Mouthpiece Work / Re: When you move the mouthpiece on or off the cork, what determines
FROM: kwbradbury (Keith Bradbury)
SUBJECT: Re: When you move the mouthpiece on or off the cork, what determines
jbtsax, I have a question about the insert tests back in SOTW Acoustics post #41. When you push in or pull out 1/4", the change in MP volume is the volume of a 1/4" long solid disk, not a 1/4" long ring. Did I miss something or did you?
FROM: lancelotburt (MartinMods)
SUBJECT: Re: When you move the mouthpiece on or off the cork, what determines
"When you push in or pull out 1/4", the change in MP volume is the volume of a 1/4" long solid disk, not a 1/4" long ring. "
Jbtsax and I discussed this at length. You have just inserted a 1/4" constriction. For the mouthpiece, (chamber + throat) the constriction insert displaces an amount equal to the volume of it's walls. The volume of the constriction insert bore is it's own. This way you can keep chamber volume and constriction volume (length) separate for analyzing your chamber design (baffle displaced x% of chamber volume for example) and your constiction design (cylindrical, reverse cone, reverse parabolic, etc). In the end, to calculate the total volume of the substitution, the constriction bore (bore only) volume is added to the chamber+throat volume. The insert is not part of the neck. It is a new part of the mouthpiece.
--- On Sat, 8/8/09, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:
From: Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@yahoo.com>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: When you move the mouthpiece on or off the cork, what determines the pitch?
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, August 8, 2009, 1:21 PM
jbtsax, I have a question about the insert tests back in SOTW Acoustics post #41. When you push in or pull out 1/4", the change in MP volume is the volume of a 1/4" long solid disk, not a 1/4" long ring. Did I miss something or did you?
FROM: kymarto (Toby)
SUBJECT: Re: When you move the mouthpiece on or off the cork, what determines
I think it is easier to simply think of the entire system. The point of the exercise is to have a complete cone. Truncate the cone and you widen the resonances. You have to truncate the cone, though, or you don't have any place to put the mpc. So now you have to find a way to bring the resonances back in line. More volume at the top of any wind instrument--conical or cylindrical--will narrow the resonances. But how to do it in the correct amount for all frequencies? Unfortunately, you need to fulfill different conditions for different frequencies, since the widening of the resonances is both frequency dependent and dependent on the ratio of the diameter of the truncated end to the open end, which varies with frequency as well.
There are two major conditions which need to be fulfilled. For the lower modes, a mpc volume which is the same as that of the missing conic apex does the trick, since at long wavelengths the ratio of the part of the wavelength that is screwed up by having a mpc instead of the conic tip to the total wavelength is small. But as the frequency increases, the proportion of the wavelength that is involved with the mpc instead of a cone gets greater and greater. In my understanding this has to do with the fact that a sax deals not just with transverse waves, like a cylinder, but involves the propagation of spherical waves, which are much more complex.
As the frequency rises, it is important that the mpc "look" more and more like the missing conic tip. Just mimicking the volume is no longer enough. Now the resonance frequency of the mpc as well must look like the resonance frequency of the missing conical apex.
When these two conditions are met, a "reasonable" result is achieved--good enough for jazz. The rest is up to the players and their art--to smooth out this and all the other manifold irregularities in a real-world instrument. But it is not really helpful to make a strict distinction between the mpc and the neck, since the system itself acts in a unitary manner. What happens after the end of the neck affects the overall character of the whole system, but it is an integral part of the system.
Toby
Toby
----- Original Message -----
From: MartinMods
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, August 09, 2009 2:18 AM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: When you move the mouthpiece on or off the cork, what determines the pitch?
"When you push in or pull out 1/4", the change in MP volume is the volume of a 1/4" long solid disk, not a 1/4" long ring. "
Jbtsax and I discussed this at length. You have just inserted a 1/4" constriction. For the mouthpiece, (chamber + throat) the constriction insert displaces an amount equal to the volume of it's walls. The volume of the constriction insert bore is it's own. This way you can keep chamber volume and constriction volume (length) separate for analyzing your chamber design (baffle displaced x% of chamber volume for example) and your constiction design (cylindrical, reverse cone, reverse parabolic, etc). In the end, to calculate the total volume of the substitution, the constriction bore (bore only) volume is added to the chamber+throat volume. The insert is not part of the neck. It is a new part of the mouthpiece.
--- On Sat, 8/8/09, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:
From: Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: When you move the mouthpiece on or off the cork, what determines the pitch?
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, August 8, 2009, 1:21 PM
jbtsax, I have a question about the insert tests back in SOTW Acoustics post #41. When you push in or pull out 1/4", the change in MP volume is the volume of a 1/4" long solid disk, not a 1/4" long ring. Did I miss something or did you?
FROM: lancelotburt (MARTINMODS)
SUBJECT: Re: When you move the mouthpiece on or off the cork, what determines
Toby wrote, "I think it is easier to simply think of the entire
system. "
It depends on what you are trying to see. The division of chamber and constriction is not arbitrary. They are 2 essential parts of the system, each with a different function, position, and shape, though they work together.
Toby, frankly, I find most of your discourse does not address the privious statement at all. You merely repeat the same acoustical formulas and terms, almost randomly, making nebulous statements about their significance, seldom has to do with the subject at hand and completely obscures any communication of clear ideas. Is there any way we could like, stay on the subject. And how about that saxophone performance mp3?
Your Buddy,
Lance
MartinMods.
--- On Sun, 8/9/09, Toby <kymarto123@...> wrote:
From: Toby <kymarto123@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: When you move the mouthpiece on or off the cork, what determines the pitch?
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, August 9, 2009, 4:55 PM
I think it is easier to simply think of the entire
system. The point of the exercise is to have a complete cone. Truncate the cone
and you widen the resonances. You have to truncate the cone, though, or you
don't have any place to put the mpc. So now you have to find a way to bring the
resonances back in line. More volume at the top of any wind instrument-- conical
or cylindrical- -will narrow the resonances. But how to do it in the correct
amount for all frequencies? Unfortunately, you need to fulfill different
conditions for different frequencies, since the widening of the resonances is
both frequency dependent and dependent on the ratio of the diameter of the
truncated end to the open end, which varies with frequency as well.
There are two major conditions which need to be
fulfilled. For the lower modes, a mpc volume which is the same as that of the
missing conic apex does the trick, since at long wavelengths the ratio of
the part of the wavelength that is screwed up by having a mpc instead of the
conic tip to the total wavelength is small. But as the frequency increases, the
proportion of the wavelength that is involved with the mpc instead of a cone
gets greater and greater. In my understanding this has to do with the fact that
a sax deals not just with transverse waves, like a cylinder, but involves the
propagation of spherical waves, which are much more complex.
As the frequency rises, it is important that the
mpc "look" more and more like the missing conic tip. Just mimicking the volume
is no longer enough. Now the resonance frequency of the mpc as well must look
like the resonance frequency of the missing conical apex.
When these two conditions are met, a "reasonable"
result is achieved--good enough for jazz. The rest is up to the players and
their art--to smooth out this and all the other manifold irregularities in a
real-world instrument. But it is not really helpful to make a strict distinction
between the mpc and the neck, since the system itself acts in a unitary manner.
What happens after the end of the neck affects the overall character of the
whole system, but it is an integral part of the system.
Toby
Toby
----- Original Message -----
From:
MartinMods
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Sunday, August 09, 2009 2:18
AM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: When
you move the mouthpiece on or off the cork, what determines the pitch?
"When you push in or pull out 1/4", the change in MP
volume is the volume of a 1/4" long solid disk, not a 1/4" long ring.
"
Jbtsax and I discussed this at length. You have just
inserted a 1/4" constriction. For the mouthpiece, (chamber +
throat) the constriction insert displaces an amount equal to the volume
of it's walls. The volume of the constriction insert bore is it's
own. This way you can keep chamber volume and constriction volume
(length) separate for analyzing your chamber design (baffle displaced x%
of chamber volume for example) and your constiction design (cylindrical,
reverse cone, reverse parabolic, etc). In the end, to calculate
the total volume of the substitution, the constriction bore (bore only)
volume is added to the chamber+throat volume. The insert is not
part of the neck. It is a new part of the mouthpiece.
--- On Sat, 8/8/09, Keith Bradbury
<kwbradbury@yahoo. com> wrote:
From:
Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@yahoo. com>
Subject:
[MouthpieceWork] Re: When you move the mouthpiece on or off the cork,
what determines the pitch?
To:
MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Saturday, August 8,
2009, 1:21 PM
jbtsax, I have a question about the insert tests back in SOTW
Acoustics post #41. When you push in or pull out 1/4", the change in
MP volume is the volume of a 1/4" long solid disk, not a 1/4" long
ring. Did I miss something or did
you?
FROM: kymarto (Toby)
SUBJECT: Re: When you move the mouthpiece on or off the cork, what determines
Lance,
My understanding is that the constriction is a point: the smallest diameter of the cone at the truncation, after which the cone flares smoothly. If that is the case, the oversize throat is not necessarily the major problem you make it out to be: it simply functions as a second part of the chamber until hitting the end of the neck, where the constriction always lies (unless you make a smaller point somewhere after the chamber and before the neck). Not necessarily ideal , in that you have an abrupt diameter "step" at the end of the neck, but not a major issue to tuning in and of itself, if the volume and Helmholtz resonance were correct. So the arrangement of chamber and constriction is not so "constricted" as you seem to believe. Or am I wrong about this?
Toby
----- Original Message -----
From: MARTINMODS
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 4:43 AM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: When you move the mouthpiece on or off the cork, what determines the pitch?
Toby wrote, "I think it is easier to simply think of the entire system. "
It depends on what you are trying to see. The division of chamber and constriction is not arbitrary. They are 2 essential parts of the system, each with a different function, position, and shape, though they work together.
