthening or widening chamber increases Vtotal and lowers Frs.
> > 2. Shortening constriction tube decreases Vtotal and raises Frs
> > 3. Enlarging constriction increases Vtotal and raises Frs.
> > 4. Chamber is a compression anti-node.
> > 5. Constriction is a displacement anti-node.
> > 6. Changing Frs affects nodes (higher frequency) in the area of constriction
> > 7. Reed closed time determined by Frs
> > 
> > Vtotal = volume of truncation (chamber + constriction)
> > Frs = resonant frequency of truncation (chamber + constriction)
> > 
> > In ideal cone, body tube sees the displacement anti-node of the constriction, above the body tube entrance for high frequencies and moving down into the upper body tube for lower frequencies.
> >
>

"2. Shortening constriction tube decreases Vtotal and raises Frs
> 
> I'm not sure what this modification would entail.  Shortening the sax neck does not sound right.  If a mouthpiece has a squeeze chamber, how would it be "shortened".  It is a diameter change?"

It's not a diameter change.  Though Benade insists on the neck being part of the truncation, it's not clear if he meant the entire removable neck piece or just a section at the small end which acoustically serves as the constriction.  The telling factor would be perhaps, what does the body tube, as it actually functions, see as the constriction, the end of the truncation and the entrance to the body - the amount of reed closed time would tell us as it equals the amount of time for a wave to travel from the truncation/body entrance to the theoretical apex and back.

Benade also warned of double chambered mouthpieces.  I don't know if anyone actualy made a double chambered mouthpiece (in the sense of today's Greiffenhagen or Weinberg models) in the '70's when he wrote this.  Perhaps he was referring to squeeze chambered mouthpieces, with their own constriction and back bore, which would perhaps conflict with the neck constriction, and be seen as a double chamber by the body tube.  If so, then perhaps those who prefer squeeze chambers should use cylindrical shank insert rings (like clarinet tuning rings), to match the inner diameter of the neck opening, until the chamber opens up.  Time to experiment.



"3. Enlarging constriction increases Vtotal and raises Frs.
> 
> This sounds more like a diameter change."

Correct.


"6. Changing Frs affects nodes (higher frequency) in the area of constriction
> 
> Which would be the notes shown on the end of the neck diagrams in Ferron?"

I don't know that Ferron illustrated his own book and that those diagrams are accurate.  This is why we need a good W Curve chart.


"7. Reed closed time determined by Frs
> 
> Would the this effect the (saw-tooth triangle) wave shape of the sax sound?  If the reed is closed more during the cycle, does the tone sound more edgy?  Less of a sine wave tone?"  

The pressure chart in Nedvereen (p. 126) and explaination (what I can understand) shows the closing at the end of the cycle.  A Clarinet is roughly 50% open/50% closed, while the conical instruments' ratio is higher on the open side.  This accounts for the soprano sax being much louder than the Bb clarinet.   If the actual wave form followed the pressure across the reed ratio, then the less close time, the edgier the sound.
> 
> > 8. Raising Frs decreases reed closed time and increases acoustical power, and at the cost of intonational stability if raised above the theoretical Frs of the body cone.
> 
> So we need to know the "theoretical Frs" to make use of this.
> 
> > 
> > Vtotal = volume of truncation (chamber + constriction)
> > Frs = resonant frequency of truncation (chamber + constriction)
> > 
> > In ideal cone, body tube sees the displacement anti-node of the constriction, above the body tube entrance for high frequencies and moving down into the upper body tube for lower frequencies.
> >
>

"2. Shortening constriction tube decreases Vtotal and raises Frs
> > 
> > I'm not sure what this modification would entail.  Shortening the sax neck does not sound right.  If a mouthpiece has a squeeze chamber, how would it be "shortened".  It is a diameter change?"
> 
> 
At this point, I'm wondering if Benade considered the neck as part of the truncation in these respects:

1.  The mouthpiece must be inserted onto the neck and adjusted for tuning.  One must calculate the displaced volume of the neck in the shank in order to get the mouthpiece volume.  Without the neck, you can't know the volume.

2.  The neck functions as the constriction of the truncation and the displacement anti-node for the truncation's resonant frequency, however, since the mouthpiece volume/theoretical truncation volume ratio should be 1/1, the neck opening is functionally, a 2 dimensional constriction, having no length to speak of.  This would be the difference between oboes/bassoons with smaller than 1/1 ratioed chambers, and saxophones.

Something to consider:

If saxophones were made so that the mouthpiece fit into an enlarged socket on the end of the neck, with intonation rings ala clarinet for adjusting tuning, would the preferred diameter of the entrance to the mouthpiece match the inner diameter of the neck opening?  It would probably depend on chamber length/size issues. Is the inner shank diameter acoustically functional and preferable, or is it just a mechanical result of the mouthpiece being made to fit over the end of the neck cork?

Missing Cone Volume Measurement Error

Guys, 

According to Nederveen, if you calculate the missing cone volume from the neck taper, you are making two calculation errors.  Nederveen, reviewing findings of Kergomard (1988) and Dalmont (1995)(p.119) regarding oboe bore irregularities, and earlier (p. 39), shows the calculation based on the taper of the instrument's main body.  Additionally, many oboes have a section with an increase in cone angle in the upper body (as the saxophone does in the different neck taper).  Nederveen's diagram shows that in order to get the correct missing volume calculation, one must add to the initial calculation based on the main body taper, the volume lost due to the increased cone angle, from where the increased angle begins, up to the original truncation.

So, 
 
1. calculate the missing volume based on the body cone taper from the body truncation (without the neck) to the apex.

2 calculate the volume of the actual neck (from neck tube, not tenon).

3. subtract results of #2 from #1.

The remainder is the actual missing cone volume, which your mouthpiece should compensate for.

This html message parsed with html2text ---------------------------So, can anyone give a ballpark number for what that volume would be for, say,
a tenor mouthpiece? Or alto/bari/soprano?  
  
DT  
  
lancelotburt wrote:

> Missing Cone Volume Measurement Error  
>  
>  Guys,  
>  
>  According to Nederveen, if you calculate the missing cone volume from the
> neck taper, you are making two calculation errors. Nederveen, reviewing
> findings of Kergomard (1988) and Dalmont (1995)(p.119) regarding oboe bore
> irregularities, and earlier (p. 39), shows the calculation based on the
> taper of the instrument's main body. Additionally, many oboes have a section
> with an increase in cone angle in the upper body (as the saxophone does in
> the different neck taper). Nederveen's diagram shows that in order to get
> the correct missing volume calculation, one must add to the initial
> calculation based on the main body taper, the volume lost due to the
> increased cone angle, from where the increased angle begins, up to the
> original truncation.  
>  
>  So,  
>  
>  1\\. calculate the missing volume based on the body cone taper from the
> body truncation (without the neck) to the apex.  
>  
>  2 calculate the volume of the actual neck (from neck tube, not tenon).  
>  
>  3\\. subtract results of #2 from #1.  
>  
>  The remainder is the actual missing cone volume, which your mouthpiece
> should compensate for.  
>  
>

All these things are true, but my point was that for a
given Vtotal and Frs, a mpc with a smaller chamber and
lower baffle will have much different characteristics than
one with larger chamber and higher baffle.

BTW the link to the musical aero-acoustics of the clarinet
which I posted is amazingly interesting. Read especially
the part about creating a cavity immediately behind the
tip rail, and take note of the part about flow control in
the reed channel and the concept of the free jet and how
it affects flow in the reed channel.

It also details the effect of Bernoulli forces in the reed
channel.

I wish I understood it better, but it goes way beyond 2D
planar wave modeling ;-}

Toby

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

> "But all volume is not created equal"
> 
> Some observations:
> 
> 1. Lengthening or widening chamber increases Vtotal
> and lowers Frs.
> 2. Shortening constriction tube decreases Vtotal and
> raises Frs
> 3. Enlarging constriction increases Vtotal and
> raises Frs.
> 4. Chamber is a compression anti-node.
> 5. Constriction is a displacement anti-node.
> 6. Changing Frs affects nodes (higher frequency) in
> the area of constriction
> 7. Reed closed time determined by Frs
> 
> Vtotal = volume of truncation (chamber +
> constriction)
> Frs = resonant frequency of truncation (chamber +
> constriction)
> 
> In ideal cone, body tube sees the displacement
> anti-node of the constriction, above the body tube
> entrance for high frequencies and moving down into
> the upper body tube for lower frequencies.
> 
> 

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
>
> "All these things are true, but my point was that for a
> given Vtotal and Frs, a mpc with a smaller chamber and
> lower baffle will have much different characteristics than
> one with larger chamber and higher baffle."

Indeed.  Your point was very well made regarding the shape of the chamber/baffle. Additionally, Bernoulli effects aside, it is still an air column, with a compression anti-node, an irregular bore, and a displacement anti-node at the other end, and as such, the effects of  bore irregularities on the pitch of the different modes of differnt notes, each with a different wave length, still apply - even more so, since it all starts here.  Given accurate cross-sectional volume information along the entire length of the truncation, one could make a W curve chart that would assist greatly in analysis of which shape where does what to which resonance mode, of which  note, pitch-wise, in every register, and how to align resonances for optimal harmonic regime formation.  I'm surprised that such mouthpiece design/analysis software is not abound yet - W Curve Chart excel sheets anyway.    

Computed tomography (x-ray) would give exact info on existing mouthpieces -  http://www.idrs.org/Publications/DR/DR23.2.pdf/Great.Oboes.pdf

Funny - http://www.mindworkshop.com/alchemy/saxophone.html

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
>
> "Read especially
> the part about creating a cavity immediately behind the
> tip rail, and take note of the part about flow control in
> the reed channel and the concept of the free jet and how
> it affects flow in the reed channel."

