I'm trying to understand what Silverio was saying in his post. I think it is a response to a question about removing file marks in the baffle area. Can someone clarify what he is doing in his procedure.  thanks   

This html message parsed with html2text ---------------------------Adding material to the tip rails by roughing them up and dripping CA adhesive
along the rails, in order to close up an overly large tip opening (if I read
it correctly).  
  
DT  
  
John Price wrote:

> I'm trying to understand what Silverio was saying in his post. I think it is
> a response to a question about removing file marks in the baffle area. Can
> someone clarify what he is doing in his procedure. thanks  
>  
>

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "John Price" <john_w_price33@...> wrote:
>
> I'm trying to understand what Silverio was saying in his post. I think it is a response to a question about removing file marks in the baffle area. Can someone clarify what he is doing in his procedure.  thanks
>


I thought Silverio's post was very descriptive, and well done considering the difficulty of translating difficult technical terms and procedures.

Yes, he was suggesting roughening the rails, applying an adhesive such as CA or epoxy, setting the mouthpiece face down on I think, poly film ("Saran Wrap" or similar?) until it hardens, then reshaping with a file, and refacing to a smaller size.

Paul

Hi folks,

This is a bit of a dicey issue, but here is the deal:

I was looking for a good chromatic tuner for the PC and
ran across an older app called G-Tune. I find it really
great, as it has many features which are useful, including
a spectrograph, an oscilloscope and needle ballistic
settings, which are very valuable for getting the average
tuning of a note. Lots of other good things too. A very
nice piece of work

It was shareware, at a very reasonable price, but it is
now discontinued and one is not able to register it. I
looked around and found a keygen for it which is clean and
works fine. I would be happy to have paid for it, but at
this point I feel that it is not too sinful to use the
keygen, as there is no other way to get it to work.

Is anyone interested in this? I could upload it to a
file-sharing site for download.

OTOH if this is illegal, immoral and/or unethical forget I
ever posted this message...

Toby

Here is a tuner, a tone generator and a specrum analyzer for your PC for free. I may have got the listing off this site. They work fine with Win XP.

http://www.techmind.org/audio/#mustun



 --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
>
> 
> Hi folks,
> 
> This is a bit of a dicey issue, but here is the deal:
> 
> I was looking for a good chromatic tuner for the PC and
> ran across an older app called G-Tune. I find it really
> great, as it has many features which are useful, including
> a spectrograph, an oscilloscope and needle ballistic
> settings, which are very valuable for getting the average
> tuning of a note. Lots of other good things too. A very
> nice piece of work
> 
> It was shareware, at a very reasonable price, but it is
> now discontinued and one is not able to register it. I
> looked around and found a keygen for it which is clean and
> works fine. I would be happy to have paid for it, but at
> this point I feel that it is not too sinful to use the
> keygen, as there is no other way to get it to work.
> 
> Is anyone interested in this? I could upload it to a
> file-sharing site for download.
> 
> OTOH if this is illegal, immoral and/or unethical forget I
> ever posted this message...
> 
> Toby
>

Thanks for the link. I do think that the tuner on G-tune is much better for a number of reasons.

Toby

fidlershorns <grassinospam@...> wrote:                                           

              Here is a tuner, a tone generator and a specrum analyzer for your PC for free. I may have got the listing off this site. They work fine with Win XP.
 
 http://www.techmind.org/audio/#mustun
 
 --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
 >
 > 
 > Hi folks,
 > 
 > This is a bit of a dicey issue, but here is the deal:
 > 
 > I was looking for a good chromatic tuner for the PC and
 > ran across an older app called G-Tune. I find it really
 > great, as it has many features which are useful, including
 > a spectrograph, an oscilloscope and needle ballistic
 > settings, which are very valuable for getting the average
 > tuning of a note. Lots of other good things too. A very
 > nice piece of work
 > 
 > It was shareware, at a very reasonable price, but it is
 > now discontinued and one is not able to register it. I
 > looked around and found a keygen for it which is clean and
 > works fine. I would be happy to have paid for it, but at
 > this point I feel that it is not too sinful to use the
 > keygen, as there is no other way to get it to work.
 > 
 > Is anyone interested in this? I could upload it to a
 > file-sharing site for download.
 > 
 > OTOH if this is illegal, immoral and/or unethical forget I
 > ever posted this message...
 > 
 > Toby
 >
 
 
        
             
                          
 

Thanks for the link. I do think that the tuner on G-tune is much better for a number of reasons.

Toby

fidlershorns <grassinospam@...> wrote:                                           

              Here is a tuner, a tone generator and a specrum analyzer for your PC for free. I may have got the listing off this site. They work fine with Win XP.
 
 http://www.techmind.org/audio/#mustun
 
 --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
 >
 > 
 > Hi folks,
 > 
 > This is a bit of a dicey issue, but here is the deal:
 > 
 > I was looking for a good chromatic tuner for the PC and
 > ran across an older app called G-Tune. I find it really
 > great, as it has many features which are useful, including
 > a spectrograph, an oscilloscope and needle ballistic
 > settings, which are very valuable for getting the average
 > tuning of a note. Lots of other good things too. A very
 > nice piece of work
 > 
 > It was shareware, at a very reasonable price, but it is
 > now discontinued and one is not able to register it. I
 > looked around and found a keygen for it which is clean and
 > works fine. I would be happy to have paid for it, but at
 > this point I feel that it is not too sinful to use the
 > keygen, as there is no other way to get it to work.
 > 
 > Is anyone interested in this? I could upload it to a
 > file-sharing site for download.
 > 
 > OTOH if this is illegal, immoral and/or unethical forget I
 > ever posted this message...
 > 
 > Toby
 >
 
 
        
             
                          
 

From the  Gtune Manual

"GVST plug-ins are freeware, meaning you are never under any obligation to pay for
them! However, should you wish to help support continued development of GVST
software, please consider donating through the official website."