Toby, frankly, I find most of your discourse does not address the privious statement at all. You merely repeat the same acoustical formulas and terms, almost randomly, making nebulous statements about their significance, seldom has to do with the subject at hand and completely obscures any communication of clear ideas. Is there any way we could like, stay on the subject. And how about that saxophone performance mp3?
Your Buddy,
Lance
MartinMods.
--- On Sun, 8/9/09, Toby <kymarto123@ybb.ne.jp> wrote:
From: Toby <kymarto123@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: When you move the mouthpiece on or off the cork, what determines the pitch?
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, August 9, 2009, 4:55 PM
I think it is easier to simply think of the entire system. The point of the exercise is to have a complete cone. Truncate the cone and you widen the resonances. You have to truncate the cone, though, or you don't have any place to put the mpc. So now you have to find a way to bring the resonances back in line. More volume at the top of any wind instrument-- conical or cylindrical- -will narrow the resonances. But how to do it in the correct amount for all frequencies? Unfortunately, you need to fulfill different conditions for different frequencies, since the widening of the resonances is both frequency dependent and dependent on the ratio of the diameter of the truncated end to the open end, which varies with frequency as well.
There are two major conditions which need to be fulfilled. For the lower modes, a mpc volume which is the same as that of the missing conic apex does the trick, since at long wavelengths the ratio of the part of the wavelength that is screwed up by having a mpc instead of the conic tip to the total wavelength is small. But as the frequency increases, the proportion of the wavelength that is involved with the mpc instead of a cone gets greater and greater. In my understanding this has to do with the fact that a sax deals not just with transverse waves, like a cylinder, but involves the propagation of spherical waves, which are much more complex.
As the frequency rises, it is important that the mpc "look" more and more like the missing conic tip. Just mimicking the volume is no longer enough. Now the resonance frequency of the mpc as well must look like the resonance frequency of the missing conical apex.
When these two conditions are met, a "reasonable" result is achieved--good enough for jazz. The rest is up to the players and their art--to smooth out this and all the other manifold irregularities in a real-world instrument. But it is not really helpful to make a strict distinction between the mpc and the neck, since the system itself acts in a unitary manner. What happens after the end of the neck affects the overall character of the whole system, but it is an integral part of the system.
Toby
Toby
----- Original Message -----
From: MartinMods
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Sunday, August 09, 2009 2:18 AM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: When you move the mouthpiece on or off the cork, what determines the pitch?
"When you push in or pull out 1/4", the change in MP volume is the volume of a 1/4" long solid disk, not a 1/4" long ring. "
Jbtsax and I discussed this at length. You have just inserted a 1/4" constriction. For the mouthpiece, (chamber + throat) the constriction insert displaces an amount equal to the volume of it's walls. The volume of the constriction insert bore is it's own. This way you can keep chamber volume and constriction volume (length) separate for analyzing your chamber design (baffle displaced x% of chamber volume for example) and your constiction design (cylindrical, reverse cone, reverse parabolic, etc). In the end, to calculate the total volume of the substitution, the constriction bore (bore only) volume is added to the chamber+throat volume. The insert is not part of the neck. It is a new part of the mouthpiece.
--- On Sat, 8/8/09, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@yahoo. com> wrote:
From: Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@yahoo. com>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: When you move the mouthpiece on or off the cork, what determines the pitch?
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Saturday, August 8, 2009, 1:21 PM
jbtsax, I have a question about the insert tests back in SOTW Acoustics post #41. When you push in or pull out 1/4", the change in MP volume is the volume of a 1/4" long solid disk, not a 1/4" long ring. Did I miss something or did you?
FROM: kymarto (Toby)
SUBJECT: Re: When you move the mouthpiece on or off the cork, what determines
Hey Lance,
I was travelling and didn't have a chance to hear the mp3. Do you have a link?
Toby
----- Original Message -----
From: MARTINMODS
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 4:43 AM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: When you move the mouthpiece on or off the cork, what determines the pitch?
Toby wrote, "I think it is easier to simply think of the entire system. "
It depends on what you are trying to see. The division of chamber and constriction is not arbitrary. They are 2 essential parts of the system, each with a different function, position, and shape, though they work together.
Toby, frankly, I find most of your discourse does not address the privious statement at all. You merely repeat the same acoustical formulas and terms, almost randomly, making nebulous statements about their significance, seldom has to do with the subject at hand and completely obscures any communication of clear ideas. Is there any way we could like, stay on the subject. And how about that saxophone performance mp3?
Your Buddy,
Lance
MartinMods.
--- On Sun, 8/9/09, Toby <kymarto123@....jp> wrote:
From: Toby <kymarto123@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: When you move the mouthpiece on or off the cork, what determines the pitch?
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, August 9, 2009, 4:55 PM
I think it is easier to simply think of the entire system. The point of the exercise is to have a complete cone. Truncate the cone and you widen the resonances. You have to truncate the cone, though, or you don't have any place to put the mpc. So now you have to find a way to bring the resonances back in line. More volume at the top of any wind instrument-- conical or cylindrical- -will narrow the resonances. But how to do it in the correct amount for all frequencies? Unfortunately, you need to fulfill different conditions for different frequencies, since the widening of the resonances is both frequency dependent and dependent on the ratio of the diameter of the truncated end to the open end, which varies with frequency as well.
There are two major conditions which need to be fulfilled. For the lower modes, a mpc volume which is the same as that of the missing conic apex does the trick, since at long wavelengths the ratio of the part of the wavelength that is screwed up by having a mpc instead of the conic tip to the total wavelength is small. But as the frequency increases, the proportion of the wavelength that is involved with the mpc instead of a cone gets greater and greater. In my understanding this has to do with the fact that a sax deals not just with transverse waves, like a cylinder, but involves the propagation of spherical waves, which are much more complex.
As the frequency rises, it is important that the mpc "look" more and more like the missing conic tip. Just mimicking the volume is no longer enough. Now the resonance frequency of the mpc as well must look like the resonance frequency of the missing conical apex.
When these two conditions are met, a "reasonable" result is achieved--good enough for jazz. The rest is up to the players and their art--to smooth out this and all the other manifold irregularities in a real-world instrument. But it is not really helpful to make a strict distinction between the mpc and the neck, since the system itself acts in a unitary manner. What happens after the end of the neck affects the overall character of the whole system, but it is an integral part of the system.
Toby
Toby
----- Original Message -----
From: MartinMods
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Sunday, August 09, 2009 2:18 AM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: When you move the mouthpiece on or off the cork, what determines the pitch?
"When you push in or pull out 1/4", the change in MP volume is the volume of a 1/4" long solid disk, not a 1/4" long ring. "
Jbtsax and I discussed this at length. You have just inserted a 1/4" constriction. For the mouthpiece, (chamber + throat) the constriction insert displaces an amount equal to the volume of it's walls. The volume of the constriction insert bore is it's own. This way you can keep chamber volume and constriction volume (length) separate for analyzing your chamber design (baffle displaced x% of chamber volume for example) and your constiction design (cylindrical, reverse cone, reverse parabolic, etc). In the end, to calculate the total volume of the substitution, the constriction bore (bore only) volume is added to the chamber+throat volume. The insert is not part of the neck. It is a new part of the mouthpiece.
--- On Sat, 8/8/09, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@yahoo. com> wrote:
From: Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@yahoo. com>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: When you move the mouthpiece on or off the cork, what determines the pitch?
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Saturday, August 8, 2009, 1:21 PM
jbtsax, I have a question about the insert tests back in SOTW Acoustics post #41. When you push in or pull out 1/4", the change in MP volume is the volume of a 1/4" long solid disk, not a 1/4" long ring. Did I miss something or did you?
FROM: lancelotburt (MartinMods)
SUBJECT: Re: When you move the mouthpiece on or off the cork, what determines
Toby wrote, "My understanding is that the constriction is a
point: the smallest diameter of the cone at the truncation, after which the cone
flares smoothly. If that is the case, the oversize throat is not necessarily the
major problem you make it out to be: it simply functions as a second part of the
chamber until hitting the end of the neck, where the constriction always lies
"
That's what I said. And the throat is not a problem, unless:
1. you want better intonation
2. volume and frs are matched, which is usually NOT the case.
Toby wrote, "unless you make a smaller point somewhere after the chamber and before the
neck".
That idea belongs to you. It did not come from me. I would make the constricion, as I have said about 20 times already, the same size as the neck opening.
Toby wrote, "Or am I wrong about
this?"
Yes, you are wrong. Though you understood clearly an hour ago in an email, you have now forgotten again. You could re-read slowly to get clear on it. It is not that complicate.
--- On Sun, 8/9/09, Toby <kymarto123@...> wrote:
From: Toby <kymarto123@ybb.ne.jp>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: When you move the mouthpiece on or off the cork, what determines the pitch?
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, August 9, 2009, 11:17 PM
Lance,
My understanding is that the constriction is a
point: the smallest diameter of the cone at the truncation, after which the cone
flares smoothly. If that is the case, the oversize throat is not necessarily the
major problem you make it out to be: it simply functions as a second part of the
chamber until hitting the end of the neck, where the constriction always lies
(unless you make a smaller point somewhere after the chamber and before the
neck). Not necessarily ideal , in that you have an abrupt diameter "step" at the
end of the neck, but not a major issue to tuning in and of itself, if the volume
and Helmholtz resonance were correct. So the arrangement of chamber and
constriction is not so "constricted" as you seem to believe. Or am I wrong about
this?
Toby
----- Original Message -----
From:
MARTINMODS
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 4:43
AM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: When
you move the mouthpiece on or off the cork, what determines the pitch?