A few years ago, all the sax players at FSU, studying with Gary Campbell, were playing on Selmer HR mouthpieces with a big gouge taken out, just behind the tip rail.  These were very, very advanced players.  This style piece played somewhat on the dark side, a dry sound, but full (actually, they felt it was a fuller sound than any other), and was still very responsive.  Like Joe Henderson.  This sort of makes sense though (back to Ferron's theory), as, due to the low angle of the baffle at the tip, the wave reflections will just spatter back and forth, causing a lot of resistance.  If you get rid of those reflections completely, you get a somewhat darker, but very responsive and full sound.


Diverse info:

I went over to see Wolfe Tanninbaum the other day - he lives just down the street almost.  We were looking at a copy of his last article in The Saxophone Journal, where he explains why he likes to make the table a little bit concave.  I asked him if the concave tables one finds on machined mouthpieces was intentional or a result of the contraction of the material after machining.  He responded matter-of-factly that it was intentional. 

Wolfe pointed at a mouthpiece cross-sectional diagram, indicating the bore discrepancy between the back bore and the neck opening.  "This, of course, should not be here." he said.  I took that to mean, that he felt the chamber exit should be the same diameter as the neck tube.

> Wolfe pointed at a mouthpiece cross-sectional diagram, indicating the bore discrepancy between the back bore and the neck opening.  "This, of course, should not be here." he said.  I took that to mean, that he felt the chamber exit should be the same diameter as the neck tube.
>

And if you asked him why, I'll bet he says something about air turbulence being a problem.  I do not think turbulence exists there (just laminar recirculation) nor that it is an acoustic problem.  There have been several attempts to make "Smoothbore" mouthpieces.  They work, but not better or worse than others.  

So how important is the requirement for a constriction?  It does not seem like a big deal.  Same as with mouthpiece volume.  You just need to be in the ballpark.  Pushing in/out makes some adjustment to get it "right".  Different players' embouchures need different volumes too.  Play loose, push in.  The missing cone volume calc did not change.  Benade did some analysis of the air column with the player considered as part of the system.  

>>>
So, can anyone give a ballpark number for what that volume would be for, say, a tenor mouthpiece?  Or alto/bari/soprano?
<<<

I did some measurements years ago when I first read Ferron.  He just presented neck tapers (I think) so that is what I measured on my saxes.

Missing cone volumes:
Tenor 60's 10M = 10.2 ml
YAS-62 = 8.5
Ponzol neck for alto = 9.1
Buescher C-mel = 14.7
YBS-52 = 17.7
Conn straight Bb sop = 2.2
Buescher straight C sop = 2.6

My actual mouthpiece volumes where tuned at the time were:
Tenor Quantum = 12.4 ml
Tenor Strathon = 11.6
Alto Runyon Custom = 8.0
Alto Meyer = 8.3
Bari Quantum = 16.6
Bari RPC 110 = 15.7
Bari RPC 125 = 16.3
Bb sop Runyon Custom = 3.8
C sop customized lg chamber = 4.3

So I got different results from my vintage tenor and sops vs the newer Yamahas.  The Yamaha calcs say I should pull out more and the Conn calcs say I should push in (WTF?).  The results were only ballpark at the time so I gave up on trying to make use of them.  Maybe if I take the body taper into account, I can explain some of the differences (or it may make it worse!). 

I believe it has been tried but has never really
successfully because of the complexity of what is
happening in that small space. That paper I cited talks
about vortex shedding and flow reattachment with the walls
and esoteric-sounding things like the "Coanda effect" and
the "vena-contracta factor". To make things worse there is
apparently no good model of how the lateral slits should
be figured when calculating the reed channel width. 

Even if that were clear, there remains a lot of work to be
done to obtain a reliable model for the relationship
between the jet height (hj) and the reed channel height
(hr), as this determines which of two possible types of
reed channel flow is present under steady flow conditions.

To further complicate matters, steady flow models don't
seem to work, and the authors say that they suspect that
the unsteadiness of the flow is an essential feature, but
exactly how and why is still not really understood. They
say: "Gilbert, using the set-up designed by Meynial, was
not able in dynamical measurements of the flux theta to
observe a transition between the fully separated jet flow
regime and the reattached jet flow regime. The data of
Gilbert indicate that the best we can do in a simplified
theory is to assume a constant vena contracta factor
alpha. Unfortunately the dynamic data of Gilbert are
unreliable for Lr/hr>10. As we expect in analogy with
voiced sound production that the final phase of reed
closing (hr->0) is crucial for the generation of higher
harmonics, this lack of reliable data is a problem. We may
conclude that unless better dynamical data are available
one should not use a complex model. This would justify the
type of reed flow equations proposed by Fletcher and
Rossing using equation (1) with modified exponents for hj
and (pm-p(0)). We should realize that these exponents do
not have any simple physical meaning nor universal value.
They are fit parameters only."

There is a lot that is fairly well understood about
musical acoustics, but there remains a lot more that is
still a complete mystery, at least in substantive terms.

So you've got your work cut out for you ;^)

Toby

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

> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com,
> <kymarto123@...> wrote:
> >
> > "All these things are true, but my point was that
> for a
> > given Vtotal and Frs, a mpc with a smaller chamber
> and
> > lower baffle will have much different
> characteristics than
> > one with larger chamber and higher baffle."
> 
> Indeed.  Your point was very well made regarding the
> shape of the chamber/baffle. Additionally, Bernoulli
> effects aside, it is still an air column, with a
> compression anti-node, an irregular bore, and a
> displacement anti-node at the other end, and as
> such, the effects of  bore irregularities on the
> pitch of the different modes of differnt notes, each
> with a different wave length, still apply - even
> more so, since it all starts here.  Given accurate
> cross-sectional volume information along the entire
> length of the truncation, one could make a W curve
> chart that would assist greatly in analysis of which
> shape where does what to which resonance mode, of
> which  note, pitch-wise, in every register, and how
> to align resonances for optimal harmonic regime
> formation.  I'm surprised that such mouthpiece
> design/analysis software is not abound yet - W Curve
> Chart excel sheets anyway.    
> 
> Computed tomography (x-ray) would give exact info on
> existing mouthpieces - 
>
http://www.idrs.org/Publications/DR/DR23.2.pdf/Great.Oboes.pdf
> 
> Funny -
> http://www.mindworkshop.com/alchemy/saxophone.html
> 
> 

The paper I cited has an exact explanation of what the
cavity behind the tip rail improves attack response, and
it apparently has nothing to do with Ferron and everything
to do with flow in the reed channel based on Bernoulli
forces. It is much too complicated to quote here, but very
interesting. See the top of page C5-562.

It starts: "A Bernoulli force FB(hr) which depends only on
the reed channel aperture hr is not able, under steady
oscillation conditions, to transfer energy from the flow
to the reed oscillation because for a periodic reed
movement (sigma?)Fbdhr = 0..."

...and gets worse from there. But apart from the math it
says some interesting things. And in addition to referring
to "typical Strouhal numbers" it even has some pictures
for folks like me :-)

Toby

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

> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com,
> <kymarto123@...> wrote:
> >
> > "Read especially
> > the part about creating a cavity immediately
> behind the
> > tip rail, and take note of the part about flow
> control in
> > the reed channel and the concept of the free jet
> and how
> > it affects flow in the reed channel."
> 
> A few years ago, all the sax players at FSU,
> studying with Gary Campbell, were playing on Selmer
> HR mouthpieces with a big gouge taken out, just
> behind the tip rail.  These were very, very advanced
> players.  This style piece played somewhat on the
> dark side, a dry sound, but full (actually, they
> felt it was a fuller sound than any other), and was
> still very responsive.  Like Joe Henderson.  This
> sort of makes sense though (back to Ferron's
> theory), as, due to the low angle of the baffle at
> the tip, the wave reflections will just spatter back
> and forth, causing a lot of resistance.  If you get
> rid of those reflections completely, you get a
> somewhat darker, but very responsive and full sound.
> 
> 
> Diverse info:
> 
> I went over to see Wolfe Tanninbaum the other day -
> he lives just down the street almost.  We were
> looking at a copy of his last article in The
> Saxophone Journal, where he explains why he likes to
> make the table a little bit concave.  I asked him if
> the concave tables one finds on machined mouthpieces
> was intentional or a result of the contraction of
> the material after machining.  He responded
> matter-of-factly that it was intentional. 
> 
> Wolfe pointed at a mouthpiece cross-sectional
> diagram, indicating the bore discrepancy between the
> back bore and the neck opening.  "This, of course,
> should not be here." he said.  I took that to mean,
> that he felt the chamber exit should be the same
> diameter as the neck tube.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

This html message parsed with html2text ---------------------------Thanks- very interesting.  
  
Keith Bradbury wrote:

> >>>  
>  So, can anyone give a ballpark number for what that volume would be for,
> say, a tenor mouthpiece? Or alto/bari/soprano?  
>  <<<  
>  
>  I did some measurements years ago when I first read Ferron. He just
> presented neck tapers (I think) so that is what I measured on my saxes.  
>  
>  Missing cone volumes:  
>  Tenor 60's 10M = 10.2 ml  
>  YAS-62 = 8.5  
>  Ponzol neck for alto = 9.1  
>  Buescher C-mel = 14.7  
>  YBS-52 = 17.7  
>  Conn straight Bb sop = 2.2  
>  Buescher straight C sop = 2.6  
>  
>  My actual mouthpiece volumes where tuned at the time were:  
>  Tenor Quantum = 12.4 ml  
>  Tenor Strathon = 11.6  
>  Alto Runyon Custom = 8.0  
>  Alto Meyer = 8.3  
>  Bari Quantum = 16.6  
>  Bari RPC 110 = 15.7  
>  Bari RPC 125 = 16.3  
>  Bb sop Runyon Custom = 3.8  
>  C sop customized lg chamber = 4.3  
>  
>  So I got different results from my vintage tenor and sops vs the newer
> Yamahas. The Yamaha calcs say I should pull out more and the Conn calcs say
> I should push in (WTF?). The results were only ballpark at the time so I
> gave up on trying to make use of them. Maybe if I take the body taper into
> account, I can explain some of the differences (or it may make it worse!).  
>  
>

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
>
>"There is a lot that is fairly well understood about
> musical acoustics, but there remains a lot more that is
> still a complete mystery, at least in substantive terms.
> 
> So you've got your work cut out for you ;^)
> 
> Toby"


I thought you were going to do it.