If you like it, it looks like you are free to use it.
http://www.gvst.co.uk/gtune.htm


--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the link. I do think that the tuner on G-tune is much better for a number of reasons.
> 
> Toby
> 
> fidlershorns <grassinospam@...> wrote:                                           
> 
>               Here is a tuner, a tone generator and a specrum analyzer for your PC for free. I may have got the listing off this site. They work fine with Win XP.
>  
>  http://www.techmind.org/audio/#mustun
>  
>  --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@> wrote:
>  >
>  > 
>  > Hi folks,
>  > 
>  > This is a bit of a dicey issue, but here is the deal:
>  > 
>  > I was looking for a good chromatic tuner for the PC and
>  > ran across an older app called G-Tune. I find it really
>  > great, as it has many features which are useful, including
>  > a spectrograph, an oscilloscope and needle ballistic
>  > settings, which are very valuable for getting the average
>  > tuning of a note. Lots of other good things too. A very
>  > nice piece of work
>  > 
>  > It was shareware, at a very reasonable price, but it is
>  > now discontinued and one is not able to register it. I
>  > looked around and found a keygen for it which is clean and
>  > works fine. I would be happy to have paid for it, but at
>  > this point I feel that it is not too sinful to use the
>  > keygen, as there is no other way to get it to work.
>  > 
>  > Is anyone interested in this? I could upload it to a
>  > file-sharing site for download.
>  > 
>  > OTOH if this is illegal, immoral and/or unethical forget I
>  > ever posted this message...
>  > 
>  > Toby
>  >
>

I am talking about G-Tune 2.50. This Gtune is a different animal (albeit with the same name)

Toby

fidlershorns <grassinospam@...> wrote:                                           

              
 
 From the  Gtune Manual
 
 "GVST plug-ins are freeware, meaning you are never under any obligation to pay for
 them! However, should you wish to help support continued development of GVST
 software, please consider donating through the official website."
 
 If you like it, it looks like you are free to use it.
 http://www.gvst.co.uk/gtune.htm
 
 --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
 >
 > Thanks for the link. I do think that the tuner on G-tune is much better for a number of reasons.
 > 
 > Toby
 > 
 > fidlershorns <grassinospam@...> wrote:                                           
 > 
 >               Here is a tuner, a tone generator and a specrum analyzer for your PC for free. I may have got the listing off this site. They work fine with Win XP.
 >  
 >  http://www.techmind.org/audio/#mustun
 >  
 >  --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@> wrote:
 >  >
 >  > 
 >  > Hi folks,
 >  > 
 >  > This is a bit of a dicey issue, but here is the deal:
 >  > 
 >  > I was looking for a good chromatic tuner for the PC and
 >  > ran across an older app called G-Tune. I find it really
 >  > great, as it has many features which are useful, including
 >  > a spectrograph, an oscilloscope and needle ballistic
 >  > settings, which are very valuable for getting the average
 >  > tuning of a note. Lots of other good things too. A very
 >  > nice piece of work
 >  > 
 >  > It was shareware, at a very reasonable price, but it is
 >  > now discontinued and one is not able to register it. I
 >  > looked around and found a keygen for it which is clean and
 >  > works fine. I would be happy to have paid for it, but at
 >  > this point I feel that it is not too sinful to use the
 >  > keygen, as there is no other way to get it to work.
 >  > 
 >  > Is anyone interested in this? I could upload it to a
 >  > file-sharing site for download.
 >  > 
 >  > OTOH if this is illegal, immoral and/or unethical forget I
 >  > ever posted this message...
 >  > 
 >  > Toby
 >  >
 >
 
 
        
             
                          
 

This html message parsed with html2text ---------------------------I have been using G-Tune 2.50 for a while now. It works great in "evaluation
mode" without registering it but only for a few minutes, then you need to
restart and reset the configuration. I too wanted to register but found I no
longer could. What is the link for the keygen? I poked around and could not
find one. I don't generally condone piracy but like you say...  
\\-- Dave  
  
[kymarto123@...](mailto:kymarto123@...) wrote:

> I am talking about G-Tune 2.50. This Gtune is a different animal (albeit
> with the same name)  
>  
>  Toby  
>  
>  **fidlershorns gmail.com>** wrote:
>