Toby wrote, "I think it is easier
to simply think of the entire system. "
It depends on what you
are trying to see. The division of chamber and constriction is not
arbitrary. They are 2 essential parts of the system, each with a
different function, position, and shape, though they work
together.
Toby, frankly, I find most of your
discourse does not address the privious statement at all. You
merely repeat the same acoustical formulas and terms, almost randomly,
making nebulous statements about their significance, seldom has to do
with the subject at hand and completely obscures any communication of
clear ideas. Is there any way we could like, stay on the
subject. And how about that saxophone performance mp3?
Your
Buddy,
Lance
MartinMods.
--- On Sun,
8/9/09, Toby <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp> wrote:
From:
Toby <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
Subject: Re:
[MouthpieceWork] Re: When you move the mouthpiece on or off the cork,
what determines the pitch?
To:
MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Sunday, August 9,
2009, 4:55 PM
I think it is easier to simply think of
the entire system. The point of the exercise is to have a complete
cone. Truncate the cone and you widen the resonances. You have to
truncate the cone, though, or you don't have any place to put the mpc.
So now you have to find a way to bring the resonances back in line.
More volume at the top of any wind instrument-- conical or
cylindrical- -will narrow the resonances. But how to do it in the
correct amount for all frequencies? Unfortunately, you need to fulfill
different conditions for different frequencies, since the widening of
the resonances is both frequency dependent and dependent on the ratio
of the diameter of the truncated end to the open end, which varies
with frequency as well.
There are two major conditions which need
to be fulfilled. For the lower modes, a mpc volume which is the same
as that of the missing conic apex does the trick, since at long
wavelengths the ratio of the part of the wavelength that is screwed up
by having a mpc instead of the conic tip to the total wavelength is
small. But as the frequency increases, the proportion of the
wavelength that is involved with the mpc instead of a cone gets
greater and greater. In my understanding this has to do with the fact
that a sax deals not just with transverse waves, like a cylinder, but
involves the propagation of spherical waves, which are much more
complex.
As the frequency rises, it is important
that the mpc "look" more and more like the missing conic tip. Just
mimicking the volume is no longer enough. Now the resonance frequency
of the mpc as well must look like the resonance frequency of the
missing conical apex.
When these two conditions are met, a
"reasonable" result is achieved--good enough for jazz. The rest is up
to the players and their art--to smooth out this and all the other
manifold irregularities in a real-world instrument. But it is not
really helpful to make a strict distinction between the mpc and the
neck, since the system itself acts in a unitary manner. What happens
after the end of the neck affects the overall character of the whole
system, but it is an integral part of the system.
Toby
Toby
-----
Original Message -----
From:
MartinMods
To:
MouthpieceWork@
yahoogroups. com
Sent:
Sunday, August 09, 2009 2:18 AM
Subject:
Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: When you move the mouthpiece on or off the
cork, what determines the pitch?
"When you push in or pull out 1/4", the change
in MP volume is the volume of a 1/4" long solid disk, not a
1/4" long ring. "
Jbtsax and I discussed this at
length. You have just inserted a 1/4"
constriction. For the mouthpiece, (chamber + throat) the
constriction insert displaces an amount equal to the volume of
it's walls. The volume of the constriction insert bore
is it's own. This way you can keep chamber volume and
constriction volume (length) separate for analyzing your
chamber design (baffle displaced x% of chamber volume for
example) and your constiction design (cylindrical, reverse
cone, reverse parabolic, etc). In the end, to calculate
the total volume of the substitution, the constriction bore
(bore only) volume is added to the chamber+throat
volume. The insert is not part of the neck. It is
a new part of the mouthpiece.
--- On Sat,
8/8/09, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@yahoo.
com> wrote:
From:
Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@yahoo. com>
Subject:
[MouthpieceWork] Re: When you move the mouthpiece on or off
the cork, what determines the pitch?
To: MouthpieceWork@
yahoogroups. com
Date: Saturday, August 8, 2009, 1:21
PM
jbtsax, I have a question about the insert tests back in
SOTW Acoustics post #41. When you push in or pull out 1/4",
the change in MP volume is the volume of a 1/4" long solid
disk, not a 1/4" long ring. Did I miss something or did
you?
FROM: lancelotburt (MartinMods)
SUBJECT: Re: When you move the mouthpiece on or off the cork, what determines
www.martinmods.com/mp03.mov
www.martinmods.com/mp04.mov
--- On Sun, 8/9/09, Toby <kymarto123@...> wrote:
From: Toby <kymarto123@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: When you move the mouthpiece on or off the cork, what determines the pitch?
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, August 9, 2009, 11:34 PM
Hey Lance,
I was travelling and didn't have a chance to hear
the mp3. Do you have a link?
Toby
----- Original Message -----
From:
MARTINMODS
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 4:43
AM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: When
you move the mouthpiece on or off the cork, what determines the pitch?
Toby wrote, "I think it is easier
to simply think of the entire system. "
It depends on what you
are trying to see. The division of chamber and constriction is not
arbitrary. They are 2 essential parts of the system, each with a
different function, position, and shape, though they work
together.
Toby, frankly, I find most of your
discourse does not address the privious statement at all. You
merely repeat the same acoustical formulas and terms, almost randomly,
making nebulous statements about their significance, seldom has to do
with the subject at hand and completely obscures any communication of
clear ideas. Is there any way we could like, stay on the
subject. And how about that saxophone performance mp3?
Your
Buddy,
Lance
MartinMods.
--- On Sun,
8/9/09, Toby <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp> wrote:
From:
Toby <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
Subject: Re:
[MouthpieceWork] Re: When you move the mouthpiece on or off the cork,
what determines the pitch?
To:
MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Sunday, August 9,
2009, 4:55 PM
I think it is easier to simply think of
the entire system. The point of the exercise is to have a complete
cone. Truncate the cone and you widen the resonances. You have to
truncate the cone, though, or you don't have any place to put the mpc.
So now you have to find a way to bring the resonances back in line.
More volume at the top of any wind instrument-- conical or
cylindrical- -will narrow the resonances. But how to do it in the
correct amount for all frequencies? Unfortunately, you need to fulfill
different conditions for different frequencies, since the widening of
the resonances is both frequency dependent and dependent on the ratio
of the diameter of the truncated end to the open end, which varies
with frequency as well.
There are two major conditions which need
to be fulfilled. For the lower modes, a mpc volume which is the same
as that of the missing conic apex does the trick, since at long
wavelengths the ratio of the part of the wavelength that is screwed up
by having a mpc instead of the conic tip to the total wavelength is
small. But as the frequency increases, the proportion of the
wavelength that is involved with the mpc instead of a cone gets
greater and greater. In my understanding this has to do with the fact
that a sax deals not just with transverse waves, like a cylinder, but
involves the propagation of spherical waves, which are much more
complex.
As the frequency rises, it is important
that the mpc "look" more and more like the missing conic tip. Just
mimicking the volume is no longer enough. Now the resonance frequency
of the mpc as well must look like the resonance frequency of the
missing conical apex.
When these two conditions are met, a
"reasonable" result is achieved--good enough for jazz. The rest is up
to the players and their art--to smooth out this and all the other
manifold irregularities in a real-world instrument. But it is not
really helpful to make a strict distinction between the mpc and the
neck, since the system itself acts in a unitary manner. What happens
after the end of the neck affects the overall character of the whole
system, but it is an integral part of the system.
Toby
Toby
-----
Original Message -----
From:
MartinMods
To:
MouthpieceWork@
yahoogroups. com
Sent:
Sunday, August 09, 2009 2:18 AM
Subject:
Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: When you move the mouthpiece on or off the
cork, what determines the pitch?
"When you push in or pull out 1/4", the change
in MP volume is the volume of a 1/4" long solid disk, not a
1/4" long ring. "
Jbtsax and I discussed this at
length. You have just inserted a 1/4"
constriction. For the mouthpiece, (chamber + throat) the
constriction insert displaces an amount equal to the volume of
it's walls. The volume of the constriction insert bore
is it's own. This way you can keep chamber volume and
constriction volume (length) separate for analyzing your
chamber design (baffle displaced x% of chamber volume for
example) and your constiction design (cylindrical, reverse
cone, reverse parabolic, etc). In the end, to calculate
the total volume of the substitution, the constriction bore
(bore only) volume is added to the chamber+throat
volume. The insert is not part of the neck. It is
a new part of the mouthpiece.
--- On Sat,
8/8/09, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@yahoo.
com> wrote:
From:
Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@yahoo. com>
Subject:
[MouthpieceWork] Re: When you move the mouthpiece on or off
the cork, what determines the pitch?
To: MouthpieceWork@
yahoogroups. com
Date: Saturday, August 8, 2009, 1:21
PM
jbtsax, I have a question about the insert tests back in
SOTW Acoustics post #41. When you push in or pull out 1/4",
the change in MP volume is the volume of a 1/4" long solid
disk, not a 1/4" long ring. Did I miss something or did
you?
FROM: kymarto (kymarto123@...)