>To further complicate matters, steady flow models don't
seem to work,....
 
I think every time you read this, it means the Bernoulli equation does not work...
 
(It is good enough for some basic understanding but does not explain enough of what is really going on).


      

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "tenorman1952" <tenorman1952@...> wrote:
> 
> Have any of you actually done this?  Constructed mouthpieces with short, fat chambers vs long tapered chambers?
> 
> "I have.  This is what happens...."


Thanks for the ideas guys.  This is going to be my tenor solution, I can tell already.  Modern Link STM 7, facing balanced by Wolfe T.  Ever so slight amount of 95/5 fused just behind the tip rail so I can contour the short roll-over baffle the way I want as one solid metal piece.  Excavated very large chamber and side walls.  Side walls rounded up to the tip.  The window reduced in size slightly by adding  a flat oval shaped brass piece in the bottom of the window which extends the ramp somewhat.  The curve of the bottom of the window now mirrors the curve of the tip rail exactly.  Though the table wall is not that thick in the front (at the ramp) I still angled the extended ramp exactly parallel to the baffle.  The excavation is not quite complete, but at this point I have a 1/4" cylindrical brass neck (constriction) extension, shoved into the shank.  The sound and response is very, very nice.  The tuning of the registers is accurate and very stable.  I will use various thickness tuning rings to compensate for temperature fluctuations, etc.   Everything is done by feel now.  No measurements have been taken.



 

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

> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com,
> <kymarto123@...> wrote:
> >
> >"There is a lot that is fairly well understood
> about
> > musical acoustics, but there remains a lot more
> that is
> > still a complete mystery, at least in substantive
> terms.
> > 
> > So you've got your work cut out for you ;^)
> > 
> > Toby"
> 
> 
> I thought you were going to do it.
> 
I was hoping to leave it to those with better math
skills...

Bernoulli alone isn't enough to accurately describe what
is happening, but that is different from saying that the
Bernoulli equation does not work.

--- Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:

> >To further complicate matters, steady flow models
> don't
> seem to work,....
>  
> I think every time you read this, it means the
> Bernoulli equation does not work...
>  
> (It is good enough for some basic understanding but
> does not explain enough of what is really going on).
> 
> 
>       

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

> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com,
> "tenorman1952" <tenorman1952@...> wrote:
> > 
> > Have any of you actually done this?  Constructed
> mouthpieces with short, fat chambers vs long tapered
> chambers?
> > 
> > "I have.  This is what happens...."
> 
> 
> Thanks for the ideas guys.  This is going to be my
> tenor solution, I can tell already.  Modern Link STM
> 7, facing balanced by Wolfe T.  Ever so slight
> amount of 95/5 fused just behind the tip rail so I
> can contour the short roll-over baffle the way I
> want as one solid metal piece.  Excavated very large
> chamber and side walls.  Side walls rounded up to
> the tip.  The window reduced in size slightly by
> adding  a flat oval shaped brass piece in the bottom
> of the window which extends the ramp somewhat.  The
> curve of the bottom of the window now mirrors the
> curve of the tip rail exactly.  Though the table
> wall is not that thick in the front (at the ramp) I
> still angled the extended ramp exactly parallel to
> the baffle.  The excavation is not quite complete,
> but at this point I have a 1/4" cylindrical brass
> neck (constriction) extension, shoved into the
> shank.  The sound and response is very, very nice. 
> The tuning of the registers is accurate and very
> stable.  I will use various thickness tuning rings
> to compensate for temperature fluctuations, etc.  
> Everything is done by feel now.  No measurements
> have been taken.
> 

What, no racing stripes?

Yes... http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/BernoullisLaw.html
it works as any other conservation law plus exceptions. It is a good starting point, a first approximation. Anyway the player-mouthpiece-saxophone-air interactions should be also considered. I think the only way to see some result is to solve numerically a proper set of differential equations. The cavity shape can be approximated very well by using small meshes. It is not exactly my field of research but if I will find a bit of free time (almost impossible) I will try to model a mouthpiece and post the results here.
The program I use is called COMSOL maybe someone here knows how to use it better than me :). If you have any idea I am ready to try it.
All the best,

DannyG

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
>
> Bernoulli alone isn't enough to accurately describe what
> is happening, but that is different from saying that the
> Bernoulli equation does not work.
> 
> --- Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:
> 
> > >To further complicate matters, steady flow models
> > don't
> > seem to work,....
> >  
> > I think every time you read this, it means the
> > Bernoulli equation does not work...
> >  
> > (It is good enough for some basic understanding but
> > does not explain enough of what is really going on).
> > 
> > 
> >
>

Hi Danny,

May I suggest that you read the part of Scavone's thesis
on single-reed mpcs before you begin?

The paper I quoted on the musical aero-acoustics of the
clarinet, from which I quoted, is by far the most complete
treatment on the mpc that I have ever seen, and is way
beyond me. However it might make more sense to you.

You can easily find both by googling "Scavone thesis" and
"musical aero-acoustics clarinet"

Best,
Toby

--- lcchtt <Letydan@...> wrote:

> Yes...
>
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/BernoullisLaw.html
> it works as any other conservation law plus
> exceptions. It is a good starting point, a first
> approximation. Anyway the
> player-mouthpiece-saxophone-air interactions should
> be also considered. I think the only way to see some
> result is to solve numerically a proper set of
> differential equations. The cavity shape can be
> approximated very well by using small meshes. It is
> not exactly my field of research but if I will find
> a bit of free time (almost impossible) I will try to
> model a mouthpiece and post the results here.
> The program I use is called COMSOL maybe someone
> here knows how to use it better than me :). If you
> have any idea I am ready to try it.
> All the best,
> 
> DannyG
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com,
> <kymarto123@...> wrote:
> >
> > Bernoulli alone isn't enough to accurately
> describe what
> > is happening, but that is different from saying
> that the
> > Bernoulli equation does not work.
> > 
> > --- Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:
> > 
> > > >To further complicate matters, steady flow
> models
> > > don't
> > > seem to work,....
> > >  
> > > I think every time you read this, it means
> the
> > > Bernoulli equation does not work...
> > >  
> > > (It is good enough for some basic understanding
> but
> > > does not explain enough of what is really going
> on).
> > > 
> > > 
> > >
> >
> 
> 
> 

thank you toby,

All the best,

Danny

--- In MouthpieceWork@...m, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Danny,
> 
> May I suggest that you read the part of Scavone's thesis
> on single-reed mpcs before you begin?
> 
> The paper I quoted on the musical aero-acoustics of the
> clarinet, from which I quoted, is by far the most complete
> treatment on the mpc that I have ever seen, and is way
> beyond me. However it might make more sense to you.
> 
> You can easily find both by googling "Scavone thesis" and
> "musical aero-acoustics clarinet"
> 
> Best,
> Toby
> 
> --- lcchtt <Letydan@...> wrote:
> 
> > Yes...
> >
> http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/BernoullisLaw.html
> > it works as any other conservation law plus
> > exceptions. It is a good starting point, a first
> > approximation. Anyway the
> > player-mouthpiece-saxophone-air interactions should
> > be also considered. I think the only way to see some
> > result is to solve numerically a proper set of
> > differential equations. The cavity shape can be
> > approximated very well by using small meshes. It is
> > not exactly my field of research but if I will find
> > a bit of free time (almost impossible) I will try to
> > model a mouthpiece and post the results here.
> > The program I use is called COMSOL maybe someone
> > here knows how to use it better than me :). If you
> > have any idea I am ready to try it.
> > All the best,
> > 
> > DannyG
> > 
> > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com,
> > <kymarto123@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Bernoulli alone isn't enough to accurately
> > describe what
> > > is happening, but that is different from saying
> > that the
> > > Bernoulli equation does not work.
> > > 
> > > --- Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > >To further complicate matters, steady flow
> > models
> > > > don't
> > > > seem to work,....
> > > >  
> > > > I think every time you read this, it means
> > the
> > > > Bernoulli equation does not work...
> > > >  
> > > > (It is good enough for some basic understanding
> > but
> > > > does not explain enough of what is really going
> > on).
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > >
> > >
> > 
> > 
> >
>

" Have any of you actually done this?  Constructed mouthpieces with short, fat chambers vs long tapered chambers?
> 
> I have.  This is what happens....." 
> 


Anybody know who currently makes the widest stock tenor metal mouthpiece?

>Anybody know who currently makes the widest stock tenor metal mouthpiece?

Most consider "stock" as the mouthpiece that comes free with the sax.  But you are probably looking for a relatively low cost factory-made MP.

I presume you are looking for the widest interior chamber in the throat area?  I would say it is the Link STM NY.  


      

Do we all here have the Wyman thesis on mouthpieces? Not
too scientific, but full of excellent empirical research
and good measurements.

Steve Goodson was kind enough to send it to me a while
ago, and I would be happy to send it along to whoever
wants it or upload it if someone tells me where.

Toby

I put a Link to the Wyman paper on the Yahoo Mouthpiece Work site a while back.  It really is a gem and is a fairly easy read IMO.
 
I was just surfing the Gary Scavone at McGill Univ website pages.  We should give up acoustics and just leave it to these guys ;)  
 
Here is a list of selected on-line papers by Gary Scavone:
 
http://www.music.mcgill.ca/~gary/papers.html
 
Wouldn't it be great if he would just focus on what we want to know?