>>  
>  
>  From the Gtune Manual  
>  
>  "GVST plug-ins are freeware, meaning you are never under any obligation to
> pay for  
>  them! However, should you wish to help support continued development of
> GVST  
>  software, please consider donating through the official website."  
>  
>  If you like it, it looks like you are free to use it.  
>  [http://www.gvst.co.uk/gtune.htm](http://www.gvst.co.uk/gtune.htm)  
>  
>  \\--- In
> [MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com](mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com),
> ...> wrote:  
>  >  
>  > Thanks for the link. I do think that the tuner on G-tune is much better
> for a number of reasons.  
>  >  
>  > Toby  
>  >  
>  > fidlershorns ...> wrote:  
>  >  
>  > Here is a tuner, a tone generator and a specrum analyzer for your PC for
> free. I may have got the listing off this site. They work fine with Win XP.  
>  >  
>  >
> [http://www.techmind.org/audio/#mustun](http://www.techmind.org/audio/#mustun)  
>  >  
>  > \\--- In
> [MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com](mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com), >
> wrote:  
>  > >  
>  > >  
>  > > Hi folks,  
>  > >  
>  > > This is a bit of a dicey issue, but here is the deal:  
>  > >  
>  > > I was looking for a good chromatic tuner for the PC and  
>  > > ran across an older app called G-Tune. I find it really  
>  > > great, as it has many features which are useful, including  
>  > > a spectrograph, an oscilloscope and needle ballistic  
>  > > settings, which are very valuable for getting the average  
>  > > tuning of a note. Lots of other good things too. A very  
>  > > nice piece of work  
>  > >  
>  > > It was shareware, at a very reasonable price, but it is  
>  > > now discontinued and one is not able to register it. I  
>  > > looked around and found a keygen for it which is clean and  
>  > > works fine. I would be happy to have paid for it, but at  
>  > > this point I feel that it is not too sinful to use the  
>  > > keygen, as there is no other way to get it to work.  
>  > >  
>  > > Is anyone interested in this? I could upload it to a  
>  > > file-sharing site for download.  
>  > >  
>  > > OTOH if this is illegal, immoral and/or unethical forget I  
>  > > ever posted this message...  
>  > >  
>  > > Toby  
>  > >  
>  >  
>  
>
>
>  
>

  

For those of you looking for a chromatic tuner for your iPhone the Peterson tuner is 10 bucks and it is well worth looking at. Don't know if it works on the computer to. Available at the iTunes store or on your iPhone under applications. It gives you the fundamental and 4 sets of overtones.
Mike Vaccaro



 

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "tenorman1952" <tenorman1952@...> wrote:
>
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "John Price" <john_w_price33@> wrote:
> >
> > I'm trying to understand what Silverio was saying in his post. I think it is a response to a question about removing file marks in the baffle area. Can someone clarify what he is doing in his procedure.  thanks
> >
> 
> 
> I thought Silverio's post was very descriptive, and well done considering the difficulty of translating difficult technical terms and procedures.
> 
> Yes, he was suggesting roughening the rails, applying an adhesive such as CA or epoxy, setting the mouthpiece face down on I think, poly film ("Saran Wrap" or similar?) until it hardens, then reshaping with a file, and refacing to a smaller size.
> 
> Paul
>
Hi, Yes his post was good.  I had not heard of this procedure before and wasn't looking to close any opening as I wasn't concerned about the opening on the mouthpiece in question.  I would be interested in knowing the state of refacing in South America.   What are the techniques and what equipment they use. Perhaps Silverio will respond if he reads this.   All the best.  

Hi alls, before now i was tell to John about my "horrible English language! sorry please.

No estimated John, my indications not talk about removing file marks in the baffle area. I was refered about the good traslation and interpretation of Paul, that's correct. 

This solution in the very open tip mouthpiece, save have that scratch or rasp the table to obtain down the tip in relation of straight line of complete table. Expect that you can be understood!!

I presume that this handwork in South America are in the same situation that worldwide level. For the little money personal situation of the mayority Argentine people here sell clone of relevants mouthpieces, facsimiles that i don't to do; but i know that's happen and not only in my country don't you?

I have my proper system of calibration and gauges are tested to succes and errors.

Finally, i believe yet in the intuition, attribute that to facilitate together with all theorical conceptual to advance and to progress to the humanity. But not be able omit that all that the humanity to do are absolutely apply to the same. The person, the people is the referent or referable. The technology is OK when not omit that we are a part of nature.

Each human denture, tongue, lip, buccal cavity, aero-phonology capability, adaptation capability, talent own, etc., is so important as the best mouthpiece and your tip aperture, facing rails, baffle features, chamber magnitude, bore, etc., and have to coincide.

Those coincidences are that i procure, without major complexity.

Fraternally yours

Silverio


--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "John Price" <john_w_price33@...> wrote:
>
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "tenorman1952" <tenorman1952@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "John Price" <john_w_price33@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm trying to understand what Silverio was saying in his post. I think it is a response to a question about removing file marks in the baffle area. Can someone clarify what he is doing in his procedure.  thanks
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > I thought Silverio's post was very descriptive, and well done considering the difficulty of translating difficult technical terms and procedures.
> > 
> > Yes, he was suggesting roughening the rails, applying an adhesive such as CA or epoxy, setting the mouthpiece face down on I think, poly film ("Saran Wrap" or similar?) until it hardens, then reshaping with a file, and refacing to a smaller size.
> > 
> > Paul
> >
> Hi, Yes his post was good.  I had not heard of this procedure before and wasn't looking to close any opening as I wasn't concerned about the opening on the mouthpiece in question.  I would be interested in knowing the state of refacing in South America.   What are the techniques and what equipment they use. Perhaps Silverio will respond if he reads this.   All the best.
>