SUBJECT: Re: When you move the mouthpiece on or off the cork, what determines
--- MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote: > Toby wrote, "My understanding is that the > constriction is a > point: the smallest diameter of the cone at the > truncation, after which the cone > flares smoothly. If that is the case, the oversize > throat is not necessarily the > major problem you make it out to be: it simply > functions as a second part of the > chamber until hitting the end of the neck, where the > constriction always lies > " > > That's what I said. And the throat is not a > problem, unless: > > 1. you want better intonation > 2. volume and frs are matched, which is usually NOT > the case. If the total volume before the constriction is correct and the Helmholtz resonance is correct, then your intonation is optimized, no matter where the volume is: in the chamber or the throat or in both. This is what I meant about treating the whole system as a unity. There is no real distinction between the chamber and the throat: all volume before the constriction counts. Don't forget that the Helmholtz resonance should be measured at the constriction and including it, so that you need to figure in the diameter of the end of the neck at the position it would be with the mpc on the neck. My point is this: if the volume and HH resonance are correct, the oversize throat should not be a problem. If you think this is untrue please tell me why. > > Toby wrote, "unless you make a smaller point > somewhere after the chamber and before the > neck". > > That idea belongs to you. It did not come from me. > I would make the constricion, as I have said about > 20 times already, the same size as the neck > opening. I just wanted to point out that if you make a point in the throat smaller than the neck opening, that point becomes the constriction. I am not recommending it. > > Toby wrote, "Or am I wrong about > this?" > > Yes, you are wrong. Though you understood clearly > an hour ago in an email, you have now forgotten > again. You could re-read slowly to get clear on > it. It is not that complicate. Lance, I am not trying to be difficult, but I don't believe that we (collectively) are getting this story straight. I have not changed my understanding, and if you think I have then please explain where you find me misguided, Toby
FROM: jbtsax (jbtsax)
SUBJECT: Re: When you move the mouthpiece on or off the cork, what determines
--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "Keith Bradbury" <kwbradbury@...> wrote: > > jbtsax, I have a question about the insert tests back in SOTW Acoustics post #41. When you push in or pull out 1/4", the change in MP volume is the volume of a 1/4" long solid disk, not a 1/4" long ring. Did I miss something or did you? > Good question. That was the error in my thinking and procedure that skewed the results of the tests as I tried the experiment again with longer inserts. By pulling the mouthpiece off the cork until the pitch was again in tune with the insert added, there was good correlation with the distance representing the volume of a solid disk, and the volume of the walls of the hollow insert. A post I wrote earlier with links to pages on my website give more information about my tests and conclusions. John
FROM: lancelotburt (MartinMods)
SUBJECT: Re: When you move the mouthpiece on or off the cork, what determines
Toby wrote, "Don't forget that the Helmholtz resonance should be measured at the
constriction and including it, so that you need to figure in the diameter of the end of the neck at the position it would be with the mpc on the neck. "
Of course.
Toby wrote, "My point is this: if the volume and HH resonance are correct, the oversize
throat should not be a problem. "
Look at the diagram I uploaded to the Files/Misc Other folder - Constriction.jpg. As per above, when we check the playing frequency (HH res) of the mouthpiece we must include the neck end constriction. At that playing frequency the displacement anti-node of our HH res is located at the constriction and everything is good (this is an over simplification and I'll show why later). The HH res freq does not stay constant however. If we play notes below the HH res freq., those notes pull the HH res freq down with them slightly, so that the HH res displacement anti-node moves into the neck tube. It's a conical instrument so the effects of the enlarging bore on the HH freq Disp. AN. (raises it) are part of the plan.
If we play notes above the HH res freq, those notes pull the HH res freq up with them so that now the HH freq Disp AN is located in the overly large throat, the diameter of which is much larger than the constriction that we used to base our HH res freq on. As a result, the HH res freq is raised even more and as it affects other nodes in the area, they are raised as well, out of proportion to the lower register
In reality, when we first check our HH res freq, the Disp AN is half in the throat and half in the neck constricton, so it is actually higher than what it should be. For a correct HH res freq and for even tuning throughout the range of the instrument, the constriction which is the diameter of the neck opening, should have some length, at least enough to insure that the HH rew freq. is not unduely raised. To a point, the longer the constriction, the more stable and even the intonation, provided the correct volume and frs are maintained.
This is just a way to improve intonation on any still very usable normal mouthpiece.
--- On Mon, 8/10/09, kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...> wrote:
From: kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: When you move the mouthpiece on or off the cork, what determines the pitch?
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, August 10, 2009, 1:06 PM
--- MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:
> Toby wrote, "My understanding is that the
> constriction is a
> point: the smallest diameter of the cone at the
> truncation, after which the cone
> flares smoothly. If that is the case, the oversize
> throat is not necessarily the
> major problem you make it out to be: it simply
> functions as a second part of the
> chamber until hitting the end of the neck, where the
> constriction always lies
> "
>
> That's what I said. And the throat is not a
> problem, unless:
>
> 1. you want better intonation
> 2. volume and frs are matched, which is usually NOT
> the case.
If the total volume before the constriction is correct and
the Helmholtz resonance is correct, then your intonation
is optimized, no matter where the volume is: in the
chamber or the throat or in both. This is what I meant
about treating the whole system as a unity. There is no
real distinction between the chamber and the throat: all
volume before the constriction counts. Don't forget that
the Helmholtz resonance should be measured at the
constriction and including it, so that you need to figure
in the diameter of the end of the neck at the position it
would be with the mpc on the neck. My point is this: if
the volume and HH resonance are correct, the oversize
throat should not be a problem. If you think this is
untrue please tell me why.
>
> Toby wrote, "unless you make a smaller point
> somewhere after the chamber and before the
> neck".
>
> That idea belongs to you. It did not come from
me.
> I would make the constricion, as I have said about
> 20 times already, the same size as the neck
> opening.
I just wanted to point out that if you make a point in
the throat smaller than the neck opening, that point
becomes the constriction. I am not recommending it.
>
> Toby wrote, "Or am I wrong about
> this?"
>
> Yes, you are wrong. Though you understood clearly
> an hour ago in an email, you have now forgotten
> again. You could re-read slowly to get clear on
> it. It is not that complicate.
Lance, I am not trying to be difficult, but I don't
believe that we (collectively) are getting this story
straight. I have not changed my understanding, and if you
think I have then please explain where you find me
misguided,
Toby
FROM: jbtsax (jbtsax)
SUBJECT: Re: When you move the mouthpiece on or off the cork, what determines
--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "jbtsax" <jtalcott47@...> wrote: > > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "Keith Bradbury" kwbradbury@ wrote: > > > > jbtsax, I have a question about the insert tests back in SOTW Acoustics post #41. When you push in or pull out 1/4", the change in MP volume is the volume of a 1/4" long solid disk, not a 1/4" long ring. Did I miss something or did you? > > > > Good question. That was the error in my thinking and procedure that skewed the results of the tests as I tried the experiment again with longer inserts. By pulling the mouthpiece off the cork until the pitch was again in tune with the insert added, there was good correlation with the distance representing the volume of a solid disk, and the volume of the walls of the hollow insert. > > A post I wrote earlier with links to pages on my website give more information about my tests and conclusions. > > John I am repeating an earlier post that did not appear on the forum that provided the links mentioned above. I have expanded and refined my study of the effects upon pitch by altering mouthpiece volume. The write up of the study and a related paper can be found at this link: Mouthpiece Volume and Pitch Study <http://www.jbtsaxmusic.net/Mouthpiece%20Volume%20and%20Pitch%20Studies.\ html> Thanks to Lance and Keith for pointing out that in order to replace the volume displaced by the insert, the mouthpiece needs to be pulled the the distance representing the volume of a solid disk. I appreciated this helpful correction to my procedure. John
FROM: kymarto (kymarto123@...)
SUBJECT: Re: When you move the mouthpiece on or off the cork, what determines
This is interesting. I have never seen anything written about this (change in resonance), nor about a displacement antinode at the constriction. Do you have any links to discussion about this? Toby --- MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote: > Toby wrote, "Don't forget that the Helmholtz > resonance should be measured at the > > constriction and including it, so that you need to > figure in the diameter of the end of the neck at the > position it would be with the mpc on the neck. " > > Of course. > > Toby wrote, "My point is this: if the volume and HH > resonance are correct, the oversize > > throat should not be a problem. " > > Look at the diagram I uploaded to the Files/Misc > Other folder - Constriction.jpg. As per above, > when we check the playing frequency (HH res) of the > mouthpiece we must include the neck end > constriction. At that playing frequency the > displacement anti-node of our HH res is located at > the constriction and everything is good (this is an > over simplification and I'll show why later). The > HH res freq does not stay constant however. If we > play notes below the HH res freq., those notes pull > the HH res freq down with them slightly, so that the > HH res displacement anti-node moves into the neck > tube. It's a conical instrument so the effects of > the enlarging bore on the HH freq Disp. AN. (raises > it) are part of the plan. > > If we play notes above the HH res freq, those notes > pull the HH res freq up with them so that now the HH > freq Disp AN is located in the overly large throat, > the diameter of which is much larger than the > constriction that we used to base our HH res freq > on. As a result, the HH res freq is raised even > more and as it affects other nodes in the area, they > are raised as well, out of proportion to the lower > register > > In reality, when we first check our HH res freq, the > Disp AN is half in the throat and half in the neck > constricton, so it is actually higher than what it > should be. For a correct HH res freq and for even > tuning throughout the range of the instrument, the > constriction which is the diameter of the neck > opening, should have some length, at least enough to > insure that the HH rew freq. is not unduely > raised. To a point, the longer the constriction, > the more stable and even the intonation, provided > the correct volume and frs are maintained. > > This is just a way to improve intonation on any > still very usable normal mouthpiece. > > --- On Mon, 8/10/09, kymarto123@... > <kymarto123@...> wrote: > > From: kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...> > Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: When you move the > mouthpiece on or off the cork, what determines the > pitch? > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com > Date: Monday, August 10, 2009, 1:06 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > Toby wrote, "My understanding is that the > > > constriction is a > > > point: the smallest diameter of the cone at the > > > truncation, after which the cone > > > flares smoothly. If that is the case, the oversize > > > throat is not necessarily the > > > major problem you make it out to be: it simply > > > functions as a second part of the > > > chamber until hitting the end of the neck, where > the > > > constriction always lies > > > " > > > > > > That's what I said. And the throat is not a > > > problem, unless: > > > > > > 1. you want better intonation > > > 2. volume and frs are matched, which is usually > NOT > > > the case. > > > > If the total volume before the constriction is > correct and > > the Helmholtz resonance is correct, then your > intonation > > is optimized, no matter where the volume is: in the > > chamber or the throat or in both. This is what I > meant > > about treating the whole system as a unity. There is > no > > real distinction between the chamber and the throat: > all > > volume before the constriction counts. Don't forget > that > > the Helmholtz resonance should be measured at the > > constriction and including it, so that you need to > figure > > in the diameter of the end of the neck at the > position it > > would be with the mpc on the neck. My point is this: > if > > the volume and HH resonance are correct, the > oversize > > throat should not be a problem. If you think this is > > untrue please tell me why. > > > > > > > > Toby wrote, "unless you make a smaller point > > > somewhere after the chamber and before the > > > neck". > > > > > > That idea belongs to you. It did not come > from > > me. > > > I would make the constricion, as I have said about > > > 20 times already, the same size as the neck > > > opening. > > > > I just wanted to point out that if you make a point > in > > the throat smaller than the neck opening, that point > > becomes the constriction. I am not recommending it. > > > > > > Toby wrote, "Or am I wrong about > > > this?" > > > > == $B0J2<$N%a%C%;!<%8$O>JN,$5$l$^$7$?(B =
FROM: lancelotburt (MartinMods)
SUBJECT: Re: When you move the mouthpiece on or off the cork, what determines
Benade FMA p484 (I think), he discusses this. Remember that by definition, a closed pipe has a compression anti-node at the closed end (tip of reed/chamber) and a displacement anti-node at the open end (constriction/body tube boundary). Without the displacement anti-node, there would be no resonance there. The anti-node moves as a result of the interaction between the sounding note and our substituton's own resonance - one thing affects and is affected by everything else.
