>>>>>>>>>>>>
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.
<<<<<<<<<<<<

For tenor, this HH res freq (746 hz on MartinMods Constriction.jpg file) is around G#3 (altissimo G#) correct?  So intonation of the fundamental frequencies in the normal sax range should not be affected by the constriction design (as long as you can retune the MP location on the cork)?  



      

Though this was a discussion limited to the HH res freq., it serves as an example of
what the overly large throat does to resonances that have anti-nodes in the area. There is much more than just the HH res freq. involved, as the explanation on the Constricton.jpg file would have informed you had it been given the opportunity.  

True, just looking at that, the fundamental range of a tenor would not be affected by the sudden change in bore diameter, only I think we all know very well that any note is made up of much more than just it's fundamental frequency.  While 746hz is around the tenor's G#3, it is also close to the second resonance mode freq of G#2, and the 3rd resonance mode of C#2, and the 4th resonance mode of G#1.  So you can see that the notes of the entire second register have one if not two of their most important resonance mode frequencies, with anti-nodes in the throat area, and each resonance will be raised or lowered in pitch accordingly.  Besides being less likely to enable optimally responsive harmonic regimes, they will be out of proportion to the lower register.  

Toby likes to say that, "Well, some go up and some go down so they
cancel themselves out."  but it doesn't work that way.  The goal is
resonance alignment.  Better alignment = better instrument.  A well
designed conical body does an acceptable job of making them that way.  I don't think that random detuning will make anything better.  

How funny it is in comparison, that everyone is so concerned about the neck taper, because, oooh, there are anti-nodes there that are very sensitive to changes in diameter.  It's even an accepted practice to make adjustments to the neck diameter in places for correction of intonation.  But less than an inch away, in what should be a constriction (not a chamber) the idea of making diameter adjustments away from that dictated by the magical neck cork, is considered heresy it seems.

The following comments are made IN RELATION to my test mouthpiece with an extended constriction insert:

What one notices in the case of the enlarged throat is, not a pronounced detuning of all the notes above 746hz, as there are many other factors involved, rather a tendency for things to want to go sharp in the upper register and a lack of a definite CENTER to the pitch of the notes - Intonation instability - the notes slide around a lot, as compared to the same horn, mouthpiece with an extended constriction.  Note that being able to perceive a center of pitch on any note and it's degree of stability have everything to do with the alignment (intonation) of the resonances supporting the harmonics of the note and this equates to Tonal Center or Core.  The in-tune horn has a better, more centered tone.

One could argue that Sax's design incorporated the size of the throat , though his mouthpiece had a very large chamber and the throat tapered in a reverse cone almost, to the neck opening, and modern mouthpiece are quite a bit different than Sax's design, and that all the second register upper resonance modes were supposed to have their AN located in the large, neck cork diameter throat, for proper tuning and optimal performance.  Were this the case, then my test mouthpiece should have played worse than every other mouthpiece I ever played in the last 35 years.  The thing is.  It didn't.  It played better.










--- On Mon, 8/10/09, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:

From: Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] MP Constriction
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, August 10, 2009, 4:08 PM






 




    
                  

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

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.

<<<<<<<<<<<<



For tenor, this HH res freq (746 hz on MartinMods Constriction. jpg file) is around G#3 (altissimo G#) correct?  So intonation of the fundamental frequencies in the normal sax range should not be affected by the constriction design (as long as you can retune the MP location on the cork)?  




 

      

    
    
	
	 
	
	








	


	
	


      

>>>>>>>
There is much more than just the HHS res freq. involved, as the explanation on the Constriction.jpg file would have informed you had it been given the opportunity. 
<<<<<<<

I gave it the opportunity.  It is just not as clear of an explaination as you think it is.  My follow-up question was somewhat retorical to see if you could add some clarity.  I think others here would like to ask some more questions but are put off by your condensending responses.  Chill.


      

MartinMods has decided to unsubscribe from the group.  He wrote:

Anyone that wishes to contact me can at info@....  I'll gladly answer any questions and/or continue the discussion.

Guys,

I had to go to the store and get some feeler gauges.  Now I'm back.  What's new?

I feel asleep in my folding recliner today (every day) at the dog park, my hand filing workshop.  When I awoke, I had an idea, which had to do with something that Toby posted earlier.

Nederveen concluded, after his analysis of the soprano saxophones, that the intonation of this devilish instrument could be significantly improved, if the truncation ratio was reduced. (and it had a straight conical bore) - if we chopped the tube of higher up and attached a smaller mouthpiece.  Why is that?  What is happening?  

For optimal intonation we would have a perfect cone that had been slightly modified for the various affects which make the higher harmonics flat, but we couldn't play it.  When we chop a piece off, and attach a mouthpiece, even one that has been volumetrically and harmonically matched to the body, we introduce significant perturbations to the bore - irregularities, bulges, constrictions and these in turn, affect the pitch of any resonance having an anti-node in the area.  The amount of effect on the pitch is directly proportional to the ratio of the amount of cross sectional volume change to the cross sectional volume of the original bore - a 50mm2 change has more effect in a small bore than in a large bore.  Additionally, the effect is even more pronounced in conical instruments.