-Hi Silverio,  It is interesting how unique we are.  Even when testing mouthpieces we have to use our own skills and our own embouchure.  I recently experimented with some teeth guards that would help my sharp bottom teeth when playing the clarinet.  The material was too thick but more interesting was what it did to my sound.  It totally changed my control of tone on the clarinet. A little change of mm or two made a drastic change ...I really couldn't test any mouthpiece with this guard in my mouth.    Also on this subject I was dealing with Ranier Lafin,  he is one the premier flute headjoint makers in the world.  He admits he doesn't make headjoints unless he is in playing shape.  With flute headjoints it might even be harder to measure and get objective measurements than with clarinet mouthpieces.    -- In 
MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "silpopaar" <silpopaar@...> wrote:
>
> Hi alls, before now i was tell to John about my "horrible English language! sorry please.
> 
> No estimated John, my indications not talk about removing file marks in the baffle area. I was refered about the good traslation and interpretation of Paul, that's correct. 
> 
> This solution in the very open tip mouthpiece, save have that scratch or rasp the table to obtain down the tip in relation of straight line of complete table. Expect that you can be understood!!
> 
> I presume that this handwork in South America are in the same situation that worldwide level. For the little money personal situation of the mayority Argentine people here sell clone of relevants mouthpieces, facsimiles that i don't to do; but i know that's happen and not only in my country don't you?
> 
> I have my proper system of calibration and gauges are tested to succes and errors.
> 
> Finally, i believe yet in the intuition, attribute that to facilitate together with all theorical conceptual to advance and to progress to the humanity. But not be able omit that all that the humanity to do are absolutely apply to the same. The person, the people is the referent or referable. The technology is OK when not omit that we are a part of nature.
> 
> Each human denture, tongue, lip, buccal cavity, aero-phonology capability, adaptation capability, talent own, etc., is so important as the best mouthpiece and your tip aperture, facing rails, baffle features, chamber magnitude, bore, etc., and have to coincide.
> 
> Those coincidences are that i procure, without major complexity.
> 
> Fraternally yours
> 
> Silverio
> 
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "John Price" <john_w_price33@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In MouthpieceWork@...m, "tenorman1952" <tenorman1952@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "John Price" <john_w_price33@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I'm trying to understand what Silverio was saying in his post. I think it is a response to a question about removing file marks in the baffle area. Can someone clarify what he is doing in his procedure.  thanks
> > > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > > I thought Silverio's post was very descriptive, and well done considering the difficulty of translating difficult technical terms and procedures.
> > > 
> > > Yes, he was suggesting roughening the rails, applying an adhesive such as CA or epoxy, setting the mouthpiece face down on I think, poly film ("Saran Wrap" or similar?) until it hardens, then reshaping with a file, and refacing to a smaller size.
> > > 
> > > Paul
> > >
> > Hi, Yes his post was good.  I had not heard of this procedure before and wasn't looking to close any opening as I wasn't concerned about the opening on the mouthpiece in question.  I would be interested in knowing the state of refacing in South America.   What are the techniques and what equipment they use. Perhaps Silverio will respond if he reads this.   All the best.
> >
>
Hi Silverio, 

It's Right John. I have play friends that your embouchure is as horrible the same as my english language jajaja!!!! Well, the mine embouchure also that jeje The reason, the lower denture. Commonly this part of the mouth, for aged person, as me, (63 y.o.) isn't conditions for good pressure under the lip, is deficient or injure or hurt the lip. Is impossible play well and outcome fault performance.
 
The teeth guard, if are very well hand-made is irreplaceable for us. This problem is so important for me that i have postponing to do unipersonal shows and group together for this reason. The problem is that the local dentist not know our situation despite i explain him. Solely know the nocturnal denture bruxim protection and this not it's the same for me. I believe than my solution is in the NBA's dentist jajaja!!!

know you how i can make one hipoallergenic teeth guard. Fundamentally the material to use? Reality, it is an matcher of low denture, especially of the frontally denture, well polished and rounded. I have some idea, but not encounter one material sufficiently malleable.

Respect flute i just now starting learn all of this noble instrument,
just as the trumpet and horns. The woodwinds have us very applied only on these and the costumer need always more services.
Fraternally...Silverio
 


--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "John Price" <john_w_price33@...> wrote:
>
> -Hi Silverio,  It is interesting how unique we are.  Even when testing mouthpieces we have to use our own skills and our own embouchure.  I recently experimented with some teeth guards that would help my sharp bottom teeth when playing the clarinet.  The material was too thick but more interesting was what it did to my sound.  It totally changed my control of tone on the clarinet. A little change of mm or two made a drastic change ...I really couldn't test any mouthpiece with this guard in my mouth.    Also on this subject I was dealing with Ranier Lafin,  he is one the premier flute headjoint makers in the world.  He admits he doesn't make headjoints unless he is in playing shape.  With flute headjoints it might even be harder to measure and get objective measurements than with clarinet mouthpieces.    -- In 

> MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "silpopaar" <silpopaar@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi alls, before now i was tell to John about my "horrible English language! sorry please.
> > 
> > No estimated John, my indications not talk about removing file marks in the baffle area. I was refered about the good traslation and interpretation of Paul, that's correct. 
> > 
> > This solution in the very open tip mouthpiece, save have that scratch or rasp the table to obtain down the tip in relation of straight line of complete table. Expect that you can be understood!!
> > 
> > I presume that this handwork in South America are in the same situation that worldwide level. For the little money personal situation of the mayority Argentine people here sell clone of relevants mouthpieces, facsimiles that i don't to do; but i know that's happen and not only in my country don't you?
> > 
> > I have my proper system of calibration and gauges are tested to succes and errors.
> > 
> > Finally, i believe yet in the intuition, attribute that to facilitate together with all theorical conceptual to advance and to progress to the humanity. But not be able omit that all that the humanity to do are absolutely apply to the same. The person, the people is the referent or referable. The technology is OK when not omit that we are a part of nature.
> > 
> > Each human denture, tongue, lip, buccal cavity, aero-phonology capability, adaptation capability, talent own, etc., is so important as the best mouthpiece and your tip aperture, facing rails, baffle features, chamber magnitude, bore, etc., and have to coincide.
> > 
> > Those coincidences are that i procure, without major complexity.
> > 
> > Fraternally yours
> > 
> > Silverio
> > 
> > 
> > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "John Price" <john_w_price33@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "tenorman1952" <tenorman1952@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "John Price" <john_w_price33@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm trying to understand what Silverio was saying in his post. I think it is a response to a question about removing file marks in the baffle area. Can someone clarify what he is doing in his procedure.  thanks
> > > > >
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > I thought Silverio's post was very descriptive, and well done considering the difficulty of translating difficult technical terms and procedures.
> > > > 
> > > > Yes, he was suggesting roughening the rails, applying an adhesive such as CA or epoxy, setting the mouthpiece face down on I think, poly film ("Saran Wrap" or similar?) until it hardens, then reshaping with a file, and refacing to a smaller size.
> > > > 
> > > > Paul
> > > >
> > > Hi, Yes his post was good.  I had not heard of this procedure before and wasn't looking to close any opening as I wasn't concerned about the opening on the mouthpiece in question.  I would be interested in knowing the state of refacing in South America.   What are the techniques and what equipment they use. Perhaps Silverio will respond if he reads this.   All the best.
> > >
> >
> Hi Silverio,
>