      

toby,

I'd appreciate a copy.  I couldn't find it anywhere online. 


thanks

Lance

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
>
> 
> Do we all here have the Wyman thesis on mouthpieces? Not
> too scientific, but full of excellent empirical research
> and good measurements.
> 
> Steve Goodson was kind enough to send it to me a while
> ago, and I would be happy to send it along to whoever
> wants it or upload it if someone tells me where.
> 
> Toby
>

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:

> I was just surfing the Gary Scavone at McGill Univ website pages.  We should give up acoustics and just leave it to these guys ;) 

I don't know.  You said it Mojo, "Experimentation leads the way and the theory lags behind."  The artists lead the way by demonstration and the theorists try to describe.   We don't need cutting edge mathematical descriptions of what we already know from experience.  I don't need conditional modeling equations to tell me that I like the way a certain mouthpiece responds to how I raise my tongue in the back of my throat, or what it does when I open my soft pallet and sinus cavities by pushing my jaw forward until the joints crack, or how it responds to my just sliding my tongue off the reed at various different angles.  We already know these things.  The theorists are arguing about how best to describe them IF they know about them at all.  But, more power to them, as when they are able to model every physical aspect of every saxophone design and how it responds to the infinite variations of human anatomy, and I mean EVERY aspect at the level of every artist in the medium, both in tactile and acoustic terms, then we will all be playing computers running acoustic algorithms.

I just listened to Larry Potter on youtube.  Phenominal player.  He's playing a Selmer SBA I think and a Theo Wanne mouthpiece.  It sounds great.  What I noticed is, that he apparently just figured out how to sound like Stanley Turrentine.  In certain parts of his solos, he attacks and shapes the notes exactly like Stanley would have. I don't think the instrument modelers are even light years away from noticing much less describing these kind of differences.   All I can tell you is, it has a lot to do with using a brown box Rico reed on a Link chambered mouthpiece.

Until then, and I imagine that this realization is still a few generations off, what we need are general acoustic guidelines so we can understand AS PERFORMERS or mouthpiece designers how the excitation system functions in an acoustic instrument system and how that applies to the player, not necessarily what it means to the academic or scientific community.

So, if we have specific questions, in this day of computer interconnectivity, we can easily direct them towards those at the forefront of scientific academic acoustical analysis and documentation.  It does not guarantee however, that they have even begun to analyze or even consider analyzing the object of our concern as performers or designers.

Thanks.   I mean the widest at the tip.  From any manufacturer.  Who is making the most of standard reed width at the tip.  I know I have to trim reeds down on many 


--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:
>
> 
> >Anybody know who currently makes the widest stock tenor metal mouthpiece?
> 
> Most consider "stock" as the mouthpiece that comes free with the sax.  But you are probably looking for a relatively low cost factory-made MP.
> 
> I presume you are looking for the widest interior chamber in the throat area?  I would say it is the Link STM NY.
>

WOW!!!! I am downloading everything. They made many interesting things. I should have studied acoustic :))). Keith we should organize a meeting to show and present our researches and our mouthpieces. In other words what we learnt from here :D. What do you think?

DannyG

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:
>
> I put a Link to the Wyman paper on the Yahoo Mouthpiece Work site a while back.  It really is a gem and is a fairly easy read IMO.
>  
> I was just surfing the Gary Scavone at McGill Univ website pages.  We should give up acoustics and just leave it to these guys ;)  
>  
> Here is a list of selected on-line papers by Gary Scavone:
>  
> http://www.music.mcgill.ca/~gary/papers.html
>  
> Wouldn't it be great if he would just focus on what we want to know?
>

Easy... the Vandoren bari lol...

DannyG

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "lancelotburt" <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks.   I mean the widest at the tip.  From any manufacturer.  Who is making the most of standard reed width at the tip.  I know I have to trim reeds down on many 
> 
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@> wrote:
> >
> > 
> > >Anybody know who currently makes the widest stock tenor metal mouthpiece?
> > 
> > Most consider "stock" as the mouthpiece that comes free with the sax.  But you are probably looking for a relatively low cost factory-made MP.
> > 
> > I presume you are looking for the widest interior chamber in the throat area?  I would say it is the Link STM NY.
> >
>

As long as we are sharing links, all of Fletcher's papers
including those on musical acoustics, are available here:

http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/music/people/fletcherpublications.html

Not so much specifically on the sax, but quite a bit on
woodwinds and nonlinearities, of which the reed is a major
one.

Toby

--- lcchtt <Letydan@...> wrote:

> WOW!!!! I am downloading everything. They made many
> interesting things. I should have studied acoustic
> :))). Keith we should organize a meeting to show and
> present our researches and our mouthpieces. In other
> words what we learnt from here :D. What do you
> think?
> 
> DannyG
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Keith
> Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:
> >
> > I put a Link to the Wyman paper on the Yahoo
> Mouthpiece Work site a while back.  It really is a
> gem and is a fairly easy read IMO.
> >  
> > I was just surfing the Gary Scavone at McGill Univ
> website pages.  We should give up acoustics and
just
> leave it to these guys ;)  
> >  
> > Here is a list of selected on-line papers by Gary
> Scavone:
> >  
> > http://www.music.mcgill.ca/~gary/papers.html
> >  
> > Wouldn't it be great if he would just focus on
> what we want to know?
> >
> 
> 
> 

For me the theory and the hands-on should be
complementary. Obviously the physical modeling is always
going to be imperfect, but it can provide us with some
guidelines so that we don't waste a lot of effort going in
fruitless directions. 

A useful analogy for me is that theory is like a map. It
certainly can never possess the detail or actuality of
being there, but it gives a useful overview of the roads
that we cannot perhaps see through the trees, and by
comparing where we are with the poor representation of
that point on the map, we can plot a route for where we
hope to go, without getting lost in a lot of cul-de-sacs
and dead ends.

Toby

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

> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Keith
> Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:
> 
> > I was just surfing the Gary Scavone at McGill Univ
> website pages.  We should give up acoustics and
just
> leave it to these guys ;) 
> 
> I don't know.  You said it Mojo, "Experimentation
> leads the way and the theory lags behind."  The
> artists lead the way by demonstration and the
> theorists try to describe.   We don't need cutting
> edge mathematical descriptions of what we already
> know from experience.  I don't need conditional
> modeling equations to tell me that I like the way a
> certain mouthpiece responds to how I raise my tongue
> in the back of my throat, or what it does when I
> open my soft pallet and sinus cavities by pushing my
> jaw forward until the joints crack, or how it
> responds to my just sliding my tongue off the reed
> at various different angles.  We already know these
> things.  The theorists are arguing about how best to
> describe them IF they know about them at all.  But,
> more power to them, as when they are able to model
> every physical aspect of every saxophone design and
> how it responds to the infinite variations of human
> anatomy, and I mean EVERY aspect at the level of
> every artist in the medium, both in tactile and
> acoustic terms, then we will all be playing
> computers running acoustic algorithms.
> 
> I just listened to Larry Potter on youtube. 
> Phenominal player.  He's playing a Selmer SBA I
> think and a Theo Wanne mouthpiece.  It sounds great.
>  What I noticed is, that he apparently just figured
> out how to sound like Stanley Turrentine.  In
> certain parts of his solos, he attacks and shapes
> the notes exactly like Stanley would have. I don't
> think the instrument modelers are even light years
> away from noticing much less describing these kind
> of differences.   All I can tell you is, it has a
> lot to do with using a brown box Rico reed on a Link
> chambered mouthpiece.
> 
> Until then, and I imagine that this realization is
> still a few generations off, what we need are
> general acoustic guidelines so we can understand AS
> PERFORMERS or mouthpiece designers how the
> excitation system functions in an acoustic
> instrument system and how that applies to the
> player, not necessarily what it means to the
> academic or scientific community.
> 
> So, if we have specific questions, in this day of
> computer interconnectivity, we can easily direct
> them towards those at the forefront of scientific
> academic acoustical analysis and documentation.  It
> does not guarantee however, that they have even
> begun to analyze or even consider analyzing the
> object of our concern as performers or designers.
> 
> 
> 

Perhaps a thorough and comprehensive study of physics or acoustics would yield the the ideal mouthpiece design. We already have a number of different mouthpiece designs that function well and it becomes a matter of the personal choice or tastes of the player selecting from available models. Mouthpiece design has evolved more by practical experimentation than adherence to theory with the early large chambered, round sidewalls with concave baffle original design of Aldolphe Sax being the closest to the missing cone theory.  

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
>
> For me the theory and the hands-on should be
> complementary. Obviously the physical modeling is always
> going to be imperfect, but it can provide us with some
> guidelines so that we don't waste a lot of effort going in
> fruitless directions. 
> 
> A useful analogy for me is that theory is like a map. It
> certainly can never possess the detail or actuality of
> being there, but it gives a useful overview of the roads
> that we cannot perhaps see through the trees, and by
> comparing where we are with the poor representation of
> that point on the map, we can plot a route for where we
> hope to go, without getting lost in a lot of cul-de-sacs
> and dead ends.
> 
> Toby
> 
> --- lancelotburt <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
> 
> > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Keith
> > Bradbury <kwbradbury@> wrote:
> > 
> > > I was just surfing the Gary Scavone at McGill Univ
> > website pages.  We should give up acoustics and
> just
> > leave it to these guys ;) 
> > 
> > I don't know.  You said it Mojo, "Experimentation
> > leads the way and the theory lags behind."  The
> > artists lead the way by demonstration and the
> > theorists try to describe.   We don't need cutting
> > edge mathematical descriptions of what we already
> > know from experience.  I don't need conditional
> > modeling equations to tell me that I like the way a
> > certain mouthpiece responds to how I raise my tongue
> > in the back of my throat, or what it does when I
> > open my soft pallet and sinus cavities by pushing my
> > jaw forward until the joints crack, or how it
> > responds to my just sliding my tongue off the reed
> > at various different angles.  We already know these
> > things.  The theorists are arguing about how best to
> > describe them IF they know about them at all.  But,
> > more power to them, as when they are able to model
> > every physical aspect of every saxophone design and
> > how it responds to the infinite variations of human
> > anatomy, and I mean EVERY aspect at the level of
> > every artist in the medium, both in tactile and
> > acoustic terms, then we will all be playing
> > computers running acoustic algorithms.
> > 
> > I just listened to Larry Potter on youtube. 
> > Phenominal player.  He's playing a Selmer SBA I
> > think and a Theo Wanne mouthpiece.  It sounds great.
> >  What I noticed is, that he apparently just figured
> > out how to sound like Stanley Turrentine.  In
> > certain parts of his solos, he attacks and shapes
> > the notes exactly like Stanley would have. I don't
> > think the instrument modelers are even light years
> > away from noticing much less describing these kind
> > of differences.   All I can tell you is, it has a
> > lot to do with using a brown box Rico reed on a Link
> > chambered mouthpiece.
> > 
> > Until then, and I imagine that this realization is
> > still a few generations off, what we need are
> > general acoustic guidelines so we can understand AS
> > PERFORMERS or mouthpiece designers how the
> > excitation system functions in an acoustic
> > instrument system and how that applies to the
> > player, not necessarily what it means to the
> > academic or scientific community.
> > 
> > So, if we have specific questions, in this day of
> > computer interconnectivity, we can easily direct
> > them towards those at the forefront of scientific
> > academic acoustical analysis and documentation.  It
> > does not guarantee however, that they have even
> > begun to analyze or even consider analyzing the
> > object of our concern as performers or designers.
> > 
> > 
> >
>

Yes, the ideal mouthpiece for playing classical music...