But, adding the mouthpiece mess also makes the system very flexible, so usually one can easily negotiate through the problems it causes.  Usually. 

So, the reason the intonation improves so much when the truncation ratio is reduced, as I see it, is:

We are reducing the amount of bore perturbation at the very sensitive small end of the cone.  If I could reduce the truncation ratio on my tenor by 50% - the intonation would improve noticeably, because, all the anti-nodes that were once located in the wide mouthpiece throat which was significantly larger than the neck opening, would now be in a properly dimensioned and narrower bore - actually smaller than the previous neck opening.  The instrument also will not play as loud, but that is another issue.  

That is why using a constriction insert that matches the neck opening diameter, and displaces throat volume, will improve the intonation.

Thoughts please.....




  

--- On Mon, 8/10/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] MP Constriction
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, August 10, 2009, 5:52 PM






 




    
                  Though this was a discussion limited to the HH res freq., it serves as an example of
what the overly large throat does to resonances that have anti-nodes in the area. There is much more than just the HH res freq. involved, as the explanation on the Constricton. jpg file would have informed you had it been given the opportunity.  

True, just looking at that, the fundamental range of a tenor would not be affected by the sudden change in bore diameter, only I think we all know very well that any note is made up of much more than just it's fundamental frequency.  While 746hz is around the tenor's G#3, it is also close to the second resonance mode freq of G#2, and the 3rd resonance mode of C#2, and the 4th resonance mode of G#1.  So you can see that the notes of the entire second register have one if not two of their most important resonance mode frequencies, with anti-nodes in the throat area, and each resonance will be raised or lowered in pitch accordingly.  Besides being less likely to enable optimally responsive
 harmonic regimes, they will be out of proportion to the lower register.  

Toby likes to say that, "Well, some go up and some go down so they
cancel themselves out."  but it doesn't work that way.  The goal is
resonance alignment.  Better alignment = better instrument.  A well
designed conical body does an acceptable job of making them that way.  I don't think that random detuning will make anything better.  

How funny it is in comparison, that everyone is so concerned about the neck taper, because, oooh, there are anti-nodes there that are very sensitive to changes in diameter.  It's even an accepted practice to make adjustments to the neck diameter in places for correction of intonation.  But less than an inch away, in what should be a constriction (not a chamber) the idea of making diameter adjustments away from that dictated by the magical neck cork, is considered heresy it seems.

The following comments are made IN RELATION to my test mouthpiece with an extended constriction insert:

What one notices in the case of the enlarged throat is, not a pronounced detuning of all the notes above 746hz, as there are many other factors involved, rather a tendency for things to want to go sharp
 in the upper register and a lack of a definite CENTER to the pitch of the notes - Intonation instability - the notes slide around a lot, as compared to the same horn, mouthpiece with an extended constriction.  Note that being able to perceive a center of pitch on any note and it's degree of stability have everything to do with the alignment (intonation) of the resonances supporting the harmonics of the note and this equates to Tonal Center or Core.  The in-tune horn has a better, more centered tone.

One could argue that Sax's design incorporated the size of the throat , though his mouthpiece had a very large chamber and the throat tapered in a reverse cone almost, to the neck opening, and modern mouthpiece are quite a bit different than Sax's design, and that all the second register upper resonance modes were supposed to have their AN located in the large, neck cork diameter throat, for proper tuning and optimal performance.  Were
 this the case, then my test mouthpiece should have played worse than every other mouthpiece I ever played in the last 35 years.  The thing is.  It didn't.  It played better.










--- On Mon, 8/10/09, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@yahoo. com> wrote:

From: Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@yahoo. com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] MP Constriction
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Monday, August 10, 2009, 4:08 PM






 

    
                  

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

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.

<<<<<<<<<<<<



For tenor, this HH res freq (746 hz on MartinMods Constriction. jpg file) is around G#3 (altissimo G#) correct?  So intonation of the fundamental frequencies in the normal sax range should not be affected by the constriction design (as long as you can retune the MP location on the cork)?  




 

      


     
    
    


      
 

      

    
    
    
     
    
    








    


    
    



      

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
>
> Nederveen concluded, after his analysis of the soprano saxophones, that the intonation of this devilish instrument could be significantly improved, if the truncation ratio was reduced. (and it had a straight conical bore) - if we chopped the tube of higher up and attached a smaller mouthpiece.  Why is that?  What is happening?  
> 

This may be part of the reason squeeze chamber mouthpiece designs work so well on sop sax.  The short stubby ones sound nice, but the squeeze throat is vitually a standard for sop sax for modern mouthpieces.  Yes, there is still a gap before the neck end but it is not huge.  The squeeze acts like a neck extension/constriction.