The G-tune site says
"Following the success of G-tune, we have recently partnered with Peterson Electro-Musical Products (the oldest tuner manufacturer in the world) to co-develop the finest software tuners available. StroboSoft is the first product that we've produced. If you like G-tune, you'll love StroboSoft."

Has anyone tried it?
Thanks!


--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
>
> 
> Hi folks,
> 
> This is a bit of a dicey issue, but here is the deal:
> 
> I was looking for a good chromatic tuner for the PC and
> ran across an older app called G-Tune. I find it really
> great, as it has many features which are useful, including
> a spectrograph, an oscilloscope and needle ballistic
> settings, which are very valuable for getting the average
> tuning of a note. Lots of other good things too. A very
> nice piece of work
> 
> It was shareware, at a very reasonable price, but it is
> now discontinued and one is not able to register it. I
> looked around and found a keygen for it which is clean and
> works fine. I would be happy to have paid for it, but at
> this point I feel that it is not too sinful to use the
> keygen, as there is no other way to get it to work.
> 
> Is anyone interested in this? I could upload it to a
> file-sharing site for download.
> 
> OTOH if this is illegal, immoral and/or unethical forget I
> ever posted this message...
> 
> Toby
>

I bought it 2 years ago.  It is very, very good.

--- On Fri, 9/4/09, fidlershorns <grassinospam@...> wrote:

From: fidlershorns <grassinospam@...>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: G-Tune PC tuner
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, September 4, 2009, 3:33 PM






 




    
                  The G-tune site says

"Following the success of G-tune, we have recently partnered with Peterson Electro-Musical Products (the oldest tuner manufacturer in the world) to co-develop the finest software tuners available. StroboSoft is the first product that we've produced. If you like G-tune, you'll love StroboSoft."



Has anyone tried it?

Thanks!



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

>

> 

> Hi folks,

> 

> This is a bit of a dicey issue, but here is the deal:

> 

> I was looking for a good chromatic tuner for the PC and

> ran across an older app called G-Tune. I find it really

> great, as it has many features which are useful, including

> a spectrograph, an oscilloscope and needle ballistic

> settings, which are very valuable for getting the average

> tuning of a note. Lots of other good things too. A very

> nice piece of work

> 

> It was shareware, at a very reasonable price, but it is

> now discontinued and one is not able to register it. I

> looked around and found a keygen for it which is clean and

> works fine. I would be happy to have paid for it, but at

> this point I feel that it is not too sinful to use the

> keygen, as there is no other way to get it to work.

> 

> Is anyone interested in this? I could upload it to a

> file-sharing site for download.

> 

> OTOH if this is illegal, immoral and/or unethical forget I

> ever posted this message...

> 

> Toby

>




 

      

    
    
	
	 
	
	








	


	
	


      

(Sorry to start a new thread, can't find the last email on this)

Very different sounds - although surely the miking also made a difference

The best sounding (to me) was on that white plastic piece - a Brilhartz
Tonalin was it? Ballsy, juicy, thick. What a kick-ass solo.

Of course, if Don was also selling his own mouthpieces, there's no telling
what was *inside* that white mouthpiece - did his own pieces have raised
baffles?

The shaved-headed Menza on what looks like a Link seems to be working more
to control the piece. I think he's going for a smoother sound though, to
match the style of musical piece. And there's a little clip towards the end
where he riffs briefly on yet another mouthpiece - hard rubber with a
standard lig is all I can tell - sound is closer to the white Bril, and he
sounds more facile

Last clip sounds like a small-chamber high baffle piece, with a cutting
quality.

See if you can find some audio of Mike Brecker in the band "Dreams" from the 70's.  He's Bad on a Link.  Then compare that to anything from "The Brecker Brothers" band (Dukoff), and then those to any later material where he was using the MB Guardalla.

--- On Sat, 9/5/09, Barry Levine <barrylevine@...> wrote:

From: Barry Levine <barrylevine@norwoodlight.com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Don Menza Youtube clips
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, September 5, 2009, 5:01 PM






 




    
                  (Sorry to start a new thread, can't find the last email on this)



Very different sounds - although surely the miking also made a difference



The best sounding (to me) was on that white plastic piece - a Brilhartz

Tonalin was it? Ballsy, juicy, thick. What a kick-ass solo.



Of course, if Don was also selling his own mouthpieces, there's no telling

what was *inside* that white mouthpiece - did his own pieces have raised

baffles?



