I've been experimenting again, and trying different shapes for the window. I
do find that making it larger than is typically found seems to improve
response, and I'm wondering if anyone can share their thoughts on shapes
different than the usual semi-circle?

 

STEVE GOODSON

SAXOPHONE DESIGNER TO THE STARS

 

our products are ALL rated 

 

cid:339191121@25022009-09F4

 

PLEASE VISIT MY WEBSITES
 <http://www.nationofmusic.com/> http://www.nationofmusic.com/ (retail sales
and discussion forum)
 <http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/SaxophoneRepair/>
http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/SaxophoneRepair/  (discussion group)
 <http://www.saxgourmet.com/> http://www.saxgourmet.com/  (saxophone history
and information)
 <http://saxophonethoughts.blogspot.com/>
http://saxophonethoughts.blogspot.com/  (my personal saxophone blog)

 

READ MY ARTICLES ON SAXOPHONE DESIGN IN EACH ISSUE OF THE SAXOPHONE JOURNAL
The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic
hallway where thieves

BASIC SHOP RATE................$100/HR

IF YOU WATCH.....................$125/HR

IF YOU ASK QUESTIONS......$150/HR

IF I HAVE TO LISTEN TO A CONCERT 

LONGER THAN FIVE MINUTES WHEN

YOU PICK UP YOUR HORN....$250/HR

 

The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic
hallway where thieves and pimps run free and good men die like dogs. There's
also a negative side." Hunter S. Thompson

 

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is
for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential
and privileged information or otherwise protected by law. Any unauthorized
review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy
all copies of the original message.

 

Steve,

Wyman had a good chapter on them in his thesis, as far as shapes vs response go.  I'm sure you have read it, and I know you probably know all this already, but it's fun to say anyway....

As for making the window larger, while it may make the mouthpiece feel more responsive, you will have to take that in trade for what it does to the intonation.  The mouthpiece is a cylindrical bore which you have just made more irregular.  

And then, what do you mean exactly by "more responsive"?  Easier to play loudly?  What about softly? Is it easy to control at ppp?   Usually, the horn/mouthpiece that is most in-tune, with aligned resonances, will be the most responsive, meaning easier to control at ppp, at mf, and at fff and more, and to do that in tune.  It does not mean that it is the loudest, but it will usually be loud enough.

Often doing something to gain increased volume or edge at the higher dynamic levels will cause intonation and alignment problems, resulting in a loss of responsiveness at lower dynamic levels.  Extreme moderation might be the best route.  






-- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "STEVE GOODSON" <saxgourmet@...> wrote:
>
> I've been experimenting again, and trying different shapes for the window. I
> do find that making it larger than is typically found seems to improve
> response, and I'm wondering if anyone can share their thoughts on shapes
> different than the usual semi-circle?
> 
>  
> 
> STEVE GOODSON
> 
> SAXOPHONE DESIGNER TO THE STARS
> 
>  
> 
> our products are ALL rated 
> 
>  
> 
> cid:339191121@25022009-09F4
> 
>  
> 
> PLEASE VISIT MY WEBSITES
>  <http://www.nationofmusic.com/> http://www.nationofmusic.com/ (retail sales
> and discussion forum)
>  <http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/SaxophoneRepair/>
> http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/SaxophoneRepair/  (discussion group)
>  <http://www.saxgourmet.com/> http://www.saxgourmet.com/  (saxophone history
> and information)
>  <http://saxophonethoughts.blogspot.com/>
> http://saxophonethoughts.blogspot.com/  (my personal saxophone blog)
> 
>  
> 
> READ MY ARTICLES ON SAXOPHONE DESIGN IN EACH ISSUE OF THE SAXOPHONE JOURNAL
> The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic
> hallway where thieves
> 
> BASIC SHOP RATE................$100/HR
> 
> IF YOU WATCH.....................$125/HR
> 
> IF YOU ASK QUESTIONS......$150/HR
> 
> IF I HAVE TO LISTEN TO A CONCERT 
> 
> LONGER THAN FIVE MINUTES WHEN
> 
> YOU PICK UP YOUR HORN....$250/HR
> 
>  
> 
> The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic
> hallway where thieves and pimps run free and good men die like dogs. There's
> also a negative side." Hunter S. Thompson
> 
>  
> 
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is
> for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential
> and privileged information or otherwise protected by law. Any unauthorized
> review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
> intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy
> all copies of the original message.
>

one thing that will definitely happen is that, should the side walls of the slot have their angle altered by changing the window shape (ie bowed over--no longer straight from the floor of the slot) then the tone can become very rough although equally responsive. one will have the impression of being able to pitch a note just about anywhere. the shape and size of the window is in direct relationship to the volume of the chamber --because the travelling vibrating column of air goes down the players throat on its return journey. nothing starts or ends at the mouthpiece tip--there are consequences in altering internal relationships in the mouthpiece unfortunatley. ( and one has to play with other instrumentalists and blend) but i have experienced some improvements when experimenting simply because i am not implying that all mouthpieces are 'design perfect'.
prof weinberg

--- On Mon, 10/8/09, STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...> wrote:


From: STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, 10 August, 2009, 9:59 PM


  





I’ve been experimenting again, and trying different shapes for the window. I do find that making it larger than is typically found seems to improve response, and I’m wondering if anyone can share their thoughts on shapes different than the usual semi-circle?
 
STEVE GOODSON
SAXOPHONE DESIGNER TO THE STARS
 
our products are ALL rated 
 

 
PLEASE VISIT MY WEBSITES
http://www.nationof music.com/ (retail sales and discussion forum)
http://launch. groups.yahoo. com/group/ SaxophoneRepair/  (discussion group)
http://www.saxgourm et.com/  (saxophone history and information)
http://saxophonetho ughts.blogspot. com/  (my personal saxophone blog)
 
READ MY ARTICLES ON SAXOPHONE DESIGN IN EACH ISSUE OF THE SAXOPHONE JOURNAL
The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves
BASIC SHOP RATE........ ........$ 100/HR
IF YOU WATCH....... ......... .....$125/ HR
IF YOU ASK QUESTIONS... ...$150/HR
IF I HAVE TO LISTEN TO A CONCERT 
LONGER THAN FIVE MINUTES WHEN
YOU PICK UP YOUR HORN....$250/ HR
 
The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side." Hunter S. Thompson
 
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information or otherwise protected by law. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
 

Professor,

I attached 2 pictures of a Link I have received for modificatons.  Pict 01 before and pict 02 after.  Is this the side wall of the slot you are referring to?  I found rounding this with the rest of the wall to have a nice effect on a Link. 

Martinmods

--- On Tue, 8/11/09, ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@...> wrote:

From: ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, August 11, 2009, 5:30 AM

one thing that will definitely happen is that, should the side walls of the slot have their angle altered by changing the window shape (ie bowed over--no longer straight from the floor of the slot) then the tone can become very rough although equally responsive. one will have the impression of being able to pitch a note just about anywhere. the shape and size of the window is in direct relationship to the volume of the chamber --because the travelling vibrating column of air goes down the players throat on its return journey. nothing starts or ends at the mouthpiece tip--there are consequences in altering internal relationships in the mouthpiece unfortunatley. ( and one has to play with other instrumentalists and blend) but i have experienced some improvements when experimenting simply because i am not implying that all mouthpieces are 'design
 perfect'.
prof weinberg

--- On Mon, 10/8/09, STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...> wrote:


From: STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, 10 August, 2009, 9:59 PM


  



I’ve been experimenting again, and trying different shapes for the window. I do find that making it larger than is typically found seems to improve response, and I’m wondering if anyone can share their thoughts on shapes different than the usual semi-circle?
 
STEVE GOODSON
SAXOPHONE DESIGNER TO THE STARS
 
our products are ALL rated 
 

 
PLEASE VISIT MY WEBSITES
http://www.nationof music.com/ (retail sales and discussion forum)
http://launch. groups.yahoo. com/group/ SaxophoneRepair/  (discussion group)
http://www.saxgourm et.com/  (saxophone history and information)
http://saxophonetho ughts.blogspot. com/  (my personal saxophone blog)
 
READ MY ARTICLES ON SAXOPHONE DESIGN IN EACH ISSUE OF THE SAXOPHONE JOURNAL
The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves
BASIC SHOP RATE........ ........$ 100/HR
IF YOU WATCH........ ......... .....$125/ HR
IF YOU ASK QUESTIONS... ...$150/HR
IF I HAVE TO LISTEN TO A CONCERT 
LONGER THAN FIVE MINUTES WHEN
YOU PICK UP YOUR HORN....$250/ HR
 
The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side." Hunter S. Thompson
 
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information or otherwise protected by law. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
 


      

Steve Goodson wrote, "I’ve been
experimenting again, and trying different shapes for the window. I do
find that making it larger than is typically found seems to improve
response, and I’m wondering if anyone can share their thoughts on
shapes different than the usual semi-circle?"

Steve,  

What about..........a star shape?  

Sorry.  I couldn't resist.

MartinMods.



      

for some reason i do not understand i cannot obtain your images, however i think that your results--which seem to improve things--are due to the following:- the Link is probably a post 1969 model. if this is the case then it is made from the new plug mould that was created after the famous loved one wore out. the LINKS AFTER THAT DATE ALL BECAME RATHER MUDDY IN THEIR RESPONSE AND RECIEVED MIXED REACTIONS FROM PLAYERS. tHERE IS NOW A NEW MODEL AVAILABLE WHICH IS CLAIMED TO BE AS THE ORIGINAL PRE 1969 MODEL..( excuse the capitals i pressed the wrong key--) so what you have created therefore is a much more lively response which given the mouthpiece character is rather successful.  With a mouthpiece that was 'normal' and without this history then the response would be gritty and rough.
hope this helps
prof weinberg

--- On Tue, 11/8/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:


From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Shape of the window [2 Attachments]
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, 11 August, 2009, 6:56 AM


  


[Attachment(s) from MartinMods included below] 






Professor,

I attached 2 pictures of a Link I have received for modificatons.  Pict 01 before and pict 02 after.  Is this the side wall of the slot you are referring to?  I found rounding this with the rest of the wall to have a nice effect on a Link. 

Martinmods

--- On Tue, 8/11/09, ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com> wrote:


From: ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Tuesday, August 11, 2009, 5:30 AM







one thing that will definitely happen is that, should the side walls of the slot have their angle altered by changing the window shape (ie bowed over--no longer straight from the floor of the slot) then the tone can become very rough although equally responsive. one will have the impression of being able to pitch a note just about anywhere. the shape and size of the window is in direct relationship to the volume of the chamber --because the travelling vibrating column of air goes down the players throat on its return journey. nothing starts or ends at the mouthpiece tip--there are consequences in altering internal relationships in the mouthpiece unfortunatley. ( and one has to play with other instrumentalists and blend) but i have experienced some improvements when experimenting simply because i am not implying that all mouthpieces are 'design perfect'.
prof weinberg

--- On Mon, 10/8/09, STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@cox. net> wrote:


From: STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@cox. net>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Monday, 10 August, 2009, 9:59 PM


  



I’ve been experimenting again, and trying different shapes for the window. I do find that making it larger than is typically found seems to improve response, and I’m wondering if anyone can share their thoughts on shapes different than the usual semi-circle?
 
STEVE GOODSON
SAXOPHONE DESIGNER TO THE STARS
  
our products are ALL rated 
  
 
  
PLEASE VISIT MY WEBSITES
http://www.nationof music.com/ (retail sales and discussion forum)
http://launch. groups.yahoo. com/group/ SaxophoneRepair/  (discussion group)
http://www.saxgourm et.com/  (saxophone history and information)
http://saxophonetho ughts.blogspot. com/  (my personal saxophone blog) 
  
READ MY ARTICLES ON SAXOPHONE DESIGN IN EACH ISSUE OF THE SAXOPHONE JOURNAL
The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves 
BASIC SHOP RATE........ ........$ 100/HR 
IF YOU WATCH....... . ......... .....$125/ HR 
IF YOU ASK QUESTIONS... ...$150/HR 
IF I HAVE TO LISTEN TO A CONCERT 
LONGER THAN FIVE MINUTES WHEN 
YOU PICK UP YOUR HORN....$250/ HR 
  
The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side." Hunter S. Thompson 
  
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information or otherwise protected by law. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. 
 

Professor,

thank-you.  I emailed the picts to you directly.  This is not the mouthpiece I have been discussing in earlier posts, though it will become like it.  You can seen the straight side wall of the slot in 01 and how it has been removed in 02.  The curved wall now meets the edge of the rail - almost.

You are correct about the tenor piece.  It was a modern STM.  I find I can get them to play nicely, without the normal "tubby" character, by fusing just a bit of 95/5 solder just behind the tip rail, and back about 3/8", and then reshaping the short roll-over baffle.  Of course one must remove the bite plate.  

The new NY Links are very nice.

MM.

--- On Tue, 8/11/09, ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@...> wrote:

From: ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@btopenworld.com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, August 11, 2009, 9:46 AM

for some reason i do not understand i cannot obtain your images, however i think that your results--which seem to improve things--are due to the following:- the Link is probably a post 1969 model. if this is the case then it is made from the new plug mould that was created after the famous loved one wore out. the LINKS AFTER THAT DATE ALL BECAME RATHER MUDDY IN THEIR RESPONSE AND RECIEVED MIXED REACTIONS FROM PLAYERS. tHERE IS NOW A NEW MODEL AVAILABLE WHICH IS CLAIMED TO BE AS THE ORIGINAL PRE 1969 MODEL..( excuse the capitals i pressed the wrong key--) so what you have created therefore is a much more lively response which given the mouthpiece character is rather successful.  With a mouthpiece that was 'normal' and without this history then the response would be gritty and rough.
hope this helps
prof weinberg

--- On Tue, 11/8/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:


From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Shape of the window [2 Attachments]
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, 11 August, 2009, 6:56 AM


  





Professor,

I attached 2 pictures of a Link I have received for modificatons.  Pict 01 before and pict 02 after.  Is this the side wall of the slot you are referring to?  I found rounding this with the rest of the wall to have a nice effect on a Link. 

Martinmods

--- On Tue, 8/11/09, ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com> wrote:


From: ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Tuesday, August 11, 2009, 5:30 AM







one thing that will definitely happen is that, should the side walls of the slot have their angle altered by changing the window shape (ie bowed over--no longer straight from the floor of the slot) then the tone can become very rough although equally responsive. one will have the impression of being able to pitch a note just about anywhere. the shape and size of the window is in direct relationship to the volume of the chamber --because the travelling vibrating column of air goes down the players throat on its return journey. nothing starts or ends at the mouthpiece tip--there are consequences in altering internal relationships in the mouthpiece unfortunatley. ( and one has to play with other instrumentalists and blend) but i have experienced some improvements when experimenting simply because i am not implying that all mouthpieces are 'design perfect'.
prof weinberg

--- On Mon, 10/8/09, STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@cox. net> wrote:


From: STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@cox. net>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Monday, 10 August, 2009, 9:59 PM


  



I’ve been experimenting again, and trying different shapes for the window. I do find that making it larger than is typically found seems to improve response, and I’m wondering if anyone can share their thoughts on shapes different than the usual semi-circle?
 
STEVE GOODSON
SAXOPHONE DESIGNER TO THE STARS
  
our products are ALL rated 
  
 
  
PLEASE VISIT MY WEBSITES
http://www.nationof music.com/ (retail sales and discussion forum)
http://launch. groups.yahoo. com/group/ SaxophoneRepair/  (discussion group)
http://www.saxgourm et.com/  (saxophone history and information)
http://saxophonetho ughts.blogspot. com/  (my personal saxophone blog) 
  
READ MY ARTICLES ON SAXOPHONE DESIGN IN EACH ISSUE OF THE SAXOPHONE JOURNAL
The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves 
BASIC SHOP RATE........ ........$ 100/HR 
IF YOU WATCH....... . ......... .....$125/ HR 
IF YOU ASK QUESTIONS... ...$150/HR 
IF I HAVE TO LISTEN TO A CONCERT 
LONGER THAN FIVE MINUTES WHEN 
YOU PICK UP YOUR HORN....$250/ HR 
  
The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side." Hunter S. Thompson 
  
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information or otherwise protected by law. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. 
 



      

First, let me say that although I often disagree, I do enjoy your posts....

 

I've come to believe after years of doing this for a living that designing
musical equipment is an art and not a science. The physics are the logical
starting point, of course, but I have yet to find an acceptable substitute
for hands on, trial and error experimentation. I also don't know of ANYONE
in the business (I'm talking about actual manufacturers, not those who
watch, comment, and discuss from the sidelines) who does otherwise..you
build a prototype and see how it plays, and then build a different one and
compare them. Through this process, I have grown quite skeptical of the many
academic writings so often taken as truth and gospel. My findings have often
been contrary to, say, Benade. I am extremely suspicious of the "Benade said
it, I believe it, that settles it" mentality.

 

I don't find that enlarging the window significantly alters intonation, and
can think of no reason that it would do so. I do find that it decreases
resistance and increases the dynamic range. My company has a couple of new
models which we will begin shipping next month that feature enlarged
windows, based on my experimentation. I will continue my experiments in the
interests of (1) furthering the craft and (2) increasing my sales.

 

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of lancelotburt
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 11:52 PM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window

 

  

Steve,

Wyman had a good chapter on them in his thesis, as far as shapes vs response
go. I'm sure you have read it, and I know you probably know all this
already, but it's fun to say anyway....

As for making the window larger, while it may make the mouthpiece feel more
responsive, you will have to take that in trade for what it does to the
intonation. The mouthpiece is a cylindrical bore which you have just made
more irregular. 

And then, what do you mean exactly by "more responsive"? Easier to play
loudly? What about softly? Is it easy to control at ppp? Usually, the
horn/mouthpiece that is most in-tune, with aligned resonances, will be the
most responsive, meaning easier to control at ppp, at mf, and at fff and
more, and to do that in tune. It does not mean that it is the loudest, but
it will usually be loud enough.

Often doing something to gain increased volume or edge at the higher dynamic
levels will cause intonation and alignment problems, resulting in a loss of
responsiveness at lower dynamic levels. Extreme moderation might be the best
route. 

-- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> , "STEVE GOODSON" <saxgourmet@...>
wrote:
>
> I've been experimenting again, and trying different shapes for the window.
I
> do find that making it larger than is typically found seems to improve
> response, and I'm wondering if anyone can share their thoughts on shapes
> different than the usual semi-circle?
> 
> 
> 
> STEVE GOODSON
> 
> SAXOPHONE DESIGNER TO THE STARS
> 
> 
> 
> our products are ALL rated 
> 
> 
> 
> cid:339191121@25022009-09F4
> 
> 
> 
> PLEASE VISIT MY WEBSITES
> <http://www.nationofmusic.com/> http://www.nationofmusic.com/ (retail
sales
> and discussion forum)
> <http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/SaxophoneRepair/>
> http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/SaxophoneRepair/ (discussion group)
> <http://www.saxgourmet.com/> http://www.saxgourmet.com/ (saxophone history
> and information)
> <http://saxophonethoughts.blogspot.com/>
> http://saxophonethoughts.blogspot.com/ (my personal saxophone blog)
> 
> 
> 
> READ MY ARTICLES ON SAXOPHONE DESIGN IN EACH ISSUE OF THE SAXOPHONE
JOURNAL
> The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic
> hallway where thieves
> 
> BASIC SHOP RATE................$100/HR
> 
> IF YOU WATCH.....................$125/HR
> 
> IF YOU ASK QUESTIONS......$150/HR
> 
> IF I HAVE TO LISTEN TO A CONCERT 
> 
> LONGER THAN FIVE MINUTES WHEN
> 
> YOU PICK UP YOUR HORN....$250/HR
> 
> 
> 
> The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic
> hallway where thieves and pimps run free and good men die like dogs.
There's
> also a negative side." Hunter S. Thompson
> 
> 
> 
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is
> for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential
> and privileged information or otherwise protected by law. Any unauthorized
> review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
> intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy
> all copies of the original message.
>

I'm sure that this interesting discussion is re: sax  mps, , but there  is 
an expired  US patent on a "keyhole" shaped clarinet "wind cut"  to a  
Chicago clarinet  mp maker, can't recall name now but will  search and post it  
unless someone makes a GooglePatent before I do.   Perhaps it and some of its 
prior art citations will be of interest in this  thread.  Don

I would rather say that in sound (as in many other areas like cooking and
winery), it’s matter of a kind of alchemy, a subtle mix of Art and Science..
(I don’t design musical instruments for living, but am involved in sound
system design and acoustics…and the “alchemy  principle” applies as well in
these areas)

 

cheers

 

Jacques 

 

 

-----Message d'origine-----
De : MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
De la part de STEVE GOODSON
Envoyé : mardi 11 août 2009 16:28
À : MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Objet : RE: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window

 

  

First, let me say that although I often disagree, I do enjoy your posts……..

 

I’ve come to believe after years of doing this for a living that designing
musical equipment is an art and not a science. The physics are the logical
starting point, of course, but I have yet to find an acceptable substitute
for hands on, trial and error experimentation. I also don’t know of ANYONE
in the business (I’m talking about actual manufacturers, not those who
watch, comment, and discuss from the sidelines) who does otherwise……you
build a prototype and see how it plays, and then build a different one and
compare them. Through this process, I have grown quite skeptical of the many
academic writings so often taken as truth and gospel. My findings have often
been contrary to, say, Benade. I am extremely suspicious of the “Benade said
it, I believe it, that settles it” mentality.

 

I don’t find that enlarging the window significantly alters intonation, and
can think of no reason that it would do so. I do find that it decreases
resistance and increases the dynamic range. My company has a couple of new
models which we will begin shipping next month that feature enlarged
windows, based on my experimentation. I will continue my experiments in the
interests of (1) furthering the craft and (2) increasing my sales.

 

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of lancelotburt
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 11:52 PM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window

 

  

Steve,

Wyman had a good chapter on them in his thesis, as far as shapes vs response
go. I'm sure you have read it, and I know you probably know all this
already, but it's fun to say anyway....

As for making the window larger, while it may make the mouthpiece feel more
responsive, you will have to take that in trade for what it does to the
intonation. The mouthpiece is a cylindrical bore which you have just made
more irregular. 

And then, what do you mean exactly by "more responsive"? Easier to play
loudly? What about softly? Is it easy to control at ppp? Usually, the
horn/mouthpiece that is most in-tune, with aligned resonances, will be the
most responsive, meaning easier to control at ppp, at mf, and at fff and
more, and to do that in tune. It does not mean that it is the loudest, but
it will usually be loud enough.

Often doing something to gain increased volume or edge at the higher dynamic
levels will cause intonation and alignment problems, resulting in a loss of
responsiveness at lower dynamic levels. Extreme moderation might be the best
route. 

-- In MouthpieceWork@ <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
yahoogroups.com, "STEVE GOODSON" <saxgourmet@...> wrote:
>
> I've been experimenting again, and trying different shapes for the window.
I
> do find that making it larger than is typically found seems to improve
> response, and I'm wondering if anyone can share their thoughts on shapes
> different than the usual semi-circle?
> 
> 
> 
> STEVE GOODSON
> 
> SAXOPHONE DESIGNER TO THE STARS
> 
> 
> 
> our products are ALL rated 
> 
> 
> 
> cid:339191121@25022009-09F4
> 
> 
> 
> PLEASE VISIT MY WEBSITES
> <http://www.nationof <http://www.nationofmusic.com/> music.com/>
http://www.nationof <http://www.nationofmusic.com/> music.com/ (retail sales
> and discussion forum)
> <http://launch. <http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/SaxophoneRepair/>
groups.yahoo.com/group/SaxophoneRepair/>
> http://launch. <http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/SaxophoneRepair/>
groups.yahoo.com/group/SaxophoneRepair/ (discussion group)
> <http://www.saxgourm <http://www.saxgourmet.com/> et.com/>
http://www.saxgourm <http://www.saxgourmet.com/> et.com/ (saxophone history
> and information)
> <http://saxophonetho <http://saxophonethoughts.blogspot.com/>
ughts.blogspot.com/>
> http://saxophonetho <http://saxophonethoughts.blogspot.com/>
ughts.blogspot.com/ (my personal saxophone blog)
> 
> 
> 
> READ MY ARTICLES ON SAXOPHONE DESIGN IN EACH ISSUE OF THE SAXOPHONE
JOURNAL
> The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic
> hallway where thieves
> 
> BASIC SHOP RATE................$100/HR
> 
> IF YOU WATCH.....................$125/HR
> 
> IF YOU ASK QUESTIONS......$150/HR
> 
> IF I HAVE TO LISTEN TO A CONCERT 
> 
> LONGER THAN FIVE MINUTES WHEN
> 
> YOU PICK UP YOUR HORN....$250/HR
> 
> 
> 
> The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic
> hallway where thieves and pimps run free and good men die like dogs.
There's
> also a negative side." Hunter S. Thompson
> 
> 
> 
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is
> for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential
> and privileged information or otherwise protected by law. Any unauthorized
> review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
> intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy
> all copies of the original message.
>

Steve,

I agree with you.  To elaborate though, a really great artist must have a complete grasp of the science to base his hunches on.  Michaelangelo didn't just chisel 1000 slabs of marble, one after another,  in a purely trial and error fashion, to finally end up with his David on the last one.  He spent a lot of time chopping up bodies in the morgue
so he could see and understand just what things on the inside, made it look like that on the outside.  He studied the science of anatomy, as it existed at the time.   The "sideliner" will stand there obscessed with theory, and spouting it constantly, he does nothing else.  The artist transcends the same theory and then using it like a slab of marble, creates something out of it.