I recall fashioning an insert for that space in the soprano squeeze chamber mouthpiece some years ago.  As I recall it worked well.  I didn't have any tools to make more and other things seemed more important at the time.

--- On Tue, 8/11/09, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:

From: Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: MP Constriction
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, August 11, 2009, 3:03 PM






 




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

>

> Nederveen concluded, after his analysis of the soprano saxophones, that the intonation of this devilish instrument could be significantly improved, if the truncation ratio was reduced. (and it had a straight conical bore) - if we chopped the tube of higher up and attached a smaller mouthpiece.  Why is that?  What is happening?  

> 



This may be part of the reason squeeze chamber mouthpiece designs work so well on sop sax.  The short stubby ones sound nice, but the squeeze throat is vitually a standard for sop sax for modern mouthpieces.  Yes, there is still a gap before the neck end but it is not huge.  The squeeze acts like a neck extension/constrict ion.




 

      

    
    
	
	 
	
	








	


	
	


      

This discussion has prompted me to experiment further with a mouthpiece
throat insert I made a few years ago after seeing them on Joe Smallwood's
site.

This ring is cylindrical and has the same inner diameter as the neck
opening. It's only about 2 mm long. It's inserted about 7/8" into the
mouthpiece, which puts it about 1/8" from the tip ring of the neck when in
action. I'm trying it in a Ponzol M1 .095" facing, for which I've made a
number of baffle inserts.

What I notice is a more "focused sound" which I think may correspond
physically to a tighter resonance for each note. The horn feels a little
faster - I suspect this corresponds to attaining note stability quicker.

I had to use a smaller baffle insert to compensate for lost volume. (I like
a "Bernoulli bump" baffle insert for the increased projection and brightness
it adds to this particular mpc.)

Barry

 

> From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
> Reply-To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 08:22:24 -0700 (PDT)
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: MP Constriction
> 
> 
>  
> I recall fashioning an insert for that space in the soprano squeeze chamber
> mouthpiece some years ago.  As I recall it worked well.  I didn't have any
> tools to make more and other things seemed more important at the time.
> 
> --- On Tue, 8/11/09, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:
>> 
>> From: Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...>
>> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: MP Constriction
>> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>> Date: Tuesday, August 11, 2009, 3:03 PM
>> 
>>  
>> --- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
>> </mc/compose?to=MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> , MartinMods <lancelotburt@
>> ...> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Nederveen concluded, after his analysis of the soprano saxophones, that
>>> the intonation of this devilish instrument could be significantly improved,
>>> if the truncation ratio was reduced. (and it had a straight conical bore) -
>>> if we chopped the tube of higher up and attached a smaller mouthpiece.  Why
>>> is that?  What is happening?
>>> > 
>> 
>> This may be part of the reason squeeze chamber mouthpiece designs work so
>> well on sop sax.  The short stubby ones sound nice, but the squeeze throat is
>> vitually a standard for sop sax for modern mouthpieces.  Yes, there is still
>> a gap before the neck end but it is not huge.  The squeeze acts like a neck
>> extension/constrict ion.
>> 
>>    
>> 
>>   
>> 
> 
> 

If your setup already plays really good, then you don't need it, unless you want to experiment.  If however, your chamber is a little large, and pushing in to tune throws the octaves off, then using the insert, whatever length you need, (to a point) will reduce chamber volume and restore mouthpiece length, so you can get back to making music.

--- On Tue, 8/11/09, Barry Levine <barrylevine@...> wrote:

From: Barry Levine <barrylevine@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: MP Constriction
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, August 11, 2009, 4:05 PM






 




    
                  


This discussion has prompted me to experiment further with a mouthpiece throat insert I made a few years ago after seeing them on Joe Smallwood's site.



This ring is cylindrical and has the same inner diameter as the neck opening. It's only about 2 mm long. It's inserted about 7/8" into the mouthpiece, which puts it about 1/8" from the tip ring of the neck when in action. I'm trying it in a Ponzol M1 .095" facing, for which I've made a number of baffle inserts.



What I notice is a more "focused sound" which I think may correspond physically to a tighter resonance for each note. The horn feels a little faster - I suspect this corresponds to attaining note stability quicker. 



I had to use a smaller baffle insert to compensate for lost volume. (I like a "Bernoulli bump" baffle insert for the increased projection and brightness it adds to this particular mpc.)



Barry



 



From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>

Reply-To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com

Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 08:22:24 -0700 (PDT)

To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com

Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: MP Constriction





 

I recall fashioning an insert for that space in the soprano squeeze chamber mouthpiece some years ago.  As I recall it worked well.  I didn't have any tools to make more and other things seemed more important at the time.