The shaved-headed Menza on what looks like a Link seems to be working more

to control the piece. I think he's going for a smoother sound though, to

match the style of musical piece. And there's a little clip towards the end

where he riffs briefly on yet another mouthpiece - hard rubber with a

standard lig is all I can tell - sound is closer to the white Bril, and he

sounds more facile



Last clip sounds like a small-chamber high baffle piece, with a cutting

quality.




 

      

    
    
	
	 
	
	








	


	
	


      

No way. I have seen Don Menza do this demo, live. And he makes them sound the same. It is really rather amazing.

The demo he did was on a Metal something (Dukoff or Guardala), a link, and some plastic student mouthpiece. 

Though last time I saw Menza he was saying he liked to get old Links and mod them to his own sound liking. I don't remember what he did to them exactly......

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Barry Levine <barrylevine@...> wrote:
>
> (Sorry to start a new thread, can't find the last email on this)
> 
> Very different sounds - although surely the miking also made a difference
> 
> The best sounding (to me) was on that white plastic piece - a Brilhartz
> Tonalin was it? Ballsy, juicy, thick. What a kick-ass solo.
> 
> Of course, if Don was also selling his own mouthpieces, there's no telling
> what was *inside* that white mouthpiece - did his own pieces have raised
> baffles?
> 
> The shaved-headed Menza on what looks like a Link seems to be working more
> to control the piece. I think he's going for a smoother sound though, to
> match the style of musical piece. And there's a little clip towards the end
> where he riffs briefly on yet another mouthpiece - hard rubber with a
> standard lig is all I can tell - sound is closer to the white Bril, and he
> sounds more facile
> 
> Last clip sounds like a small-chamber high baffle piece, with a cutting
> quality.
>

I think the audio here speaks for itself.  I definitely hear a difference between the Menza metal mouthpiece based on a Zinner blank, a Otto Link, and Brillhart.  Try the Brecker test suggested.  It's even more pronounced.  


--- On Sat, 9/5/09, ericdano <ericdano@...> wrote:

From: ericdano <ericdano@...>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Don Menza Youtube clips
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, September 5, 2009, 5:48 PM






 




    
                  No way. I have seen Don Menza do this demo, live. And he makes them sound the same. It is really rather amazing.



The demo he did was on a Metal something (Dukoff or Guardala), a link, and some plastic student mouthpiece. 



Though last time I saw Menza he was saying he liked to get old Links and mod them to his own sound liking. I don't remember what he did to them exactly..... .



--- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, Barry Levine <barrylevine@ ...> wrote:

>

> (Sorry to start a new thread, can't find the last email on this)

> 

> Very different sounds - although surely the miking also made a difference

> 

> The best sounding (to me) was on that white plastic piece - a Brilhartz

> Tonalin was it? Ballsy, juicy, thick. What a kick-ass solo.

> 

> Of course, if Don was also selling his own mouthpieces, there's no telling

> what was *inside* that white mouthpiece - did his own pieces have raised

> baffles?

> 

> The shaved-headed Menza on what looks like a Link seems to be working more

> to control the piece. I think he's going for a smoother sound though, to

> match the style of musical piece. And there's a little clip towards the end

> where he riffs briefly on yet another mouthpiece - hard rubber with a

> standard lig is all I can tell - sound is closer to the white Bril, and he

> sounds more facile

> 

> Last clip sounds like a small-chamber high baffle piece, with a cutting

> quality.

>




 

      

    
    
	
	 
	
	








	


	
	


      

We should also consider that sound differences over time probably have a lot to do with a player's change in tone concept.  The equipment just helps the player to get to his concept easier.




________________________________
From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2009 2:52:39 PM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Don Menza Youtube clips

  
I think the audio here speaks for itself.  I definitely hear a difference between the Menza metal mouthpiece based on a Zinner blank, a Otto Link, and Brillhart.  Try the Brecker test suggested.  It's even more pronounced.  


--- On Sat, 9/5/09, ericdano <ericdano@yahoo. com> wrote:


>From: ericdano <ericdano@yahoo. com>
>Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Don Menza Youtube clips
>To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
>Date: Saturday, September 5, 2009, 5:48 PM
>
>
>  
>No way. I have seen Don Menza do this demo, live. And he makes them sound the same. It is really rather amazing.
>
>The demo he did was on a Metal something (Dukoff or Guardala), a link, and some plastic student mouthpiece. 
>
>Though last time I saw Menza he was saying he liked to get old Links and mod them to his own sound liking. I don't remember what he did to them exactly..... .
>
>--- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, Barry Levine <barrylevine@ ...> wrote:
>>
>> (Sorry to start a new thread, can't find the last email on this)
>> 
>> Very different sounds - although surely the miking also made a difference
>> 
>> The best sounding (to me) was on that white plastic piece - a Brilhartz
>> Tonalin was it? Ballsy, juicy, thick. What a kick-ass solo.
>> 
>> Of course, if Don was also selling his own mouthpieces, there's no telling
>> what was *inside* that white mouthpiece - did his own pieces have raised
>> baffles?
>> 
>> The shaved-headed Menza on what looks like a Link seems to be working more
>> to control the piece. I think he's going for a smoother sound though, to
>> match the style of musical piece. And there's a little clip towards the end
>> where he riffs briefly on yet another mouthpiece - hard rubber with a
>> standard lig is all I can tell - sound is closer to the white Bril, and he
>> sounds more facile
>> 
>> Last clip sounds like a small-chamber high baffle piece, with a cutting
>> quality.
>>
>
> 




      

But that's just the point isn't it?  Isn't that the same thing as saying that the mouthpiece makes a big difference?  It certainly made a big enough difference for him to prefer one mouthpiece design over another.  If the sound comes from the player, and not the mouthpiece, as some advocate, then the player wouldn't need to change mouthpieces, when his sound concept changed.  He would just change his sound.  It never works that way though, because the mouthpiece is an integral part of the player's sound formula.