DannyG

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "Greg Wier" <gregwier@...> wrote:
>
> Perhaps a thorough and comprehensive study of physics or acoustics would yield the the ideal mouthpiece design. We already have a number of different mouthpiece designs that function well and it becomes a matter of the personal choice or tastes of the player selecting from available models. Mouthpiece design has evolved more by practical experimentation than adherence to theory with the early large chambered, round sidewalls with concave baffle original design of Aldolphe Sax being the closest to the missing cone theory.  
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@> wrote:
> >
> > For me the theory and the hands-on should be
> > complementary. Obviously the physical modeling is always
> > going to be imperfect, but it can provide us with some
> > guidelines so that we don't waste a lot of effort going in
> > fruitless directions. 
> > 
> > A useful analogy for me is that theory is like a map. It
> > certainly can never possess the detail or actuality of
> > being there, but it gives a useful overview of the roads
> > that we cannot perhaps see through the trees, and by
> > comparing where we are with the poor representation of
> > that point on the map, we can plot a route for where we
> > hope to go, without getting lost in a lot of cul-de-sacs
> > and dead ends.
> > 
> > Toby
> > 
> > --- lancelotburt <lancelotburt@> wrote:
> > 
> > > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Keith
> > > Bradbury <kwbradbury@> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > I was just surfing the Gary Scavone at McGill Univ
> > > website pages.  We should give up acoustics and
> > just
> > > leave it to these guys ;) 
> > > 
> > > I don't know.  You said it Mojo, "Experimentation
> > > leads the way and the theory lags behind."  The
> > > artists lead the way by demonstration and the
> > > theorists try to describe.   We don't need cutting
> > > edge mathematical descriptions of what we already
> > > know from experience.  I don't need conditional
> > > modeling equations to tell me that I like the way a
> > > certain mouthpiece responds to how I raise my tongue
> > > in the back of my throat, or what it does when I
> > > open my soft pallet and sinus cavities by pushing my
> > > jaw forward until the joints crack, or how it
> > > responds to my just sliding my tongue off the reed
> > > at various different angles.  We already know these
> > > things.  The theorists are arguing about how best to
> > > describe them IF they know about them at all.  But,
> > > more power to them, as when they are able to model
> > > every physical aspect of every saxophone design and
> > > how it responds to the infinite variations of human
> > > anatomy, and I mean EVERY aspect at the level of
> > > every artist in the medium, both in tactile and
> > > acoustic terms, then we will all be playing
> > > computers running acoustic algorithms.
> > > 
> > > I just listened to Larry Potter on youtube. 
> > > Phenominal player.  He's playing a Selmer SBA I
> > > think and a Theo Wanne mouthpiece.  It sounds great.
> > >  What I noticed is, that he apparently just figured
> > > out how to sound like Stanley Turrentine.  In
> > > certain parts of his solos, he attacks and shapes
> > > the notes exactly like Stanley would have. I don't
> > > think the instrument modelers are even light years
> > > away from noticing much less describing these kind
> > > of differences.   All I can tell you is, it has a
> > > lot to do with using a brown box Rico reed on a Link
> > > chambered mouthpiece.
> > > 
> > > Until then, and I imagine that this realization is
> > > still a few generations off, what we need are
> > > general acoustic guidelines so we can understand AS
> > > PERFORMERS or mouthpiece designers how the
> > > excitation system functions in an acoustic
> > > instrument system and how that applies to the
> > > player, not necessarily what it means to the
> > > academic or scientific community.
> > > 
> > > So, if we have specific questions, in this day of
> > > computer interconnectivity, we can easily direct
> > > them towards those at the forefront of scientific
> > > academic acoustical analysis and documentation.  It
> > > does not guarantee however, that they have even
> > > begun to analyze or even consider analyzing the
> > > object of our concern as performers or designers.
> > > 
> > > 
> > >
> >
>

That also is a matter for debate and taste.  Look at the square chambered Selmer S80, the biggest selling mouthpiece ever. Considered and used by very many classical players and very far removed from the original Adolphe Sax design. 

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "lcchtt" <Letydan@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, the ideal mouthpiece for playing classical music...
> 
> DannyG
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "Greg Wier" <gregwier@> wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps a thorough and comprehensive study of physics or acoustics would yield the the ideal mouthpiece design. We already have a number of different mouthpiece designs that function well and it becomes a matter of the personal choice or tastes of the player selecting from available models. Mouthpiece design has evolved more by practical experimentation than adherence to theory with the early large chambered, round sidewalls with concave baffle original design of Aldolphe Sax being the closest to the missing cone theory.  
> > 
> > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@> wrote:
> > >
> > > For me the theory and the hands-on should be
> > > complementary. Obviously the physical modeling is always
> > > going to be imperfect, but it can provide us with some
> > > guidelines so that we don't waste a lot of effort going in
> > > fruitless directions. 
> > > 
> > > A useful analogy for me is that theory is like a map. It
> > > certainly can never possess the detail or actuality of
> > > being there, but it gives a useful overview of the roads
> > > that we cannot perhaps see through the trees, and by
> > > comparing where we are with the poor representation of
> > > that point on the map, we can plot a route for where we
> > > hope to go, without getting lost in a lot of cul-de-sacs
> > > and dead ends.
> > > 
> > > Toby
> > > 
> > > --- lancelotburt <lancelotburt@> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Keith
> > > > Bradbury <kwbradbury@> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > I was just surfing the Gary Scavone at McGill Univ
> > > > website pages.  We should give up acoustics and
> > > just
> > > > leave it to these guys ;) 
> > > > 
> > > > I don't know.  You said it Mojo, "Experimentation
> > > > leads the way and the theory lags behind."  The
> > > > artists lead the way by demonstration and the
> > > > theorists try to describe.   We don't need cutting
> > > > edge mathematical descriptions of what we already
> > > > know from experience.  I don't need conditional
> > > > modeling equations to tell me that I like the way a
> > > > certain mouthpiece responds to how I raise my tongue
> > > > in the back of my throat, or what it does when I
> > > > open my soft pallet and sinus cavities by pushing my
> > > > jaw forward until the joints crack, or how it
> > > > responds to my just sliding my tongue off the reed
> > > > at various different angles.  We already know these
> > > > things.  The theorists are arguing about how best to
> > > > describe them IF they know about them at all.  But,
> > > > more power to them, as when they are able to model
> > > > every physical aspect of every saxophone design and
> > > > how it responds to the infinite variations of human
> > > > anatomy, and I mean EVERY aspect at the level of
> > > > every artist in the medium, both in tactile and
> > > > acoustic terms, then we will all be playing
> > > > computers running acoustic algorithms.
> > > > 
> > > > I just listened to Larry Potter on youtube. 
> > > > Phenominal player.  He's playing a Selmer SBA I
> > > > think and a Theo Wanne mouthpiece.  It sounds great.
> > > >  What I noticed is, that he apparently just figured
> > > > out how to sound like Stanley Turrentine.  In
> > > > certain parts of his solos, he attacks and shapes
> > > > the notes exactly like Stanley would have. I don't
> > > > think the instrument modelers are even light years
> > > > away from noticing much less describing these kind
> > > > of differences.   All I can tell you is, it has a
> > > > lot to do with using a brown box Rico reed on a Link
> > > > chambered mouthpiece.
> > > > 
> > > > Until then, and I imagine that this realization is
> > > > still a few generations off, what we need are
> > > > general acoustic guidelines so we can understand AS
> > > > PERFORMERS or mouthpiece designers how the
> > > > excitation system functions in an acoustic
> > > > instrument system and how that applies to the
> > > > player, not necessarily what it means to the
> > > > academic or scientific community.
> > > > 
> > > > So, if we have specific questions, in this day of
> > > > computer interconnectivity, we can easily direct
> > > > them towards those at the forefront of scientific
> > > > academic acoustical analysis and documentation.  It
> > > > does not guarantee however, that they have even
> > > > begun to analyze or even consider analyzing the
> > > > object of our concern as performers or designers.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

lancelotburt <lancelotburt@...> wrote:


The window reduced in size slightly by
adding  a flat oval shaped brass piece in the bottom
of the window which extends the ramp somewhat.  The
curve of the bottom of the window now mirrors the
curve of the tip rail exactly.  Though the table
wall is not that thick in the front (at the ramp) I
still angled the extended ramp exactly parallel to
the baffle.  
> 
> What, no racing stripes?
>


Don't knock this idea until you have tried it.  It works for me.

Sounds interesting.  Can you post some pics?

Thank you,

David

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "lancelotburt" <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
>
> lancelotburt <lancelotburt@> wrote:
> 
> 
> The window reduced in size slightly by
> adding  a flat oval shaped brass piece in the bottom
> of the window which extends the ramp somewhat.  The
> curve of the bottom of the window now mirrors the
> curve of the tip rail exactly.  Though the table
> wall is not that thick in the front (at the ramp) I
> still angled the extended ramp exactly parallel to
> the baffle.  
> > 
> > What, no racing stripes?
> >
> 
> 
> Don't knock this idea until you have tried it.  It works for me.
>

I didn't mean to knock it. I'm impressed with the effort
you put in, and if it works for you then more power to
you.