--- On Wed, 8/12/09, kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...> wrote:
From: kymarto123@....jp <kymarto123@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: When you move the mouthpiece on or off the cork, what determines the pitch?
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 2:24 PM
This is interesting. I have never seen anything written
about this (change in resonance), nor about a displacement
antinode at the constriction. Do you have any links to
discussion about this?
Toby
--- MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:
> Toby wrote, "Don't forget that the Helmholtz
> resonance should be measured at the
>
> constriction and including it, so that you need to
> figure in the diameter of the end of the neck at the
> position it would be with the mpc on the neck. "
>
> Of course.
>
> Toby wrote, "My point is this: if the volume and HH
> resonance are correct, the oversize
>
> throat should not be a problem. "
>
> Look at the diagram I uploaded to the Files/Misc
> Other folder - Constriction. jpg. As per
above,
> when we check the playing frequency (HH res) of the
> mouthpiece we must include the neck end
> constriction. At that playing frequency the
> displacement anti-node of our HH res is located at
> the constriction and everything is good (this is an
> over simplification and I'll show why later). The
> HH res freq does not stay constant however. If we
> play notes below the HH res freq., those notes pull
> the HH res freq down with them slightly, so that the
> HH res displacement anti-node moves into the neck
> tube. It's a conical instrument so the effects of
> the enlarging bore on the HH freq Disp. AN. (raises
> it) are part of the plan.
>
> If we play notes above the HH res freq, those notes
> pull the HH res freq up with them so that now the HH
> freq Disp AN is located in the overly large throat,
> the diameter of which is much larger than the
> constriction that we used to base our HH res freq
> on. As a result, the HH res freq is raised even
> more and as it affects other nodes in the area, they
> are raised as well, out of proportion to the lower
> register
>
> In reality, when we first check our HH res freq, the
> Disp AN is half in the throat and half in the neck
> constricton, so it is actually higher than what it
> should be. For a correct HH res freq and for even
> tuning throughout the range of the instrument, the
> constriction which is the diameter of the neck
> opening, should have some length, at least enough to
> insure that the HH rew freq. is not unduely
> raised. To a point, the longer the constriction,
> the more stable and even the intonation, provided
> the correct volume and frs are maintained.
>
> This is just a way to improve intonation on any
> still very usable normal mouthpiece.
>
> --- On Mon, 8/10/09, kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp
> <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp> wrote:
>
> From: kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: When you move the
> mouthpiece on or off the cork, what determines the
> pitch?
> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> Date: Monday, August 10, 2009, 1:06 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Toby wrote, "My understanding is that the
>
> > constriction is a
>
> > point: the smallest diameter of the cone at the
>
> > truncation, after which the cone
>
> > flares smoothly. If that is the case, the oversize
>
> > throat is not necessarily the
>
> > major problem you make it out to be: it simply
>
> > functions as a second part of the
>
> > chamber until hitting the end of the neck, where
> the
>
> > constriction always lies
>
> > "
>
> >
>
> > That's what I said. And the throat is not a
>
> > problem, unless:
>
> >
>
> > 1. you want better intonation
>
> > 2. volume and frs are matched, which is usually
> NOT
>
> > the case.
>
>
>
> If the total volume before the constriction is
> correct and
>
> the Helmholtz resonance is correct, then your
> intonation
>
> is optimized, no matter where the volume is: in the
>
> chamber or the throat or in both. This is what I
> meant
>
> about treating the whole system as a unity. There is
> no
>
> real distinction between the chamber and the throat:
> all
>
> volume before the constriction counts. Don't forget
> that
>
> the Helmholtz resonance should be measured at the
>
> constriction and including it, so that you need to
> figure
>
> in the diameter of the end of the neck at the
> position it
>
> would be with the mpc on the neck. My point is this:
> if
>
> the volume and HH resonance are correct, the
> oversize
>
> throat should not be a problem. If you think this is
>
> untrue please tell me why.
>
>
>
> >
>
> > Toby wrote, "unless you make a smaller point
>
> > somewhere after the chamber and before the
>
> > neck".
>
> >
>
> > That idea belongs to you. It did not come
> from
>
> me.
>
> > I would make the constricion, as I have said about
>
> > 20 times already, the same size as the neck
>
> > opening.
>
>
>
> I just wanted to point out that if you make a point
> in
>
> the throat smaller than the neck opening, that point
>
> becomes the constriction. I am not recommending it.
>
> >
>
> > Toby wrote, "Or am I wrong about
>
> > this?"
>
> >
>
=== 以下のメッセージは省略されました ===
FROM: kymarto (kymarto123@...)
SUBJECT: Re: When you move the mouthpiece on or off the cork, what determines
Aaargh...not part of Google books. Any chance you can type short relevant exerpts? I mean, are you sure you have that right? Clearly when the mpc is being sounded without being attached the open end is a displacement antinode, but once you extend the air column everything changes except the fact that the reed is a pressure antinode, because end of the mpc is no longer the end of the air column. Toby --- MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote: > Benade FMA p484 (I think), he discusses this.�� > Remember that by definition, a closed pipe has a > compression anti-node at the closed end (tip of > reed/chamber) and a displacement anti-node at the > open end (constriction/body tube boundary).� > Without the displacement anti-node, there would be > no resonance there.� The anti-node moves as a > result of the interaction between the sounding note > and our substituton's own resonance - one thing > affects and is affected by everything else. > > --- On Wed, 8/12/09, kymarto123@... > <kymarto123@...> wrote: > > From: kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...> > Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: When you move the > mouthpiece on or off the cork, what determines the > pitch? > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com > Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 2:24 PM > > > > > > > � > > > > > > This is interesting. I have never > seen anything written > > about this (change in resonance), nor about a > displacement > > antinode at the constriction. Do you have any links > to > > discussion about this? > > > > Toby > > > > --- MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > Toby wrote, "Don't forget that the Helmholtz > > > resonance should be measured at the > > > > > > constriction and including it, so that you need to > > > figure in the diameter of the end of the neck at > the > > > position it would be with the mpc on the neck. " > > > > > > Of course. > > > > > > Toby wrote, "My point is this: if the volume and > HH > > > resonance are correct, the oversize > > > > > > throat should not be a problem. " > > > > > > Look at the diagram I uploaded to the Files/Misc > > > Other folder - Constriction. jpg. As > per > > above, > > > when we check the playing frequency (HH res) of > the > > > mouthpiece we must include the neck end > > > constriction. At that playing frequency the > > > displacement anti-node of our HH res is located at > > > the constriction and everything is good (this is > an > > > over simplification and I'll show why > later). The > > > HH res freq does not stay constant however. > If we > > > play notes below the HH res freq., those notes > pull > > > the HH res freq down with them slightly, so that > the > > > HH res displacement anti-node moves into the neck > > > tube. It's a conical instrument so the > effects of > > > the enlarging bore on the HH freq Disp. AN. > (raises > > > it) are part of the plan. > > > > > > If we play notes above the HH res freq, those > notes > > > pull the HH res freq up with them so that now the > HH > > > freq Disp AN is located in the overly large > throat, > > > the diameter of which is much larger than the > > > constriction that we used to base our HH res freq > > > on. As a result, the HH res freq is raised > even > > > more and as it affects other nodes in the area, > they > > > are raised as well, out of proportion to the lower > > > register > > > > > > In reality, when we first check our HH res freq, > the > > > Disp AN is half in the throat and half in the neck > > > constricton, so it is actually higher than what it > > > should be. For a correct HH res freq and for > even > > > tuning throughout the range of the instrument, the > > > constriction which is the diameter of the neck > > > opening, should have some length, at least enough > to > > > insure that the HH rew freq. is not unduely > > > raised. To a point, the longer the > constriction, > > > the more stable and even the intonation, provided > > > the correct volume and frs are maintained. > > > > > > This is just a way to improve intonation on any > > > still very usable normal mouthpiece. > > > > > > --- On Mon, 8/10/09, kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp > > > <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp> wrote: > > > > > > From: kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp <kymarto123@ybb. > ne.jp> > > > Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: When you move > the > > > mouthpiece on or off the cork, what determines the > > > pitch? > > == $B0J2<$N%a%C%;!<%8$O>JN,$5$l$^$7$?(B =
FROM: lancelotburt (MartinMods)
SUBJECT: Re: When you move the mouthpiece on or off the cork, what determines
I'll try to find my copy of his book. I could probably quote it accurately from memory, but I'm not going to try.