--- On Tue, 8/11/09, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@yahoo. com> wrote:



From: Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@yahoo. com>

Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: MP Constriction

To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com

Date: Tuesday, August 11, 2009, 3:03 PM



 

--- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com </mc/compose? to=MouthpieceWor k%40yahoogroups. com> , MartinMods <lancelotburt@ ...> wrote:

>

> Nederveen concluded, after his analysis of the soprano saxophones, that the intonation of this devilish instrument could be significantly improved, if the truncation ratio was reduced. (and it had a straight conical bore) - if we chopped the tube of higher up and attached a smaller mouthpiece.  Why is that?  What is happening?  

> 



This may be part of the reason squeeze chamber mouthpiece designs work so well on sop sax.  The short stubby ones sound nice, but the squeeze throat is vitually a standard for sop sax for modern mouthpieces.  Yes, there is still a gap before the neck end but it is not huge.  The squeeze acts like a neck extension/constrict ion.



   



  












 

      

    
    
	
	 
	
	








	


	
	


      

There's always room for improvement!   I think that a certain point, small
improvements mean more, which may be why I didn't notice much difference
when first trying the throat ring.

It'll take a bit of playing to see if this is really happening, but the
tighter focus is actually something I've sort of been wishing for.  It's
closer to what I feel on alto (on a Selmer Soloist) and on soprano (on a
Bari mpc, which is a squeeze throat design).  The Ponzol has always played
nicely, but with a tendency to squawk, and somewhat of a less-focused feel.
I've assumed it was just the difference of the larger horn - that the
physically bigger notes are slower to pop out, but it could also be
mouthpiece design. Time will tell.


> From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
> Reply-To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 09:55:33 -0700 (PDT)
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: MP Constriction
> 
> 
>  
> If your setup already plays really good, then you don't need it, unless you
> want to experiment.  If however, your chamber is a little large, and pushing
> in to tune throws the octaves off, then using the insert, whatever length you
> need, (to a point) will reduce chamber volume and restore mouthpiece length,
> so you can get back to making music.
> 
> --- On Tue, 8/11/09, Barry Levine <barrylevine@...> wrote:
>> 
>> From: Barry Levine <barrylevine@...>
>> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: MP Constriction
>> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>> Date: Tuesday, August 11, 2009, 4:05 PM
>> 
>>  
>> This discussion has prompted me to experiment further with a mouthpiece
>> throat insert I made a few years ago after seeing them on Joe Smallwood's
>> site.
>> 
>> This ring is cylindrical and has the same inner diameter as the neck opening.
>> It's only about 2 mm long. It's inserted about 7/8" into the mouthpiece,
>> which puts it about 1/8" from the tip ring of the neck when in action. I'm
>> trying it in a Ponzol M1 .095" facing, for which I've made a number of baffle
>> inserts.
>> 
>> What I notice is a more "focused sound" which I think may correspond
>> physically to a tighter resonance for each note. The horn feels a little
>> faster - I suspect this corresponds to attaining note stability quicker.
>> 
>> I had to use a smaller baffle insert to compensate for lost volume. (I like a
>> "Bernoulli bump" baffle insert for the increased projection and brightness it
>> adds to this particular mpc.)
>> 
>> Barry
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>> From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
>>> Reply-To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
>>> Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 08:22:24 -0700 (PDT)
>>> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
>>> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: MP Constriction
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  
>>> I recall fashioning an insert for that space in the soprano squeeze chamber
>>> mouthpiece some years ago.  As I recall it worked well.  I didn't have any
>>> tools to make more and other things seemed more important at the time.
>>> 
>>> --- On Tue, 8/11/09, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@yahoo. com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> From: Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@yahoo.. com>
>>>> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: MP Constriction
>>>> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
>>>> Date: Tuesday, August 11, 2009, 3:03 PM
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> --- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com </mc/compose? to=MouthpieceWor
>>>> k%40yahoogroups. com> , MartinMods <lancelotburt@ ...> wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Nederveen concluded, after his analysis of the soprano saxophones, that
>>>>> the intonation of this devilish instrument could be significantly
>>>>> improved, if the truncation ratio was reduced. (and it had a straight
>>>>> conical bore) - if we chopped the tube of higher up and attached a smaller
>>>>> mouthpiece.  Why is that?  What is happening?
>>>>> > 
>>>> 
>>>> This may be part of the reason squeeze chamber mouthpiece designs work so
>>>> well on sop sax.  The short stubby ones sound nice, but the squeeze throat
>>>> is vitually a standard for sop sax for modern mouthpieces.  Yes, there is
>>>> still a gap before the neck end but it is not huge.  The squeeze acts like
>>>> a neck extension/constrict ion.
>>>> 
>>>>    
>>>> 
>>>>   
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>    
>>>> 
>>>>   
>>>> 
> 
> 

My formal understanding of the physics via math is sadly
lacking, but I have a rough idea of what goes on here.

For a bore shape to be musically useful, the mode
frequencies must scale with length, because it is by
changing length that we change the frequency of the
sounded note in wind instruments. Aside from parabolae, to
which a mpc cannot be attached, the only shapes that
fulfill this condition are cylinders and cones.