Toby

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

> lancelotburt <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
> 
> 
> The window reduced in size slightly by
> adding  a flat oval shaped brass piece in the bottom
> of the window which extends the ramp somewhat.  The
> curve of the bottom of the window now mirrors the
> curve of the tip rail exactly.  Though the table
> wall is not that thick in the front (at the ramp) I
> still angled the extended ramp exactly parallel to
> the baffle.  
> > 
> > What, no racing stripes?
> >
> 
> 
> Don't knock this idea until you have tried it.  It
> works for me.
> 
> 

Hello all,



I'm a native Detroit saxophonist.   I'm lurking in the weeds just trying to learn more about how to make my sound better and horn more responsive.  You've all been a big help.  Why not just post the document under "Files" in the Group.  It would make things easier on everyone?

Ted Maciag
www.fivemilesmore.com




--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
>
> 
> Do we all here have the Wyman thesis on mouthpieces? Not
> too scientific, but full of excellent empirical research
> and good measurements.
> 
> Steve Goodson was kind enough to send it to me a while
> ago, and I would be happy to send it along to whoever
> wants it or upload it if someone tells me where.
> 
> Toby
>

Soon as it's polished up.

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "David Kulcinski" <dkulcinski@...> wrote:
>
> Sounds interesting.  Can you post some pics?
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> David
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@...m, "lancelotburt" <lancelotburt@> wrote:
> >
> > lancelotburt <lancelotburt@> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > The window reduced in size slightly by
> > adding  a flat oval shaped brass piece in the bottom
> > of the window which extends the ramp somewhat.  The
> > curve of the bottom of the window now mirrors the
> > curve of the tip rail exactly.  Though the table
> > wall is not that thick in the front (at the ramp) I
> > still angled the extended ramp exactly parallel to
> > the baffle.  
> > > 
> > > What, no racing stripes?
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > Don't knock this idea until you have tried it.  It works for me.
> >
>

Otto Link STM NY have little or no overhang if you open them up a bit.

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "lancelotburt" <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks.   I mean the widest at the tip.  From any manufacturer.  Who is making the most of standard reed width at the tip.  I know I have to trim reeds down on many 

WOW! But will you ever make it to the gig? -- You'll be at the bench a long time making this one!

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "lancelotburt" <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
>
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "tenorman1952" <tenorman1952@> wrote:
> > 
> > Have any of you actually done this?  Constructed mouthpieces with short, fat chambers vs long tapered chambers?
> > 
> > "I have.  This is what happens...."
> 
> 
> Thanks for the ideas guys.  This is going to be my tenor solution, I can tell already.  Modern Link STM 7, facing balanced by Wolfe T.  Ever so slight amount of 95/5 fused just behind the tip rail so I can contour the short roll-over baffle the way I want as one solid metal piece.  Excavated very large chamber and side walls.  Side walls rounded up to the tip.  The window reduced in size slightly by adding  a flat oval shaped brass piece in the bottom of the window which extends the ramp somewhat.  The curve of the bottom of the window now mirrors the curve of the tip rail exactly.  Though the table wall is not that thick in the front (at the ramp) I still angled the extended ramp exactly parallel to the baffle.  The excavation is not quite complete, but at this point I have a 1/4" cylindrical brass neck (constriction) extension, shoved into the shank.  The sound and response is very, very nice.  The tuning of the registers is accurate and very stable.  I will use various thickness tuning rings to compensate for temperature fluctuations, etc.   Everything is done by feel now.  No measurements have been taken.
>

Has anyone tried grooves in a high rollover baffle,
instead of cutting down the area just behind the tip rail?

Toby

--- fidlershorns <grassinospam@...> wrote:

> WOW! But will you ever make it to the gig? -- You'll
> be at the bench a long time making this one!
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com,
> "lancelotburt" <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
> >
> > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com,
> "tenorman1952" <tenorman1952@> wrote:
> > > 
> > > Have any of you actually done this?  Constructed
> mouthpieces with short, fat chambers vs long tapered
> chambers?
> > > 
> > > "I have.  This is what happens...."
> > 
> > 
> > Thanks for the ideas guys.  This is going to be my
> tenor solution, I can tell already.  Modern Link STM
> 7, facing balanced by Wolfe T.  Ever so slight
> amount of 95/5 fused just behind the tip rail so I
> can contour the short roll-over baffle the way I
> want as one solid metal piece.  Excavated very large
> chamber and side walls.  Side walls rounded up to
> the tip.  The window reduced in size slightly by
> adding  a flat oval shaped brass piece in the bottom
> of the window which extends the ramp somewhat.  The
> curve of the bottom of the window now mirrors the
> curve of the tip rail exactly.  Though the table
> wall is not that thick in the front (at the ramp) I
> still angled the extended ramp exactly parallel to
> the baffle.  The excavation is not quite complete,
> but at this point I have a 1/4" cylindrical brass
> neck (constriction) extension, shoved into the
> shank.  The sound and response is very, very nice. 
> The tuning of the registers is accurate and very
> stable.  I will use various thickness tuning rings
> to compensate for temperature fluctuations, etc.  
> Everything is done by feel now.  No measurements
> have been taken.
> >
> 
> 
> 

I saw one of those the other day...I think it was a Sugal, maybe.

--- On Tue, 7/7/09, kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...> wrote:

From: kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Mouthpiece acoustics
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 2:45 AM











    
            
            


      
      

Has anyone tried grooves in a high rollover baffle,

instead of cutting down the area just behind the tip rail?



Toby



--- fidlershorns <grassinospam@ gmail.com> wrote:



> WOW! But will you ever make it to the gig? -- You'll

> be at the bench a long time making this one!

> 

> --- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com,

> "lancelotburt" <lancelotburt@ ...> wrote:

> >

> > --- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com,

> "tenorman1952" <tenorman1952@ > wrote:

> > > 

> > > Have any of you actually done this?  Constructed

> mouthpieces with short, fat chambers vs long tapered

> chambers?

> > > 

> > > "I have.  This is what happens...."

> > 

> > 

> > Thanks for the ideas guys.  This is going to be my

> tenor solution, I can tell already.  Modern Link STM

> 7, facing balanced by Wolfe T.  Ever so slight

> amount of 95/5 fused just behind the tip rail so I

> can contour the short roll-over baffle the way I

> want as one solid metal piece.  Excavated very large

> chamber and side walls.  Side walls rounded up to

> the tip.  The window reduced in size slightly by

> adding  a flat oval shaped brass piece in the bottom

> of the window which extends the ramp somewhat.  The

> curve of the bottom of the window now mirrors the

> curve of the tip rail exactly.  Though the table

> wall is not that thick in the front (at the ramp) I

> still angled the extended ramp exactly parallel to

> the baffle.  The excavation is not quite complete,

> but at this point I have a 1/4" cylindrical brass

> neck (constriction) extension, shoved into the

> shank.  The sound and response is very, very nice. 

> The tuning of the registers is accurate and very

> stable.  I will use various thickness tuning rings

> to compensate for temperature fluctuations, etc.  

> Everything is done by feel now.  No measurements

> have been taken.

> >

> 

> 

> 




 

      

    
    
	
	 
	
	








	


	
	


      

Gary Sugal made some in that configuration. There were also some (I think)
Dukoffs made that way in the distant past.

 

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Tom Tapscott
Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2009 8:08 AM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Mouthpiece acoustics

 







I saw one of those the other day...I think it was a Sugal, maybe.

--- On Tue, 7/7/09, kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...> wrote:


From: kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Mouthpiece acoustics
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 2:45 AM


Has anyone tried grooves in a high rollover baffle,
instead of cutting down the area just behind the tip rail?

Toby

--- fidlershorns <grassinospam@ gmail.com> wrote:

> WOW! But will you ever make it to the gig? -- You'll
> be at the bench a long time making this one!
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com,
> "lancelotburt" <lancelotburt@ ...> wrote:
> >
> > --- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com,
> "tenorman1952" <tenorman1952@ > wrote:
> > > 
> > > Have any of you actually done this? Constructed
> mouthpieces with short, fat chambers vs long tapered
> chambers?
> > > 
> > > "I have. This is what happens...."
> > 
> > 
> > Thanks for the ideas guys. This is going to be my
> tenor solution, I can tell already. Modern Link STM
> 7, facing balanced by Wolfe T. Ever so slight
> amount of 95/5 fused just behind the tip rail so I
> can contour the short roll-over baffle the way I
> want as one solid metal piece. Excavated very large
> chamber and side walls. Side walls rounded up to
> the tip. The window reduced in size slightly by
> adding a flat oval shaped brass piece in the bottom
> of the window which extends the ramp somewhat. The
> curve of the bottom of the window now mirrors the
> curve of the tip rail exactly. Though the table
> wall is not that thick in the front (at the ramp) I
> still angled the extended ramp exactly parallel to
> the baffle. The excavation is not quite complete,
> but at this point I have a 1/4" cylindrical brass
> neck (constriction) extension, shoved into the
> shank. The sound and response is very, very nice. 
> The tuning of the registers is accurate and very
> stable. I will use various thickness tuning rings
> to compensate for temperature fluctuations, etc. 
> Everything is done by feel now. No measurements
> have been taken.
> >
> 
> 
> 

 

I saw one ebonite piece made this way some year ago but I don't remeber the manufacturer. Some time ago I was thinking to do the same with rails. Microgrows (?) should work fine. I've stopped working on this idea because I thought moisture will fill every small air gap while playing. Moreover I am not sure they can be easily cleaned. 