I sent you this info before as well, from Nederveen, Rokaboy, and other recent studies. The resonance is formed by the PARTIAL reflection of the wave, back towards the mouthpiece, by the difference in impedance between the constriction and the body tube opening. As such, for this resonance, the body tube entrance is seen as the open end of the tube.
--- On Wed, 8/12/09, kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...> wrote:
From: kymarto123@....jp <kymarto123@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: When you move the mouthpiece on or off the cork, what determines the pitch?
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 4:22 PM
Aaargh...not part of Google books. Any chance you can type
short relevant exerpts?
I mean, are you sure you have that right? Clearly when the
mpc is being sounded without being attached the open end
is a displacement antinode, but once you extend the air
column everything changes except the fact that the reed is
a pressure antinode, because end of the mpc is no longer
the end of the air column.
Toby
--- MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:
> Benade FMA p484 (I think), he discusses
this.� �
> Remember that by definition, a closed pipe has a
> compression anti-node at the closed end (tip of
> reed/chamber) and a displacement anti-node at the
> open end (constriction/ body tube boundary).&# 65533;
> Without the displacement anti-node, there would be
> no resonance there.� The anti-node moves as a
> result of the interaction between the sounding note
> and our substituton' s own resonance - one thing
> affects and is affected by everything else.
>
> --- On Wed, 8/12/09, kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp
> <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp> wrote:
>
> From: kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: When you move the
> mouthpiece on or off the cork, what determines the
> pitch?
> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 2:24 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
> �
>
>
>
>
>
> This is interesting. I have never
> seen anything written
>
> about this (change in resonance), nor about a
> displacement
>
> antinode at the constriction. Do you have any links
> to
>
> discussion about this?
>
>
>
> Toby
>
>
>
> --- MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Toby wrote, "Don't forget that the Helmholtz
>
> > resonance should be measured at the
>
> >
>
> > constriction and including it, so that you need to
>
> > figure in the diameter of the end of the neck at
> the
>
> > position it would be with the mpc on the neck. "
>
> >
>
> > Of course.
>
> >
>
> > Toby wrote, "My point is this: if the volume and
> HH
>
> > resonance are correct, the oversize
>
> >
>
> > throat should not be a problem. "
>
> >
>
> > Look at the diagram I uploaded to the Files/Misc
>
> > Other folder - Constriction. jpg. As
> per
>
> above,
>
> > when we check the playing frequency (HH res) of
> the
>
> > mouthpiece we must include the neck end
>
> > constriction. At that playing frequency the
>
> > displacement anti-node of our HH res is located at
>
> > the constriction and everything is good (this is
> an
>
> > over simplification and I'll show why
> later). The
>
> > HH res freq does not stay constant however.
> If we
>
> > play notes below the HH res freq., those notes
> pull
>
> > the HH res freq down with them slightly, so that
> the
>
> > HH res displacement anti-node moves into the neck
>
> > tube. It's a conical instrument so the
> effects of
>
> > the enlarging bore on the HH freq Disp. AN.
> (raises
>
> > it) are part of the plan.
>
> >
>
> > If we play notes above the HH res freq, those
> notes
>
> > pull the HH res freq up with them so that now the
> HH
>
> > freq Disp AN is located in the overly large
> throat,
>
> > the diameter of which is much larger than the
>
> > constriction that we used to base our HH res freq
>
> > on. As a result, the HH res freq is raised
> even
>
> > more and as it affects other nodes in the area,
> they
>
> > are raised as well, out of proportion to the lower
>
> > register
>
> >
>
> > In reality, when we first check our HH res freq,
> the
>
> > Disp AN is half in the throat and half in the neck
>
> > constricton, so it is actually higher than what it
>
> > should be. For a correct HH res freq and for
> even
>
> > tuning throughout the range of the instrument, the
>
> > constriction which is the diameter of the neck
>
> > opening, should have some length, at least enough
> to
>
> > insure that the HH rew freq. is not unduely
>
> > raised. To a point, the longer the
> constriction,
>
> > the more stable and even the intonation, provided
>
> > the correct volume and frs are maintained.
>
> >
>
> > This is just a way to improve intonation on any
>
> > still very usable normal mouthpiece.
>
> >
>
> > --- On Mon, 8/10/09, kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp
>
> > <kymarto123@ ybb. ne.jp> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > From: kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp <kymarto123@ ybb.
> ne.jp>
>
> > Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: When you move
> the
>
> > mouthpiece on or off the cork, what determines the
>
> > pitch?
>
>
=== 以下のメッセージは省略されました ===
FROM: kymarto (kymarto123@...)
SUBJECT: Re: When you move the mouthpiece on or off the cork, what determines
Ah, which determines the length of time the reed is closed, depending on the truncation, right? I'll look it up in Nederveen, which I do have. I'm still wondering, though, how this could change the Helmholtz resonance of the mpc. Even if the point at which this partial wave is reflected changes based on frequency, the constriction is still seen as the point of smallest diameter before the cone begins to widen out. This is still the end of the neck, no? I don't see how this affects the first resonance matching of the mpc, which simply states that the HH rez of the the mpc at the constriction should match that of the truncated conic apex. These are both frequency independent values AFAIK. BTW I reread Benade and his saying that the neck is the constriction now makes perfect sense to me. He clearly means that the *end* of the neck is the constriction, just as the end of the staple is the constriction for the oboe. Toby --- MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote: > I'll try to find my copy of his book.� I could > probably quote it accurately from memory, but I'm > not going to try.� > > I sent you this info before as well, from Nederveen, > Rokaboy, and other recent studies.� The resonance > is formed by the PARTIAL reflection of the wave, > back towards the mouthpiece, by the difference in > impedance between the constriction and the body tube > opening.� As such, for this resonance, the body > tube entrance is seen as the open end of the tube.� > > > > > --- On Wed, 8/12/09, kymarto123@... > <kymarto123@...> wrote: > > From: kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...> > Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: When you move the > mouthpiece on or off the cork, what determines the > pitch? > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com > Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 4:22 PM > > > > > > > � > > > > > > Aaargh...not part of Google books. > Any chance you can type > > short relevant exerpts? > > > > I mean, are you sure you have that right? Clearly > when the > > mpc is being sounded without being attached the open > end > > is a displacement antinode, but once you extend the > air > > column everything changes except the fact that the > reed is > > a pressure antinode, because end of the mpc is no > longer > > the end of the air column. > > > > Toby > > > > --- MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > Benade FMA p484 (I think), he discusses > > this.� � > > > Remember that by definition, a closed pipe has a > > > compression anti-node at the closed end (tip of > > > reed/chamber) and a displacement anti-node at the > > > open end (constriction/ body tube boundary).&# > 65533; > > > Without the displacement anti-node, there would be > > > no resonance there.� The anti-node moves as > a > > > result of the interaction between the sounding > note > > > and our substituton' s own resonance - one thing > > > affects and is affected by everything else. > > > > > > --- On Wed, 8/12/09, kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp > > > <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp> wrote: > > > > > > From: kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp <kymarto123@ybb. > ne.jp> > > > Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: When you move > the > > > mouthpiece on or off the cork, what determines the > > > pitch? > > > To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com > > > Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 2:24 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > � > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is interesting. I have > never > > > seen anything written > > > > > > about this (change in resonance), nor about a > > > displacement > > > > > > antinode at the constriction. Do you have any > links > > > to > > > > > > discussion about this? > > > > > > > > > > > > Toby > > > > > > > > > > > > --- MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Toby wrote, "Don't forget that the Helmholtz > > > > > > > resonance should be measured at the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > constriction and including it, so that you need > to > > > > == $B0J2<$N%a%C%;!<%8$O>JN,$5$l$^$7$?(B =
FROM: lancelotburt (MartinMods)
SUBJECT: Re: When you move the mouthpiece on or off the cork, what determines
From what I understand that is the HH resonance. Testing the mouthpiece's HH freq separated from the system (which is what we have to do as mortals) is only an approximation of the mean frequency, of that what the system actually sees under playing conditions. Everything changes as everything is affected by everything else. There is no constant anything.
Benade described the correct substitution as seen from the body standpoint under playning conditions. The body sees a pressure node (diplacement anti-node) just inside the bocal at frequencies above frs and moving gradually down, to just inside the body tube, for frequencies below frs. That's almost a quote.
--- On Thu, 8/13/09, kymarto123@ybb.ne.jp <kymarto123@...> wrote:
From: kymarto123@... <kymarto123@ybb.ne.jp>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: When you move the mouthpiece on or off the cork, what determines the pitch?
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, August 13, 2009, 12:33 AM
Ah, which determines the length of time the reed is
closed, depending on the truncation, right? I'll look it
up in Nederveen, which I do have.
I'm still wondering, though, how this could change the
Helmholtz resonance of the mpc. Even if the point at which
this partial wave is reflected changes based on frequency,
the constriction is still seen as the point of smallest
diameter before the cone begins to widen out. This is
still the end of the neck, no? I don't see how this
affects the first resonance matching of the mpc, which
simply states that the HH rez of the the mpc at the
constriction should match that of the truncated conic
apex. These are both frequency independent values AFAIK.
BTW I reread Benade and his saying that the neck is the
constriction now makes perfect sense to me. He clearly
means that the *end* of the neck is the constriction, just
as the end of the staple is the constriction for the oboe.