The main type of wave propagation in cylindrical
instruments is planar, but in cones it is spherical.
Spherical waves are much more complex than plane waves in
terms of their behavior, because in addition to simply
traveling the length of the tube, they are expanding in
diameter, and contracting on the way back. I don't
understand the math, but the upshot is that for the mode
frequencies to be correct, the waves have to be able to
travel all the way up to the tip of the cone before they
meet a new impulse. I believe this is because spherical
waves are both frequency and distance dependent, unlike
plane waves.

If the cone is truncated, this throws the mode frequencies
out, and the amount they are out depends on the
fundamental frequency: The higher the note the more they
are widened. A further complication is that the mode
frequencies are affected by the ratio of the cone at
truncation to the end of the cone. The former is obviously
constant, but the latter depends on when the air column
ends, which changes with fingering. 

If the cone is complete, the end is a point, whose
diameter is zero, so that no matter what the exit diameter
is the ratio is infinite--so only with a complete cone
does the length not matter to the mode frequencies.

To pull the mode frequencies back into line somewhat, we
have to make the air column think the cone is
complete--that is the point of mimicking the cone volume
with the volume of the mpc. It ain't perfect, but it fools
the lower notes, because the truncation is small in
comparison to the wavelength and thus less important. But
as the air column gets shorter, the truncation ratio
increases; the differential between the end diameters
decreases (making the bore look more like a cylinder), and
generally the missing tip geometry affects the spherical
wave propagation more depending on the frequency. 

This is where what Benade and MM call the "frs" becomes
more important. The idea is that if you can't have the
shape of the missing tip, at least you can have its
first-mode resonance matched by the mpc. Of course there
is no way to reproduce the higher mode resonances of the
missing tip with the mpc, but those are less important
that the first.

If you can match the volume and first-mode resonance of
the missing tip with the mpc then you come as close as
possible to bringing the resonances into line for the
whole cone. After that, the shape of the mpc has important
effects on the tonal spectrum of the note, but in terms of
intonation the internal shape is not so important, as long
as those first two conditions are met.

At least that's how I understand it.

Toby






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

> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods
> <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
> >
> > Nederveen concluded, after his analysis of the
> soprano saxophones, that the intonation of this
> devilish instrument could be significantly improved,
> if the truncation ratio was reduced. (and it had a
> straight conical bore) - if we chopped the tube of
> higher up and attached a smaller mouthpiece.  Why
is
> that?  What is happening?  
> > 
> 
> This may be part of the reason squeeze chamber
> mouthpiece designs work so well on sop sax.  The
> short stubby ones sound nice, but the squeeze throat
> is vitually a standard for sop sax for modern
> mouthpieces.  Yes, there is still a gap before the
> neck end but it is not huge.  The squeeze acts like
> a neck extension/constriction.
> 
> 

This sounds like an impressive summary Toby.    I'd just like to add in reference to this post and the next one on the shape of the window, this:

Regardless of what it's called, mouthpiece, chamber, throat, neck, or body, the thing is still the container and dictates the shape and proportions of the standing wave within those confines.  The rules of perturbation theory theory apply universally, regardless if conical or cylindrical, from one end of the thing to the other, an beyond, just as the rest of Newton's Laws do.  You can try to tell me that perturbation theory doesn't mean anything here, but that's B.S.  Perturbation theory is used to analyze, test, and design just about every aspect of our material existence in today's world.  Everything from automobile exhaust systems, air conditioners, room acoustics, jet engines, rocket boosters, loud speakers, hearing aids, heart valves, nuclear submarines, cell phones,  and contact lenses are what they are largely in part, due to the study of perturbation theory.  

If you tell me that perturbation theory can not be applied in this case or can't be applied with any clear meaning, all that says is that you are unable or unwilling to do so.  Not that it can not be done.  And that is just fine with me, because I can do it, and that gives me one more insight to what is going on and one more edge.

One must realize that there are no displacement anti-nodes for any of the waves of the fundamentals of the normal range of the saxophone located in the mouthpiece.  They are all in the body and the neck. The wave of each fundamental shares the compression anti-node at the tip of the reed and the effect of bore perturbations here is inversely proportional to the length of the wave (and other factors - bore diameter, amount of cross-sectional change).  The rest of the concern of one interested in mouthpiece bore variations and nodes, has to do with analyzing and manipulating the frequencies of the resonances associated with the higher modes (harmonics) of the fundamental notes in the normal range.  This would also apply to the altissimo register.
The possibilities for adjusting and improving tone quality, response, dynamic range, and general intonation are astounding - for those sensitive enough to notice and concerned enough to care, about such things.  That for sure would not include everyone, and that is just fine.  Life is infinitely diverse.

So, you can describe your method of whatever it is you do with the saxophone, anyway that you wish, but if it does not include this type of analysis, it is not quite as complete as it could be and very probably, not quite as effective.