--- On Sat, 9/5/09, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:

From: Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Don Menza Youtube clips
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, September 5, 2009, 7:35 PM






 




    
                  
We should also consider that sound differences over time probably have a lot to do with a player's change in tone concept.  The equipment just helps the player to get to his concept easier.





From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2009 2:52:39 PM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Don Menza Youtube clips

  





I think the audio here speaks for itself.  I definitely hear a difference between the Menza metal mouthpiece based on a Zinner blank, a Otto Link, and Brillhart.  Try the Brecker test suggested.  It's even more pronounced.  


--- On Sat, 9/5/09, ericdano <ericdano@yahoo. com> wrote:


From: ericdano <ericdano@yahoo. com>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Don Menza Youtube clips
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Saturday, September 5, 2009, 5:48 PM


  

No way. I have seen Don Menza do this demo, live. And he makes them sound the same. It is really rather amazing.

The demo he did was on a Metal something (Dukoff or Guardala), a link, and some plastic student mouthpiece. 

Though last time I saw Menza he was saying he liked to get old Links and mod them to his own sound liking. I don't remember what he did to them exactly..... .

--- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, Barry Levine <barrylevine@ ...> wrote:
>
> (Sorry to start a new thread, can't find the last email on this)
> 
> Very different sounds - although surely the miking also made a difference
> 
> The best sounding (to me) was on that white plastic piece - a Brilhartz
> Tonalin was it? Ballsy, juicy, thick. What a kick-ass solo.
> 
> Of course, if Don was also selling his own mouthpieces, there's no telling
> what was *inside* that white
 mouthpiece - did his own pieces have raised
> baffles?
> 
> The shaved-headed Menza on what looks like a Link seems to be working more
> to control the piece. I think he's going for a smoother sound though, to
> match the style of musical piece. And there's a little clip towards the end
> where he riffs briefly on yet another mouthpiece - hard rubber with a
> standard lig is all I can tell - sound is closer to the white Bril, and he
> sounds more facile
> 
> Last clip sounds like a small-chamber high baffle piece, with a cutting
> quality.
>





      
 

      

    
    
	
	 
	
	








	


	
	


      

I've known Don Menza for a long time, and have spent a good bit of time with
him one on one listening to him play and learning from him. I've seen him
use a variety of mouthpieces, and he always sounds pretty much the same.
He's one of the greatest players I have ever heard, and one of the most
consistent. He's given me a good bit of advice (he is HIGHLY opinionated!)
on my designs.

 

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Keith Bradbury
Sent: Saturday, September 05, 2009 2:36 PM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Don Menza Youtube clips

 

  

We should also consider that sound differences over time probably have a lot
to do with a player's change in tone concept.  The equipment just helps the
player to get to his concept easier.

 

  _____  

From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2009 2:52:39 PM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Don Menza Youtube clips

  


I think the audio here speaks for itself.  I definitely hear a difference
between the Menza metal mouthpiece based on a Zinner blank, a Otto Link, and
Brillhart.  Try the Brecker test suggested.  It's even more pronounced.  


--- On Sat, 9/5/09, ericdano <ericdano@yahoo. com> wrote:


From: ericdano <ericdano@yahoo. com>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Don Menza Youtube clips
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Saturday, September 5, 2009, 5:48 PM

  

No way. I have seen Don Menza do this demo, live. And he makes them sound
the same. It is really rather amazing.

The demo he did was on a Metal something (Dukoff or Guardala), a link, and
some plastic student mouthpiece. 

Though last time I saw Menza he was saying he liked to get old Links and mod
them to his own sound liking. I don't remember what he did to them
exactly..... .

--- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, Barry Levine <barrylevine@ ...>
wrote:
>
> (Sorry to start a new thread, can't find the last email on this)
> 
> Very different sounds - although surely the miking also made a difference
> 
> The best sounding (to me) was on that white plastic piece - a Brilhartz
> Tonalin was it? Ballsy, juicy, thick. What a kick-ass solo.
> 
> Of course, if Don was also selling his own mouthpieces, there's no telling
> what was *inside* that white mouthpiece - did his own pieces have raised
> baffles?
> 
> The shaved-headed Menza on what looks like a Link seems to be working more
> to control the piece. I think he's going for a smoother sound though, to
> match the style of musical piece. And there's a little clip towards the
end
> where he riffs briefly on yet another mouthpiece - hard rubber with a
> standard lig is all I can tell - sound is closer to the white Bril, and he
> sounds more facile
> 
> Last clip sounds like a small-chamber high baffle piece, with a cutting
> quality.
>

 

 

It is a good counter-point.  I can not think of an example of a famous player changing "their sound" without changing their mouthpiece.  Other than when they play a ballad or in another style.  Then there are lots of examples.



________________________________
From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@yahoo.com>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2009 3:56:31 PM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Don Menza Youtube clips

  
But that's just the point isn't it?  Isn't that the same thing as saying that the mouthpiece makes a big difference?  It certainly made a big enough difference for him to prefer one mouthpiece design over another.  If the sound comes from the player, and not the mouthpiece, as some advocate, then the player wouldn't need to change mouthpieces, when his sound concept changed.  He would just change his sound.  It never works that way though, because the mouthpiece is an integral part of the player's sound formula.