I don't agree with everything Benade says verbatim.  He often made generalizations about the saxophone in relation to more exact studies done on the oboe or bassoon, which are misleading.  He would sometimes give you a simplified explanation for something, only later to say, "I admit, it's more complicated than that, so that stuff I told you before.....it doesn't work."  But the bulk of it, I think is right on the money.  Everything that I tried according to his view worked as he said it would.  

The tiny little pip that he described in 1973, an apparantly was ignored by the manufactureing world, does eliminate the the plague of sharp D2-F#2 notes on vintage horns, in every instance of it being installed, by players or techs around the world that I know of.  After reading 100's of posts on SOTW of members complaining about the problem, and then getting my own Martin bari afflicted with the same, I tried it, and it worked.  I tried it on another, and another, same result, Conn, King, didn't matter (though many older vintage horns have the lower pip placed too low on the body, for the small pip to word effectively.  It then needs to be relocated between the E and F palm key tone holes, or therebouts).  I announced it on SOTW and asked that someone try to duplicate my results.  Human inertia is so sad sometimes.  One of the busiest and most respected techs in downtown Manhatten replied, "Hey, if this is so easy, then why haven't we heard of
 this before?"  And I had to reply, "You just answered your own question didn't you?  Because everyone else who heard about it, just like you, asked that same question instead of trying it."  Now he admits that he was perhaps wrong in being so "pedestrian" skeptical.  I admit I don't deal with modern saxophone designs so I make no claims in that, your area of expertise.

My comments on changing the window size are not based upon a "sideline" point of view.  My observation is based upon actually making the window smaller.  Making the window smaller, within certain shap limitations, does improve and stablize tuning over the whole range of the instrument.  Perhaps doing so also adds a slight amount of resistance, but I was so engrossed in experiencing the new enhanced intonation response, that I didn't notice if there was.  The only logical explanation for the result is, the cross sectional bore volume in that area had become more uniform, and for that very same reason, and for that law of physics, which I trust implicitly and without reservation, I predict that making the window larger and increasing the cross sectional volume of that perturbation in the bore of the mouthpiece, will affect the intonation.  Whether that is detrimental or not and to what extent, and if the improvement in other aspects outweigh any
 change in that regard, I can't say, but..."The Law is the Law." says Tommy Lee Jones. 

Best of Luck with the new lines.

MM

..




--- On Tue, 8/11/09, STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...> wrote:

From: STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...>
Subject: RE: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, August 11, 2009, 2:28 PM






 




    
                  







First, let me say that although I often disagree, I do enjoy
your posts…….. 

   

I’ve come to believe after years of doing this for a
living that designing musical equipment is an art and not a science. The
physics are the logical starting point, of course, but I have yet to find an
acceptable substitute for hands on, trial and error experimentation. I also don’t
know of ANYONE in the business (I’m talking about actual manufacturers,
not those who watch, comment, and discuss from the sidelines) who does
otherwise……you build a prototype and see how it plays, and then
build a different one and compare them. Through this process, I have grown
quite skeptical of the many academic writings so often taken as truth and
gospel. My findings have often been contrary to, say, Benade. I am extremely
suspicious of the “Benade said it, I believe it, that settles it”
mentality. 

   

I don’t find that enlarging the window significantly
alters intonation, and can think of no reason that it would do so. I do find
that it decreases resistance and increases the dynamic range. My company has a
couple of new models which we will begin shipping next month that feature
enlarged windows, based on my experimentation. I will continue my experiments
in the interests of (1) furthering the craft and (2) increasing my sales. 

   





From:
MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:MouthpieceW ork@yahoogroups. com] On
Behalf Of lancelotburt

Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 11:52 PM

To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com

Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window 





   

   







Steve,



Wyman had a good chapter on them in his thesis, as far as shapes vs response
go. I'm sure you have read it, and I know you probably know all this already,
but it's fun to say anyway....



As for making the window larger, while it may make the mouthpiece feel more
responsive, you will have to take that in trade for what it does to the
intonation. The mouthpiece is a cylindrical bore which you have just made more
irregular. 



And then, what do you mean exactly by "more responsive"? Easier to
play loudly? What about softly? Is it easy to control at ppp? Usually, the
horn/mouthpiece that is most in-tune, with aligned resonances, will be the most
responsive, meaning easier to control at ppp, at mf, and at fff and more, and
to do that in tune. It does not mean that it is the loudest, but it will
usually be loud enough.



Often doing something to gain increased volume or edge at the higher dynamic
levels will cause intonation and alignment problems, resulting in a loss of
responsiveness at lower dynamic levels. Extreme moderation might be the best
route. 



-- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com,
"STEVE GOODSON" <saxgourmet@. ...> wrote:

>

> I've been experimenting again, and trying different shapes for the window.
I

> do find that making it larger than is typically found seems to improve

> response, and I'm wondering if anyone can share their thoughts on shapes

> different than the usual semi-circle?

> 

> 

> 

> STEVE GOODSON

> 

> SAXOPHONE DESIGNER TO THE STARS

> 

> 

> 

> our products are ALL rated 

> 

> 

> 

> cid:339191121@ 25022009- 09F4

> 

> 

> 

> PLEASE VISIT MY WEBSITES

> <http://www.nationof music.com/>
http://www.nationof music.com/
(retail sales

> and discussion forum)

> <http://launch. groups.yahoo. com/group/ SaxophoneRepair/>

> http://launch. groups.yahoo. com/group/ SaxophoneRepair/
(discussion group)

> <http://www.saxgourm et.com/>
http://www.saxgourm et.com/ (saxophone
history

> and information)

> <http://saxophonetho ughts.blogspot. com/>

> http://saxophonetho ughts.blogspot. com/
(my personal saxophone blog)

> 

> 

> 

> READ MY ARTICLES ON SAXOPHONE DESIGN IN EACH ISSUE OF THE SAXOPHONE
JOURNAL

> The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic

> hallway where thieves

> 

> BASIC SHOP RATE........ ........$ 100/HR

> 

> IF YOU WATCH....... ......... .....$125/ HR

> 

> IF YOU ASK QUESTIONS... ...$150/HR

> 

> IF I HAVE TO LISTEN TO A CONCERT 

> 

> LONGER THAN FIVE MINUTES WHEN

> 

> YOU PICK UP YOUR HORN....$250/ HR

> 

> 

> 

> The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic

> hallway where thieves and pimps run free and good men die like dogs.
There's

> also a negative side." Hunter S. Thompson

> 

> 

> 

> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is

> for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential

> and privileged information or otherwise protected by law. Any unauthorized

> review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the

> intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy

> all copies of the original message.

> 





 









 

      

    
    
	
	 
	
	








	


	
	


      

I totally agree with Steve. The problem is that science
deals with analysis and not synthesis. It is the biggest
conundrum that science faces. In order to analyze the
effect of a variable, it has to be isolated, but the more
it is isolated the less the conditions of the test
correspond with the real world, where variables interact.

I am a great believer in the science, but analysis is very
limiting and so is understanding past the first or second
approximation. This is definitely where the art comes in.
I think that after art has done its thing, science can
come back in and find out why something works, and in that
way both science and art are benefited. They are brothers
in arms.

Look at it this way: it is the art which provides the
questions that science must answer.

Toby

--- STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...> wrote:

> First, let me say that although I often disagree, I
> do enjoy your posts....
> 
>  
> 
> I've come to believe after years of doing this for a
> living that designing
> musical equipment is an art and not a science. The
> physics are the logical
> starting point, of course, but I have yet to find an
> acceptable substitute
> for hands on, trial and error experimentation. I
> also don't know of ANYONE
> in the business (I'm talking about actual
> manufacturers, not those who
> watch, comment, and discuss from the sidelines) who
> does otherwise..you
> build a prototype and see how it plays, and then
> build a different one and
> compare them. Through this process, I have grown
> quite skeptical of the many
> academic writings so often taken as truth and
> gospel. My findings have often
> been contrary to, say, Benade. I am extremely
> suspicious of the "Benade said
> it, I believe it, that settles it" mentality.
> 
>  
> 
> I don't find that enlarging the window significantly
> alters intonation, and
> can think of no reason that it would do so. I do
> find that it decreases
> resistance and increases the dynamic range. My
> company has a couple of new
> models which we will begin shipping next month that
> feature enlarged
> windows, based on my experimentation. I will
> continue my experiments in the
> interests of (1) furthering the craft and (2)
> increasing my sales.
> 
>  
> 
> From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of lancelotburt
> Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 11:52 PM
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
> 
>  
> 
>   
> 
> Steve,
> 
> Wyman had a good chapter on them in his thesis, as
> far as shapes vs response
> go. I'm sure you have read it, and I know you
> probably know all this
> already, but it's fun to say anyway....
> 
> As for making the window larger, while it may make
> the mouthpiece feel more
> responsive, you will have to take that in trade for
> what it does to the
> intonation. The mouthpiece is a cylindrical bore
> which you have just made
> more irregular. 
> 
> And then, what do you mean exactly by "more
> responsive"? Easier to play
> loudly? What about softly? Is it easy to control at
> ppp? Usually, the
> horn/mouthpiece that is most in-tune, with aligned
> resonances, will be the
> most responsive, meaning easier to control at ppp,
> at mf, and at fff and
> more, and to do that in tune. It does not mean that
> it is the loudest, but
> it will usually be loud enough.
> 
> Often doing something to gain increased volume or
> edge at the higher dynamic
> levels will cause intonation and alignment problems,
> resulting in a loss of
> responsiveness at lower dynamic levels. Extreme
> moderation might be the best
> route. 
> 
> -- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> , "STEVE
> GOODSON" <saxgourmet@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > I've been experimenting again, and trying
> different shapes for the window.
> I
> > do find that making it larger than is typically
> found seems to improve
> > response, and I'm wondering if anyone can share
> their thoughts on shapes
> > different than the usual semi-circle?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > STEVE GOODSON
> > 
> > SAXOPHONE DESIGNER TO THE STARS
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > our products are ALL rated 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > cid:339191121@25022009-09F4
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > PLEASE VISIT MY WEBSITES
> > <http://www.nationofmusic.com/>
> http://www.nationofmusic.com/ (retail
> sales
> > and discussion forum)
> >
> <http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/SaxophoneRepair/>
> >
> http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/SaxophoneRepair/
> (discussion group)
> > <http://www.saxgourmet.com/>
> http://www.saxgourmet.com/ (saxophone history
> > and information)
> > <http://saxophonethoughts.blogspot.com/>
> > http://saxophonethoughts.blogspot.com/ (my
> personal saxophone blog)
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > READ MY ARTICLES ON SAXOPHONE DESIGN IN EACH ISSUE
> OF THE SAXOPHONE
> JOURNAL
> > The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money
> trench, a long plastic
> > hallway where thieves
> > 
> > BASIC SHOP RATE................$100/HR
> > 
> > IF YOU WATCH.....................$125/HR
> > 
> > IF YOU ASK QUESTIONS......$150/HR
> > 
> > IF I HAVE TO LISTEN TO A CONCERT 
> > 
> > LONGER THAN FIVE MINUTES WHEN
> > 
> > YOU PICK UP YOUR HORN....$250/HR
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money
> trench, a long plastic
> > hallway where thieves and pimps run free and good
> men die like dogs.
> There's
> > also a negative side." Hunter S. Thompson
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message,
> including any attachments, is
> > for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
> may contain confidential
> > and privileged information or otherwise protected
> by law. Any unauthorized
> > review, use, disclosure or distribution is
> prohibited. If you are not the
> > intended recipient, please contact the sender by
> reply e-mail and destroy
> > all copies of the original message.
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 

What is gospel is that there should be no sharp edges in a
bore. Aside from discussions of shape it is certainly of
value to round the bottom edge of the window cutout, and
the more the better. This should have a minimal effect on
tone but increase efficiency by reducing turbulence.

Toby



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

> Professor,
> 
> I attached 2 pictures of a Link I have received for
> modificatons.$B%D(B Pict 01 before and pict 02 after.$B%D(B
> Is this the side wall of the slot you are referring
> to?$B%D(B I found rounding this with the rest of the
> wall to have a nice effect on a Link. 
> 
> Martinmods
> 
> --- On Tue, 8/11/09, ANTON WEINBERG
> <anton.weinberg@...> wrote:
> 
> From: ANTON WEINBERG
> <anton.weinberg@...>
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Shape of the window
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Tuesday, August 11, 2009, 5:30 AM
> 
> one thing that will definitely happen is that,
> should the side walls of the slot have their angle
> altered by changing the window shape (ie bowed
> over--no longer straight from the floor of the slot)
> then the tone can become very rough although equally
> responsive. one will have the impression of being
> able to pitch a note just about anywhere. the shape
> and size of the window is in direct relationship to
> the volume of the chamber --because the travelling
> vibrating column of air goes down the players
> throat$B%D(Bon its return journey. nothing starts or
> ends at the mouthpiece tip--there are consequences
> in altering internal relationships in the mouthpiece
> unfortunatley. ( and one has to play with other
> instrumentalists and blend) but i have experienced
> some improvements when experimenting simply because
> i am not implying that all mouthpieces are 'design
>  perfect'.
> prof weinberg
> 
> --- On Mon, 10/8/09, STEVE GOODSON
> <saxgourmet@...> wrote:
> 
> 
> From: STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...>
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Shape of the window
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Monday, 10 August, 2009, 9:59 PM
> 
> 
> $B%D(B 
> 
> 
> 
> I$Bc`QW(Be been experimenting again, and trying
> different shapes for the window. I do find that
> making it larger than is typically found seems to
> improve response, and I$Bc`QN(B wondering if anyone can
> share their thoughts on shapes different than the
> usual semi-circle?
> $B%D(B
> STEVE GOODSON
> SAXOPHONE DESIGNER TO THE STARS
> $B%D(B
> our products are ALL rated 
> $B%D(B
> 
> $B%D(B
> PLEASE VISIT MY WEBSITES
> http://www.nationof music.com/ (retail sales and
> discussion forum)
> http://launch. groups.yahoo. com/group/
> SaxophoneRepair/$B%D(B (discussion group)
> http://www.saxgourm et.com/$B%D(B (saxophone history and
> information)
> http://saxophonetho ughts.blogspot. com/$B%D(B (my
> personal saxophone blog)
> $B%D(B
> READ MY ARTICLES ON SAXOPHONE DESIGN IN EACH ISSUE
> OF THE SAXOPHONE JOURNAL
> The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money
> trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves
> BASIC SHOP RATE........ ........$ 100/HR
> IF YOU WATCH........ ......... .....$125/ HR
> IF YOU ASK QUESTIONS... ...$150/HR
> IF I HAVE TO LISTEN TO A CONCERT 
> LONGER THAN FIVE MINUTES WHEN
> YOU PICK UP YOUR HORN....$250/ HR
> $B%D(B
> The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money
> trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and
> pimps run free and good men die like dogs. There's
> also a negative side." Hunter S. Thompson
> $B%D(B
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message,
> including any attachments, is for the sole use of
> the intended recipient(s) and may contain
> confidential and privileged information or otherwise
> protected by law. Any unauthorized review, use,
> disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are
> not the intended recipient, please contact the
> sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the
> original message.
> $B%D(B
> 
> 
>       

Yes.  I did some experiments with ramp shape.  A rectangle of brass, contoured on one side to fit the "U", and sticking up 2mm above the floor of the throat, made the mouthpiece very bright and edgy, though not unpleasant.  It added a bit of resistance, but not as much as expected.  There's something to amaze friends with at a party!



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

From: kymarto123@ybb.ne.jp <kymarto123@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 12:47 AM






 




    
                  What is gospel is that there should be no sharp edges in a

bore. Aside from discussions of shape it is certainly of

value to round the bottom edge of the window cutout, and

the more the better. This should have a minimal effect on

tone but increase efficiency by reducing turbulence.



Toby



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



> Professor,

> 

> I attached 2 pictures of a Link I have received for

> modificatons.ツ Pict 01 before and pict 02 after.ツ

> Is this the side wall of the slot you are referring

> to?ツ I found rounding this with the rest of the

> wall to have a nice effect on a Link. 

> 

> Martinmods

> 

> --- On Tue, 8/11/09, ANTON WEINBERG

> <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com> wrote:

> 

> From: ANTON WEINBERG

> <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com>

> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Shape of the window

> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com

> Date: Tuesday, August 11, 2009, 5:30 AM

> 

> one thing that will definitely happen is that,

> should the side walls of the slot have their angle

> altered by changing the window shape (ie bowed

> over--no longer straight from the floor of the slot)

> then the tone can become very rough although equally

> responsive. one will have the impression of being

> able to pitch a note just about anywhere. the shape

> and size of the window is in direct relationship to

> the volume of the chamber --because the travelling

> vibrating column of air goes down the players

> throatツon its return journey. nothing starts or

> ends at the mouthpiece tip--there are consequences

> in altering internal relationships in the mouthpiece

> unfortunatley. ( and one has to play with other

> instrumentalists and blend) but i have experienced

> some improvements when experimenting simply because

> i am not implying that all mouthpieces are 'design

>  perfect'.

> prof weinberg

> 

> --- On Mon, 10/8/09, STEVE GOODSON

> <saxgourmet@cox. net> wrote:

> 

> 

> From: STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@cox. net>

> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Shape of the window

> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com

> Date: Monday, 10 August, 2009, 9:59 PM

> 

> 

> ツ 

> 

> 

> 

> I窶况e been experimenting again, and trying

> different shapes for the window. I do find that

> making it larger than is typically found seems to

> improve response, and I窶冦 wondering if anyone can

> share their thoughts on shapes different than the

> usual semi-circle?

> ツ

> STEVE GOODSON

> SAXOPHONE DESIGNER TO THE STARS

> ツ

> our products are ALL rated 

> ツ

> 

> ツ

> PLEASE VISIT MY WEBSITES

> http://www.nationof music.com/ (retail sales and

> discussion forum)

> http://launch. groups.yahoo. com/group/

> SaxophoneRepair/ツ (discussion group)

> http://www.saxgourm et.com/ツ (saxophone history and

> information)

> http://saxophonetho ughts.blogspot. com/ツ (my

> personal saxophone blog)

> ツ

> READ MY ARTICLES ON SAXOPHONE DESIGN IN EACH ISSUE

> OF THE SAXOPHONE JOURNAL

> The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money

> trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves

> BASIC SHOP RATE........ ........$ 100/HR

> IF YOU WATCH....... . ......... .....$125/ HR

> IF YOU ASK QUESTIONS... ...$150/HR

> IF I HAVE TO LISTEN TO A CONCERT 

> LONGER THAN FIVE MINUTES WHEN

> YOU PICK UP YOUR HORN....$250/ HR

> ツ

> The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money

> trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and

> pimps run free and good men die like dogs. There's

> also a negative side." Hunter S. Thompson

> ツ

> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message,

> including any attachments, is for the sole use of

> the intended recipient(s) and may contain

> confidential and privileged information or otherwise

> protected by law. Any unauthorized review, use,

> disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are

> not the intended recipient, please contact the

> sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the

> original message.

> ツ

> 

> 

>       




 

      

    
    
	
	 
	
	








	


	
	


      

My understanding is that while the shape of the mpc will
affect many aspects of the final sound, intonation is not
one of them as long as the volume and "frs" remain
constant. Or?

Toby

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

> Steve,
> 
> Wyman had a good chapter on them in his thesis, as
> far as shapes vs response go.  I'm sure you have
> read it, and I know you probably know all this
> already, but it's fun to say anyway....
> 
> As for making the window larger, while it may make
> the mouthpiece feel more responsive, you will have
> to take that in trade for what it does to the
> intonation.  The mouthpiece is a cylindrical bore
> which you have just made more irregular.  
> 
> And then, what do you mean exactly by "more
> responsive"?  Easier to play loudly?  What about
> softly? Is it easy to control at ppp?   Usually, the
> horn/mouthpiece that is most in-tune, with aligned
> resonances, will be the most responsive, meaning
> easier to control at ppp, at mf, and at fff and
> more, and to do that in tune.  It does not mean that
> it is the loudest, but it will usually be loud
> enough.
> 
> Often doing something to gain increased volume or
> edge at the higher dynamic levels will cause
> intonation and alignment problems, resulting in a
> loss of responsiveness at lower dynamic levels. 
> Extreme moderation might be the best route.  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "STEVE
> GOODSON" <saxgourmet@...> wrote:
> >
> > I've been experimenting again, and trying
> different shapes for the window. I
> > do find that making it larger than is typically
> found seems to improve
> > response, and I'm wondering if anyone can share
> their thoughts on shapes
> > different than the usual semi-circle?
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > STEVE GOODSON
> > 
> > SAXOPHONE DESIGNER TO THE STARS
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > our products are ALL rated 
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > cid:339191121@25022009-09F4
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > PLEASE VISIT MY WEBSITES
> >  <http://www.nationofmusic.com/>
> http://www.nationofmusic.com/ (retail sales
> > and discussion forum)
> > 
> <http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/SaxophoneRepair/>
> >
> http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/SaxophoneRepair/
>  (discussion group)
> >  <http://www.saxgourmet.com/>
> http://www.saxgourmet.com/  (saxophone history
> > and information)
> >  <http://saxophonethoughts.blogspot.com/>
> > http://saxophonethoughts.blogspot.com/  (my
> personal saxophone blog)
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > READ MY ARTICLES ON SAXOPHONE DESIGN IN EACH ISSUE
> OF THE SAXOPHONE JOURNAL
> > The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money
> trench, a long plastic
> > hallway where thieves
> > 
> > BASIC SHOP RATE................$100/HR
> > 
> > IF YOU WATCH.....................$125/HR
> > 
> > IF YOU ASK QUESTIONS......$150/HR
> > 
> > IF I HAVE TO LISTEN TO A CONCERT 
> > 
> > LONGER THAN FIVE MINUTES WHEN
> > 
> > YOU PICK UP YOUR HORN....$250/HR
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money
> trench, a long plastic
> > hallway where thieves and pimps run free and good
> men die like dogs. There's
> > also a negative side." Hunter S. Thompson
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message,
> including any attachments, is
> > for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
> may contain confidential
> > and privileged information or otherwise protected
> by law. Any unauthorized
> > review, use, disclosure or distribution is
> prohibited. If you are not the
> > intended recipient, please contact the sender by
> reply e-mail and destroy
> > all copies of the original message.
> >
> 
> 
> 

Why would the laws of physics and waves not apply to the mouthpiece?

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

From: kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 2:38 AM






 




    
                  My understanding is that while the shape of the mpc will

affect many aspects of the final sound, intonation is not

one of them as long as the volume and "frs" remain

constant. Or?



Toby



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



> Steve,

> 

> Wyman had a good chapter on them in his thesis, as

> far as shapes vs response go.  I'm sure you have

> read it, and I know you probably know all this

> already, but it's fun to say anyway....

> 

> As for making the window larger, while it may make

> the mouthpiece feel more responsive, you will have

> to take that in trade for what it does to the

> intonation.  The mouthpiece is a cylindrical bore

> which you have just made more irregular.  