\



--- On Wed, 8/12/09, kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...> wrote:

From: kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: MP Constriction
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 12:29 AM






 




    
                  My formal understanding of the physics via math is sadly

lacking, but I have a rough idea of what goes on here.



For a bore shape to be musically useful, the mode

frequencies must scale with length, because it is by

changing length that we change the frequency of the

sounded note in wind instruments. Aside from parabolae, to

which a mpc cannot be attached, the only shapes that

fulfill this condition are cylinders and cones.



The main type of wave propagation in cylindrical

instruments is planar, but in cones it is spherical.

Spherical waves are much more complex than plane waves in

terms of their behavior, because in addition to simply

traveling the length of the tube, they are expanding in

diameter, and contracting on the way back. I don't

understand the math, but the upshot is that for the mode

frequencies to be correct, the waves have to be able to

travel all the way up to the tip of the cone before they

meet a new impulse. I believe this is because spherical

waves are both frequency and distance dependent, unlike

plane waves.



If the cone is truncated, this throws the mode frequencies

out, and the amount they are out depends on the

fundamental frequency: The higher the note the more they

are widened. A further complication is that the mode

frequencies are affected by the ratio of the cone at

truncation to the end of the cone. The former is obviously

constant, but the latter depends on when the air column

ends, which changes with fingering. 



If the cone is complete, the end is a point, whose

diameter is zero, so that no matter what the exit diameter

is the ratio is infinite--so only with a complete cone

does the length not matter to the mode frequencies.



To pull the mode frequencies back into line somewhat, we

have to make the air column think the cone is

complete--that is the point of mimicking the cone volume

with the volume of the mpc. It ain't perfect, but it fools

the lower notes, because the truncation is small in

comparison to the wavelength and thus less important. But

as the air column gets shorter, the truncation ratio

increases; the differential between the end diameters

decreases (making the bore look more like a cylinder), and

generally the missing tip geometry affects the spherical

wave propagation more depending on the frequency. 



This is where what Benade and MM call the "frs" becomes

more important. The idea is that if you can't have the

shape of the missing tip, at least you can have its

first-mode resonance matched by the mpc. Of course there

is no way to reproduce the higher mode resonances of the

missing tip with the mpc, but those are less important

that the first.



If you can match the volume and first-mode resonance of

the missing tip with the mpc then you come as close as

possible to bringing the resonances into line for the

whole cone. After that, the shape of the mpc has important

effects on the tonal spectrum of the note, but in terms of

intonation the internal shape is not so important, as long

as those first two conditions are met.



At least that's how I understand it.



Toby



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



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

> <lancelotburt@ ...> wrote:

> >

> > Nederveen concluded, after his analysis of the

> soprano saxophones, that the intonation of this

> devilish instrument could be significantly improved,

> if the truncation ratio was reduced. (and it had a

> straight conical bore) - if we chopped the tube of

> higher up and attached a smaller mouthpiece.& #160; Why

is

> that?  What is happening?&# 160; 

> > 

> 

> This may be part of the reason squeeze chamber

> mouthpiece designs work so well on sop sax.  The

> short stubby ones sound nice, but the squeeze throat

> is vitually a standard for sop sax for modern

> mouthpieces.  Yes, there is still a gap before the

> neck end but it is not huge.  The squeeze acts like

> a neck extension/constrict ion.

> 

> 




 

      

    
    
	
	 
	
	








	


	
	


      

Hi Bradbury: 
Please, explain me what is the "constricition", now that i can´t translate such word in Spanish language.
I can intend it how a irruption of leveling between tip (and cork) of neck  and the bore of mouthpiece. That´s right?
If that´s right, then i have some for tell.

Fraternally your

Silverio



--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:
>
> 
> >>>>>>>
> There is much more than just the HHS res freq. involved, as the explanation on the Constriction.jpg file would have informed you had it been given the opportunity. 
> <<<<<<<
> 
> I gave it the opportunity.  It is just not as clear of an explaination as you think it is.  My follow-up question was somewhat retorical to see if you could add some clarity.  I think others here would like to ask some more questions but are put off by your condensending responses.  Chill.
>

es la constricción de la apertura del cuello o una extensión de la misma.

--- On Wed, 8/12/09, silpopaar <silpopaar@...> wrote:

From: silpopaar <silpopaar@...>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: MP Constriction
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 4:43 AM






 




    
                  Hi Bradbury: 

Please, explain me what is the "constricition" , now that i can´t translate such word in Spanish language.

I can intend it how a irruption of leveling between tip (and cork) of neck  and the bore of mouthpiece. That´s right?

If that´s right, then i have some for tell.



Fraternally your



Silverio



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

>

> 

> >>>>>>>

> There is much more than just the HHS res freq. involved, as the explanation on the Constriction. jpg file would have informed you had it been given the opportunity. 

> <<<<<<<

> 

> I gave it the opportunity.  It is just not as clear of an explaination as you think it is.  My follow-up question was somewhat retorical to see if you could add some clarity.  I think others here would like to ask some more questions but are put off by your condensending responses.  Chill.