Toby
--- MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:
> I'll try to find my copy of his book.� I could
> probably quote it accurately from memory, but I'm
> not going to try.�
>
> I sent you this info before as well, from Nederveen,
> Rokaboy, and other recent studies.� The resonance
> is formed by the PARTIAL reflection of the wave,
> back towards the mouthpiece, by the difference in
> impedance between the constriction and the body tube
> opening.� As such, for this resonance, the body
> tube entrance is seen as the open end of the
tube.�
>
>
>
>
> --- On Wed, 8/12/09, kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp
> <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp> wrote:
>
> From: kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: When you move the
> mouthpiece on or off the cork, what determines the
> pitch?
> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 4:22 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
> �
>
>
>
>
>
> Aaargh...not part of Google books.
> Any chance you can type
>
> short relevant exerpts?
>
>
>
> I mean, are you sure you have that right? Clearly
> when the
>
> mpc is being sounded without being attached the open
> end
>
> is a displacement antinode, but once you extend the
> air
>
> column everything changes except the fact that the
> reed is
>
> a pressure antinode, because end of the mpc is no
> longer
>
> the end of the air column.
>
>
>
> Toby
>
>
>
> --- MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Benade FMA p484 (I think), he discusses
>
> this.� �
>
> > Remember that by definition, a closed pipe has a
>
> > compression anti-node at the closed end (tip of
>
> > reed/chamber) and a displacement anti-node at the
>
> > open end (constriction/ body tube boundary).&#
> 65533;
>
> > Without the displacement anti-node, there would be
>
> > no resonance there.� The anti-node moves as
> a
>
> > result of the interaction between the sounding
> note
>
> > and our substituton' s own resonance - one thing
>
> > affects and is affected by everything else.
>
> >
>
> > --- On Wed, 8/12/09, kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp
>
> > <kymarto123@ ybb. ne.jp> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > From: kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp <kymarto123@ ybb.
> ne.jp>
>
> > Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: When you move
> the
>
> > mouthpiece on or off the cork, what determines the
>
> > pitch?
>
> > To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
>
> > Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 2:24 PM
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > �
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > This is interesting. I have
> never
>
> > seen anything written
>
> >
>
> > about this (change in resonance), nor about a
>
> > displacement
>
> >
>
> > antinode at the constriction. Do you have any
> links
>
> > to
>
> >
>
> > discussion about this?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Toby
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > --- MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > Toby wrote, "Don't forget that the Helmholtz
>
> >
>
> > > resonance should be measured at the
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > constriction and including it, so that you need
> to
>
> >
>
=== 以下のメッセージは省略されました ===
FROM: kymarto (kymarto123@...)
SUBJECT: Re: When you move the mouthpiece on or off the cork, what determines
I'm not so sure about the significance of the movement of the antinode at frs. The HH resonance is based on the volume of the mpc and the diameter of the exit hole. That value should match the resonance of the truncated cone. If you think about it, the resonance shouldn't change: the value is fixed, just as the resonance frequency of the conic tip is fixed. Anyway, at this point I think we are getting into territory so esoteric that it has little relevance to the chaos of actual playing conditions... Aside from speculation, do you have any intel on what the movement of the antinode at the constriction actually signifies under playing conditions? Toby --- MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote: > From� what I understand that is the HH resonance.� > Testing the mouthpiece's HH freq separated from the > system (which is what we have to do as mortals) is� > only an approximation of the mean frequency, of that > what the system actually sees under playing > conditions.� Everything changes as everything is > affected by everything else.� There is no constant > anything. > > Benade described the correct substitution as seen > from the body standpoint under playning > conditions.� The body sees a pressure node > (diplacement anti-node) just inside the bocal at > frequencies above frs and moving gradually down, to > just inside the body tube, for frequencies below > frs.� That's almost a quote. > > > > --- On Thu, 8/13/09, kymarto123@... > <kymarto123@...> wrote: > > From: kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...> > Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: When you move the > mouthpiece on or off the cork, what determines the > pitch? > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com > Date: Thursday, August 13, 2009, 12:33 AM > > > > > > > � > > > > > > Ah, which determines the length of > time the reed is > > closed, depending on the truncation, right? I'll > look it > > up in Nederveen, which I do have. > > > > I'm still wondering, though, how this could change > the > > Helmholtz resonance of the mpc. Even if the point at > which > > this partial wave is reflected changes based on > frequency, > > the constriction is still seen as the point of > smallest > > diameter before the cone begins to widen out. This > is > > still the end of the neck, no? I don't see how this > > affects the first resonance matching of the mpc, > which > > simply states that the HH rez of the the mpc at the > > constriction should match that of the truncated > conic > > apex. These are both frequency independent values > AFAIK. > > > > BTW I reread Benade and his saying that the neck is > the > > constriction now makes perfect sense to me. He > clearly > > means that the *end* of the neck is the > constriction, just > > as the end of the staple is the constriction for the > oboe. > > > > Toby > > > > --- MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > I'll try to find my copy of his book.� I > could > > > probably quote it accurately from memory, but I'm > > > not going to try.� > > > > > > I sent you this info before as well, from > Nederveen, > > > Rokaboy, and other recent studies.� The > resonance > > > is formed by the PARTIAL reflection of the wave, > > > back towards the mouthpiece, by the difference in > > > impedance between the constriction and the body > tube > > > opening.� As such, for this resonance, the > body > > > tube entrance is seen as the open end of the > > tube.� > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Wed, 8/12/09, kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp > > > <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp> wrote: > > > > > > From: kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp <kymarto123@ybb. > ne.jp> > > > Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: When you move > the > > > mouthpiece on or off the cork, what determines the > > > pitch? > > > To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com > > > Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 4:22 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > � > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Aaargh...not part of Google > books. > > > Any chance you can type > > > > > > short relevant exerpts? > > > > > > > > > > > > I mean, are you sure you have that right? Clearly > > > when the > == $B0J2<$N%a%C%;!<%8$O>JN,$5$l$^$7$?(B =
FROM: lancelotburt (MartinMods)
SUBJECT: Re: When you move the mouthpiece on or off the cork, what determines
So, nobody ever made a double reed for the saxophone, to replace the mouthpiece?
--- On Thu, 8/13/09, kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...> wrote:
From: kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: When you move the mouthpiece on or off the cork, what determines the pitch?
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, August 13, 2009, 3:55 AM
I'm not so sure about the significance of the movement of
the antinode at frs. The HH resonance is based on the
volume of the mpc and the diameter of the exit hole. That
value should match the resonance of the truncated cone. If
you think about it, the resonance shouldn't change: the
value is fixed, just as the resonance frequency of the
conic tip is fixed. Anyway, at this point I think we are
getting into territory so esoteric that it has little
relevance to the chaos of actual playing conditions.. .
Aside from speculation, do you have any intel on what the
movement of the antinode at the constriction actually
signifies under playing conditions?
Toby
--- MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:
> From� what I understand that is the HH
resonance.&# 65533;
> Testing the mouthpiece's HH freq separated from the
> system (which is what we have to do as mortals)
is�
> only an approximation of the mean frequency, of that
> what the system actually sees under playing
> conditions.& #65533; Everything changes as everything is
> affected by everything else.� There is no
constant
> anything.
>
> Benade described the correct substitution as seen
> from the body standpoint under playning
> conditions.& #65533; The body sees a pressure node
> (diplacement anti-node) just inside the bocal at
> frequencies above frs and moving gradually down, to
> just inside the body tube, for frequencies below
> frs.� That's almost a quote.
>
>
>
> --- On Thu, 8/13/09, kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp
> <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp> wrote:
>
> From: kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: When you move the
> mouthpiece on or off the cork, what determines the
> pitch?
> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> Date: Thursday, August 13, 2009, 12:33 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
> �
>
>
>
>
>
> Ah, which determines the length of
> time the reed is
>
> closed, depending on the truncation, right? I'll
> look it
>
> up in Nederveen, which I do have.
>
>
>
> I'm still wondering, though, how this could change
> the
>
> Helmholtz resonance of the mpc. Even if the point at
> which
>
> this partial wave is reflected changes based on
> frequency,
>
> the constriction is still seen as the point of
> smallest
>
> diameter before the cone begins to widen out. This
> is
>
> still the end of the neck, no? I don't see how this
>
> affects the first resonance matching of the mpc,
> which
>
> simply states that the HH rez of the the mpc at the
>
> constriction should match that of the truncated
> conic
>
> apex. These are both frequency independent values
> AFAIK.
>
>
>
> BTW I reread Benade and his saying that the neck is
> the
>
> constriction now makes perfect sense to me. He
> clearly
>
> means that the *end* of the neck is the
> constriction, just
>
> as the end of the staple is the constriction for the
> oboe.
>
>
>
> Toby
>
>
>
> --- MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I'll try to find my copy of his book.� I
> could
>
> > probably quote it accurately from memory, but I'm
>
> > not going to try.�
>
> >
>
> > I sent you this info before as well, from
> Nederveen,
>
> > Rokaboy, and other recent studies.� The
> resonance
>
> > is formed by the PARTIAL reflection of the wave,
>
> > back towards the mouthpiece, by the difference in
>
> > impedance between the constriction and the body
> tube
>
> > opening.� As such, for this resonance, the
> body
>
> > tube entrance is seen as the open end of the
>
> tube.�
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > --- On Wed, 8/12/09, kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp
>
> > <kymarto123@ ybb. ne.jp> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > From: kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp <kymarto123@ ybb.
> ne.jp>
>
> > Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: When you move
> the
>
> > mouthpiece on or off the cork, what determines the
>
> > pitch?
>
> > To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
>
> > Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 4:22 PM
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > �
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Aaargh...not part of Google
> books.