> 

> And then, what do you mean exactly by "more

> responsive"?  Easier to play loudly?  What about

> softly? Is it easy to control at ppp?   Usually, the

> horn/mouthpiece that is most in-tune, with aligned

> resonances, will be the most responsive, meaning

> easier to control at ppp, at mf, and at fff and

> more, and to do that in tune.  It does not mean that

> it is the loudest, but it will usually be loud

> enough.

> 

> Often doing something to gain increased volume or

> edge at the higher dynamic levels will cause

> intonation and alignment problems, resulting in a

> loss of responsiveness at lower dynamic levels. 

> Extreme moderation might be the best route.  

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

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

> GOODSON" <saxgourmet@ ...> wrote:

> >

> > I've been experimenting again, and trying

> different shapes for the window. I

> > do find that making it larger than is typically

> found seems to improve

> > response, and I'm wondering if anyone can share

> their thoughts on shapes

> > different than the usual semi-circle?

> > 

> >  

> > 

> > STEVE GOODSON

> > 

> > SAXOPHONE DESIGNER TO THE STARS

> > 

> >  

> > 

> > our products are ALL rated 

> > 

> >  

> > 

> > cid:339191121@ 25022009- 09F4

> > 

> >  

> > 

> > PLEASE VISIT MY WEBSITES

> >  <http://www.nationof music.com/>

> http://www.nationof music.com/ (retail sales

> > and discussion forum)

> > 

> <http://launch. groups.yahoo. com/group/ SaxophoneRepair/>

> >

> http://launch. groups.yahoo. com/group/ SaxophoneRepair/

>  (discussion group)

> >  <http://www.saxgourm et.com/>

> http://www.saxgourm et.com/  (saxophone history

> > and information)

> >  <http://saxophonetho ughts.blogspot. com/>

> > http://saxophonetho ughts.blogspot. com/  (my

> personal saxophone blog)

> > 

> >  

> > 

> > READ MY ARTICLES ON SAXOPHONE DESIGN IN EACH ISSUE

> OF THE SAXOPHONE JOURNAL

> > The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money

> trench, a long plastic

> > hallway where thieves

> > 

> > BASIC SHOP RATE........ ........$ 100/HR

> > 

> > IF YOU WATCH....... ......... .....$125/ HR

> > 

> > IF YOU ASK QUESTIONS... ...$150/HR

> > 

> > IF I HAVE TO LISTEN TO A CONCERT 

> > 

> > LONGER THAN FIVE MINUTES WHEN

> > 

> > YOU PICK UP YOUR HORN....$250/ HR

> > 

> >  

> > 

> > The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money

> trench, a long plastic

> > hallway where thieves and pimps run free and good

> men die like dogs. There's

> > also a negative side." Hunter S. Thompson

> > 

> >  

> > 

> > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message,

> including any attachments, is

> > for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and

> may contain confidential

> > and privileged information or otherwise protected

> by law. Any unauthorized

> > review, use, disclosure or distribution is

> prohibited. If you are not the

> > intended recipient, please contact the sender by

> reply e-mail and destroy

> > all copies of the original message.

> >

> 

> 

> 




 

      

    
    
	
	 
	
	








	


	
	


      

Perhaps not exactly the shape but the cross-sectional area must affect pitch of every wave with a node within the mouthpiece.  The pitch of the harmonics affects the perception of intonation, doesn't it? 
 
--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
>
> My understanding is that while the shape of the mpc will
> affect many aspects of the final sound, intonation is not
> one of them as long as the volume and "frs" remain
> constant. Or?
> 
> Toby

It's sort of complicated, but not beyond understanding.  Toby helped me learn this.  Benade's explanation here of resonances and harmonics is very good: 

http://ccrma.stanford.edu/marl/Benade/documents/Benade-Physics323-1977.pdf

These are the course notes for the class he taught at Stanford, "The Acoustical Evolution of Wind Instruments".  The really cool thing about Benade was, that he was a good musician as well as an educator and scientist.  This is not dry, scientifically detached, sitting on the sidelines commentary about acoustical theory.  This is making a flute, a clarinet, an oboe, etc. from scratch, starting with the basic concept of the air column, then designing, building, replicating, and  analyzing the complete development of every aspect of the bore, tone holes, mouthpieces, fingerings, register keys, bore irregularities, etc. of that instrument, from the baroque era, through modern times.  Of course there are lots of formulas, but the science is merged with the act of doing, and that results in complete understanding.  So said Aristotle, and he was no dummy.   Understanding everything in his book,  Fundamentals of Musical Acoustics, is  a prerequisit
 for the course.  I strongly recomend ordering it - around $20.00.  That's money well spent, many times over.

This is a very simplified discription.  

Part 1.  We have a saxophone that has acoustical resonance properties.  The designer of the sax tried to align the resonances, so that at the fingering of any note in it's range, it's resonances resembled the natural overtone series of that note.  The problem is, the cone is not perfect and the resonances do not always line up right.  The more they are aligned, the better the instrument, usually.  If we finger and try to play a G1, the length of the tube forces the reed to vibrate at our G1 frequency.  This causes the resonances located at or near the frequencies of the G1 harmonic series to start to resonate at their own frequency.  If enough of the resonances are located close enough to the frequencies of the G1 harmonic series, their resonating will re-enforce each other, and what is called a harmonic regime will be formed, and the instrument will play a G1 tone.    

Part 2 will continue after some sleep..


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

From: frymorgan <frymorgan@...>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 5:30 AM






 




    
                  Perhaps not exactly the shape but the cross-sectional area must affect pitch of every wave with a node within the mouthpiece.  The pitch of the harmonics affects the perception of intonation, doesn't it? 

 

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

>

> My understanding is that while the shape of the mpc will

> affect many aspects of the final sound, intonation is not

> one of them as long as the volume and "frs" remain

> constant. Or?

> 

> Toby




 

      

    
    
	
	 
	
	








	


	
	


      

what are your thoughts on the saxophone designed by Leblancs great designer Houvenaghal (hope spelling is right); i had one of the 5 that they made before closing it down due to fear about the mark7 which was due out at that time (nobody realising what the reaction would be to that -given the history of the mark6) i know  Hodges had another,(there is a picture of him holding it on one of his last albums) there was one in the American service bands and 2 in the uk.
prof weinberg

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


From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, 12 August, 2009, 7:54 AM


  







It's sort of complicated, but not beyond understanding.  Toby helped me learn this.  Benade's explanation here of resonances and harmonics is very good: 

http://ccrma. stanford. edu/marl/ Benade/documents /Benade-Physics3 23-1977.pdf

These are the course notes for the class he taught at Stanford, "The Acoustical Evolution of Wind Instruments" .  The really cool thing about Benade was, that he was a good musician as well as an educator and scientist.  This is not dry, scientifically detached, sitting on the sidelines commentary about acoustical theory.  This is making a flute, a clarinet, an oboe, etc. from scratch, starting with the basic concept of the air column, then designing, building, replicating, and  analyzing the complete development of every aspect of the bore, tone holes, mouthpieces, fingerings, register keys, bore irregularities, etc. of that instrument, from the baroque era, through modern times.  Of course there are lots of formulas, but the science is merged with the act of doing, and that results in complete understanding.  So said Aristotle, and he was no dummy.   Understanding everything in his book,  Fundamentals of Musical Acoustics, is  a prerequisit
 for the course.  I strongly recomend ordering it - around $20.00.  That's money well spent, many times over.

This is a very simplified discription.  

Part 1.  We have a saxophone that has acoustical resonance properties.  The designer of the sax tried to align the resonances, so that at the fingering of any note in it's range, it's resonances resembled the natural overtone series of that note.  The problem is, the cone is not perfect and the resonances do not always line up right.  The more they are aligned, the better the instrument, usually.  If we finger and try to play a G1, the length of the tube forces the reed to vibrate at our G1 frequency.  This causes the resonances located at or near the frequencies of the G1 harmonic series to start to resonate at their own frequency.  If enough of the resonances are located close enough to the frequencies of the G1 harmonic series, their resonating will re-enforce each other, and what is called a harmonic regime will be formed, and the instrument will play a G1 tone.    

Part 2 will continue after some sleep..


--- On Wed, 8/12/09, frymorgan <frymorgan@yahoo. com> wrote:


From: frymorgan <frymorgan@yahoo. com>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 5:30 AM


  

Perhaps not exactly the shape but the cross-sectional area must affect pitch of every wave with a node within the mouthpiece. The pitch of the harmonics affects the perception of intonation, doesn't it? 

--- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, <kymarto123@ ...> wrote:
>
> My understanding is that while the shape of the mpc will
> affect many aspects of the final sound, intonation is not
> one of them as long as the volume and "frs" remain
> constant. Or?
> 
> Toby

'Art' occurs where the abitrary and the predictable are superceded by unpredictable inevitability.
 i add this not because i disagree with what you say but because in our age it is important to verify how Art works. ther is a big grey area between 'promise' and sheer 'talent'.
prof weinberg

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


From: kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...>
Subject: RE: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, 12 August, 2009, 1:42 AM


  



I totally agree with Steve. The problem is that science
deals with analysis and not synthesis. It is the biggest
conundrum that science faces. In order to analyze the
effect of a variable, it has to be isolated, but the more
it is isolated the less the conditions of the test
correspond with the real world, where variables interact.

I am a great believer in the science, but analysis is very
limiting and so is understanding past the first or second
approximation. This is definitely where the art comes in.
I think that after art has done its thing, science can
come back in and find out why something works, and in that
way both science and art are benefited. They are brothers
in arms.

Look at it this way: it is the art which provides the
questions that science must answer.

Toby

--- STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@cox. net> wrote:

> First, let me say that although I often disagree, I
> do enjoy your posts....
> 
> 
> 
> I've come to believe after years of doing this for a
> living that designing
> musical equipment is an art and not a science. The
> physics are the logical
> starting point, of course, but I have yet to find an
> acceptable substitute
> for hands on, trial and error experimentation. I
> also don't know of ANYONE
> in the business (I'm talking about actual
> manufacturers, not those who
> watch, comment, and discuss from the sidelines) who
> does otherwise..you
> build a prototype and see how it plays, and then
> build a different one and
> compare them. Through this process, I have grown
> quite skeptical of the many
> academic writings so often taken as truth and
> gospel. My findings have often
> been contrary to, say, Benade. I am extremely
> suspicious of the "Benade said
> it, I believe it, that settles it" mentality.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't find that enlarging the window significantly
> alters intonation, and
> can think of no reason that it would do so. I do
> find that it decreases
> resistance and increases the dynamic range. My
> company has a couple of new
> models which we will begin shipping next month that
> feature enlarged
> windows, based on my experimentation. I will
> continue my experiments in the
> interests of (1) furthering the craft and (2)
> increasing my sales.
> 
> 
> 
> From: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> [mailto:MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com]
> On Behalf Of lancelotburt
> Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 11:52 PM
> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steve,
> 
> Wyman had a good chapter on them in his thesis, as
> far as shapes vs response
> go. I'm sure you have read it, and I know you
> probably know all this
> already, but it's fun to say anyway....
> 
> As for making the window larger, while it may make
> the mouthpiece feel more
> responsive, you will have to take that in trade for
> what it does to the
> intonation. The mouthpiece is a cylindrical bore
> which you have just made
> more irregular. 
> 
> And then, what do you mean exactly by "more
> responsive"? Easier to play
> loudly? What about softly? Is it easy to control at
> ppp? Usually, the
> horn/mouthpiece that is most in-tune, with aligned
> resonances, will be the
> most responsive, meaning easier to control at ppp,
> at mf, and at fff and
> more, and to do that in tune. It does not mean that
> it is the loudest, but
> it will usually be loud enough.
> 
> Often doing something to gain increased volume or
> edge at the higher dynamic
> levels will cause intonation and alignment problems,
> resulting in a loss of
> responsiveness at lower dynamic levels. Extreme
> moderation might be the best
> route. 
> 
> -- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> <mailto:MouthpieceW ork%40yahoogroup s.com> , "STEVE
> GOODSON" <saxgourmet@ ...>
> wrote:
> >
> > I've been experimenting again, and trying
> different shapes for the window.
> I
> > do find that making it larger than is typically
> found seems to improve
> > response, and I'm wondering if anyone can share
> their thoughts on shapes
> > different than the usual semi-circle?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > STEVE GOODSON
> > 
> > SAXOPHONE DESIGNER TO THE STARS
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > our products are ALL rated 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > cid:339191121@ 25022009- 09F4
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > PLEASE VISIT MY WEBSITES
> > <http://www.nationof music.com/>
> http://www.nationof music.com/ (retail
> sales
> > and discussion forum)
> >
> <http://launch. groups.yahoo. com/group/ SaxophoneRepair/>
> >
> http://launch. groups.yahoo. com/group/ SaxophoneRepair/
> (discussion group)
> > <http://www.saxgourm et.com/>
> http://www.saxgourm et.com/ (saxophone history
> > and information)
> > <http://saxophonetho ughts.blogspot. com/>
> > http://saxophonetho ughts.blogspot. com/ (my
> personal saxophone blog)
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > READ MY ARTICLES ON SAXOPHONE DESIGN IN EACH ISSUE
> OF THE SAXOPHONE
> JOURNAL
> > The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money
> trench, a long plastic
> > hallway where thieves
> > 
> > BASIC SHOP RATE........ ........$ 100/HR
> > 
> > IF YOU WATCH....... ......... .....$125/ HR
> > 
> > IF YOU ASK QUESTIONS... ...$150/HR
> > 
> > IF I HAVE TO LISTEN TO A CONCERT 
> > 
> > LONGER THAN FIVE MINUTES WHEN
> > 
> > YOU PICK UP YOUR HORN....$250/ HR
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money
> trench, a long plastic
> > hallway where thieves and pimps run free and good
> men die like dogs.
> There's
> > also a negative side." Hunter S. Thompson
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message,
> including any attachments, is
> > for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
> may contain confidential
> > and privileged information or otherwise protected
> by law. Any unauthorized
> > review, use, disclosure or distribution is
> prohibited. If you are not the
> > intended recipient, please contact the sender by
> reply e-mail and destroy
> > all copies of the original message.
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 

I don't believe this is true. The mpc is essentially a
pressure antinode for every note. I don't believe that
there is a playable note with an important node/antinode
for the fundamental in the mpc. There may be
nodes/antinodes there for the higher harmonics, but as
Lance says, they will be pulled into integer relationship
with the sounding note by mode-locking. At worst there may
be differences in timbre as the higher harmonics are
affected, but the pitch will not change, and neither will
the relationships of the harmonics to the note being
sounded.

Toby

--- frymorgan <frymorgan@...> wrote:

> Perhaps not exactly the shape but the
> cross-sectional area must affect pitch of every wave
> with a node within the mouthpiece.  The pitch of the
> harmonics affects the perception of intonation,
> doesn't it? 
>  
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com,
> <kymarto123@...> wrote:
> >
> > My understanding is that while the shape of the
> mpc will
> > affect many aspects of the final sound, intonation
> is not
> > one of them as long as the volume and "frs" remain
> > constant. Or?
> > 
> > Toby
> 
> 
> 

Professor Weinberg,

Fascinating.  One must suppose, Professor, that you, having actually owned one, would have much more interesting and informative thoughts on it, than either I or anyone else, having only seen it in pictures.  You must elaborate.  Was the mouthpiece an integral part of the design?

Rousseau studied with Charles Houvenaghel in the 60's.  I can find no reference to any Houvenaghel writings or publications online.  Perhaps there is something in French somewhere.



--- On Wed, 8/12/09, ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@...> wrote:

From: ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 9:53 AM






 




    
                  what are your thoughts on the saxophone designed by Leblancs great designer Houvenaghal (hope spelling is right); i had one of the 5 that they made before closing it down due to fear about the mark7 which was due out at that time (nobody realising what the reaction would be to that -given the history of the mark6) i know  Hodges had another,(there is a picture of him holding it on one of his last albums) there was one in the American service bands and 2 in the uk.
prof weinberg

--- On Wed, 12/8/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:


From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Wednesday, 12 August, 2009, 7:54 AM


  





It's sort of complicated, but not beyond understanding.  Toby helped me learn this.  Benade's explanation here of resonances and harmonics is very good: 

http://ccrma. stanford. edu/marl/ Benade/documents /Benade-Physics3 23-1977..pdf

These are the course notes for the class he taught at Stanford, "The Acoustical Evolution of Wind Instruments" .  The really cool thing about Benade was, that he was a good musician as well as an educator and scientist.  This is not dry, scientifically detached, sitting on the sidelines commentary about acoustical theory.  This is making a flute, a clarinet, an oboe, etc. from scratch, starting with the basic concept of the air column, then designing, building, replicating, and  analyzing the complete development of every aspect of the bore, tone holes, mouthpieces, fingerings, register keys, bore irregularities, etc. of that instrument, from the baroque era, through
 modern times.  Of course there are lots of formulas, but the science is merged with the act of doing, and that results in complete understanding.  So said Aristotle, and he was no dummy.   Understanding everything in his book,  Fundamentals of Musical Acoustics, is  a prerequisit for the course.  I strongly recomend ordering it - around $20.00.  That's money well spent, many times over.

This is a very simplified discription.  

Part 1.  We have a saxophone that has acoustical resonance properties.  The designer of the sax tried to align the resonances, so that at the fingering of any note in it's range, it's resonances resembled the natural overtone series of that note.  The problem is, the cone is not perfect and the resonances do not always line up right.  The more they are aligned, the better the instrument, usually.  If we finger and try to play a G1, the length of
 the tube forces the reed to vibrate at our G1 frequency.  This causes the resonances located at or near the frequencies of the G1 harmonic series to start to resonate at their own frequency.  If enough of the resonances are located close enough to the frequencies of the G1 harmonic series, their resonating will re-enforce each other, and what is called a harmonic regime will be formed, and the instrument will play a G1 tone.    

Part 2 will continue after some sleep..


--- On Wed, 8/12/09, frymorgan <frymorgan@yahoo. com> wrote:


From: frymorgan <frymorgan@yahoo. com>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 5:30 AM


  

Perhaps not exactly the shape but the cross-sectional area must affect pitch of every wave with a node within the mouthpiece. The pitch of the harmonics affects the perception of intonation, doesn't it? 

--- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, <kymarto123@ ...> wrote:
>
> My understanding is that while the shape of the mpc will
> affect many aspects of the final sound, intonation is not
> one of them as long as the volume and "frs" remain
> constant. Or?
> 
> Toby



 

      

    
    
	
	 
	
	








	


	
	


      

I always respectfully disagree with you at this point, Toby.  I'll explain in Part 2 of my response to Morgan's queston on harmonics and intonation, which should post later today.


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

From: kymarto123@... <kymarto123@ybb.ne.jp>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 1:00 PM






 




    
                  I don't believe this is true. The mpc is essentially a

pressure antinode for every note. I don't believe that

there is a playable note with an important node/antinode

for the fundamental in the mpc. There may be

nodes/antinodes there for the higher harmonics, but as

Lance says, they will be pulled into integer relationship

with the sounding note by mode-locking. At worst there may

be differences in timbre as the higher harmonics are

affected, but the pitch will not change, and neither will

the relationships of the harmonics to the note being

sounded.



Toby



--- frymorgan <frymorgan@yahoo. com> wrote:



> Perhaps not exactly the shape but the

> cross-sectional area must affect pitch of every wave

> with a node within the mouthpiece.  The pitch of the

> harmonics affects the perception of intonation,

> doesn't it? 

>  

> --- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com,

> <kymarto123@ ...> wrote:

> >

> > My understanding is that while the shape of the

> mpc will

> > affect many aspects of the final sound, intonation

> is not

> > one of them as long as the volume and "frs" remain

> > constant. Or?

> > 

> > Toby

> 

> 

> 




 

      

    
    
	
	 
	
	








	


	
	


      

As Thomas Edison (I think) said: genius is 10% inspiration
and 90% perspiration. More elegantly Ezra Pound said
"technique is the gauge of an artist's sincerity".

Toby

--- ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@...> wrote:

> 'Art' occurs where the abitrary and the predictable
> are superceded by unpredictable inevitability.
>  i add this not because i disagree with what you
say
> but because in our age it is important to verify how
> Art works. ther is a big grey area between 'promise'
> and sheer 'talent'.
> prof weinberg
> 
> --- On Wed, 12/8/09, kymarto123@...
> <kymarto123@...> wrote:
> 
> 
> From: kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...>
> Subject: RE: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the
> window
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Wednesday, 12 August, 2009, 1:42 AM
> 
> 
>   
> 
> 
> 
> I totally agree with Steve. The problem is that
> science
> deals with analysis and not synthesis. It is the
> biggest
> conundrum that science faces. In order to analyze
> the
> effect of a variable, it has to be isolated, but the
> more
> it is isolated the less the conditions of the test
> correspond with the real world, where variables
> interact.
> 
> I am a great believer in the science, but analysis
> is very
> limiting and so is understanding past the first or
> second
> approximation. This is definitely where the art
> comes in.
> I think that after art has done its thing, science
> can
> come back in and find out why something works, and
> in that
> way both science and art are benefited. They are
> brothers
> in arms.
> 
> Look at it this way: it is the art which provides
> the
> questions that science must answer.
> 
> Toby
> 
> --- STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@cox. net> wrote:
> 
> > First, let me say that although I often disagree,
> I
> > do enjoy your posts....
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > I've come to believe after years of doing this for
> a
> > living that designing
> > musical equipment is an art and not a science. The
> > physics are the logical
> > starting point, of course, but I have yet to find
> an
> > acceptable substitute
> > for hands on, trial and error experimentation. I
> > also don't know of ANYONE
> > in the business (I'm talking about actual
> > manufacturers, not those who
> > watch, comment, and discuss from the sidelines)
> who
> > does otherwise..you
> > build a prototype and see how it plays, and then
> > build a different one and
> > compare them. Through this process, I have grown
> > quite skeptical of the many
> > academic writings so often taken as truth and
> > gospel. My findings have often
> > been contrary to, say, Benade. I am extremely
> > suspicious of the "Benade said
> > it, I believe it, that settles it" mentality.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > I don't find that enlarging the window
> significantly
> > alters intonation, and
> > can think of no reason that it would do so. I do
> > find that it decreases
> > resistance and increases the dynamic range. My
> > company has a couple of new
> > models which we will begin shipping next month
> that
> > feature enlarged
> > windows, based on my experimentation. I will
> > continue my experiments in the
> > interests of (1) furthering the craft and (2)
> > increasing my sales.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > From: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> > [mailto:MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com]
> > On Behalf Of lancelotburt
> > Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 11:52 PM
> > To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Steve,
> > 
> > Wyman had a good chapter on them in his thesis, as
> > far as shapes vs response
> > go. I'm sure you have read it, and I know you
> > probably know all this
> > already, but it's fun to say anyway....
> > 
> > As for making the window larger, while it may make
> > the mouthpiece feel more
> > responsive, you will have to take that in trade
> for
> > what it does to the
> > intonation. The mouthpiece is a cylindrical bore
> > which you have just made
> > more irregular. 
> > 
> > And then, what do you mean exactly by "more
> > responsive"? Easier to play
> > loudly? What about softly? Is it easy to control
> at
> > ppp? Usually, the
> > horn/mouthpiece that is most in-tune, with aligned
> > resonances, will be the
> > most responsive, meaning easier to control at ppp,
> > at mf, and at fff and
> > more, and to do that in tune. It does not mean
> that
> > it is the loudest, but
> > it will usually be loud enough.
> > 
> > Often doing something to gain increased volume or
> > edge at the higher dynamic
> > levels will cause intonation and alignment
> problems,
> > resulting in a loss of
> > responsiveness at lower dynamic levels. Extreme
> > moderation might be the best
> > route. 
> > 
> > -- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> > <mailto:MouthpieceW ork%40yahoogroup s.com> ,
> "STEVE
> > GOODSON" <saxgourmet@ ...>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I've been experimenting again, and trying
> > different shapes for the window.
> > I
> > > do find that making it larger than is typically
> > found seems to improve
> > > response, and I'm wondering if anyone can share
> > their thoughts on shapes
> > > different than the usual semi-circle?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > STEVE GOODSON
> > > 
> > > SAXOPHONE DESIGNER TO THE STARS
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > our products are ALL rated 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > cid:339191121@ 25022009- 09F4
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > PLEASE VISIT MY WEBSITES
> > > <http://www.nationof music.com/>
> > http://www.nationof music.com/ (retail
> > sales
> > > and discussion forum)
> > >
> > <http://launch. groups.yahoo. com/group/
> SaxophoneRepair/>
> > >
> > http://launch. groups.yahoo. com/group/
> SaxophoneRepair/
> > (discussion group)
> 
== $B0J2<$N%a%C%;!<%8$O>JN,$5$l$^$7$?(B =

i think that all which remains is probably in the Leblanc museum: but i simply asked because i was fascinated with your knowledge which in certain areas is more experienced than mine: however as a player it was a fascinating instrument and i played it on many gigs the last being David Nivens last film. it was to play the extended solos in the sound track which was written by Mancini, who organised and conducted the sessions. whan i was a prof at Indiana with Rousseau regrettably we did not discuss this instrument so i do not have much to add except that it must be deeply regretted by Leblanc that the whole idea was dropped.
prof weinberg

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


From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, 12 August, 2009, 2:24 PM


  







Professor Weinberg,

Fascinating.  One must suppose, Professor, that you, having actually owned one, would have much more interesting and informative thoughts on it, than either I or anyone else, having only seen it in pictures.  You must elaborate.  Was the mouthpiece an integral part of the design?