>




 

      

    
    
	
	 
	
	








	


	
	


      

I agree, and would add only one thing: no one has
succeeded in modeling the mpc, because of the complexity
of what is happening there. General principles apply, but
the only way to really do anything is by empirical
experiment, as Lance says.

Anyone wishing to understand what we are dealing with
should read this paper:

http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/25/27/96/PDF/ajp-jp4199404C5120.pdf

Toby

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

> This sounds like an impressive summary
Toby.    I'd
> just like to add in reference to this post and the
> next one on the shape of the window, this:
> 
> Regardless of what it's called, mouthpiece, chamber,
> throat, neck, or body, the thing is still the
> container and dictates the shape and proportions of
> the standing wave within those confines.  The rules
> of perturbation theory theory apply universally,
> regardless if conical or cylindrical, from one end
> of the thing to the other, an beyond, just as the
> rest of Newton's Laws do.  You can try to tell me
> that perturbation theory doesn't mean anything here,
> but that's B.S.  Perturbation theory is used to
> analyze, test, and design just about every aspect of
> our material existence in today's world. 
Everything
> from automobile exhaust systems, air conditioners,
> room acoustics, jet engines, rocket boosters, loud
> speakers, hearing aids, heart valves, nuclear
> submarines, cell phones,  and contact lenses are
> what they are largely in part, due to the study of
> perturbation theory.  
> 
> If you tell me that perturbation theory can not be
> applied in this case or can't be applied with any
> clear meaning, all that says is that you are unable
> or unwilling to do so.  Not that it can not be
> done.  And that is just fine with me, because I can
> do it, and that gives me one more insight to what is
> going on and one more edge.
> 
> One must realize that there are no displacement
> anti-nodes for any of the waves of the fundamentals
> of the normal range of the saxophone located in the
> mouthpiece.  They are all in the body and the neck.
> The wave of each fundamental shares the compression
> anti-node at the tip of the reed and the effect of
> bore perturbations here is inversely proportional to
> the length of the wave (and other factors - bore
> diameter, amount of cross-sectional change).  The
> rest of the concern of one interested in mouthpiece
> bore variations and nodes, has to do with analyzing
> and manipulating the frequencies of the resonances
> associated with the higher modes (harmonics) of the
> fundamental notes in the normal range.  This would
> also apply to the altissimo register.
> The possibilities for adjusting and improving tone
> quality, response, dynamic range, and general
> intonation are astounding - for those sensitive
> enough to notice and concerned enough to care, about
> such things.  That for sure would not include
> everyone, and that is just fine.  Life is
infinitely
> diverse.
> 
> So, you can describe your method of whatever it is
> you do with the saxophone, anyway that you wish, but
> if it does not include this type of analysis, it is
> not quite as complete as it could be and very
> probably, not quite as effective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> \
> 
> 
> 
> --- On Wed, 8/12/09, kymarto123@...
> <kymarto123@...> wrote:
> 
> From: kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...>
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: MP Constriction
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 12:29 AM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
>     
>                   My formal understanding of the
> physics via math is sadly
> 
> lacking, but I have a rough idea of what goes on
> here.
> 
> 
> 
> For a bore shape to be musically useful, the mode
> 
> frequencies must scale with length, because it is by
> 
> changing length that we change the frequency of the
> 
> sounded note in wind instruments. Aside from
> parabolae, to
> 
> which a mpc cannot be attached, the only shapes that
> 
> fulfill this condition are cylinders and cones.
> 
> 
> 
> The main type of wave propagation in cylindrical
> 
> instruments is planar, but in cones it is spherical.
> 
> Spherical waves are much more complex than plane
> waves in
> 
> terms of their behavior, because in addition to
> simply
> 
> traveling the length of the tube, they are expanding
> in
> 
> diameter, and contracting on the way back. I don't
> 
> understand the math, but the upshot is that for the
> mode
> 
> frequencies to be correct, the waves have to be able
> to
> 
> travel all the way up to the tip of the cone before
> they
> 
> meet a new impulse. I believe this is because
> spherical
> 
> waves are both frequency and distance dependent,
> unlike
> 
> plane waves.
> 
> 
> 
> If the cone is truncated, this throws the mode
> frequencies
> 
> out, and the amount they are out depends on the
> 
> fundamental frequency: The higher the note the more
> they
> 
> are widened. A further complication is that the mode
> 
> frequencies are affected by the ratio of the cone at
> 
> truncation to the end of the cone. The former is
> obviously
> 
> constant, but the latter depends on when the air
> column
> 
> ends, which changes with fingering. 
> 
> 
> 
> If the cone is complete, the end is a point, whose
> 
> diameter is zero, so that no matter what the exit
> diameter
> 
> is the ratio is infinite--so only with a complete
> cone
> 
> does the length not matter to the mode frequencies.
> 
> 
> 
> To pull the mode frequencies back into line
> somewhat, we
> 
> have to make the air column think the cone is
> 
> complete--that is the point of mimicking the cone
> volume
> 
> with the volume of the mpc. It ain't perfect, but it
> fools
> 
> the lower notes, because the truncation is small in
> 
> comparison to the wavelength and thus less
> important. But
> 
> as the air column gets shorter, the truncation ratio
> 
> increases; the differential between the end
> diameters
> 
> decreases (making the bore look more like a
> cylinder), 
== $B0J2<$N%a%C%;!<%8$O>JN,$5$l$^$7$?(B =