DannyG

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "STEVE GOODSON" <saxgourmet@...> wrote:
>
> Gary Sugal made some in that configuration. There were also some (I think)
> Dukoffs made that way in the distant past.
> 
>  
> 
> From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of Tom Tapscott
> Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2009 8:08 AM
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Mouthpiece acoustics
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I saw one of those the other day...I think it was a Sugal, maybe.
> 
> --- On Tue, 7/7/09, kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...> wrote:
> 
> 
> From: kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...>
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Mouthpiece acoustics
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 2:45 AM
> 
> 
> Has anyone tried grooves in a high rollover baffle,
> instead of cutting down the area just behind the tip rail?
> 
> Toby
> 
> --- fidlershorns <grassinospam@ gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > WOW! But will you ever make it to the gig? -- You'll
> > be at the bench a long time making this one!
> > 
> > --- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com,
> > "lancelotburt" <lancelotburt@ ...> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com,
> > "tenorman1952" <tenorman1952@ > wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Have any of you actually done this? Constructed
> > mouthpieces with short, fat chambers vs long tapered
> > chambers?
> > > > 
> > > > "I have. This is what happens...."
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Thanks for the ideas guys. This is going to be my
> > tenor solution, I can tell already. Modern Link STM
> > 7, facing balanced by Wolfe T. Ever so slight
> > amount of 95/5 fused just behind the tip rail so I
> > can contour the short roll-over baffle the way I
> > want as one solid metal piece. Excavated very large
> > chamber and side walls. Side walls rounded up to
> > the tip. The window reduced in size slightly by
> > adding a flat oval shaped brass piece in the bottom
> > of the window which extends the ramp somewhat. The
> > curve of the bottom of the window now mirrors the
> > curve of the tip rail exactly. Though the table
> > wall is not that thick in the front (at the ramp) I
> > still angled the extended ramp exactly parallel to
> > the baffle. The excavation is not quite complete,
> > but at this point I have a 1/4" cylindrical brass
> > neck (constriction) extension, shoved into the
> > shank. The sound and response is very, very nice. 
> > The tuning of the registers is accurate and very
> > stable. I will use various thickness tuning rings
> > to compensate for temperature fluctuations, etc. 
> > Everything is done by feel now. No measurements
> > have been taken.
> > >
> > 
> > 
> >
>

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "David Kulcinski" <dkulcinski@...> wrote:
>
> Sounds interesting.  Can you post some pics?
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> David
> 


Not quite finished with it yet.  The baffle tip is still a bit rough and I have some more sidewall to remove on one side, but the pitch had dropped a lot due to the enlargement already made.  What Paul says about the huge chamber and intonation is true, but, you can compensate nicely by lengthening the constriction cylindrically (the end of the neck).  The ramp extension also helps noticeably to stabilize the intonation.  My theory:  The space at the end of the window is a useless bore perturbation, causing the associated intonation shifts to the various harmonic resonance modes proportional to their wave length, as this is a pressure anti-node for all modes.  The reed does not vibrate there since the break is about 1/4" in front of it.  That chamber volume is not needed since the chamber has been excavated massively at more strategic locations.  That space is not needed for increased flow since it does not go anywhere.  It is more an eddy causing obstruction because the ramp usually ends there abruptly.  Extend the ramp until there is no obstruction (in the middle, there will still be a bump on the sides, unless the ramp is made flat, which I have not tried yet.)  The ramp should be angled parallel to the baffle as it is on nice clarinet mouthpieces.

Here's what it sounds like:

www.martinmods.com/mp01.mov
www.martinmods.com/mp02.mov
www.martinmods.com/mp03.mov
www.martinmods.com/mp04.mov

These are around 10mb each so wait for the download.

Here's what it sounds like:

I'm playing on an old Olds Ambassador #33965, which I just overhauled.  It's a Martin stencil I think.

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "lcchtt" <Letydan@...> wrote:
The program I use is called COMSOL maybe someone here knows how to use it better than me :). 

This looks like a very useful program.

Paul, 

You ought to have something interesting to say about all this.  We've retraced your steps...and maybe gone a little further as far as inserts go.

MM

--- On Wed, 7/1/09, tenorman1952 <tenorman1952@...> wrote:

From: tenorman1952 <tenorman1952@...>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Mouthpiece acoustics
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, July 1, 2009, 8:56 PM











    
            
            


      
      --- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, <kymarto123@ ...> wrote:

>

> Scavone has this to say:

> 

> "Given the analysis of Benade and Richards (1983), it is reasonable to expect that a saxophone mouthpiece which produces a characteristically "dark" tone quality destructively influences the higher partials of the air column. In this sense, a long and narrow mouthpiece chamber may form

> a better continuation of the conical bore to its apex, and allow more high harmonic participation in the regime of oscillation. ...The mouthpieces appear to impose formants on the air column resonant structure."



Have any of you actually done this?  Constructed mouthpieces with short, fat chambers vs long tapered chambers?



I have.  This is what happens.  



Start with a mouthpiece that plays well in tune, the palm keys play in tune relative to the rest of the instrument, etc.  Such a mouthpiece would have a "medium" chamber... and this would be regardless of baffle, etc.  



Use a bit close to the "bore" size and go in from the shank or butt end, and extend the bore into the chamber area.  Let me say here, any bore exposed past the end of the neck is part of chamber volume.



Now get out the Dremel tool and start carving away sidewalls, and grinding away what you can reach from the window.



What you end up with is something similar to the old Buescher, Conn, Caravan, Rasher, etc mouthpiece type.  



No matter how much material you remove, in order to tune up with the usual tuning notes, you have to push the mouthpiece onto the cork (now very far onto the cork) so that the volume past the end of the neck is equal to the missing conical section.  



Play the mouthpiece.. . what happens?  It is reasonably in tune over most of the range, but when you begin to play on the short end of the tube, the palm key notes, it is very sharp.  The mouthpiece is now too short, though the volume is correct.  



It seems that the low register, with the way the nodes and antinodes lie, it tunes by mouthpiece volume.



But the upper register tunes by length, too.



OK, let's go the opposite way... let's get out the putty and start filling in, making a long narrow "pea shooter" mouthpiece.  Put it on the cork and tune up.  Now you have to pull out, to gain volume inside, so that once again the volume past the end of the neck is equal to the missing conical section.  You have the regular tuning note well tuned, but the mouthpiece is barely hanging onto the end of the neck cork.



Play the instrument and you will see that when you get to the short end of the tube, the palm key notes are... flat!  The mouthpiece is too long, though the volume is correct.



I've been through this process in experimenting with bass sax, soprano sax, and tenor sax mouthpieces, noting tuning tendencies.  I had even constructed a soprano sax mouthpiece with removable inserts of various length (inserted into the bore, shoved up to the throat area) to change volume and length relationship.  I still have that mouthpiece around somewhere, but in the end I glued in the best insert.



If anyone would like to experiment with this, I suggest getting 3 Runyon Model 22 alto or tenor mouthpieces.  I can get a basic unmarked but faced mouthpiece for you quite cheaply.  Leave one unmodified.  Fill in the baffle, chamber, and throat on one.  Hog out the other one with your Dremel tool.  Check the results for yourself.



In the end, like Goldilocks, the mouthpiece must be neither too hot, nor too cold, nor too hard, nor too soft... it must be "just right".



Paul




 

      

    
    
	
	 
	
	








	


	
	


      

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
>
> Paul, 
> 
> You ought to have something interesting to say about all this.  We've retraced your steps...and maybe gone a little further as far as inserts go.
> 
> MM

Well, you've quoted what I had said about all this.  (I left it below)

What I posted (below) is exactly what happens with, for example, the big chambered Links.  

So, why are some old saxes better in tune with mouthpieces that just don't work well with modern saxes, and vise versa?  

Well, for one, there is only a limited portion (D1/D2 up to C#2/C#3) that is played in two registers.  From C#1 on down to Bb1, that portion is only played in the low register, and in fact, the bore/tone holes are optimized for that range.

On the top end, from the D3 palm key on up, that range is only played in the upper register, and the tone hole placement is optimized for those notes.

If the apex end of the cone were to be cut at a slightly different point, and a different size/chamber volume mouthpiece were required, the instrument would have to be made to work well with that arrangment.

OK, so the palm key notes can be set up to work correctly with a range of mouthpieces, apex missing volumes, etc.

The note that can't is the pesky open C#.  So this is the one to focus on.  Find the mouthpiece volume/chamber length that (a) plays the C2 tuning note (concert Bb for tenor, concert Eb for alto/bari)... yes, I said concert Eb for alto/bari.  I did not misspeak.  Find the mouthpiece volume that plays in tune AND plays C#2/C#3 with no flatness of C#2, and no sharpness of C#3.

If you chose to modifiy the present mouthpiece, rather than experiment with different mouthpieces, then you must adjust the length of the chamber at the throat. 

If you chose to adjust the mouthpiece to be optimum for your instrument:

If the C#2 is flat, C#3 is sharp, then you must make a "tuning ring" to place in the bore and shove up just behind the throat.  You will find that you have to pull out slighly now, to tune to the tuning note.  This change has the effect of making the mouthpiece longer, while maintaining volume the same.

If instead you find that the C#2 is sharp, or the C#3 is flat (more likely), then you must drill, from the bore end, the back of the throat, in effect lengthening the bore.  This change has the effect of making the mouthpiece shorter, while maintaining volume the same.

Now, how do I fix Links?  First, I fill in the hollowed out sidewalls with epoxy putty, smooth it and let it harden.  This continues back to about 1/8" past the back of the window. I can't say throat because the Link does not have a throat. But where the throat would be on any other mouthpiece.  But that is not enough.

Beginning about 3/8" back (about 1 cm) from the tip, I add material to the roof of the chamber back to just past the window.  It begins very thin toward the tip, and is about 1/8" thick (3.5 mm) on the bore end.  

The mouthpiece then plays better in tune, has a more focused tone, less "tubby" sounding.  And it is no longer a Link, but my customers are happy with the way it plays.