Rousseau studied with Charles Houvenaghel in the 60's.  I can find no reference to any Houvenaghel writings or publications online.  Perhaps there is something in French somewhere.



--- On Wed, 8/12/09, ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com> wrote:


From: ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 9:53 AM


  






what are your thoughts on the saxophone designed by Leblancs great designer Houvenaghal (hope spelling is right); i had one of the 5 that they made before closing it down due to fear about the mark7 which was due out at that time (nobody realising what the reaction would be to that -given the history of the mark6) i know  Hodges had another,(there is a picture of him holding it on one of his last albums) there was one in the American service bands and 2 in the uk.
prof weinberg

--- On Wed, 12/8/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:


From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Wednesday, 12 August, 2009, 7:54 AM


  





It's sort of complicated, but not beyond understanding.  Toby helped me learn this.  Benade's explanation here of resonances and harmonics is very good: 

http://ccrma. stanford. edu/marl/ Benade/documents /Benade-Physics3 23-1977.pdf

These are the course notes for the class he taught at Stanford, "The Acoustical Evolution of Wind Instruments" .  The really cool thing about Benade was, that he was a good musician as well as an educator and scientist.  This is not dry, scientifically detached, sitting on the sidelines commentary about acoustical theory.  This is making a flute, a clarinet, an oboe, etc. from scratch, starting with the basic concept of the air column, then designing, building, replicating, and  analyzing the complete development of every aspect of the bore, tone holes, mouthpieces, fingerings, register keys, bore irregularities, etc.. of that instrument, from the baroque era, through modern times.  Of course there are lots of formulas, but the science is merged with the act of doing, and that results in complete understanding.  So said Aristotle, and he was no dummy.   Understanding everything in his book,  Fundamentals of Musical Acoustics, is  a prerequisit
 for the course.  I strongly recomend ordering it - around $20.00.  That's money well spent, many times over.

This is a very simplified discription.  

Part 1.  We have a saxophone that has acoustical resonance properties.  The designer of the sax tried to align the resonances, so that at the fingering of any note in it's range, it's resonances resembled the natural overtone series of that note.  The problem is, the cone is not perfect and the resonances do not always line up right.  The more they are aligned, the better the instrument, usually.  If we finger and try to play a G1, the length of the tube forces the reed to vibrate at our G1 frequency.  This causes the resonances located at or near the frequencies of the G1 harmonic series to start to resonate at their own frequency.  If enough of the resonances are located close enough to the frequencies of the G1 harmonic series, their resonating will re-enforce each other, and what is called a harmonic regime will be formed, and the instrument will play a G1 tone.    

Part 2 will continue after some sleep..


--- On Wed, 8/12/09, frymorgan <frymorgan@yahoo. com> wrote:


From: frymorgan <frymorgan@yahoo. com>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 5:30 AM


  

Perhaps not exactly the shape but the cross-sectional area must affect pitch of every wave with a node within the mouthpiece. The pitch of the harmonics affects the perception of intonation, doesn't it? 

--- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, <kymarto123@ ...> wrote:
>
> My understanding is that while the shape of the mpc will
> affect many aspects of the final sound, intonation is not
> one of them as long as the volume and "frs" remain
> constant. Or?
> 
> Toby

Both interesting quotes, Toby.

Certainly, technique is a matter of perspiration, and its accomplishment
evinces a degree of dedication (dedication = "sincerity")

But, when listening (with a lack of enjoyment) to some music, I am reminded
that technique is the servant of Art, not the master.  Sigurd Rascher, in
his book on top-tones, puts it aptly (I paraphrase, not having the book in
front of me), when he says the musician is an artist and not an acrobat.

I have heard a great deal of music that is more acrobatic than artistic.

Barry




on 8/12/09 10:06 AM, kymarto123@... at kymarto123@... wrote:

> As Thomas Edison (I think) said: genius is 10% inspiration
> and 90% perspiration. More elegantly Ezra Pound said
> "technique is the gauge of an artist's sincerity".
> 
> Toby
> 
> --- ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@...> wrote:
> 
>> 'Art' occurs where the abitrary and the predictable
>> are superceded by unpredictable inevitability.
>>  i add this not because i disagree with what you
> say
>> but because in our age it is important to verify how
>> Art works. ther is a big grey area between 'promise'
>> and sheer 'talent'.
>> prof weinberg

Professor,

Very, very nice, distinctive sound.  Very free blowing. Reminiscent of PJ but different. What mouthpiece setup would that be?  Did Mancini have the sound of you on that specific instrument in mind for the recording?

MM

--- On Wed, 8/12/09, ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@btopenworld.com> wrote:

From: ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 2:28 PM






 




    
                  i think that all which remains is probably in the Leblanc museum: but i simply asked because i was fascinated with your knowledge which in certain areas is more experienced than mine: however as a player it was a fascinating instrument and i played it on many gigs the last being David Nivens last film. it was to play the extended solos in the sound track which was written by Mancini, who organised and conducted the sessions. whan i was a prof at Indiana with Rousseau regrettably we did not discuss this instrument so i do not have much to add except that it must be deeply regretted by Leblanc that the whole idea was dropped.
prof weinberg

--- On Wed, 12/8/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:


From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Wednesday, 12 August, 2009, 2:24 PM


  





Professor Weinberg,

Fascinating.  One must suppose, Professor, that you, having actually owned one, would have much more interesting and informative thoughts on it, than either I or anyone else, having only seen it in pictures.  You must elaborate.  Was the mouthpiece an integral part of the design?

Rousseau studied with Charles Houvenaghel in the 60's.  I can find no reference to any Houvenaghel writings or publications online.  Perhaps there is something in French somewhere.



--- On Wed, 8/12/09, ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com> wrote:


From: ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 9:53 AM


  






what are your thoughts on the saxophone designed by Leblancs great designer Houvenaghal (hope spelling is right); i had one of the 5 that they made before closing it down due to fear about the mark7 which was due out at that time (nobody realising what the reaction would be to that -given the history of the mark6) i know  Hodges had another,(there is a picture of him holding it on one of his last albums) there was one in the American service bands and 2 in the uk.
prof weinberg

--- On Wed, 12/8/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:


From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Wednesday, 12 August, 2009, 7:54 AM


  





It's sort of complicated, but not beyond understanding.  Toby helped me learn this.  Benade's explanation here of resonances and harmonics is very good: 

http://ccrma. stanford. edu/marl/ Benade/documents /Benade-Physics3 23-1977..pdf

These are the course notes for the class he taught at Stanford, "The Acoustical Evolution of Wind Instruments" .  The really cool thing about Benade was, that he was a good musician as well as an educator and scientist.  This is not dry, scientifically detached, sitting on the sidelines commentary about acoustical theory.  This is making a flute, a clarinet, an oboe, etc. from scratch, starting with the basic concept of the air column, then designing, building, replicating, and  analyzing the complete development of every aspect of the bore, tone holes, mouthpieces, fingerings, register keys, bore irregularities, etc.. of that instrument, from the baroque era,
 through modern times.  Of course there are lots of formulas, but the science is merged with the act of doing, and that results in complete understanding.  So said Aristotle, and he was no dummy.   Understanding everything in his book,  Fundamentals of Musical Acoustics, is  a prerequisit for the course.  I strongly recomend ordering it - around $20.00.  That's money well spent, many times over.

This is a very simplified discription.  

Part 1.  We have a saxophone that has acoustical resonance properties.  The designer of the sax tried to align the resonances, so that at the fingering of any note in it's range, it's resonances resembled the natural overtone series of that note.  The problem is, the cone is not perfect and the resonances do not always line up right.  The more they are aligned, the better the instrument, usually.  If we finger and try to play a G1, the
 length of the tube forces the reed to vibrate at our G1 frequency.  This causes the resonances located at or near the frequencies of the G1 harmonic series to start to resonate at their own frequency.  If enough of the resonances are located close enough to the frequencies of the G1 harmonic series, their resonating will re-enforce each other, and what is called a harmonic regime will be formed, and the instrument will play a G1 tone.    

Part 2 will continue after some sleep..


--- On Wed, 8/12/09, frymorgan <frymorgan@yahoo. com> wrote:


From: frymorgan <frymorgan@yahoo. com>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 5:30 AM


  

Perhaps not exactly the shape but the cross-sectional area must affect pitch of every wave with a node within the mouthpiece. The pitch of the harmonics affects the perception of intonation, doesn't it? 

--- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, <kymarto123@ ...> wrote:
>
> My understanding is that while the shape of the mpc will
> affect many aspects of the final sound, intonation is not
> one of them as long as the volume and "frs" remain
> constant. Or?
> 
> Toby




 

      

    
    
	
	 
	
	








	


	
	


      

Professor,

Also, I was wondering if you had any thoughts on our earlier discussion of why A. Sax opted for the "mouthpiece over the neck cork" approach with bore diameter mismatch at neck opening, as opposed to the otherwise universal, matched bore, "mouthpiece in flanged socket"  approach used on every other wind instrument, ever.

MM

--- On Wed, 8/12/09, ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@...> wrote:

From: ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 2:28 PM






 




    
                  i think that all which remains is probably in the Leblanc museum: but i simply asked because i was fascinated with your knowledge which in certain areas is more experienced than mine: however as a player it was a fascinating instrument and i played it on many gigs the last being David Nivens last film. it was to play the extended solos in the sound track which was written by Mancini, who organised and conducted the sessions. whan i was a prof at Indiana with Rousseau regrettably we did not discuss this instrument so i do not have much to add except that it must be deeply regretted by Leblanc that the whole idea was dropped.
prof weinberg

--- On Wed, 12/8/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:


From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Wednesday, 12 August, 2009, 2:24 PM


  





Professor Weinberg,

Fascinating.  One must suppose, Professor, that you, having actually owned one, would have much more interesting and informative thoughts on it, than either I or anyone else, having only seen it in pictures.  You must elaborate.  Was the mouthpiece an integral part of the design?

Rousseau studied with Charles Houvenaghel in the 60's.  I can find no reference to any Houvenaghel writings or publications online.  Perhaps there is something in French somewhere.



--- On Wed, 8/12/09, ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com> wrote:


From: ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 9:53 AM


  






what are your thoughts on the saxophone designed by Leblancs great designer Houvenaghal (hope spelling is right); i had one of the 5 that they made before closing it down due to fear about the mark7 which was due out at that time (nobody realising what the reaction would be to that -given the history of the mark6) i know  Hodges had another,(there is a picture of him holding it on one of his last albums) there was one in the American service bands and 2 in the uk.
prof weinberg

--- On Wed, 12/8/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:


From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Wednesday, 12 August, 2009, 7:54 AM


  





It's sort of complicated, but not beyond understanding.  Toby helped me learn this.  Benade's explanation here of resonances and harmonics is very good: 

http://ccrma. stanford. edu/marl/ Benade/documents /Benade-Physics3 23-1977..pdf

These are the course notes for the class he taught at Stanford, "The Acoustical Evolution of Wind Instruments" .  The really cool thing about Benade was, that he was a good musician as well as an educator and scientist.  This is not dry, scientifically detached, sitting on the sidelines commentary about acoustical theory.  This is making a flute, a clarinet, an oboe, etc. from scratch, starting with the basic concept of the air column, then designing, building, replicating, and  analyzing the complete development of every aspect of the bore, tone holes, mouthpieces, fingerings, register keys, bore irregularities, etc.. of that instrument, from the baroque era,
 through modern times.  Of course there are lots of formulas, but the science is merged with the act of doing, and that results in complete understanding.  So said Aristotle, and he was no dummy.   Understanding everything in his book,  Fundamentals of Musical Acoustics, is  a prerequisit for the course.  I strongly recomend ordering it - around $20.00.  That's money well spent, many times over.

This is a very simplified discription.  

Part 1.  We have a saxophone that has acoustical resonance properties.  The designer of the sax tried to align the resonances, so that at the fingering of any note in it's range, it's resonances resembled the natural overtone series of that note.  The problem is, the cone is not perfect and the resonances do not always line up right.  The more they are aligned, the better the instrument, usually.  If we finger and try to play a G1, the
 length of the tube forces the reed to vibrate at our G1 frequency.  This causes the resonances located at or near the frequencies of the G1 harmonic series to start to resonate at their own frequency.  If enough of the resonances are located close enough to the frequencies of the G1 harmonic series, their resonating will re-enforce each other, and what is called a harmonic regime will be formed, and the instrument will play a G1 tone.    

Part 2 will continue after some sleep..


--- On Wed, 8/12/09, frymorgan <frymorgan@yahoo. com> wrote:


From: frymorgan <frymorgan@yahoo. com>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 5:30 AM


  

Perhaps not exactly the shape but the cross-sectional area must affect pitch of every wave with a node within the mouthpiece. The pitch of the harmonics affects the perception of intonation, doesn't it? 

--- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, <kymarto123@ ...> wrote:
>
> My understanding is that while the shape of the mpc will
> affect many aspects of the final sound, intonation is not
> one of them as long as the volume and "frs" remain
> constant. Or?
> 
> Toby




 

      

    
    
	
	 
	
	








	


	
	


      

you are ahead of me as i have never heard it and have only a sad old memory of the sessions:- the instrument did have a different sound to the usual sax due to the mechanism and design (every note above an open hole tube) the mouthpiece was simply an old vandoren A25 as it is now called. i always hesitate to say, but apparently Mancini did request me for the sessions--but there was not any more money!!! Now there is a lesson
prof weinberg

--- On Thu, 13/8/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:


From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, 13 August, 2009, 11:34 AM


  







Professor,

Very, very nice, distinctive sound.  Very free blowing. Reminiscent of PJ but different. What mouthpiece setup would that be?  Did Mancini have the sound of you on that specific instrument in mind for the recording?

MM

--- On Wed, 8/12/09, ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com> wrote:


From: ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 2:28 PM


  






i think that all which remains is probably in the Leblanc museum: but i simply asked because i was fascinated with your knowledge which in certain areas is more experienced than mine: however as a player it was a fascinating instrument and i played it on many gigs the last being David Nivens last film. it was to play the extended solos in the sound track which was written by Mancini, who organised and conducted the sessions. whan i was a prof at Indiana with Rousseau regrettably we did not discuss this instrument so i do not have much to add except that it must be deeply regretted by Leblanc that the whole idea was dropped.
prof weinberg

--- On Wed, 12/8/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:


From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Wednesday, 12 August, 2009, 2:24 PM


  





Professor Weinberg,

Fascinating.  One must suppose, Professor, that you, having actually owned one, would have much more interesting and informative thoughts on it, than either I or anyone else, having only seen it in pictures.  You must elaborate.  Was the mouthpiece an integral part of the design?

Rousseau studied with Charles Houvenaghel in the 60's.  I can find no reference to any Houvenaghel writings or publications online.  Perhaps there is something in French somewhere.



--- On Wed, 8/12/09, ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com> wrote:


From: ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 9:53 AM


  






what are your thoughts on the saxophone designed by Leblancs great designer Houvenaghal (hope spelling is right); i had one of the 5 that they made before closing it down due to fear about the mark7 which was due out at that time (nobody realising what the reaction would be to that -given the history of the mark6) i know  Hodges had another,(there is a picture of him holding it on one of his last albums) there was one in the American service bands and 2 in the uk.
prof weinberg

--- On Wed, 12/8/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:


From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. . com
Date: Wednesday, 12 August, 2009, 7:54 AM


  





It's sort of complicated, but not beyond understanding.  Toby helped me learn this.  Benade's explanation here of resonances and harmonics is very good: 

http://ccrma. stanford. edu/marl/ Benade/documents /Benade-Physics3 23-1977.pdf

These are the course notes for the class he taught at Stanford, "The Acoustical Evolution of Wind Instruments" .  The really cool thing about Benade was, that he was a good musician as well as an educator and scientist.  This is not dry, scientifically detached, sitting on the sidelines commentary about acoustical theory.  This is making a flute, a clarinet, an oboe, etc. from scratch, starting with the basic concept of the air column, then designing, building, replicating, and  analyzing the complete development of every aspect of the bore, tone holes, mouthpieces, fingerings, register keys, bore irregularities, etc.. of that instrument, from the baroque era, through modern times.  Of course there are lots of formulas, but the science is merged with the act of doing, and that results in complete understanding.  So said Aristotle, and he was no dummy.   Understanding everything in his book,  Fundamentals of Musical Acoustics, is  a prerequisit
 for the course.  I strongly recomend ordering it - around $20.00.  That's money well spent, many times over.

This is a very simplified discription.  

Part 1.  We have a saxophone that has acoustical resonance properties.  The designer of the sax tried to align the resonances, so that at the fingering of any note in it's range, it's resonances resembled the natural overtone series of that note.  The problem is, the cone is not perfect and the resonances do not always line up right.  The more they are aligned, the better the instrument, usually.  If we finger and try to play a G1, the length of the tube forces the reed to vibrate at our G1 frequency.  This causes the resonances located at or near the frequencies of the G1 harmonic series to start to resonate at their own frequency.  If enough of the resonances are located close enough to the frequencies of the G1 harmonic series, their resonating will re-enforce each other, and what is called a harmonic regime will be formed, and the instrument will play a G1 tone.    

Part 2 will continue after some sleep..


--- On Wed, 8/12/09, frymorgan <frymorgan@yahoo. com> wrote:


From: frymorgan <frymorgan@yahoo. com>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 5:30 AM


  

Perhaps not exactly the shape but the cross-sectional area must affect pitch of every wave with a node within the mouthpiece. The pitch of the harmonics affects the perception of intonation, doesn't it? 

--- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, <kymarto123@ ...> wrote:
>
> My understanding is that while the shape of the mpc will
> affect many aspects of the final sound, intonation is not
> one of them as long as the volume and "frs" remain
> constant. Or?
> 
> Toby

now that is a really interesting question, especially as he had a big hand in developing the bass clarinet-which has a crook and exactly the method you describe. Given the conical tube and the fuss that surrounded this instruments patent, also what the initial commission for it was, i think he opted for this because it gives greater freedom of adaptation to all circumstances--something that has now gone with the --for instance--computer designed saxes of yanagisawa. Here, if you are not on the correct tuning spot-A440 etc the low notes will crow -and nothing is due to a leak on the pads. 
prof weinberg

--- On Thu, 13/8/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:


From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, 13 August, 2009, 11:44 AM


  







Professor,

Also, I was wondering if you had any thoughts on our earlier discussion of why A. Sax opted for the "mouthpiece over the neck cork" approach with bore diameter mismatch at neck opening, as opposed to the otherwise universal, matched bore, "mouthpiece in flanged socket"  approach used on every other wind instrument, ever.

MM

--- On Wed, 8/12/09, ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com> wrote:


From: ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 2:28 PM


  






i think that all which remains is probably in the Leblanc museum: but i simply asked because i was fascinated with your knowledge which in certain areas is more experienced than mine: however as a player it was a fascinating instrument and i played it on many gigs the last being David Nivens last film. it was to play the extended solos in the sound track which was written by Mancini, who organised and conducted the sessions. whan i was a prof at Indiana with Rousseau regrettably we did not discuss this instrument so i do not have much to add except that it must be deeply regretted by Leblanc that the whole idea was dropped.
prof weinberg

--- On Wed, 12/8/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:


From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Wednesday, 12 August, 2009, 2:24 PM


  





Professor Weinberg,

Fascinating.  One must suppose, Professor, that you, having actually owned one, would have much more interesting and informative thoughts on it, than either I or anyone else, having only seen it in pictures.  You must elaborate.  Was the mouthpiece an integral part of the design?

Rousseau studied with Charles Houvenaghel in the 60's.  I can find no reference to any Houvenaghel writings or publications online.  Perhaps there is something in French somewhere.



--- On Wed, 8/12/09, ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com> wrote:


From: ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 9:53 AM


  






what are your thoughts on the saxophone designed by Leblancs great designer Houvenaghal (hope spelling is right); i had one of the 5 that they made before closing it down due to fear about the mark7 which was due out at that time (nobody realising what the reaction would be to that -given the history of the mark6) i know  Hodges had another,(there is a picture of him holding it on one of his last albums) there was one in the American service bands and 2 in the uk.
prof weinberg

--- On Wed, 12/8/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:


From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Wednesday, 12 August, 2009, 7:54 AM


  





It's sort of complicated, but not beyond understanding.  Toby helped me learn this.  Benade's explanation here of resonances and harmonics is very good: 

http://ccrma. . stanford. edu/marl/ Benade/documents /Benade-Physics3 23-1977.pdf

These are the course notes for the class he taught at Stanford, "The Acoustical Evolution of Wind Instruments" .  The really cool thing about Benade was, that he was a good musician as well as an educator and scientist.  This is not dry, scientifically detached, sitting on the sidelines commentary about acoustical theory.  This is making a flute, a clarinet, an oboe, etc. from scratch, starting with the basic concept of the air column, then designing, building, replicating, and  analyzing the complete development of every aspect of the bore, tone holes, mouthpieces, fingerings, register keys, bore irregularities, etc.. of that instrument, from the baroque era, through modern times.  Of course there are lots of formulas, but the science is merged with the act of doing, and that results in complete understanding.  So said Aristotle, and he was no dummy.   Understanding everything in his book,  Fundamentals of Musical Acoustics, is  a prerequisit
 for the course.  I strongly recomend ordering it - around $20.00.  That's money well spent, many times over.

This is a very simplified discription.  

Part 1.  We have a saxophone that has acoustical resonance properties.  The designer of the sax tried to align the resonances, so that at the fingering of any note in it's range, it's resonances resembled the natural overtone series of that note.  The problem is, the cone is not perfect and the resonances do not always line up right.  The more they are aligned, the better the instrument, usually.  If we finger and try to play a G1, the length of the tube forces the reed to vibrate at our G1 frequency.  This causes the resonances located at or near the frequencies of the G1 harmonic series to start to resonate at their own frequency.  If enough of the resonances are located close enough to the frequencies of the G1 harmonic series, their resonating will re-enforce each other, and what is called a harmonic regime will be formed, and the instrument will play a G1 tone.    

Part 2 will continue after some sleep..


--- On Wed, 8/12/09, frymorgan <frymorgan@yahoo. com> wrote:


From: frymorgan <frymorgan@yahoo. com>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 5:30 AM


  

Perhaps not exactly the shape but the cross-sectional area must affect pitch of every wave with a node within the mouthpiece. The pitch of the harmonics affects the perception of intonation, doesn't it? 

--- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, <kymarto123@ ...> wrote:
>
> My understanding is that while the shape of the mpc will
> affect many aspects of the final sound, intonation is not
> one of them as long as the volume and "frs" remain
> constant. Or?
> 
> Toby

Professor,

You might be interested in this link then:

http://www.televisiontunes.com/Curse_Of_The_Pink_Panther.html

MM

--- On Thu, 8/13/09, ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@...> wrote:

From: ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, August 13, 2009, 10:53 AM






 




    
                  you are ahead of me as i have never heard it and have only a sad old memory of the sessions:- the instrument did have a different sound to the usual sax due to the mechanism and design (every note above an open hole tube) the mouthpiece was simply an old vandoren A25 as it is now called. i always hesitate to say, but apparently Mancini did request me for the sessions--but there was not any more money!!! Now there is a lesson
prof weinberg

--- On Thu, 13/8/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:


From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Thursday, 13 August, 2009, 11:34 AM


  





Professor,

Very, very nice, distinctive sound.  Very free blowing. Reminiscent of PJ but different. What mouthpiece setup would that be?  Did Mancini have the sound of you on that specific instrument in mind for the recording?