The constriction is just the part at the top (after the
mpc chamber) which has the smallest diameter. It should be
where the neck starts. The mpc is much shorter than the
top of the cone which has been cut off, but it needs to
have the same internal volume; therefore the mpc has a
fairly large chamber. After the chamber comes the throat,
which is smaller, and then the end of the neck, which is
the point of least diameter. That is the constriction. In
the oboe the constriction is at the top end of the staple.
The double reed has a sort of chamber, which ends at the
staple.

Lance is right that ideally the chamber should end right
at the start of the neck--the step in diameter at the
throat is not helpful, but unfortunately without it there
is no way to tune the mpc by moving it.

Maybe we should all be like oboe players (I almost became
a professional oboist, so I know the drill). NO TUNING BY
MOVING ANYTHING. Everything is done with the embouchure.
At worst you can make the reeds slightly longer or
shorter, or use a slightly longer or shorter staple. But
things are a bit more complicated on the sax, as people
like to use different mpcs, which all need a slightly
different position on the neck due to structural
differences. 

Toby


--- silpopaar <silpopaar@...> wrote:

> Hi Bradbury: 
> Please, explain me what is the "constricition", now
> that i can$B!-(Bt translate such word in Spanish
> language.
> I can intend it how a irruption of leveling between
> tip (and cork) of neck  and the bore of mouthpiece.
> That$B!-(Bs right?
> If that$B!-(Bs right, then i have some for tell.
> 
> Fraternally your
> 
> Silverio
> 
> 
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Keith
> Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:
> >
> > 
> > >>>>>>>
> > There is much more than just the HHS res freq.
> involved, as the explanation on the Constriction.jpg
> file would have informed you had it been given the
> opportunity. 
> > <<<<<<<
> > 
> > I gave it the opportunity.  It is just not as
> clear of an explaination as you think it is.  My
> follow-up question was somewhat retorical to see if
> you could add some clarity.  I think others here
> would like to ask some more questions but are put
> off by your condensending responses.  Chill.
> >
> 
> 
> 

Toby wrote, "Maybe we should all be like oboe players ."

Benade advised, saxophone players would be wise to concern themselves with the design and dimensions of their mouthpieces, as much as oboists are about their reeds.

--- On Wed, 8/12/09, kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...> wrote:

From: kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: MP Constriction
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 1:15 PM






 




    
                  The constriction is just the part at the top (after the

mpc chamber) which has the smallest diameter. It should be

where the neck starts. The mpc is much shorter than the

top of the cone which has been cut off, but it needs to

have the same internal volume; therefore the mpc has a

fairly large chamber. After the chamber comes the throat,

which is smaller, and then the end of the neck, which is

the point of least diameter. That is the constriction. In

the oboe the constriction is at the top end of the staple.

The double reed has a sort of chamber, which ends at the

staple.



Lance is right that ideally the chamber should end right

at the start of the neck--the step in diameter at the

throat is not helpful, but unfortunately without it there

is no way to tune the mpc by moving it.



Maybe we should all be like oboe players (I almost became

a professional oboist, so I know the drill). NO TUNING BY

MOVING ANYTHING. Everything is done with the embouchure.

At worst you can make the reeds slightly longer or

shorter, or use a slightly longer or shorter staple. But

things are a bit more complicated on the sax, as people

like to use different mpcs, which all need a slightly

different position on the neck due to structural

differences. 



Toby



--- silpopaar <silpopaar@yahoo. com.ar> wrote:



> Hi Bradbury: 

> Please, explain me what is the "constricition" , now

> that i can´t translate such word in Spanish

> language.

> I can intend it how a irruption of leveling between

> tip (and cork) of neck  and the bore of mouthpiece.

> That´s right?

> If that´s right, then i have some for tell.

> 

> Fraternally your

> 

> Silverio

> 

> 

> 

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

> Bradbury <kwbradbury@ ...> wrote:

> >

> > 

> > >>>>>>>

> > There is much more than just the HHS res freq.

> involved, as the explanation on the Constriction. jpg

> file would have informed you had it been given the

> opportunity. 

> > <<<<<<<

> > 

> > I gave it the opportunity.  It is just not as

> clear of an explaination as you think it is.  My

> follow-up question was somewhat retorical to see if

> you could add some clarity.  I think others here

> would like to ask some more questions but are put

> off by your condensending responses.  Chill.

> >

> 

> 

>