Paul


Paul Coats wrote: 

> --- On Wed, 7/1/09, tenorman1952 <tenorman1952@...> wrote:
> 
> From: tenorman1952 <tenorman1952@...>
             
> 
> Have any of you actually done this?  Constructed mouthpieces with short, fat chambers vs long tapered chambers?
> 
> I have.  This is what happens.  
> 
> Start with a mouthpiece that plays well in tune, the palm keys play in tune relative to the rest of the instrument, etc.  Such a mouthpiece would have a "medium" chamber... and this would be regardless of baffle, etc.  
> 
> Use a bit close to the "bore" size and go in from the shank or butt end, and extend the bore into the chamber area.  Let me say here, any bore exposed past the end of the neck is part of chamber volume.
> 
> Now get out the Dremel tool and start carving away sidewalls, and grinding away what you can reach from the window.
> 
> What you end up with is something similar to the old Buescher, Conn, Caravan, Rasher, etc mouthpiece type.  
> 
> No matter how much material you remove, in order to tune up with the usual tuning notes, you have to push the mouthpiece onto the cork (now very far onto the cork) so that the volume past the end of the neck is equal to the missing conical section.  
> 
> Play the mouthpiece.. . what happens?  It is reasonably in tune over most of the range, but when you begin to play on the short end of the tube, the palm key notes, it is very sharp.  The mouthpiece is now too short, though the volume is correct.  
> 
> It seems that the low register, with the way the nodes and antinodes lie, it tunes by mouthpiece volume.
> 
> But the upper register tunes by length, too.
> 
> OK, let's go the opposite way... let's get out the putty and start filling in, making a long narrow "pea shooter" mouthpiece.  Put it on the cork and tune up.  Now you have to pull out, to gain volume inside, so that once again the volume past the end of the neck is equal to the missing conical section.  You have the regular tuning note well tuned, but the mouthpiece is barely hanging onto the end of the neck cork.
> 
> Play the instrument and you will see that when you get to the short end of the tube, the palm key notes are... flat!  The mouthpiece is too long, though the volume is correct.
> 
> I've been through this process in experimenting with bass sax, soprano sax, and tenor sax mouthpieces, noting tuning tendencies.  I had even constructed a soprano sax mouthpiece with removable inserts of various length (inserted into the bore, shoved up to the throat area) to change volume and length relationship.  I still have that mouthpiece around somewhere, but in the end I glued in the best insert.
> 
> If anyone would like to experiment with this, I suggest getting 3 Runyon Model 22 alto or tenor mouthpieces.  I can get a basic unmarked but faced mouthpiece for you quite cheaply.  Leave one unmodified.  Fill in the baffle, chamber, and throat on one.  Hog out the other one with your Dremel tool.  Check the results for yourself.
> 
> In the end, like Goldilocks, the mouthpiece must be neither too hot, nor too cold, nor too hard, nor too soft... it must be "just right".
> 
> Paul
>

Thanks.  Yes, the saxophone is based upon a cone that produces the D scale - D1 to C#2, the second octave obtained from the same tone holes by overblowing the first.  The notes above and below are just added on, each with it 's own dedicated tone hole.  The lucky notes.

Very interesting and helpful - focusing on the C# as the point of reference for adjustments. 

"If instead you find that the C#2 is sharp, or the C#3 is flat (more
likely), then you must drill, from the bore end, the back of the
throat, in effect lengthening the bore. This change has the effect of
making the mouthpiece shorter, while maintaining volume the same."

In other words:  You are making the chamber volume larger. You push in more so that the neck displaces the amount of volume you just added, so the mouthpiece is effectively shorter and the volume remains the same.


--- On Mon, 8/10/09, tenorman1952 <tenorman1952@...> wrote:

From: tenorman1952 <tenorman1952@...>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Mouthpiece acoustics / More On Missing Cone Volume
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, August 10, 2009, 1:56 PM






 




    
                  --- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ ...> wrote:

>

> Paul, 

> 

> You ought to have something interesting to say about all this.  We've retraced your steps...and maybe gone a little further as far as inserts go.

> 

> MM



Well, you've quoted what I had said about all this.  (I left it below)



What I posted (below) is exactly what happens with, for example, the big chambered Links.  



So, why are some old saxes better in tune with mouthpieces that just don't work well with modern saxes, and vise versa?  



Well, for one, there is only a limited portion (D1/D2 up to C#2/C#3) that is played in two registers.  From C#1 on down to Bb1, that portion is only played in the low register, and in fact, the bore/tone holes are optimized for that range.



On the top end, from the D3 palm key on up, that range is only played in the upper register, and the tone hole placement is optimized for those notes.



If the apex end of the cone were to be cut at a slightly different point, and a different size/chamber volume mouthpiece were required, the instrument would have to be made to work well with that arrangment.



OK, so the palm key notes can be set up to work correctly with a range of mouthpieces, apex missing volumes, etc.



The note that can't is the pesky open C#.  So this is the one to focus on.  Find the mouthpiece volume/chamber length that (a) plays the C2 tuning note (concert Bb for tenor, concert Eb for alto/bari).. . yes, I said concert Eb for alto/bari.  I did not misspeak.  Find the mouthpiece volume that plays in tune AND plays C#2/C#3 with no flatness of C#2, and no sharpness of C#3.



If you chose to modifiy the present mouthpiece, rather than experiment with different mouthpieces, then you must adjust the length of the chamber at the throat. 



If you chose to adjust the mouthpiece to be optimum for your instrument:



If the C#2 is flat, C#3 is sharp, then you must make a "tuning ring" to place in the bore and shove up just behind the throat.  You will find that you have to pull out slighly now, to tune to the tuning note.  This change has the effect of making the mouthpiece longer, while maintaining volume the same.



If instead you find that the C#2 is sharp, or the C#3 is flat (more likely), then you must drill, from the bore end, the back of the throat, in effect lengthening the bore.  This change has the effect of making the mouthpiece shorter, while maintaining volume the same.



Now, how do I fix Links?  First, I fill in the hollowed out sidewalls with epoxy putty, smooth it and let it harden.  This continues back to about 1/8" past the back of the window. I can't say throat because the Link does not have a throat. But where the throat would be on any other mouthpiece.  But that is not enough.



Beginning about 3/8" back (about 1 cm) from the tip, I add material to the roof of the chamber back to just past the window.  It begins very thin toward the tip, and is about 1/8" thick (3.5 mm) on the bore end.  



The mouthpiece then plays better in tune, has a more focused tone, less "tubby" sounding.  And it is no longer a Link, but my customers are happy with the way it plays.



Paul



Paul Coats wrote: 



> --- On Wed, 7/1/09, tenorman1952 <tenorman1952@ ...> wrote:

> 

> From: tenorman1952 <tenorman1952@ ...>

             

> 

> Have any of you actually done this?  Constructed mouthpieces with short, fat chambers vs long tapered chambers?

> 

> I have.  This is what happens.  

> 

> Start with a mouthpiece that plays well in tune, the palm keys play in tune relative to the rest of the instrument, etc.  Such a mouthpiece would have a "medium" chamber... and this would be regardless of baffle, etc.  

> 

> Use a bit close to the "bore" size and go in from the shank or butt end, and extend the bore into the chamber area.  Let me say here, any bore exposed past the end of the neck is part of chamber volume.

> 

> Now get out the Dremel tool and start carving away sidewalls, and grinding away what you can reach from the window.

> 

> What you end up with is something similar to the old Buescher, Conn, Caravan, Rasher, etc mouthpiece type.  

> 

> No matter how much material you remove, in order to tune up with the usual tuning notes, you have to push the mouthpiece onto the cork (now very far onto the cork) so that the volume past the end of the neck is equal to the missing conical section.  

> 

> Play the mouthpiece.. . what happens?  It is reasonably in tune over most of the range, but when you begin to play on the short end of the tube, the palm key notes, it is very sharp.  The mouthpiece is now too short, though the volume is correct.  

> 

> It seems that the low register, with the way the nodes and antinodes lie, it tunes by mouthpiece volume.

> 

> But the upper register tunes by length, too.

> 

> OK, let's go the opposite way... let's get out the putty and start filling in, making a long narrow "pea shooter" mouthpiece.  Put it on the cork and tune up.  Now you have to pull out, to gain volume inside, so that once again the volume past the end of the neck is equal to the missing conical section.  You have the regular tuning note well tuned, but the mouthpiece is barely hanging onto the end of the neck cork.

> 

> Play the instrument and you will see that when you get to the short end of the tube, the palm key notes are... flat!  The mouthpiece is too long, though the volume is correct.

> 

> I've been through this process in experimenting with bass sax, soprano sax, and tenor sax mouthpieces, noting tuning tendencies.  I had even constructed a soprano sax mouthpiece with removable inserts of various length (inserted into the bore, shoved up to the throat area) to change volume and length relationship.  I still have that mouthpiece around somewhere, but in the end I glued in the best insert.

> 

> If anyone would like to experiment with this, I suggest getting 3 Runyon Model 22 alto or tenor mouthpieces.  I can get a basic unmarked but faced mouthpiece for you quite cheaply.  Leave one unmodified.  Fill in the baffle, chamber, and throat on one.  Hog out the other one with your Dremel tool.  Check the results for yourself.

> 

> In the end, like Goldilocks, the mouthpiece must be neither too hot, nor too cold, nor too hard, nor too soft... it must be "just right".

> 

> Paul

>




 

      

    
    
	
	 
	
	








	


	
	


      

This looks like a good way to prototype mouthpieces:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/14/arts/design/makerbot-is-a-new-3-d-printer.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha26

Barry

I looked into that one a few months ago.  I'm skeptical about the accuracy possible in such a flimsy machine, and didn't see enough technical specs about it or the plastics they sell for it either.  

Still, I have found 3d printing pretty efficient for prototyping.  Machines suitable for real work are still 5 figures but there are several companies that will print things for you.  I couldn't get anything that looks good enough for cheap enough for production, but for prototyping it has saved me a lot of CAM programming and machine time.


--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "Barry Levine" <barrylevine@...> wrote:
>
> This looks like a good way to prototype mouthpieces:
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/14/arts/design/makerbot-is-a-new-3-d-printer.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha26
> 
> Barry
>