MM

--- On Wed, 8/12/09, ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com> wrote:


From: ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 2:28 PM


  






i think that all which remains is probably in the Leblanc museum: but i simply asked because i was fascinated with your knowledge which in certain areas is more experienced than mine: however as a player it was a fascinating instrument and i played it on many gigs the last being David Nivens last film. it was to play the extended solos in the sound track which was written by Mancini, who organised and conducted the sessions. whan i was a prof at Indiana with Rousseau regrettably we did not discuss this instrument so i do not have much to add except that it must be deeply regretted by Leblanc that the whole idea was dropped.
prof weinberg

--- On Wed, 12/8/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:


From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Wednesday, 12 August, 2009, 2:24 PM


  





Professor Weinberg,

Fascinating.  One must suppose, Professor, that you, having actually owned one, would have much more interesting and informative thoughts on it, than either I or anyone else, having only seen it in pictures.  You must elaborate.  Was the mouthpiece an integral part of the design?

Rousseau studied with Charles Houvenaghel in the 60's.  I can find no reference to any Houvenaghel writings or publications online.  Perhaps there is something in French somewhere.



--- On Wed, 8/12/09, ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com> wrote:


From: ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 9:53 AM


  






what are your thoughts on the saxophone designed by Leblancs great designer Houvenaghal (hope spelling is right); i had one of the 5 that they made before closing it down due to fear about the mark7 which was due out at that time (nobody realising what the reaction would be to that -given the history of the mark6) i know  Hodges had another,(there is a picture of him holding it on one of his last albums) there was one in the American service bands and 2 in the uk.
prof weinberg

--- On Wed, 12/8/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:


From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. . com
Date: Wednesday, 12 August, 2009, 7:54 AM


  





It's sort of complicated, but not beyond understanding.  Toby helped me learn this.  Benade's explanation here of resonances and harmonics is very good: 

http://ccrma. stanford. edu/marl/ Benade/documents /Benade-Physics3 23-1977..pdf

These are the course notes for the class he taught at Stanford, "The Acoustical Evolution of Wind Instruments" .  The really cool thing about Benade was, that he was a good musician as well as an educator and scientist.  This is not dry, scientifically detached, sitting on the sidelines commentary about acoustical theory.  This is making a flute, a clarinet, an oboe, etc. from scratch, starting with the basic concept of the air column, then designing, building, replicating, and  analyzing the complete development of every aspect of the bore, tone holes, mouthpieces, fingerings, register keys, bore irregularities, etc.. of that instrument, from the baroque era,
 through modern times.  Of course there are lots of formulas, but the science is merged with the act of doing, and that results in complete understanding.  So said Aristotle, and he was no dummy.   Understanding everything in his book,  Fundamentals of Musical Acoustics, is  a prerequisit for the course.  I strongly recomend ordering it - around $20.00.  That's money well spent, many times over.

This is a very simplified discription.  

Part 1.  We have a saxophone that has acoustical resonance properties.  The designer of the sax tried to align the resonances, so that at the fingering of any note in it's range, it's resonances resembled the natural overtone series of that note.  The problem is, the cone is not perfect and the resonances do not always line up right.  The more they are aligned, the better the instrument, usually.  If we finger and try to play a G1, the
 length of the tube forces the reed to vibrate at our G1 frequency.  This causes the resonances located at or near the frequencies of the G1 harmonic series to start to resonate at their own frequency.  If enough of the resonances are located close enough to the frequencies of the G1 harmonic series, their resonating will re-enforce each other, and what is called a harmonic regime will be formed, and the instrument will play a G1 tone.    

Part 2 will continue after some sleep..


--- On Wed, 8/12/09, frymorgan <frymorgan@yahoo. com> wrote:


From: frymorgan <frymorgan@yahoo. com>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 5:30 AM


  

Perhaps not exactly the shape but the cross-sectional area must affect pitch of every wave with a node within the mouthpiece. The pitch of the harmonics affects the perception of intonation, doesn't it? 

--- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, <kymarto123@ ...> wrote:
>
> My understanding is that while the shape of the mpc will
> affect many aspects of the final sound, intonation is not
> one of them as long as the volume and "frs" remain
> constant. Or?
> 
> Toby





 

      

    
    
	
	 
	
	








	


	
	


      

had a bit of trouble picking that link up-will try later but what is the significance?
i know about the tenor player--is it that?
prof weinberg

--- On Thu, 13/8/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:


From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, 13 August, 2009, 12:09 PM


  







Professor,

You might be interested in this link then:

http://www.televisi ontunes.com/ Curse_Of_ The_Pink_ Panther.html

MM

--- On Thu, 8/13/09, ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com> wrote:


From: ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Thursday, August 13, 2009, 10:53 AM


  






you are ahead of me as i have never heard it and have only a sad old memory of the sessions:- the instrument did have a different sound to the usual sax due to the mechanism and design (every note above an open hole tube) the mouthpiece was simply an old vandoren A25 as it is now called. i always hesitate to say, but apparently Mancini did request me for the sessions--but there was not any more money!!! Now there is a lesson
prof weinberg

--- On Thu, 13/8/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:


From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Thursday, 13 August, 2009, 11:34 AM


  





Professor,

Very, very nice, distinctive sound.  Very free blowing. Reminiscent of PJ but different. What mouthpiece setup would that be?  Did Mancini have the sound of you on that specific instrument in mind for the recording?

MM

--- On Wed, 8/12/09, ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com> wrote:


From: ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 2:28 PM


  






i think that all which remains is probably in the Leblanc museum: but i simply asked because i was fascinated with your knowledge which in certain areas is more experienced than mine: however as a player it was a fascinating instrument and i played it on many gigs the last being David Nivens last film. it was to play the extended solos in the sound track which was written by Mancini, who organised and conducted the sessions. whan i was a prof at Indiana with Rousseau regrettably we did not discuss this instrument so i do not have much to add except that it must be deeply regretted by Leblanc that the whole idea was dropped.
prof weinberg

--- On Wed, 12/8/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:


From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Wednesday, 12 August, 2009, 2:24 PM


  





Professor Weinberg,

Fascinating.  One must suppose, Professor, that you, having actually owned one, would have much more interesting and informative thoughts on it, than either I or anyone else, having only seen it in pictures.  You must elaborate.  Was the mouthpiece an integral part of the design?

Rousseau studied with Charles Houvenaghel in the 60's.  I can find no reference to any Houvenaghel writings or publications online.  Perhaps there is something in French somewhere.



--- On Wed, 8/12/09, ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com> wrote:


From: ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 9:53 AM


  






what are your thoughts on the saxophone designed by Leblancs great designer Houvenaghal (hope spelling is right); i had one of the 5 that they made before closing it down due to fear about the mark7 which was due out at that time (nobody realising what the reaction would be to that -given the history of the mark6) i know  Hodges had another,(there is a picture of him holding it on one of his last albums) there was one in the American service bands and 2 in the uk.
prof weinberg

--- On Wed, 12/8/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:


From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. . com
Date: Wednesday, 12 August, 2009, 7:54 AM


  





It's sort of complicated, but not beyond understanding.  Toby helped me learn this.  Benade's explanation here of resonances and harmonics is very good: 

http://ccrma. stanford. edu/marl/ Benade/documents /Benade-Physics3 23-1977.pdf

These are the course notes for the class he taught at Stanford, "The Acoustical Evolution of Wind Instruments" .  The really cool thing about Benade was, that he was a good musician as well as an educator and scientist.  This is not dry, scientifically detached, sitting on the sidelines commentary about acoustical theory.  This is making a flute, a clarinet, an oboe, etc. from scratch, starting with the basic concept of the air column, then designing, building, replicating, and  analyzing the complete development of every aspect of the bore, tone holes, mouthpieces, fingerings, register keys, bore irregularities, etc.. of that instrument, from the baroque era, through modern times.  Of course there are lots of formulas, but the science is merged with the act of doing, and that results in complete understanding.  So said Aristotle, and he was no dummy.   Understanding everything in his book,  Fundamentals of Musical Acoustics, is  a prerequisit
 for the course.  I strongly recomend ordering it - around $20.00.  That's money well spent, many times over.

This is a very simplified discription.  

Part 1.  We have a saxophone that has acoustical resonance properties.  The designer of the sax tried to align the resonances, so that at the fingering of any note in it's range, it's resonances resembled the natural overtone series of that note..  The problem is, the cone is not perfect and the resonances do not always line up right.  The more they are aligned, the better the instrument, usually.  If we finger and try to play a G1, the length of the tube forces the reed to vibrate at our G1 frequency.  This causes the resonances located at or near the frequencies of the G1 harmonic series to start to resonate at their own frequency.  If enough of the resonances are located close enough to the frequencies of the G1 harmonic series, their resonating will re-enforce each other, and what is called a harmonic regime will be formed, and the instrument will play a G1 tone.    

Part 2 will continue after some sleep..


--- On Wed, 8/12/09, frymorgan <frymorgan@yahoo. com> wrote:


From: frymorgan <frymorgan@yahoo. com>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 5:30 AM


  

Perhaps not exactly the shape but the cross-sectional area must affect pitch of every wave with a node within the mouthpiece. The pitch of the harmonics affects the perception of intonation, doesn't it? 

--- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, <kymarto123@ ...> wrote:
>
> My understanding is that while the shape of the mpc will
> affect many aspects of the final sound, intonation is not
> one of them as long as the volume and "frs" remain
> constant. Or?
> 
> Toby

I still think it is due to the fact that the conical bore
doesn't allow easy longitudinal adjustment for tuning,
which would certainly have been needed both in orchestras,
with their different As, and in band conditions, where
ambient temperatures vary greatly.

The Conn option was available--a microtuner--or flute-like
tenon, but that adds a cylindrical section at the neck
which shouldn't be there. 

BTW Lance, I reread Nederveen, and he states that the
chamber should end directly at the beginning of the neck.
No long cylindrical passages the diameter of the neck need
apply...

Toby

--- ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@...> wrote:

> now that is a really interesting question,
> especially as he had a big hand in developing the
> bass clarinet-which has a crook and exactly the
> method you describe. Given the conical tube and the
> fuss that surrounded this instruments patent, also
> what the initial commission for it was, i think he
> opted for this because it gives greater freedom of
> adaptation to all circumstances--something that has
> now gone with the --for instance--computer designed
> saxes of yanagisawa. Here, if you are not on the
> correct tuning spot-A440 etc the low notes will crow
> -and nothing is due to a leak on the pads. 
> prof weinberg
> 
> --- On Thu, 13/8/09, MartinMods
> <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
> 
> 
> From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the
> window
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Thursday, 13 August, 2009, 11:44 AM
> 
> 
>   
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Professor,
> 
> Also, I was wondering if you had any thoughts on our
> earlier discussion of why A. Sax opted for the
> "mouthpiece over the neck cork" approach with bore
> diameter mismatch at neck opening, as opposed to the
> otherwise universal, matched bore, "mouthpiece in
> flanged socket"  approach used on every other wind
> instrument, ever.
> 
> MM
> 
> --- On Wed, 8/12/09, ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@
> btopenworld. com> wrote:
> 
> 
> From: ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld.
> com>
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the
> window
> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 2:28 PM
> 
> 
>   
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i think that all which remains is probably in the
> Leblanc museum: but i simply asked because i was
> fascinated with your knowledge which in certain
> areas is more experienced than mine: however as a
> player it was a fascinating instrument and i played
> it on many gigs the last being David Nivens last
> film. it was to play the extended solos in the sound
> track which was written by Mancini, who organised
> and conducted the sessions. whan i was a prof at
> Indiana with Rousseau regrettably we did not discuss
> this instrument so i do not have much to add except
> that it must be deeply regretted by Leblanc that the
> whole idea was dropped.
> prof weinberg
> 
> --- On Wed, 12/8/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@
> yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the
> window
> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> Date: Wednesday, 12 August, 2009, 2:24 PM
> 
> 
>   
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Professor Weinberg,
> 
> Fascinating.  One must suppose, Professor, that
you,
> having actually owned one, would have much more
> interesting and informative thoughts on it, than
> either I or anyone else, having only seen it in
> pictures.  You must elaborate.  Was the
mouthpiece
> an integral part of the design?
> 
> Rousseau studied with Charles Houvenaghel in the
> 60's.  I can find no reference to any Houvenaghel
> writings or publications online.  Perhaps there is
> something in French somewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> --- On Wed, 8/12/09, ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@
> btopenworld. com> wrote:
> 
> 
> From: ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld.
> com>
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the
> window
> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 9:53 AM
> 
> 
>   
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what are your thoughts on the saxophone designed by
> Leblancs great designer Houvenaghal (hope spelling
> is right); i had one of the 5 that they made before
> closing it down due to fear about the mark7 which
> was due out at that time (nobody realising what the
> reaction would be to that -given the history of the
> mark6) i know  Hodges had another,(there is a
> picture of him holding it on one of his last
> albums) there was one in the American service bands
> and 2 in the uk.
> prof weinberg
> 
> --- On Wed, 12/8/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@
> yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the
> window
> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> Date: Wednesday, 12 August, 2009, 7:54 AM
> 
> 
>   
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's sort of complicated, but not beyond
> understanding.  Toby helped me learn this. 
Benade's
> explanation here of resonances and harmonics is very
> good: 
> 
> http://ccrma. . stanford. edu/marl/ Benade/documents
> /Benade-Physics3 23-1977.pdf
> 
> These are the course notes for the class he taught
> at Stanford, "The Acoustical Evolution of Wind
> Instruments" .  The really cool thing about Benade
> was, that he was a good musician as well as an
> educator and scientist.  This is not dry,
> scientifically detached, sitting on the sidelines
> commentary about acoustical theory.  This is making
> a flute, a clarinet, an oboe, etc. from scratch,
> starting with the basic concept of the air column,
> then designing, building, replicating, and 
> analyzing the complete development of every aspect
> of the bore, tone holes, mouthpieces, fingerings,
> register keys, bore irregularities, etc.. of that
> instrument, from the baroque era, through modern
> times.  Of course there are lots of formulas, but
> the science is merged with the act of doing, and
> that results in complete understanding.  So said
> Aristotle, and he was no dummy.  
Understanding
> everything in his book,  Fundamentals of Musical
> Acoustics, is  a prerequisit
>  for the course.  I strongly recomend ordering it -
> around $20.00.  That's money well spent, many times
> over.
> 
> This is a very simplified discription.  
> 
> Part 1.  We have a saxophone that has acoustical
> resonance properties.  The designer of the sax
tried
> to align the resonances, so that at the fingering of
> any note in it's range, it's resonances resembled
> the natural overtone series of that note.  The
> problem is, the cone is not perfect and the
> resonances do not always line up right.  The more
> they 
== $B0J2<$N%a%C%;!<%8$O>JN,$5$l$^$7$?(B =

Professor,

Sorry.  You did not specify that it was the alto that you had.  They did make a few Rational tenors and that was an extended solo from the sound track.  There were alto solos as well?  I'll have to check the whole recording then.  

MM

--- On Thu, 8/13/09, ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@...> wrote:

From: ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@btopenworld.com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, August 13, 2009, 11:48 AM






 




    
                  had a bit of trouble picking that link up-will try later but what is the significance?
i know about the tenor player--is it that?
prof weinberg

--- On Thu, 13/8/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:


From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Thursday, 13 August, 2009, 12:09 PM


  





Professor,

You might be interested in this link then:

http://www.televisi ontunes.com/ Curse_Of_ The_Pink_ Panther.html

MM

--- On Thu, 8/13/09, ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com> wrote:


From: ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Thursday, August 13, 2009, 10:53 AM


  






you are ahead of me as i have never heard it and have only a sad old memory of the sessions:- the instrument did have a different sound to the usual sax due to the mechanism and design (every note above an open hole tube) the mouthpiece was simply an old vandoren A25 as it is now called. i always hesitate to say, but apparently Mancini did request me for the sessions--but there was not any more money!!! Now there is a lesson
prof weinberg

--- On Thu, 13/8/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:


From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Thursday, 13 August, 2009, 11:34 AM


  





Professor,

Very, very nice, distinctive sound.  Very free blowing. Reminiscent of PJ but different. What mouthpiece setup would that be?  Did Mancini have the sound of you on that specific instrument in mind for the recording?

MM

--- On Wed, 8/12/09, ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com> wrote:


From: ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 2:28 PM


  






i think that all which remains is probably in the Leblanc museum: but i simply asked because i was fascinated with your knowledge which in certain areas is more experienced than mine: however as a player it was a fascinating instrument and i played it on many gigs the last being David Nivens last film. it was to play the extended solos in the sound track which was written by Mancini, who organised and conducted the sessions. whan i was a prof at Indiana with Rousseau regrettably we did not discuss this instrument so i do not have much to add except that it must be deeply regretted by Leblanc that the whole idea was dropped.
prof weinberg

--- On Wed, 12/8/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:


From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Wednesday, 12 August, 2009, 2:24 PM


  





Professor Weinberg,

Fascinating.  One must suppose, Professor, that you, having actually owned one, would have much more interesting and informative thoughts on it, than either I or anyone else, having only seen it in pictures.  You must elaborate.  Was the mouthpiece an integral part of the design?

Rousseau studied with Charles Houvenaghel in the 60's.  I can find no reference to any Houvenaghel writings or publications online.  Perhaps there is something in French somewhere.



--- On Wed, 8/12/09, ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com> wrote:


From: ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 9:53 AM


  






what are your thoughts on the saxophone designed by Leblancs great designer Houvenaghal (hope spelling is right); i had one of the 5 that they made before closing it down due to fear about the mark7 which was due out at that time (nobody realising what the reaction would be to that -given the history of the mark6) i know  Hodges had another,(there is a picture of him holding it on one of his last albums) there was one in the American service bands and 2 in the uk.
prof weinberg

--- On Wed, 12/8/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:


From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. . com
Date: Wednesday, 12 August, 2009, 7:54 AM


  





It's sort of complicated, but not beyond understanding.  Toby helped me learn this.  Benade's explanation here of resonances and harmonics is very good: 

http://ccrma. stanford. edu/marl/ Benade/documents /Benade-Physics3 23-1977..pdf

These are the course notes for the class he taught at Stanford, "The Acoustical Evolution of Wind Instruments" .  The really cool thing about Benade was, that he was a good musician as well as an educator and scientist.  This is not dry, scientifically detached, sitting on the sidelines commentary about acoustical theory.  This is making a flute, a clarinet, an oboe, etc. from scratch, starting with the basic concept of the air column, then designing, building, replicating, and  analyzing the complete development of every aspect of the bore, tone holes, mouthpieces, fingerings, register keys, bore irregularities, etc.. of that instrument, from the baroque era,
 through modern times.  Of course there are lots of formulas, but the science is merged with the act of doing, and that results in complete understanding.  So said Aristotle, and he was no dummy.   Understanding everything in his book,  Fundamentals of Musical Acoustics, is  a prerequisit for the course.  I strongly recomend ordering it - around $20.00.  That's money well spent, many times over.

This is a very simplified discription.  

Part 1.  We have a saxophone that has acoustical resonance properties.  The designer of the sax tried to align the resonances, so that at the fingering of any note in it's range, it's resonances resembled the natural overtone series of that note..  The problem is, the cone is not perfect and the resonances do not always line up right.  The more they are aligned, the better the instrument, usually.  If we finger and try to play a G1, the
 length of the tube forces the reed to vibrate at our G1 frequency.  This causes the resonances located at or near the frequencies of the G1 harmonic series to start to resonate at their own frequency.  If enough of the resonances are located close enough to the frequencies of the G1 harmonic series, their resonating will re-enforce each other, and what is called a harmonic regime will be formed, and the instrument will play a G1 tone.    

Part 2 will continue after some sleep..


--- On Wed, 8/12/09, frymorgan <frymorgan@yahoo. com> wrote:


From: frymorgan <frymorgan@yahoo. com>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 5:30 AM


  

Perhaps not exactly the shape but the cross-sectional area must affect pitch of every wave with a node within the mouthpiece. The pitch of the harmonics affects the perception of intonation, doesn't it? 

--- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, <kymarto123@ ...> wrote:
>
> My understanding is that while the shape of the mpc will
> affect many aspects of the final sound, intonation is not
> one of them as long as the volume and "frs" remain
> constant. Or?
> 
>
 Toby






 

      

    
    
	
	 
	
	








	


	
	


      

ok i was refering to the solos i did on David Nivens last film: Mancini did the music and we recorded at Abbey rd EMI. I have never heard it as it was some 30-40 years ago--too long to remember. sorry for cross purposes.
prof weinberg

--- On Thu, 13/8/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:


From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, 13 August, 2009, 4:18 PM


  







Professor,

Sorry.  You did not specify that it was the alto that you had.  They did make a few Rational tenors and that was an extended solo from the sound track.  There were alto solos as well?  I'll have to check the whole recording then.  

MM

--- On Thu, 8/13/09, ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com> wrote:


From: ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. .com
Date: Thursday, August 13, 2009, 11:48 AM


  






had a bit of trouble picking that link up-will try later but what is the significance?
i know about the tenor player--is it that?
prof weinberg

--- On Thu, 13/8/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:


From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Thursday, 13 August, 2009, 12:09 PM


  





Professor,

You might be interested in this link then:

http://www.televisi ontunes.com/ Curse_Of_ The_Pink_ Panther.html

MM

--- On Thu, 8/13/09, ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com> wrote:


From: ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Thursday, August 13, 2009, 10:53 AM


  






you are ahead of me as i have never heard it and have only a sad old memory of the sessions:- the instrument did have a different sound to the usual sax due to the mechanism and design (every note above an open hole tube) the mouthpiece was simply an old vandoren A25 as it is now called. i always hesitate to say, but apparently Mancini did request me for the sessions--but there was not any more money!!! Now there is a lesson
prof weinberg

--- On Thu, 13/8/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:


From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Thursday, 13 August, 2009, 11:34 AM


  





Professor,

Very, very nice, distinctive sound..  Very free blowing. Reminiscent of PJ but different. What mouthpiece setup would that be?  Did Mancini have the sound of you on that specific instrument in mind for the recording?

MM

--- On Wed, 8/12/09, ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com> wrote:


From: ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 2:28 PM


  






i think that all which remains is probably in the Leblanc museum: but i simply asked because i was fascinated with your knowledge which in certain areas is more experienced than mine: however as a player it was a fascinating instrument and i played it on many gigs the last being David Nivens last film. it was to play the extended solos in the sound track which was written by Mancini, who organised and conducted the sessions. whan i was a prof at Indiana with Rousseau regrettably we did not discuss this instrument so i do not have much to add except that it must be deeply regretted by Leblanc that the whole idea was dropped.
prof weinberg

--- On Wed, 12/8/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:


From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Wednesday, 12 August, 2009, 2:24 PM


  





Professor Weinberg,

Fascinating.  One must suppose, Professor, that you, having actually owned one, would have much more interesting and informative thoughts on it, than either I or anyone else, having only seen it in pictures.  You must elaborate.  Was the mouthpiece an integral part of the design?

Rousseau studied with Charles Houvenaghel in the 60's.  I can find no reference to any Houvenaghel writings or publications online.  Perhaps there is something in French somewhere.