--- 

 




      

So, possibly the very open mouthpiece has certain tonal advantages, demonstrated by those well know players who use them - Pete Christlieb, Plas Johnson, Ernie Watts, Lennie Pickett...., but like everything else saxophone, it comes at a price - there is a trade off.  I know from my own  experience playing a Link 10* for some time on tenor, the sound was great, but it took more energy to get it going and more energy to keep it under control, and there's only so much energy to go around.  Once you get that big sound in your head though and how it feels, you can take some of it back with you to a smaller set-up, and use that energy for other things.

--- On Sun, 9/6/09, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:

From: Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Don Menza Youtube clips
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, September 6, 2009, 4:06 AM






 




    
                  
It is a good counter-point.  I can not think of an example of a famous player changing "their sound" without changing their mouthpiece.  Other than when they play a ballad or in another style.  Then there are lots of examples.




From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2009 3:56:31 PM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Don Menza Youtube clips

  





But that's just the point isn't it?  Isn't that the same thing as saying that the mouthpiece makes a big difference?  It certainly made a big enough difference for him to prefer one mouthpiece design over another.  If the sound comes from the player, and not the mouthpiece, as some advocate, then the player wouldn't need to change mouthpieces, when his sound concept changed.  He would just change his sound.  It never works that way though, because the mouthpiece is an integral part of the player's sound formula.

--- 







      
 

      

    
    
	
	 
	
	








	


	
	


      

-    I had rather the opposite experience than what you describe. I switched to a Link 10* for the sound, played it for several years and then went to a 7* when I decided the 10* was too much work. One day , five years later, I tried the 10* again and have played it ever since. The 7* star had somehow conditioned me for the 10*. I find it quite easy to blow and articulate now, and of course the payoff is that incredible sound.   Peter          -- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
>
> So, possibly the very open mouthpiece has certain tonal advantages, demonstrated by those well know players who use them - Pete Christlieb, Plas Johnson, Ernie Watts, Lennie Pickett...., but like everything else saxophone, it comes at a price - there is a trade off.  I know from my own  experience playing a Link 10* for some time on tenor, the sound was great, but it took more energy to get it going and more energy to keep it under control, and there's only so much energy to go around.  Once you get that big sound in your head though and how it feels, you can take some of it back with you to a smaller set-up, and use that energy for other things.
> 
> --- On Sun, 9/6/09, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:
> 
> From: Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...>
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Don Menza Youtube clips
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Sunday, September 6, 2009, 4:06 AM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
>     
>                   
> It is a good counter-point.  I can not think of an example of a famous player changing "their sound" without changing their mouthpiece.  Other than when they play a ballad or in another style.  Then there are lots of examples.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2009 3:56:31 PM
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Don Menza Youtube clips
> 
>   
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that's just the point isn't it?  Isn't that the same thing as saying that the mouthpiece makes a big difference?  It certainly made a big enough difference for him to prefer one mouthpiece design over another.  If the sound comes from the player, and not the mouthpiece, as some advocate, then the player wouldn't need to change mouthpieces, when his sound concept changed.  He would just change his sound.  It never works that way though, because the mouthpiece is an integral part of the player's sound formula.
> 
> ---
>

I tried a RPC .150" for a while.  It was surprisingly playable due to Ron's good facing work.  It felt more like a .125" in other brands.  But I could only sound similar to Plas.  It was a "one trick pony" for me and I could not control it to play the sounds that I needed.  Extreme mouthpiece designs do make a difference.  Very open/closed tips, very high baffles, and very large chambers with no baffles.  If you play them softly, you can make them sound similar.  But at higher volumes, their character comes out in the higher partials.  




________________________________
From: pfdeley <pfdeley@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, September 6, 2009 4:20:16 AM
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Don Menza Youtube clips

  
- I had rather the opposite experience than what you describe. I switched to a Link 10* for the sound, played it for several years and then went to a 7* when I decided the 10* was too much work. One day , five years later, I tried the 10* again and have played it ever since. The 7* star had somehow conditioned me for the 10*. I find it quite easy to blow and articulate now, and of course the payoff is that incredible sound. Peter -- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ ...> wrote:
>
> So, possibly the very open mouthpiece has certain tonal advantages, demonstrated by those well know players who use them - Pete Christlieb, Plas Johnson, Ernie Watts, Lennie Pickett...., but like everything else saxophone, it comes at a price - there is a trade off.  I know from my own  experience playing a Link 10* for some time on tenor, the sound was great, but it took more energy to get it going and more energy to keep it under control, and there's only so much energy to go around.  Once you get that big sound in your head though and how it feels, you can take some of it back with you to a smaller set-up, and use that energy for other things.
> 
> --- On Sun, 9/6/09, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@ ...> wrote:
> 
> From: Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@ ...>
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Don Menza Youtube clips
> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> Date: Sunday, September 6, 2009, 4:06 AM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a good counter-point.  I can not think of an example of a famous player changing "their sound" without changing their mouthpiece.  Other than when they play a ballad or in another style.  Then there are lots of examples.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2009 3:56:31 PM
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Don Menza Youtube clips
> 
>   
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that's just the point isn't it?  Isn't that the same thing as saying that the mouthpiece makes a big difference?  It certainly made a big enough difference for him to prefer one mouthpiece design over another.  If the sound comes from the player, and not the mouthpiece, as some advocate, then the player wouldn't need to change mouthpieces, when his sound concept changed.  He would just change his sound.  It never works that way though, because the mouthpiece is an integral part of the player's sound formula.
> 
> ---
>