>
> > Any chance you can type
>
> >
>
> > short relevant exerpts?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I mean, are you sure you have that right? Clearly
>
> > when the
>
=== 以下のメッセージは省略されました ===
FROM: lancelotburt (MartinMods)
SUBJECT: Re: Double Reed For Saxophone
So, nobody ever made a double reed for the saxophone, to replace the mouthpiece?
FROM: gregwier (Greg Wier)
SUBJECT: Re: Double Reed For Saxophone
--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote: > > So, nobody ever made a double reed for the saxophone, to replace the mouthpiece? > Making a double reed saxophone mouthpiece would have the same effect as the deservingly obselete sarrusaphone.
FROM: kymarto (kymarto123@...)
SUBJECT: Re: Double Reed For Saxophone
Buy a contrabass sarrusaphone reed and give it a try! Actually, I think that the truncation ratio is much too great on a sax to make this work. You could build a bocal for the neck and then mount a double reed, though. Toby --- MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote: > So, nobody ever made a double reed for the > saxophone, to replace the mouthpiece? > > > >
FROM: arnoldstang3 (John Price)
SUBJECT: Re: Double Reed For Saxophone
-You'd probably like my humourous attempt at a new mouthpiece. I took a clarinet mouthpiece and made another window on the beak area of the mouthpiece. I then made rails and built up the mouthpiece to form another table. Then proceed to attach a reed... voila a double reed cdclarinet mouthpiece. I must admit the secondary reed isn't vibrating yet as I have put a curve on it but it plays as is. I'm sure it will bebe great upon completion. -- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote: > > Buy a contrabass sarrusaphone reed and give it a try! > > Actually, I think that the truncation ratio is much too > great on a sax to make this work. You could build a bocal > for the neck and then mount a double reed, though. > > Toby > > --- MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote: > > > So, nobody ever made a double reed for the > > saxophone, to replace the mouthpiece? > > > > > > > > >
FROM: jbtsax (jbtsax)
SUBJECT: Re: When you move the mouthpiece on or off the cork, what determines
I would also be interested in being directed to sources of information about the Helmholtz resonance inside the mouthpiece and the partial reflection of the sound wave at the opening of the constriction. This forum format is taking some getting used to since it is quite different from other forums I have participated on. Please excuse my stumbling when it happens until I get my bearings. Most of my study to date has been involved with the acoustics of the body of the instrument itself. What is happening inside the mouthpiece and the relationship between that and the body tube is a new area for me that admittedly I know little about at the present time. Has anyone had a chance to view the information on my website that I provided a link to a few days ago on this forum? I would welcome some feedback on that as well. John
FROM: kymarto (kymarto123@...)
SUBJECT: Re: Double Reed For Saxophone
I had thought about this as well, but I guess it will be very difficult to exactly match the lay of the rails and the reed strengths so that both have the same ability to vibrate. Real double reeds have curved reeds which beat against each other. Let us know if you actually get it functioning! Toby --- John Price <john_w_price33@...> wrote: > -You'd probably like my humourous attempt at a new > mouthpiece. I took a clarinet mouthpiece and made > another window on the beak area of the mouthpiece. > I then made rails and built up the mouthpiece to > form another table. Then proceed to attach a > reed... voila a double reed cdclarinet mouthpiece. > I must admit the secondary reed isn't vibrating yet > as I have put a curve on it but it plays as is. I'm > sure it will bebe great upon completion. -- In > MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> > wrote: > > > > Buy a contrabass sarrusaphone reed and give it a > try! > > > > Actually, I think that the truncation ratio is > much too > > great on a sax to make this work. You could build > a bocal > > for the neck and then mount a double reed, though. > > > > Toby > > > > --- MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote: > > > > > So, nobody ever made a double reed for the > > > saxophone, to replace the mouthpiece? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
FROM: lancelotburt (MartinMods)
SUBJECT: Re: When you move the mouthpiece on or off the cork, what determines
Now for some hard evidence: Intonation Demonstration You may remember the description of my test tenor mouthpiece, but I'll repeat the description here anyway:
Link STM 7 Tenor on Olds Ambassador (Martin Indiana Stencil - has a 10m neck bend)
Chamber reamed out. Mpce volume far exceeds missing cone volume. While the sound is dreamy nice, the intonation between registers is of course atrocious. I insert cylindrical constriction long enough to displace enough throat volume to get close to the correct mouthpiece volume. I did not check actual frs matching, but I assume it is close, since it works so well.. This is a short ditty, with wide 2 octave and greater leaps. It's a crummy reed. One very important note. While I do know how to play and have what one would consider a correct technique, from 2002 through much of 2008, I did not as much as touch a wind instrument. I went back to it about a year ago, in the capacity of MartinMods - I test stuff. Absolutely no practicing, long tones, or exercises of any kind. You may notice a certain lack of finess in my execution and musical phrasing as a result, but I think you will get the point anyway.
www.martinmods.com/mp02a.mov
FROM: lancelotburt (MartinMods)
SUBJECT: Re: When you move the mouthpiece on or off the cork, what determines
I must also add, that the saxophone was not mine. I had just finished repadding it and this was the first play test. I am totally unfamiliar with the instrument and it's peculiarities.
--- On Fri, 8/14/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: When you move the mouthpiece on or off the cork, what determines the pitch?
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, August 14, 2009, 8:44 AM
Now for some hard evidence: Intonation Demonstration You may remember the description of my test tenor mouthpiece, but I'll repeat the description here anyway:
Link STM 7 Tenor on Olds Ambassador (Martin Indiana Stencil - has a 10m neck bend)
Chamber reamed out. Mpce volume far exceeds missing cone volume. While the sound is dreamy nice, the intonation between registers is of course atrocious. I insert cylindrical constriction long enough to displace enough throat volume to get close to the correct mouthpiece volume. I did not check actual frs matching, but I assume it is close, since it works so well.. This is a short ditty, with wide 2 octave and greater leaps. It's a crummy reed. One very important note. While I do know how to play and have what one would consider a correct technique, from 2002 through much
of 2008, I did not as much as touch a wind instrument. I went back to it about a year ago, in the capacity of MartinMods - I test stuff. Absolutely no practicing, long tones, or exercises of any kind. You may notice a certain lack of finess in my execution and musical phrasing as a result, but I think you will get the point anyway.
www.martinmods. com/mp02a. mov
FROM: lancelotburt (MartinMods)
SUBJECT: Re: When you move the mouthpiece on or off the cork, what determines
audio link correction - www.martinmods.com/mp02a.mov
--- On Fri, 8/14/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: When you move the mouthpiece on or off the cork, what determines the pitch?
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, August 14, 2009, 8:44 AM
Now for some hard evidence: Intonation Demonstration You may remember the description of my test tenor mouthpiece, but I'll repeat the description here anyway:
Link STM 7 Tenor on Olds Ambassador (Martin Indiana Stencil - has a 10m neck bend)
Chamber reamed out. Mpce volume far exceeds missing cone volume. While the sound is dreamy nice, the intonation between registers is of course atrocious. I insert cylindrical constriction long enough to displace enough throat volume to get close to the correct mouthpiece volume. I did not check actual frs matching, but I assume it is close, since it works so well. This is
a short ditty, with wide 2 octave and greater leaps. It's a crummy reed. One very important note. While I do know how to play and have what one would consider a correct technique, from 2002 through much
of 2008, I did not as much as touch a wind instrument. I went back to it about a year ago, in the capacity of MartinMods - I test stuff. Absolutely no practicing, long tones, or exercises of any kind. You may notice a certain lack of finess in my execution and musical phrasing as a result, but I think you will get the point anyway.
www.martinmods. com/mp02a. mov
FROM: lancelotburt (MartinMods)
SUBJECT: Re: When you move the mouthpiece on or off the cork, what determines
Get rid of the spaces that Yahoo puts in.
www.martinmods.com/mp02a.mov
--- On Fri, 8/14/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: When you move the mouthpiece on or off the cork, what determines the pitch?
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, August 14, 2009, 2:48 PM
audio link correction - www.martinmods. com/mp02a. mov
--- On Fri, 8/14/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:
From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: When you move the mouthpiece on or off the cork, what determines the pitch?
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Friday, August 14, 2009, 8:44 AM
Now for some hard evidence: Intonation Demonstration You may remember the description of my test tenor mouthpiece, but I'll repeat the description here anyway:
Link STM 7 Tenor on Olds Ambassador (Martin Indiana Stencil - has a 10m neck bend)
Chamber reamed out. Mpce volume far exceeds missing cone volume. While the sound is dreamy nice, the intonation between registers is of course atrocious. I insert cylindrical constriction long enough to displace enough throat volume to get close to the correct mouthpiece volume. I did not check actual frs matching, but I assume it is close, since it works so well.. This is
a short ditty, with wide 2 octave and greater leaps. It's a crummy reed. One very important note. While I do know how to play and have what one would consider a correct technique, from 2002 through much
of 2008, I did not as much as touch a wind instrument. I went back to it about a year ago, in the capacity of MartinMods - I test stuff. Absolutely no practicing, long tones, or exercises of any kind. You may notice a certain lack of finess in my execution and musical phrasing as a result, but I think you will get the point anyway.
www.martinmods. com/mp02a. mov
FROM: lancelotburt (MartinMods)
SUBJECT: Re: Mouthpiece Qualities
A nice checklist of things that a good mouthpiece should do - from Benade on the NX clarinet (what a good instrument should do)
1. Provides a full and steady, pleasing tone with a small amount of FM/AM noise.
2. Enables clean, controllable, and dependable articulation
3. Has a wide, steady, and controllable dynamic range
4. Offers pitch flexibility without loss of tone AND tonal flexibility without loss of pitch.
5. Allows large muscle efforts to control small musical changes, while maintaining, 2, 3, and 4.
"It wants to do your bidding!"
Is this your mouthpiece?