--- On Wed, 8/12/09, ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com> wrote:


From: ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 9:53 AM


  






what are your thoughts on the saxophone designed by Leblancs great designer Houvenaghal (hope spelling is right); i had one of the 5 that they made before closing it down due to fear about the mark7 which was due out at that time (nobody realising what the reaction would be to that -given the history of the mark6) i know  Hodges had another,(there is a picture of him holding it on one of his last albums) there was one in the American service bands and 2 in the uk.
prof weinberg

--- On Wed, 12/8/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:


From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. . com
Date: Wednesday, 12 August, 2009, 7:54 AM


  





It's sort of complicated, but not beyond understanding.  Toby helped me learn this.  Benade's explanation here of resonances and harmonics is very good: 

http://ccrma. stanford. edu/marl/ Benade/documents /Benade-Physics3 23-1977.pdf

These are the course notes for the class he taught at Stanford, "The Acoustical Evolution of Wind Instruments" .  The really cool thing about Benade was, that he was a good musician as well as an educator and scientist.  This is not dry, scientifically detached, sitting on the sidelines commentary about acoustical theory.  This is making a flute, a clarinet, an oboe, etc. from scratch, starting with the basic concept of the air column, then designing, building, replicating, and  analyzing the complete development of every aspect of the bore, tone holes, mouthpieces, fingerings, register keys, bore irregularities, etc.. of that instrument, from the baroque era, through modern times.  Of course there are lots of formulas, but the science is merged with the act of doing, and that results in complete understanding.  So said Aristotle, and he was no dummy.   Understanding everything in his book,  Fundamentals of Musical Acoustics, is  a prerequisit
 for the course.  I strongly recomend ordering it - around $20.00.  That's money well spent, many times over.

This is a very simplified discription.  

Part 1.  We have a saxophone that has acoustical resonance properties.  The designer of the sax tried to align the resonances, so that at the fingering of any note in it's range, it's resonances resembled the natural overtone series of that note..  The problem is, the cone is not perfect and the resonances do not always line up right.  The more they are aligned, the better the instrument, usually.  If we finger and try to play a G1, the length of the tube forces the reed to vibrate at our G1 frequency.  This causes the resonances located at or near the frequencies of the G1 harmonic series to start to resonate at their own frequency.  If enough of the resonances are located close enough to the frequencies of the G1 harmonic series, their resonating will re-enforce each other, and what is called a harmonic regime will be formed, and the instrument will play a G1 tone.    

Part 2 will continue after some sleep..


--- On Wed, 8/12/09, frymorgan <frymorgan@yahoo. com> wrote:


From: frymorgan <frymorgan@yahoo. com>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 5:30 AM


  

Perhaps not exactly the shape but the cross-sectional area must affect pitch of every wave with a node within the mouthpiece. The pitch of the harmonics affects the perception of intonation, doesn't it? 

--- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, <kymarto123@ ...> wrote:
>
> My understanding is that while the shape of the mpc will
> affect many aspects of the final sound, intonation is not
> one of them as long as the volume and "frs" remain
> constant. Or?
> 
> Toby

No matter,

One of Niven's flimographies mentions, "The Curse of the Pink Panther", 1983, as his last film, music by Mancini.  That is the link I provided.  Granted, it is not the entire sound track, but it does have an extended sax solo. 

Another shows both "The Curse...PP" and "Better Late Than Never", Niven films, both being released in 1983, but as to which was his last, doesn't say.  Mancini again.

Mancini's site shows "Better Late Than Never" as 1982, and "The Curse..PP", as 1983.

Confusing.



--- On Thu, 8/13/09, ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@...> wrote:

From: ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, August 13, 2009, 4:09 PM






 




    
                  ok i was refering to the solos i did on David Nivens last film: Mancini did the music and we recorded at Abbey rd EMI. I have never heard it as it was some 30-40 years ago--too long to remember. sorry for cross purposes.
prof weinberg

--- On Thu, 13/8/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:


From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Thursday, 13 August, 2009, 4:18 PM


  





Professor,

Sorry.  You did not specify that it was the alto that you had.  They did make a few Rational tenors and that was an extended solo from the sound track.  There were alto solos as well?  I'll have to check the whole recording then.  

MM

--- On Thu, 8/13/09, ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com> wrote:


From: ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. .com
Date: Thursday, August 13, 2009, 11:48 AM


  






had a bit of trouble picking that link up-will try later but what is the significance?
i know about the tenor player--is it that?
prof weinberg

--- On Thu, 13/8/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:


From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Thursday, 13 August, 2009, 12:09 PM


  





Professor,

You might be interested in this link then:

http://www.televisi ontunes.com/ Curse_Of_ The_Pink_ Panther.html

MM

--- On Thu, 8/13/09, ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com> wrote:


From: ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Thursday, August 13, 2009, 10:53 AM


  






you are ahead of me as i have never heard it and have only a sad old memory of the sessions:- the instrument did have a different sound to the usual sax due to the mechanism and design (every note above an open hole tube) the mouthpiece was simply an old vandoren A25 as it is now called. i always hesitate to say, but apparently Mancini did request me for the sessions--but there was not any more money!!! Now there is a lesson
prof weinberg

--- On Thu, 13/8/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:


From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Thursday, 13 August, 2009, 11:34 AM


  





Professor,

Very, very nice, distinctive sound..  Very free blowing. Reminiscent of PJ but different. What mouthpiece setup would that be?  Did Mancini have the sound of you on that specific instrument in mind for the recording?

MM

--- On Wed, 8/12/09, ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com> wrote:


From: ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 2:28 PM


  






i think that all which remains is probably in the Leblanc museum: but i simply asked because i was fascinated with your knowledge which in certain areas is more experienced than mine: however as a player it was a fascinating instrument and i played it on many gigs the last being David Nivens last film. it was to play the extended solos in the sound track which was written by Mancini, who organised and conducted the sessions. whan i was a prof at Indiana with Rousseau regrettably we did not discuss this instrument so i do not have much to add except that it must be deeply regretted by Leblanc that the whole idea was dropped.
prof weinberg

--- On Wed, 12/8/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:


From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Wednesday, 12 August, 2009, 2:24 PM


  





Professor Weinberg,

Fascinating.  One must suppose, Professor, that you, having actually owned one, would have much more interesting and informative thoughts on it, than either I or anyone else, having only seen it in pictures.  You must elaborate.  Was the mouthpiece an integral part of the design?

Rousseau studied with Charles Houvenaghel in the 60's.  I can find no reference to any Houvenaghel writings or publications online.  Perhaps there is something in French somewhere.



--- On Wed, 8/12/09, ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com> wrote:


From: ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 9:53 AM


  






what are your thoughts on the saxophone designed by Leblancs great designer Houvenaghal (hope spelling is right); i had one of the 5 that they made before closing it down due to fear about the mark7 which was due out at that time (nobody realising what the reaction would be to that -given the history of the mark6) i know  Hodges had another,(there is a picture of him holding it on one of his last albums) there was one in the American service bands and 2 in the uk.
prof weinberg

--- On Wed, 12/8/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:


From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. . com
Date: Wednesday, 12 August, 2009, 7:54 AM


  





It's sort of complicated, but not beyond understanding.  Toby helped me learn this.  Benade's explanation here of resonances and harmonics is very good: 

http://ccrma. stanford. edu/marl/ Benade/documents /Benade-Physics3 23-1977..pdf

These are the course notes for the class he taught at Stanford, "The Acoustical Evolution of Wind Instruments" .  The really cool thing about Benade was, that he was a good musician as well as an educator and scientist.  This is not dry, scientifically detached, sitting on the sidelines commentary about acoustical theory.  This is making a flute, a clarinet, an oboe, etc. from scratch, starting with the basic concept of the air column, then designing, building, replicating, and  analyzing the complete development of every aspect of the bore, tone holes, mouthpieces, fingerings, register keys, bore irregularities, etc.. of that instrument, from the baroque era,
 through modern times.  Of course there are lots of formulas, but the science is merged with the act of doing, and that results in complete understanding.  So said Aristotle, and he was no dummy.   Understanding everything in his book,  Fundamentals of Musical Acoustics, is  a prerequisit for the course.  I strongly recomend ordering it - around $20.00.  That's money well spent, many times over.

This is a very simplified discription.  

Part 1.  We have a saxophone that has acoustical resonance properties.  The designer of the sax tried to align the resonances, so that at the fingering of any note in it's range, it's resonances resembled the natural overtone series of that note..  The problem is, the cone is not perfect and the resonances do not always line up right.  The more they are aligned, the better the instrument, usually.  If we finger and try to play a G1, the
 length of the tube forces the reed to vibrate at our G1 frequency.  This causes the resonances located at or near the frequencies of the G1 harmonic series to start to resonate at their own frequency.  If enough of the resonances are located close enough to the frequencies of the G1 harmonic series, their resonating will re-enforce each other, and what is called a harmonic regime will be formed, and the instrument will play a G1 tone.    

Part 2 will continue after some sleep..


--- On Wed, 8/12/09, frymorgan <frymorgan@yahoo. com> wrote:


From: frymorgan <frymorgan@yahoo. com>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 5:30 AM


  

Perhaps not exactly the shape but the cross-sectional area must affect pitch of every wave with a node within the mouthpiece. The pitch of the harmonics affects the perception of intonation, doesn't it? 

--- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, <kymarto123@ ...> wrote:
>
> My understanding is that while the shape of the mpc will
> affect many aspects of the final sound, intonation is not
> one of them as long as the volume and "frs" remain
> constant. Or?
> 
>
 Toby







 

      

    
    
	
	 
	
	








	


	
	


      

thanks for the info--it is confusing; i remember re-recording the Panther music for the english cartoons due to contractual problems between uk and usa. but i did not do the film so i think the other one mentioned is his last. i cannot imagine him taking part in a Panther movie with cancer.
many thanks
prof weinberg

--- On Thu, 13/8/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:


From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, 13 August, 2009, 6:08 PM


  







No matter,

One of Niven's flimographies mentions, "The Curse of the Pink Panther", 1983, as his last film, music by Mancini.  That is the link I provided.  Granted, it is not the entire sound track, but it does have an extended sax solo. 

Another shows both "The Curse...PP" and "Better Late Than Never", Niven films, both being released in 1983, but as to which was his last, doesn't say.  Mancini again.

Mancini's site shows "Better Late Than Never" as 1982, and "The Curse..PP", as 1983.

Confusing.



--- On Thu, 8/13/09, ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com> wrote:


From: ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Thursday, August 13, 2009, 4:09 PM


  






ok i was refering to the solos i did on David Nivens last film: Mancini did the music and we recorded at Abbey rd EMI. I have never heard it as it was some 30-40 years ago--too long to remember. sorry for cross purposes.
prof weinberg

--- On Thu, 13/8/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:


From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Thursday, 13 August, 2009, 4:18 PM


  





Professor,

Sorry.  You did not specify that it was the alto that you had.  They did make a few Rational tenors and that was an extended solo from the sound track.  There were alto solos as well?  I'll have to check the whole recording then.  

MM

--- On Thu, 8/13/09, ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com> wrote:


From: ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. .com
Date: Thursday, August 13, 2009, 11:48 AM


  






had a bit of trouble picking that link up-will try later but what is the significance?
i know about the tenor player--is it that?
prof weinberg

--- On Thu, 13/8/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:


From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Thursday, 13 August, 2009, 12:09 PM


  





Professor,

You might be interested in this link then:

http://www.. televisi ontunes.com/ Curse_Of_ The_Pink_ Panther.html

MM

--- On Thu, 8/13/09, ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com> wrote:


From: ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Thursday, August 13, 2009, 10:53 AM


  






you are ahead of me as i have never heard it and have only a sad old memory of the sessions:- the instrument did have a different sound to the usual sax due to the mechanism and design (every note above an open hole tube) the mouthpiece was simply an old vandoren A25 as it is now called. i always hesitate to say, but apparently Mancini did request me for the sessions--but there was not any more money!!! Now there is a lesson
prof weinberg

--- On Thu, 13/8/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:


From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Thursday, 13 August, 2009, 11:34 AM


  





Professor,

Very, very nice, distinctive sound..  Very free blowing. Reminiscent of PJ but different. What mouthpiece setup would that be?  Did Mancini have the sound of you on that specific instrument in mind for the recording?

MM

--- On Wed, 8/12/09, ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com> wrote:


From: ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 2:28 PM


  






i think that all which remains is probably in the Leblanc museum: but i simply asked because i was fascinated with your knowledge which in certain areas is more experienced than mine: however as a player it was a fascinating instrument and i played it on many gigs the last being David Nivens last film. it was to play the extended solos in the sound track which was written by Mancini, who organised and conducted the sessions. whan i was a prof at Indiana with Rousseau regrettably we did not discuss this instrument so i do not have much to add except that it must be deeply regretted by Leblanc that the whole idea was dropped.
prof weinberg

--- On Wed, 12/8/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:


From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Wednesday, 12 August, 2009, 2:24 PM


  





Professor Weinberg,

Fascinating.  One must suppose, Professor, that you, having actually owned one, would have much more interesting and informative thoughts on it, than either I or anyone else, having only seen it in pictures.  You must elaborate.  Was the mouthpiece an integral part of the design?

Rousseau studied with Charles Houvenaghel in the 60's.  I can find no reference to any Houvenaghel writings or publications online.  Perhaps there is something in French somewhere.



--- On Wed, 8/12/09, ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com> wrote:


From: ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 9:53 AM


  






what are your thoughts on the saxophone designed by Leblancs great designer Houvenaghal (hope spelling is right); i had one of the 5 that they made before closing it down due to fear about the mark7 which was due out at that time (nobody realising what the reaction would be to that -given the history of the mark6) i know  Hodges had another,(there is a picture of him holding it on one of his last albums) there was one in the American service bands and 2 in the uk.
prof weinberg

--- On Wed, 12/8/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:


From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. . . com
Date: Wednesday, 12 August, 2009, 7:54 AM


  





It's sort of complicated, but not beyond understanding.  Toby helped me learn this.  Benade's explanation here of resonances and harmonics is very good: 

http://ccrma. stanford. edu/marl/ Benade/documents /Benade-Physics3 23-1977.pdf

These are the course notes for the class he taught at Stanford, "The Acoustical Evolution of Wind Instruments" .  The really cool thing about Benade was, that he was a good musician as well as an educator and scientist.  This is not dry, scientifically detached, sitting on the sidelines commentary about acoustical theory.  This is making a flute, a clarinet, an oboe, etc. from scratch, starting with the basic concept of the air column, then designing, building, replicating, and  analyzing the complete development of every aspect of the bore, tone holes, mouthpieces, fingerings, register keys, bore irregularities, etc.. of that instrument, from the baroque era, through modern times.  Of course there are lots of formulas, but the science is merged with the act of doing, and that results in complete understanding.  So said Aristotle, and he was no dummy.   Understanding everything in his book,  Fundamentals of Musical Acoustics, is  a prerequisit
 for the course.  I strongly recomend ordering it - around $20..00.  That's money well spent, many times over.

This is a very simplified discription.  

Part 1.  We have a saxophone that has acoustical resonance properties.  The designer of the sax tried to align the resonances, so that at the fingering of any note in it's range, it's resonances resembled the natural overtone series of that note..  The problem is, the cone is not perfect and the resonances do not always line up right.  The more they are aligned, the better the instrument, usually.  If we finger and try to play a G1, the length of the tube forces the reed to vibrate at our G1 frequency.  This causes the resonances located at or near the frequencies of the G1 harmonic series to start to resonate at their own frequency.  If enough of the resonances are located close enough to the frequencies of the G1 harmonic series, their resonating will re-enforce each other, and what is called a harmonic regime will be formed, and the instrument will play a G1 tone.    

Part 2 will continue after some sleep..


--- On Wed, 8/12/09, frymorgan <frymorgan@yahoo. com> wrote:


From: frymorgan <frymorgan@yahoo. com>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 5:30 AM


  

Perhaps not exactly the shape but the cross-sectional area must affect pitch of every wave with a node within the mouthpiece. The pitch of the harmonics affects the perception of intonation, doesn't it? 

--- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, <kymarto123@ ...> wrote:
>
> My understanding is that while the shape of the mpc will
> affect many aspects of the final sound, intonation is not
> one of them as long as the volume and "frs" remain
> constant. Or?
> 
> Toby

I did all the rest of them in '83 in Munich.

--- On Thu, 8/13/09, ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@...> wrote:

From: ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, August 13, 2009, 7:22 PM






 




    
                  thanks for the info--it is confusing; i remember re-recording the Panther music for the english cartoons due to contractual problems between uk and usa. but i did not do the film so i think the other one mentioned is his last. i cannot imagine him taking part in a Panther movie with cancer.
many thanks
prof weinberg

--- On Thu, 13/8/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:


From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Thursday, 13 August, 2009, 6:08 PM


  





No matter,

One of Niven's flimographies mentions, "The Curse of the Pink Panther", 1983, as his last film, music by Mancini.  That is the link I provided.  Granted, it is not the entire sound track, but it does have an extended sax solo. 

Another shows both "The Curse...PP" and "Better Late Than Never", Niven films, both being released in 1983, but as to which was his last, doesn't say.  Mancini again.

Mancini's site shows "Better Late Than Never" as 1982, and "The Curse..PP", as 1983.

Confusing.



--- On Thu, 8/13/09, ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com> wrote:


From: ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Thursday, August 13, 2009, 4:09 PM


  






ok i was refering to the solos i did on David Nivens last film: Mancini did the music and we recorded at Abbey rd EMI. I have never heard it as it was some 30-40 years ago--too long to remember. sorry for cross purposes.
prof weinberg

--- On Thu, 13/8/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:


From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Thursday, 13 August, 2009, 4:18 PM


  





Professor,

Sorry.  You did not specify that it was the alto that you had.  They did make a few Rational tenors and that was an extended solo from the sound track.  There were alto solos as well?  I'll have to check the whole recording then.  

MM

--- On Thu, 8/13/09, ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com> wrote:


From: ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. .com
Date: Thursday, August 13, 2009, 11:48 AM


  






had a bit of trouble picking that link up-will try later but what is the significance?
i know about the tenor player--is it that?
prof weinberg

--- On Thu, 13/8/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:


From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Thursday, 13 August, 2009, 12:09 PM


  





Professor,

You might be interested in this link then:

http://www.. televisi ontunes.com/ Curse_Of_ The_Pink_ Panther.html

MM

--- On Thu, 8/13/09, ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com> wrote:


From: ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Thursday, August 13, 2009, 10:53 AM


  






you are ahead of me as i have never heard it and have only a sad old memory of the sessions:- the instrument did have a different sound to the usual sax due to the mechanism and design (every note above an open hole tube) the mouthpiece was simply an old vandoren A25 as it is now called. i always hesitate to say, but apparently Mancini did request me for the sessions--but there was not any more money!!! Now there is a lesson
prof weinberg

--- On Thu, 13/8/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:


From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Thursday, 13 August, 2009, 11:34 AM


  





Professor,

Very, very nice, distinctive sound..  Very free blowing. Reminiscent of PJ but different. What mouthpiece setup would that be?  Did Mancini have the sound of you on that specific instrument in mind for the recording?

MM

--- On Wed, 8/12/09, ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com> wrote:


From: ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 2:28 PM


  






i think that all which remains is probably in the Leblanc museum: but i simply asked because i was fascinated with your knowledge which in certain areas is more experienced than mine: however as a player it was a fascinating instrument and i played it on many gigs the last being David Nivens last film. it was to play the extended solos in the sound track which was written by Mancini, who organised and conducted the sessions. whan i was a prof at Indiana with Rousseau regrettably we did not discuss this instrument so i do not have much to add except that it must be deeply regretted by Leblanc that the whole idea was dropped.
prof weinberg

--- On Wed, 12/8/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:


From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Wednesday, 12 August, 2009, 2:24 PM


  





Professor Weinberg,

Fascinating.  One must suppose, Professor, that you, having actually owned one, would have much more interesting and informative thoughts on it, than either I or anyone else, having only seen it in pictures.  You must elaborate.  Was the mouthpiece an integral part of the design?

Rousseau studied with Charles Houvenaghel in the 60's.  I can find no reference to any Houvenaghel writings or publications online.  Perhaps there is something in French somewhere.



--- On Wed, 8/12/09, ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com> wrote:


From: ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 9:53 AM


  






what are your thoughts on the saxophone designed by Leblancs great designer Houvenaghal (hope spelling is right); i had one of the 5 that they made before closing it down due to fear about the mark7 which was due out at that time (nobody realising what the reaction would be to that -given the history of the mark6) i know  Hodges had another,(there is a picture of him holding it on one of his last albums) there was one in the American service bands and 2 in the uk.
prof weinberg

--- On Wed, 12/8/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:


From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. . . com
Date: Wednesday, 12 August, 2009, 7:54 AM


  





It's sort of complicated, but not beyond understanding.  Toby helped me learn this.  Benade's explanation here of resonances and harmonics is very good: 

http://ccrma. stanford. edu/marl/ Benade/documents /Benade-Physics3 23-1977..pdf

These are the course notes for the class he taught at Stanford, "The Acoustical Evolution of Wind Instruments" .  The really cool thing about Benade was, that he was a good musician as well as an educator and scientist.  This is not dry, scientifically detached, sitting on the sidelines commentary about acoustical theory.  This is making a flute, a clarinet, an oboe, etc. from scratch, starting with the basic concept of the air column, then designing, building, replicating, and  analyzing the complete development of every aspect of the bore, tone holes, mouthpieces, fingerings, register keys, bore irregularities, etc.. of that instrument, from the baroque era,
 through modern times.  Of course there are lots of formulas, but the science is merged with the act of doing, and that results in complete understanding.  So said Aristotle, and he was no dummy.   Understanding everything in his book,  Fundamentals of Musical Acoustics, is  a prerequisit for the course.  I strongly recomend ordering it - around $20..00.  That's money well spent, many times over.

This is a very simplified discription.  

Part 1.  We have a saxophone that has acoustical resonance properties.  The designer of the sax tried to align the resonances, so that at the fingering of any note in it's range, it's resonances resembled the natural overtone series of that note..  The problem is, the cone is not perfect and the resonances do not always line up right.  The more they are aligned, the better the instrument, usually.  If we finger and try to play a G1, the
 length of the tube forces the reed to vibrate at our G1 frequency.  This causes the resonances located at or near the frequencies of the G1 harmonic series to start to resonate at their own frequency.  If enough of the resonances are located close enough to the frequencies of the G1 harmonic series, their resonating will re-enforce each other, and what is called a harmonic regime will be formed, and the instrument will play a G1 tone.    

Part 2 will continue after some sleep..


--- On Wed, 8/12/09, frymorgan <frymorgan@yahoo. com> wrote:


From: frymorgan <frymorgan@yahoo. com>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 5:30 AM


  

Perhaps not exactly the shape but the cross-sectional area must affect pitch of every wave with a node within the mouthpiece. The pitch of the harmonics affects the perception of intonation, doesn't it? 

--- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, <kymarto123@ ...> wrote:
>
> My understanding is that while the shape of the mpc will
> affect many aspects of the final sound, intonation is not
> one of them as long as the volume and "frs" remain
> constant. Or?
> 
>
 Toby








 

      

    
    
	
	 
	
	








	


	
	


      

wow! a fellow sufferer

--- On Thu, 13/8/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@yahoo.com> wrote:


From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, 13 August, 2009, 8:33 PM


  







I did all the rest of them in '83 in Munich.

--- On Thu, 8/13/09, ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com> wrote:


From: ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Thursday, August 13, 2009, 7:22 PM


  






thanks for the info--it is confusing; i remember re-recording the Panther music for the english cartoons due to contractual problems between uk and usa. but i did not do the film so i think the other one mentioned is his last. i cannot imagine him taking part in a Panther movie with cancer.
many thanks
prof weinberg

--- On Thu, 13/8/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:


From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Thursday, 13 August, 2009, 6:08 PM


  





No matter,

One of Niven's flimographies mentions, "The Curse of the Pink Panther", 1983, as his last film, music by Mancini.  That is the link I provided.  Granted, it is not the entire sound track, but it does have an extended sax solo. 

Another shows both "The Curse...PP" and "Better Late Than Never", Niven films, both being released in 1983, but as to which was his last, doesn't say.  Mancini again.

Mancini's site shows "Better Late Than Never" as 1982, and "The Curse..PP", as 1983.

Confusing.



--- On Thu, 8/13/09, ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com> wrote:


From: ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Thursday, August 13, 2009, 4:09 PM


  






ok i was refering to the solos i did on David Nivens last film: Mancini did the music and we recorded at Abbey rd EMI. I have never heard it as it was some 30-40 years ago--too long to remember. sorry for cross purposes.
prof weinberg

--- On Thu, 13/8/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:


From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Thursday, 13 August, 2009, 4:18 PM


  





Professor,

Sorry.  You did not specify that it was the alto that you had.  They did make a few Rational tenors and that was an extended solo from the sound track.  There were alto solos as well?  I'll have to check the whole recording then.  

MM

--- On Thu, 8/13/09, ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com> wrote:


From: ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. .com
Date: Thursday, August 13, 2009, 11:48 AM


  






had a bit of trouble picking that link up-will try later but what is the significance?
i know about the tenor player--is it that?
prof weinberg

--- On Thu, 13/8/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:


From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Thursday, 13 August, 2009, 12:09 PM


  





Professor,

You might be interested in this link then:

http://www.. televisi ontunes.com/ Curse_Of_ The_Pink_ Panther.html

MM

--- On Thu, 8/13/09, ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com> wrote:


From: ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Thursday, August 13, 2009, 10:53 AM


  






you are ahead of me as i have never heard it and have only a sad old memory of the sessions:- the instrument did have a different sound to the usual sax due to the mechanism and design (every note above an open hole tube) the mouthpiece was simply an old vandoren A25 as it is now called. i always hesitate to say, but apparently Mancini did request me for the sessions--but there was not any more money!!! Now there is a lesson
prof weinberg

--- On Thu, 13/8/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:


From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Thursday, 13 August, 2009, 11:34 AM


  





Professor,

Very, very nice, distinctive sound..  Very free blowing. Reminiscent of PJ but different. What mouthpiece setup would that be?  Did Mancini have the sound of you on that specific instrument in mind for the recording?

MM

--- On Wed, 8/12/09, ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com> wrote:


From: ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 2:28 PM


  






i think that all which remains is probably in the Leblanc museum: but i simply asked because i was fascinated with your knowledge which in certain areas is more experienced than mine: however as a player it was a fascinating instrument and i played it on many gigs the last being David Nivens last film. it was to play the extended solos in the sound track which was written by Mancini, who organised and conducted the sessions. whan i was a prof at Indiana with Rousseau regrettably we did not discuss this instrument so i do not have much to add except that it must be deeply regretted by Leblanc that the whole idea was dropped.
prof weinberg

--- On Wed, 12/8/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:


From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Wednesday, 12 August, 2009, 2:24 PM


  





Professor Weinberg,

Fascinating.  One must suppose, Professor, that you, having actually owned one, would have much more interesting and informative thoughts on it, than either I or anyone else, having only seen it in pictures.  You must elaborate.  Was the mouthpiece an integral part of the design?

Rousseau studied with Charles Houvenaghel in the 60's.  I can find no reference to any Houvenaghel writings or publications online.  Perhaps there is something in French somewhere.



--- On Wed, 8/12/09, ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com> wrote:


From: ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 9:53 AM


  






what are your thoughts on the saxophone designed by Leblancs great designer Houvenaghal (hope spelling is right); i had one of the 5 that they made before closing it down due to fear about the mark7 which was due out at that time (nobody realising what the reaction would be to that -given the history of the mark6) i know  Hodges had another,(there is a picture of him holding it on one of his last albums) there was one in the American service bands and 2 in the uk.
prof weinberg

--- On Wed, 12/8/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:


From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. . . com
Date: Wednesday, 12 August, 2009, 7:54 AM


  





It's sort of complicated, but not beyond understanding.  Toby helped me learn this.  Benade's explanation here of resonances and harmonics is very good: 

http://ccrma. stanford. edu/marl/ Benade/documents /Benade-Physics3 23-1977.pdf

These are the course notes for the class he taught at Stanford, "The Acoustical Evolution of Wind Instruments" .  The really cool thing about Benade was, that he was a good musician as well as an educator and scientist.  This is not dry, scientifically detached, sitting on the sidelines commentary about acoustical theory.  This is making a flute, a clarinet, an oboe, etc. from scratch, starting with the basic concept of the air column, then designing, building, replicating, and  analyzing the complete development of every aspect of the bore, tone holes, mouthpieces, fingerings, register keys, bore irregularities, etc.. of that instrument, from the baroque era, through modern times.  Of course there are lots of formulas, but the science is merged with the act of doing, and that results in complete understanding.  So said Aristotle, and he was no dummy..   Understanding everything in his book,  Fundamentals of Musical Acoustics, is  a prerequisit
 for the course.  I strongly recomend ordering it - around $20..00.  That's money well spent, many times over.

This is a very simplified discription.  

Part 1.  We have a saxophone that has acoustical resonance properties.  The designer of the sax tried to align the resonances, so that at the fingering of any note in it's range, it's resonances resembled the natural overtone series of that note..  The problem is, the cone is not perfect and the resonances do not always line up right.  The more they are aligned, the better the instrument, usually.  If we finger and try to play a G1, the length of the tube forces the reed to vibrate at our G1 frequency.  This causes the resonances located at or near the frequencies of the G1 harmonic series to start to resonate at their own frequency.  If enough of the resonances are located close enough to the frequencies of the G1 harmonic series, their resonating will re-enforce each other, and what is called a harmonic regime will be formed, and the instrument will play a G1 tone.    

Part 2 will continue after some sleep..


--- On Wed, 8/12/09, frymorgan <frymorgan@yahoo. com> wrote:


From: frymorgan <frymorgan@yahoo. com>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 5:30 AM


  

Perhaps not exactly the shape but the cross-sectional area must affect pitch of every wave with a node within the mouthpiece. The pitch of the harmonics affects the perception of intonation, doesn't it? 

--- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, <kymarto123@ ...> wrote:
>
> My understanding is that while the shape of the mpc will
> affect many aspects of the final sound, intonation is not
> one of them as long as the volume and "frs" remain
> constant. Or?
> 
> Toby

Thumb-twirrler

--- On Thu, 8/13/09, ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@btopenworld.com> wrote:

From: ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, August 13, 2009, 7:41 PM






 




    
                  wow! a fellow sufferer

--- On Thu, 13/8/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:


From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Thursday, 13 August, 2009, 8:33 PM


  





I did all the rest of them in '83 in Munich.

--- On Thu, 8/13/09, ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com> wrote:


From: ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Thursday, August 13, 2009, 7:22 PM


  






thanks for the info--it is confusing; i remember re-recording the Panther music for the english cartoons due to contractual problems between uk and usa. but i did not do the film so i think the other one mentioned is his last. i cannot imagine him taking part in a Panther movie with cancer.
many thanks
prof weinberg

--- On Thu, 13/8/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:


From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Thursday, 13 August, 2009, 6:08 PM


  





No matter,

One of Niven's flimographies mentions, "The Curse of the Pink Panther", 1983, as his last film, music by Mancini.  That is the link I provided.  Granted, it is not the entire sound track, but it does have an extended sax solo. 

Another shows both "The Curse...PP" and "Better Late Than Never", Niven films, both being released in 1983, but as to which was his last, doesn't say.  Mancini again.

Mancini's site shows "Better Late Than Never" as 1982, and "The Curse..PP", as 1983.

Confusing.



--- On Thu, 8/13/09, ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com> wrote:


From: ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Thursday, August 13, 2009, 4:09 PM


  






ok i was refering to the solos i did on David Nivens last film: Mancini did the music and we recorded at Abbey rd EMI. I have never heard it as it was some 30-40 years ago--too long to remember. sorry for cross purposes.
prof weinberg

--- On Thu, 13/8/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:


From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Thursday, 13 August, 2009, 4:18 PM


  





Professor,

Sorry.  You did not specify that it was the alto that you had.  They did make a few Rational tenors and that was an extended solo from the sound track.  There were alto solos as well?  I'll have to check the whole recording then.  

MM

--- On Thu, 8/13/09, ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com> wrote:


From: ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. .com
Date: Thursday, August 13, 2009, 11:48 AM


  






had a bit of trouble picking that link up-will try later but what is the significance?
i know about the tenor player--is it that?
prof weinberg

--- On Thu, 13/8/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:


From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Thursday, 13 August, 2009, 12:09 PM


  





Professor,

You might be interested in this link then:

http://www.. televisi ontunes.com/ Curse_Of_ The_Pink_ Panther.html

MM

--- On Thu, 8/13/09, ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com> wrote:


From: ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Thursday, August 13, 2009, 10:53 AM


  






you are ahead of me as i have never heard it and have only a sad old memory of the sessions:- the instrument did have a different sound to the usual sax due to the mechanism and design (every note above an open hole tube) the mouthpiece was simply an old vandoren A25 as it is now called. i always hesitate to say, but apparently Mancini did request me for the sessions--but there was not any more money!!! Now there is a lesson
prof weinberg

--- On Thu, 13/8/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:


From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Thursday, 13 August, 2009, 11:34 AM


  





Professor,

Very, very nice, distinctive sound..  Very free blowing. Reminiscent of PJ but different. What mouthpiece setup would that be?  Did Mancini have the sound of you on that specific instrument in mind for the recording?

MM

--- On Wed, 8/12/09, ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com> wrote:


From: ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 2:28 PM


  






i think that all which remains is probably in the Leblanc museum: but i simply asked because i was fascinated with your knowledge which in certain areas is more experienced than mine: however as a player it was a fascinating instrument and i played it on many gigs the last being David Nivens last film. it was to play the extended solos in the sound track which was written by Mancini, who organised and conducted the sessions. whan i was a prof at Indiana with Rousseau regrettably we did not discuss this instrument so i do not have much to add except that it must be deeply regretted by Leblanc that the whole idea was dropped.
prof weinberg

--- On Wed, 12/8/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:


From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Wednesday, 12 August, 2009, 2:24 PM


  





Professor Weinberg,

Fascinating.  One must suppose, Professor, that you, having actually owned one, would have much more interesting and informative thoughts on it, than either I or anyone else, having only seen it in pictures.  You must elaborate.  Was the mouthpiece an integral part of the design?

Rousseau studied with Charles Houvenaghel in the 60's.  I can find no reference to any Houvenaghel writings or publications online.  Perhaps there is something in French somewhere.



--- On Wed, 8/12/09, ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com> wrote:


From: ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 9:53 AM


  






what are your thoughts on the saxophone designed by Leblancs great designer Houvenaghal (hope spelling is right); i had one of the 5 that they made before closing it down due to fear about the mark7 which was due out at that time (nobody realising what the reaction would be to that -given the history of the mark6) i know  Hodges had another,(there is a picture of him holding it on one of his last albums) there was one in the American service bands and 2 in the uk.
prof weinberg

--- On Wed, 12/8/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:


From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. . . com
Date: Wednesday, 12 August, 2009, 7:54 AM


  





It's sort of complicated, but not beyond understanding.  Toby helped me learn this.  Benade's explanation here of resonances and harmonics is very good: 

http://ccrma. stanford. edu/marl/ Benade/documents /Benade-Physics3 23-1977..pdf

These are the course notes for the class he taught at Stanford, "The Acoustical Evolution of Wind Instruments" .  The really cool thing about Benade was, that he was a good musician as well as an educator and scientist.  This is not dry, scientifically detached, sitting on the sidelines commentary about acoustical theory.  This is making a flute, a clarinet, an oboe, etc. from scratch, starting with the basic concept of the air column, then designing, building, replicating, and  analyzing the complete development of every aspect of the bore, tone holes, mouthpieces, fingerings, register keys, bore irregularities, etc.. of that instrument, from the baroque era,
 through modern times.  Of course there are lots of formulas, but the science is merged with the act of doing, and that results in complete understanding.  So said Aristotle, and he was no dummy..   Understanding everything in his book,  Fundamentals of Musical Acoustics, is  a prerequisit for the course.  I strongly recomend ordering it - around $20..00.  That's money well spent, many times over.

This is a very simplified discription.  

Part 1.  We have a saxophone that has acoustical resonance properties.  The designer of the sax tried to align the resonances, so that at the fingering of any note in it's range, it's resonances resembled the natural overtone series of that note..  The problem is, the cone is not perfect and the resonances do not always line up right.  The more they are aligned, the better the instrument, usually.  If we finger and try to play a G1, the
 length of the tube forces the reed to vibrate at our G1 frequency.  This causes the resonances located at or near the frequencies of the G1 harmonic series to start to resonate at their own frequency.  If enough of the resonances are located close enough to the frequencies of the G1 harmonic series, their resonating will re-enforce each other, and what is called a harmonic regime will be formed, and the instrument will play a G1 tone.    

Part 2 will continue after some sleep..


--- On Wed, 8/12/09, frymorgan <frymorgan@yahoo. com> wrote:


From: frymorgan <frymorgan@yahoo. com>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Shape of the window
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 5:30 AM


  

Perhaps not exactly the shape but the cross-sectional area must affect pitch of every wave with a node within the mouthpiece. The pitch of the harmonics affects the perception of intonation, doesn't it? 

--- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, <kymarto123@ ...> wrote:
>
> My understanding is that while the shape of the mpc will
> affect many aspects of the final sound, intonation is not
> one of them as long as the volume and "frs" remain
> constant. Or?
> 
>
 Toby









 

      

    
    
	
	 
	
	








	


	
	


      

MM and all,

In reading Nederveen, I ran across an interesting quote
that seems to indicate that we can only get "so far" in
our quest to rationalize the acoustic anarchy that is the
saxophone:

"The mouthpiece cavity and the reed compliance are
essential factors in the tuning....the sum of real and
fictitious cavity volumes must approximately be equal to
the volume of the cone-truncation, to ensure purity
between first and second register. *The application of
this simple rule of thumb is obscured by the influences of
diameter perturbations in the crooks and upper parts of
the instruments*." [emphasis mine]

Perhaps here lies the reason that Sax didn't bother to
find a more acoustically optimal (but less practical)
means of attaching the mpc to the body...

Toby

I dunno Toby. I come to quite a different conclusion from that paragraph.  Take a look at any saxophone neck with the mouthpiece on it.  The ONLY bore diameter perturbations of any significance occur at the mouthpiece throat/neck opening, and the neck tube/tenon sleeve/body tube junctions.  

It seems to me that Nederveen is saying that Sax and saxophone manufacturers SHOULD HAVE come up with a more acoustically optimal means of attaching things to each other, instead of opting for that of convenience.



--- On Fri, 8/14/09, kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...> wrote:

From: kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc volume
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, August 14, 2009, 2:42 AM






 




    
                  

MM and all,



In reading Nederveen, I ran across an interesting quote

that seems to indicate that we can only get "so far" in

our quest to rationalize the acoustic anarchy that is the

saxophone:



"The mouthpiece cavity and the reed compliance are

essential factors in the tuning....the sum of real and

fictitious cavity volumes must approximately be equal to

the volume of the cone-truncation, to ensure purity

between first and second register. *The application of

this simple rule of thumb is obscured by the influences of

diameter perturbations in the crooks and upper parts of

the instruments* ." [emphasis mine]



Perhaps here lies the reason that Sax didn't bother to

find a more acoustically optimal (but less practical)

means of attaching the mpc to the body...



Toby


 

      

    
    
	
	 
	
	








	


	
	


      

Toby,

And then, I think you may be taking Nederveen's comment a little out of context. He did not make this comment as regards ALL saxophones in general.  He made this observation in the summary of his analysis of the following specific saxophones:

a Schenkelaars tenor
a Rasco tenor
a Schenkelaars alto
a Schenkelaars soprano
a Solotone soprano
a Selmer soprano

Only the Selmer is known to me.  I know that the MK6 and some other brands of straight sopranos had a sudden constriction in the upper body about 4" from the mouthpiece end, termed, "necking-in".  This parallels the narrower taper sometimes added to the upper body of oboes, intended to improve intonation between registers.  

I don't know anything about the others.  I have seen often in "off" brands, excessive bore diameter mis-matches at the neck tube/tenon and tenon/body tube junctions, in excess of 2mm either way and sometimes both.

I don't think he is talking about tone hole perturbations.

MM




--- On Fri, 8/14/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:

From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc volume
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, August 14, 2009, 4:18 AM






 




    
                  I dunno Toby. I come to quite a different conclusion from that paragraph.  Take a look at any saxophone neck with the mouthpiece on it.  The ONLY bore diameter perturbations of any significance occur at the mouthpiece throat/neck opening, and the neck tube/tenon sleeve/body tube junctions.  

It seems to me that Nederveen is saying that Sax and saxophone manufacturers SHOULD HAVE come up with a more acoustically optimal means of attaching things to each other, instead of opting for that of convenience.



--- On Fri, 8/14/09, kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp> wrote:

From: kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc volume
To:
 MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Friday, August 14, 2009, 2:42 AM






 

    
                  

MM and all,



In reading Nederveen, I ran across an interesting quote

that seems to indicate that we can only get "so far" in

our quest to rationalize the acoustic anarchy that is the

saxophone:



"The mouthpiece cavity and the reed compliance are

essential factors in the tuning....the sum of real and

fictitious cavity volumes must approximately be equal to

the volume of the cone-truncation, to ensure purity

between first and second register. *The application of

this simple rule of thumb is obscured by the influences of

diameter perturbations in the crooks and upper parts of

the instruments* ." [emphasis mine]



Perhaps here lies the reason that Sax didn't bother to

find a more acoustically optimal (but less practical)

means of attaching the mpc to the body...



Toby


 

      


	 
	
	


      
 

      

    
    
	
	 
	
	








	


	
	


      

Maybe, maybe not. My take is that he was talking about saxes in general. Obviously some are worse than others. It is next to impossible to maintain a constant cone angle when you bend the neck, and the bend itself changes the cone angle even if you keep the angle constant across the bend. Then
 there is that silly cylindrical section at the tenon...

Toby

MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:                                    Toby,

And then, I think you may be taking Nederveen's comment a little out of context. He did not make this comment as regards ALL saxophones in general.  He made this observation in the summary of his analysis of the following specific saxophones:

a Schenkelaars tenor
a Rasco tenor
a Schenkelaars alto
a Schenkelaars soprano
a Solotone soprano
a Selmer soprano

Only the Selmer is known to me.  I know that the MK6 and some other brands of straight sopranos had a sudden constriction in the upper body about 4" from the mouthpiece end, termed, "necking-in".  This parallels the narrower taper sometimes added to the upper body of oboes, intended to improve
 intonation between registers.  

I don't know anything about the others.  I have seen often in "off" brands, excessive bore diameter mis-matches at  the neck tube/tenon and tenon/body tube junctions, in excess of 2mm either way and sometimes both.

I don't think he is talking about tone hole perturbations.

MM




--- On Fri, 8/14/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:

From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc volume
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, August 14, 2009, 4:18 AM

                               I dunno Toby. I come to quite a different conclusion from that paragraph.  Take a look at any saxophone neck with the mouthpiece on it.  The ONLY bore diameter perturbations of any significance occur at the mouthpiece throat/neck opening, and the neck tube/tenon
 sleeve/body tube junctions.  

It seems to me that Nederveen is saying that Sax and saxophone manufacturers SHOULD HAVE come up with a more acoustically optimal means of attaching things to each other, instead of opting for that of convenience.



--- On Fri, 8/14/09, kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp> wrote:

From: kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc volume
To:  MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Friday, August 14, 2009, 2:42 AM

                               
 MM and all,
 
 In reading Nederveen, I ran across an interesting quote
 that seems to indicate that we can only get "so far" in
 our quest to rationalize the acoustic anarchy that is the
 saxophone:
 
 "The mouthpiece cavity and the reed compliance are
 essential factors in the tuning....the sum of real and
 fictitious cavity volumes must approximately be equal to
 the volume of the cone-truncation, to ensure purity
 between first and second register. *The application of
 this simple rule of thumb is obscured by the influences of
 diameter perturbations in the crooks and upper parts of
 the instruments* ." [emphasis mine]
 
 Perhaps here lies the reason that Sax didn't bother to
 find a more acoustically optimal (but less practical)
 means of attaching the mpc to the body...
 
 Toby
 
        
           

        
        
           

        
        
             
                          
 

How do you know that those are the only bore perturbations of any significance? Isn't Nederveen specifically saying that they are not (or at least that they are enough to negate the volume matching)?

Seems to me that you are in denial ;-)

Toby

MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:                                    I dunno Toby. I come to quite a different conclusion from that paragraph.  Take a look at any saxophone neck with the mouthpiece on it.  The ONLY bore diameter perturbations of any significance occur at the mouthpiece
 throat/neck opening, and the neck tube/tenon sleeve/body tube junctions.  

It seems to me that Nederveen is saying that Sax and saxophone manufacturers SHOULD HAVE come up with a more acoustically optimal means of attaching things to each other, instead of opting for that of convenience.



--- On Fri, 8/14/09, kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...> wrote:

From: kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc volume
To:  MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, August 14, 2009, 2:42 AM

                               
 MM and all,
 
 In reading Nederveen, I ran across an interesting quote
 that seems to indicate that we can only get "so far" in
 our quest to rationalize the acoustic anarchy that is the
 saxophone:
 
 "The mouthpiece cavity and the reed compliance are
 essential factors in the tuning....the sum of real and
 fictitious cavity volumes must approximately be equal to
 the volume of the cone-truncation, to ensure purity
 between first and second register. *The application of
 this simple rule of thumb is obscured by the influences of
 diameter perturbations in the crooks and upper parts of
 the instruments* ." [emphasis mine]
 
 Perhaps here lies the reason that Sax didn't bother to
 find a more acoustically optimal (but less practical)
 means of attaching the mpc to the body...
 
 Toby
 
        
           

        
        
             
                          
 

Toby wrote, 
"Maybe, maybe not. My take is that he was talking about saxes in general. "

OK.  Whoever has the book can read it for themselves and decide.  For those who don't and are interested, the statement was made as Nederveen was describing the methods and issues that he had in making the scientific analysis of those specific instruments, and none other.  He is a scientist and conducted his method of analysis as scientists do.  In order to give their results credibility, they must absolutely limit the scope of their tesing and discussion of all testing procedures and results, to the specific test subjects.  You will notice he stated,

"The application of this simple rule of thumb is obscured by the influences of diameter perturbations in the crooks and upper parts of the instruments.."

He did not say, "all saxophones", or "saxophones in general".  "the instruments", refers to the 6 saxophones that he tested and nothing else.   

I think you allow yourself a little too much lattitude in your "take" in this case.  I can't accept that interpretation of what Nederveen says.  I could accept your statement though, if you qualified differently, like, "In my opionion, all saxes are that way.", and you left Nederveen out of it.

Toby wrote, "It is next to impossible to maintain a constant cone angle when you
bend the neck, and the bend itself changes the cone angle even if you
keep the angle constant across the bend."

I remind you that just a couple of days ago, when discussing the possible effects of the sharper neck bend of the MK6 and the 10M, that you stated, more than a few times, that the torroidal bends in saxophone necks, including these, were of such a wide radius, as to render any actual effects totally insignificant.  But today, they are significant.  So which is it?

I think I got you today.  Better luck tomorrow Toby.

MM





--- On Fri, 8/14/09, kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...> wrote:

From: kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc volume
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, August 14, 2009, 7:42 AM






 




    
                  Maybe, maybe not. My take is that he was talking about saxes in general. Obviously some are worse than others. It is next to impossible to maintain a constant cone angle when you bend the neck, and the bend itself changes the cone angle even if you keep the angle constant across the bend. Then
 there is that silly cylindrical section at the tenon...



Toby



MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:                                 Toby,



And then, I think you may be taking Nederveen's comment a little out of context. He did not make this comment as regards ALL saxophones in general.  He made this observation in the summary of his analysis of the following specific saxophones:



a Schenkelaars tenor

a Rasco tenor

a Schenkelaars alto

a Schenkelaars soprano

a Solotone soprano

a Selmer soprano



Only the Selmer is known to me.  I know that the MK6 and some other brands of straight sopranos had a sudden constriction in the upper body about 4" from the mouthpiece end, termed, "necking-in" .  This parallels the narrower taper sometimes added to the upper body of oboes, intended
 to improve intonation between registers.  



I don't know anything about the others.  I have seen often in "off" brands, excessive bore diameter mis-matches at  the neck tube/tenon and tenon/body tube junctions, in excess of 2mm either way and sometimes both.



I don't think he is talking about tone hole perturbations.



MM









--- On Fri, 8/14/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:



From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>

Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc volume

To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com

Date: Friday, August 14, 2009, 4:18 AM



                               I dunno Toby. I come to quite a different conclusion from that paragraph.  Take a look at any saxophone neck with the mouthpiece on it.  The ONLY bore diameter perturbations of any significance occur at the mouthpiece throat/neck opening,
 and the neck tube/tenon sleeve/body tube junctions.  



It seems to me that Nederveen is saying that Sax and saxophone manufacturers SHOULD HAVE come up with a more acoustically optimal means of attaching things to each other, instead of opting for that of convenience.







--- On Fri, 8/14/09, kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp> wrote:



From: kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>

Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc volume

To:  MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com

Date: Friday, August 14, 2009, 2:42 AM



                               

 MM and all,

 

 In reading Nederveen, I ran across an interesting quote

 that seems to indicate that we can only get "so far" in

 our quest to rationalize the acoustic anarchy that is the

 saxophone:

 

 "The mouthpiece cavity and the reed compliance are

 essential factors in the tuning....the sum of real and

 fictitious cavity volumes must approximately be equal to

 the volume of the cone-truncation, to ensure purity

 between first and second register. *The application of

 this simple rule of thumb is obscured by the influences of

 diameter perturbations in the crooks and upper parts of

 the instruments* ." [emphasis mine]

 

 Perhaps here lies the reason that Sax didn't bother to

 find a more acoustically optimal (but less practical)

 means of attaching the mpc to the body...

 

 Toby

                    

                           

                              


 

 

      

    
    
	
	 
	
	








	


	
	


      

Too bad that Nederveen has never answered my mails or we
might be able to ask him directly. I'm certainly not
bothering Dr. Wolfe for this, but I think that if
Nederveen had not been talking about saxes in general he
would have referred to the specific case(s), as scientists
are supposed to do.

Actually I don't know what perturbations in the neck and
the upper part of the body Nederveen is talking about, but
I am guessing he is talking about the cone angle in the
bends. I am thinking now that perhaps the bends are more
significant than I had thought before, because I cannot
see what other perturbations (apart from the cylindrical
tenon) he could be taking about. Or perhaps it is the
widening of the cone angle just at the end of the neck.
Another possibility is that the act of bending the neck
changes the cone angle. 

From the equation the amount of virtual widening in the
bends certainly seemed insignificant, but things are very
tricky near the top of the horn, so perhaps I was wrong. 

In any case it is an intriguing statement and begs further
clarification.

BTW what do you think of his statement that the chamber
should end at the beginning of the neck? Did you answer
that and I missed it?

Toby



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

> Toby wrote, 
> "Maybe, maybe not. My take is that he was talking
> about saxes in general. "
> 
> OK.  Whoever has the book can read it for
themselves
> and decide.  For those who don't and are
interested,
> the statement was made as Nederveen was describing
> the methods and issues that he had in making the
> scientific analysis of those specific instruments,
> and none other.  He is a scientist and conducted
his
> method of analysis as scientists do.  In order to
> give their results credibility, they must absolutely
> limit the scope of their tesing and discussion of
> all testing procedures and results, to the specific
> test subjects.  You will notice he stated,
> 
> "The application of this simple rule of thumb is
> obscured by the influences of diameter perturbations
> in the crooks and upper parts of the instruments.."
> 
> He did not say, "all saxophones", or "saxophones in
> general".  "the instruments", refers to the 6
> saxophones that he tested and nothing else.   
> 
> I think you allow yourself a little too much
> lattitude in your "take" in this case.  I can't
> accept that interpretation of what Nederveen says. 
> I could accept your statement though, if you
> qualified differently, like, "In my opionion, all
> saxes are that way.", and you left Nederveen out of
> it.
> 
> Toby wrote, "It is next to impossible to maintain a
> constant cone angle when you
> bend the neck, and the bend itself changes the cone
> angle even if you
> keep the angle constant across the bend."
> 
> I remind you that just a couple of days ago, when
> discussing the possible effects of the sharper neck
> bend of the MK6 and the 10M, that you stated, more
> than a few times, that the torroidal bends in
> saxophone necks, including these, were of such a
> wide radius, as to render any actual effects totally
> insignificant.  But today, they are
significant.  So
> which is it?
> 
> I think I got you today.  Better luck tomorrow
Toby.
> 
> MM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- On Fri, 8/14/09, kymarto123@...
> <kymarto123@...> wrote:
> 
> From: kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...>
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc
> volume
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Friday, August 14, 2009, 7:42 AM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
>     
>                   Maybe, maybe not. My take is that
> he was talking about saxes in general. Obviously
> some are worse than others. It is next to impossible
> to maintain a constant cone angle when you bend the
> neck, and the bend itself changes the cone angle
> even if you keep the angle constant across the bend.
> Then
>  there is that silly cylindrical section at the
> tenon...
> 
> 
> 
> Toby
> 
> 
> 
> MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:        

>                        Toby,
> 
> 
> 
> And then, I think you may be taking Nederveen's
> comment a little out of context. He did not make
> this comment as regards ALL saxophones in general. 
> He made this observation in the summary of his
> analysis of the following specific saxophones:
> 
> 
> 
> a Schenkelaars tenor
> 
> a Rasco tenor
> 
> a Schenkelaars alto
> 
> a Schenkelaars soprano
> 
> a Solotone soprano
> 
> a Selmer soprano
> 
> 
> 
> Only the Selmer is known to me.  I know that the
MK6
> and some other brands of straight sopranos had a
> sudden constriction in the upper body about 4" from
> the mouthpiece end, termed, "necking-in" .  This
> parallels the narrower taper sometimes added to the
> upper body of oboes, intended
>  to improve intonation between registers.  
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know anything about the others.  I have
seen
> often in "off" brands, excessive bore diameter
> mis-matches at  the neck tube/tenon and tenon/body
> tube junctions, in excess of 2mm either way and
> sometimes both.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think he is talking about tone hole
> perturbations.
> 
> 
> 
> MM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- On Fri, 8/14/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@
> yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
> 
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc
> volume
> 
> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> 
> Date: Friday, August 14, 2009, 4:18 AM
> 
> 
> 
>                                I dunno Toby. I come
> to quite a different conclusion from that
> paragraph.  Take a look at any saxophone neck with
> the mouthpiece on it.  The ONLY bore diameter
> perturbations of any significance occur at the
> mouthpiece throat/neck opening,
>  and the neck tube/tenon sleeve/body tube
> junctions.  
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to me that Nederveen is saying that Sax and
> saxophone manufacturers SHOULD HAVE come up with a
> more acoustically optimal means of attaching things
> to each other, instead of opting for that of
> convenience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- On Fri, 8/14/09, kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp
> <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> From: kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
> 
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc
> volume
> 
> To:  MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> 
== $B0J2<$N%a%C%;!<%8$O>JN,$5$l$^$7$?(B =

an interesting adjacent piece of information:- some time ago Keilwerth had an intonation problem with their altos; the notes C, B and A in the middle were blowing extremely flat while the D was sharp; equally the higher B was sharp. I was asked to find out why because Keilwerth could not ascertain where the manufacturing fault would be. i discovered, initially, that the crook angle had increased--this meant that the mouthpiece end was higher than normal. Developing on from this was the fact that at the bendin the crook  the bore had enlarged' Theoretically this was impossible -as the crooks were made on a C&C former. however after much discussion and investigation Keilwerth discovered that the incorrect figures had been dialled into the machine.
prof weinberg

--- On Sat, 15/8/09, kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...> wrote:


From: kymarto123@... <kymarto123@....jp>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc volume
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, 15 August, 2009, 9:47 AM


  



Too bad that Nederveen has never answered my mails or we
might be able to ask him directly. I'm certainly not
bothering Dr. Wolfe for this, but I think that if
Nederveen had not been talking about saxes in general he
would have referred to the specific case(s), as scientists
are supposed to do.

Actually I don't know what perturbations in the neck and
the upper part of the body Nederveen is talking about, but
I am guessing he is talking about the cone angle in the
bends. I am thinking now that perhaps the bends are more
significant than I had thought before, because I cannot
see what other perturbations (apart from the cylindrical
tenon) he could be taking about. Or perhaps it is the
widening of the cone angle just at the end of the neck.
Another possibility is that the act of bending the neck
changes the cone angle. 

From the equation the amount of virtual widening in the
bends certainly seemed insignificant, but things are very
tricky near the top of the horn, so perhaps I was wrong. 

In any case it is an intriguing statement and begs further
clarification.

BTW what do you think of his statement that the chamber
should end at the beginning of the neck? Did you answer
that and I missed it?

Toby

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

> Toby wrote, 
> "Maybe, maybe not. My take is that he was talking
> about saxes in general. "
> 
> OK.  Whoever has the book can read it for
themselves
> and decide.  For those who don't and are
interested,
> the statement was made as Nederveen was describing
> the methods and issues that he had in making the
> scientific analysis of those specific instruments,
> and none other.  He is a scientist and conducted
his
> method of analysis as scientists do.  In order to
> give their results credibility, they must absolutely
> limit the scope of their tesing and discussion of
> all testing procedures and results, to the specific
> test subjects.  You will notice he stated,
> 
> "The application of this simple rule of thumb is
> obscured by the influences of diameter perturbations
> in the crooks and upper parts of the instruments. ."
> 
> He did not say, "all saxophones", or "saxophones in
> general".  "the instruments" , refers to the 6
> saxophones that he tested and nothing else. & #160; 
> 
> I think you allow yourself a little too much
> lattitude in your "take" in this case.  I can't
> accept that interpretation of what Nederveen says. 
> I could accept your statement though, if you
> qualified differently, like, "In my opionion, all
> saxes are that way.", and you left Nederveen out of
> it.
> 
> Toby wrote, "It is next to impossible to maintain a
> constant cone angle when you
> bend the neck, and the bend itself changes the cone
> angle even if you
> keep the angle constant across the bend."
> 
> I remind you that just a couple of days ago, when
> discussing the possible effects of the sharper neck
> bend of the MK6 and the 10M, that you stated, more
> than a few times, that the torroidal bends in
> saxophone necks, including these, were of such a
> wide radius, as to render any actual effects totally
> insignificant.   But today, they are
significant.   So
> which is it?
> 
> I think I got you today.  Better luck tomorrow
Toby.
> 
> MM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- On Fri, 8/14/09, kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp
> <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp> wrote:
> 
> From: kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc
> volume
> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> Date: Friday, August 14, 2009, 7:42 AM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe, maybe not. My take is that
> he was talking about saxes in general. Obviously
> some are worse than others. It is next to impossible
> to maintain a constant cone angle when you bend the
> neck, and the bend itself changes the cone angle
> even if you keep the angle constant across the bend.
> Then
> there is that silly cylindrical section at the
> tenon...
> 
> 
> 
> Toby
> 
> 
> 
> MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:  

> Toby,
> 
> 
> 
> And then, I think you may be taking Nederveen's
> comment a little out of context. He did not make
> this comment as regards ALL saxophones in general. 
> He made this observation in the summary of his
> analysis of the following specific saxophones:
> 
> 
> 
> a Schenkelaars tenor
> 
> a Rasco tenor
> 
> a Schenkelaars alto
> 
> a Schenkelaars soprano
> 
> a Solotone soprano
> 
> a Selmer soprano
> 
> 
> 
> Only the Selmer is known to me.  I know that the
MK6
> and some other brands of straight sopranos had a
> sudden constriction in the upper body about 4" from
> the mouthpiece end, termed, "necking-in" .  This
> parallels the narrower taper sometimes added to the
> upper body of oboes, intended
> to improve intonation between registers.&# 160; 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know anything about the others.  I have
seen
> often in "off" brands, excessive bore diameter
> mis-matches at the neck tube/tenon and tenon/body
> tube junctions, in excess of 2mm either way and
> sometimes both.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think he is talking about tone hole
> perturbations.
> 
> 
> 
> MM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- On Fri, 8/14/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@
> yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
> 
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc
> volume
> 
> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> 
> Date: Friday, August 14, 2009, 4:18 AM
> 
> 
> 
>   I dunno Toby. I come
> to quite a different conclusion from that
> paragraph.&# 160; Take a look at any saxophone neck with
> the mouthpiece on it.  The ONLY bore diameter
> perturbations of any significance occur at the
> mouthpiece throat/neck opening,
> and the neck tube/tenon sleeve/body tube
> junctions.&# 160; 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to me that Nederveen is saying that Sax and
> saxophone manufacturers SHOULD HAVE come up with a
> more acoustically optimal means of attaching things
> to each other, instead of opting for that of
> convenience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- On Fri, 8/14/09, kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp
> <kymarto123@ ybb. ne.jp> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> From: kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp <kymarto123@ ybb. ne.jp>
> 
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc
> volume
> 
> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> 
=== 以下のメッセージは省略されました ===

Thanks for that bit of information, Professor. The neck
seems a particularly nasty place, where small changes in
diameter can create big effects intonationally. I know
this personally from my experiences with shakuhachi
flutes, where the area that would correspond to the neck
needs to be adjusted to a tolerance of about 1/100" for
consistent results.

I know that Lance (you must be reading this) thinks that
my aim is solely to break his balls, but actually I am
more interested in getting correct information out into a
realm where misconception rules. I find that I am as
guilty as the next guy sometimes, when I get out of my
depth and end up posting false stuff. I had a long debate
with jbt not long ago on SOTW, and after pages of thread I
finally wrote to Dr. Wolfe and discovered that we were
both wrong--or at best both only partially right. 

It is actually a bit ludicrous that a bunch of amateurs
are arguing points on which even the experts sometimes
fail to agree, and which require quite a bit more
background, understanding (and math) than any of us
possess. I have invited Dr. Wolfe to participate in these
discussions, but he has (wisely I think) declined. 

I believe that with our level of understanding, we can
only end up speculating, and we are probably all wrong
quite a bit of the time, at least as regards the finer
points of what we are discussing. 

I do not act as Lance's foil for my own pleasure, but
because I believe that while he may truly be achieving
good results, he is attributing them inaccurately: quoting
science that neither he (nor I) fully understand as a
cause for results, while the true acoustic situation is
much more complex.

Lance, personally I would be much more comfortable, and
probably a lot less in your face, if you simply shared the
results of your experiments without resorting to "science
babble", and I include myself as a purveyor of science
babble. I suspect that you are a consumate technician with
a lot of playing skills as well. With those gifts you can
most probably contribute to the state of the art, but I
suspect that the scientific basis on which you claim your
results is only partially correct at best. 

I am in the same position in terms of formal knowledge,
and we always end up playing "he said, she said". Isn't it
time that we stop pretending that we are experts and try
to help each other and all the other members here by
sharing results and ideas without resorting to a
pseudo-scientific pissing contest?

I am certainly willing if you are.

Toby

--- ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@...> wrote:

> an interesting adjacent piece of information:- some
> time ago Keilwerth had an intonation problem with
> their altos; the notes C, B and A in the middle were
> blowing extremely flat while the D was sharp;
> equally the higher B was sharp. I was asked to find
> out why because Keilwerth could not ascertain where
> the manufacturing fault would be. i discovered,
> initially, that the crook angle had increased--this
> meant that the mouthpiece end was higher than
> normal. Developing on from this was the fact that at
> the bendin the crook �the�bore had
enlarged'
> Theoretically this was impossible -as the crooks
> were made on a C&C former. however after much
> discussion and investigation Keilwerth discovered
> that the incorrect figures had been dialled into the
> machine.
> prof weinberg
> 
> --- On Sat, 15/8/09, kymarto123@...
> <kymarto123@...> wrote:
> 
> 
> From: kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...>
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc
> volume
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Saturday, 15 August, 2009, 9:47 AM
> 
> 
> � 
> 
> 
> 
> Too bad that Nederveen has never answered my mails
> or we
> might be able to ask him directly. I'm certainly not
> bothering Dr. Wolfe for this, but I think that if
> Nederveen had not been talking about saxes in
> general he
> would have referred to the specific case(s), as
> scientists
> are supposed to do.
> 
> Actually I don't know what perturbations in the neck
> and
> the upper part of the body Nederveen is talking
> about, but
> I am guessing he is talking about the cone angle in
> the
> bends. I am thinking now that perhaps the bends are
> more
> significant than I had thought before, because I
> cannot
> see what other perturbations (apart from the
> cylindrical
> tenon) he could be taking about. Or perhaps it is
> the
> widening of the cone angle just at the end of the
> neck.
> Another possibility is that the act of bending the
> neck
> changes the cone angle. 
> 
> From the equation the amount of virtual widening in
> the
> bends certainly seemed insignificant, but things are
> very
> tricky near the top of the horn, so perhaps I was
> wrong. 
> 
> In any case it is an intriguing statement and begs
> further
> clarification.
> 
> BTW what do you think of his statement that the
> chamber
> should end at the beginning of the neck? Did you
> answer
> that and I missed it?
> 
> Toby
> 
> --- MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> > Toby wrote, 
> > "Maybe, maybe not. My take is that he was talking
> > about saxes in general. "
> > 
> > OK.  Whoever has the book can read it for
> themselves
> > and decide.  For those who don't and are
> interested,
> > the statement was made as Nederveen was describing
> > the methods and issues that he had in making the
> > scientific analysis of those specific instruments,
> > and none other.  He is a scientist and
> conducted
> his
> > method of analysis as scientists do.  In
> order to
> > give their results credibility, they must
> absolutely
> > limit the scope of their tesing and discussion of
> > all testing procedures and results, to the
> specific
> > test subjects.  You will notice he stated,
> > 
> > "The application of this simple rule of thumb is
> > obscured by the influences of diameter
> perturbations
> > in the crooks and upper parts of the instruments.
> ."
> > 
> > He did not say, "all saxophones", or "saxophones
> in
> > general".  "the instruments" , refers to the
> 6
> > saxophones that he tested and nothing else. &
> #160; 
> > 
> > I think you allow yourself a little too much
> > lattitude in your "take" in this case.  I
> can't
> > accept that interpretation of what Nederveen
> says. 
> > I could accept your statement though, if you
> > qualified differently, like, "In my opionion, all
> > saxes are that way.", and you left Nederveen out
> of
> > it.
> > 
> > Toby wrote, "It is next to impossible to maintain
> a
> > constant cone angle when you
> > bend the neck, and the bend itself changes the
> cone
> > angle even if you
> > keep the angle constant across the bend."
> > 
> > I remind you that just a couple of days ago, when
> > discussing the possible effects of the sharper
> neck
> > bend of the MK6 and the 10M, that you stated, more
> > than a few times, that the torroidal bends in
> > saxophone necks, including these, were of such a
> > wide radius, as to render any actual effects
> totally
> > insignificant.   But today, they are
> significant.   So
> > which is it?
> > 
> > I think I got you today.  Better luck
> tomorrow
> Toby.
> > 
> > MM
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- On Fri, 8/14/09, kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp
> > <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp> wrote:
> > 
> > From: kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp <kymarto123@ybb.
> ne.jp>
> > Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on
> mpc
> > volume
> > To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> > Date: Friday, August 14, 2009, 7:42 AM
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Maybe, maybe not. My take is that
> > he was talking about saxes in general. Obviously
> > some are worse than others. It is next to
> impossible
> > to maintain a constant cone angle when you bend
> the
> > neck, and the bend itself changes the cone angle
> > even if you keep the angle constant across the
> bend.
> > Then
> > there is that silly cylindrical section at the
> > tenon...
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Toby
> > 
> > 
> 
== $B0J2<$N%a%C%;!<%8$O>JN,$5$l$^$7$?(B =

i enjoyed your reply which was really on the button: one has to be extremely careful about the application of theory and science--not there is anything wrong with it but Humanity is the factor that contradicts evrything (thank god).
my research has demonstrated too often that the examination of what really great players use is a 'set up' that seems to fly in the face of science or theory because that individual is after some musical result that is their own solution to the pieces interpretation.
hence:- too many players ask for a mouthpiece to make them sound like charlie Parker--for instance-- regrettably nobody ever asks for a mouthpiece that will enable them to THINK like charlie Parker
prof weinberg

--- On Sat, 15/8/09, kymarto123@ybb.ne.jp <kymarto123@...> wrote:


From: kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc volume
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, 15 August, 2009, 1:26 PM


  



Thanks for that bit of information, Professor. The neck
seems a particularly nasty place, where small changes in
diameter can create big effects intonationally. I know
this personally from my experiences with shakuhachi
flutes, where the area that would correspond to the neck
needs to be adjusted to a tolerance of about 1/100" for
consistent results.

I know that Lance (you must be reading this) thinks that
my aim is solely to break his balls, but actually I am
more interested in getting correct information out into a
realm where misconception rules. I find that I am as
guilty as the next guy sometimes, when I get out of my
depth and end up posting false stuff. I had a long debate
with jbt not long ago on SOTW, and after pages of thread I
finally wrote to Dr. Wolfe and discovered that we were
both wrong--or at best both only partially right. 

It is actually a bit ludicrous that a bunch of amateurs
are arguing points on which even the experts sometimes
fail to agree, and which require quite a bit more
background, understanding (and math) than any of us
possess. I have invited Dr. Wolfe to participate in these
discussions, but he has (wisely I think) declined. 

I believe that with our level of understanding, we can
only end up speculating, and we are probably all wrong
quite a bit of the time, at least as regards the finer
points of what we are discussing. 

I do not act as Lance's foil for my own pleasure, but
because I believe that while he may truly be achieving
good results, he is attributing them inaccurately: quoting
science that neither he (nor I) fully understand as a
cause for results, while the true acoustic situation is
much more complex.

Lance, personally I would be much more comfortable, and
probably a lot less in your face, if you simply shared the
results of your experiments without resorting to "science
babble", and I include myself as a purveyor of science
babble. I suspect that you are a consumate technician with
a lot of playing skills as well. With those gifts you can
most probably contribute to the state of the art, but I
suspect that the scientific basis on which you claim your
results is only partially correct at best. 

I am in the same position in terms of formal knowledge,
and we always end up playing "he said, she said". Isn't it
time that we stop pretending that we are experts and try
to help each other and all the other members here by
sharing results and ideas without resorting to a
pseudo-scientific pissing contest?

I am certainly willing if you are.

Toby

--- ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com> wrote:

> an interesting adjacent piece of information: - some
> time ago Keilwerth had an intonation problem with
> their altos; the notes C, B and A in the middle were
> blowing extremely flat while the D was sharp;
> equally the higher B was sharp. I was asked to find
> out why because Keilwerth could not ascertain where
> the manufacturing fault would be. i discovered,
> initially, that the crook angle had increased--this
> meant that the mouthpiece end was higher than
> normal. Developing on from this was the fact that at
> the bendin the crook �the& #65533;bore had
enlarged'
> Theoretically this was impossible -as the crooks
> were made on a C&C former. however after much
> discussion and investigation Keilwerth discovered
> that the incorrect figures had been dialled into the
> machine.
> prof weinberg
> 
> --- On Sat, 15/8/09, kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp
> <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp> wrote:
> 
> 
> From: kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc
> volume
> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> Date: Saturday, 15 August, 2009, 9:47 AM
> 
> 
> � 
> 
> 
> 
> Too bad that Nederveen has never answered my mails
> or we
> might be able to ask him directly. I'm certainly not
> bothering Dr. Wolfe for this, but I think that if
> Nederveen had not been talking about saxes in
> general he
> would have referred to the specific case(s), as
> scientists
> are supposed to do.
> 
> Actually I don't know what perturbations in the neck
> and
> the upper part of the body Nederveen is talking
> about, but
> I am guessing he is talking about the cone angle in
> the
> bends. I am thinking now that perhaps the bends are
> more
> significant than I had thought before, because I
> cannot
> see what other perturbations (apart from the
> cylindrical
> tenon) he could be taking about. Or perhaps it is
> the
> widening of the cone angle just at the end of the
> neck.
> Another possibility is that the act of bending the
> neck
> changes the cone angle. 
> 
> From the equation the amount of virtual widening in
> the
> bends certainly seemed insignificant, but things are
> very
> tricky near the top of the horn, so perhaps I was
> wrong. 
> 
> In any case it is an intriguing statement and begs
> further
> clarification.
> 
> BTW what do you think of his statement that the
> chamber
> should end at the beginning of the neck? Did you
> answer
> that and I missed it?
> 
> Toby
> 
> --- MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> > Toby wrote, 
> > "Maybe, maybe not. My take is that he was talking
> > about saxes in general. "
> > 
> > OK.  Whoever has the book can read it for
> themselves
> > and decide.  For those who don't and are
> interested,
> > the statement was made as Nederveen was describing
> > the methods and issues that he had in making the
> > scientific analysis of those specific instruments,
> > and none other.  He is a scientist and
> conducted
> his
> > method of analysis as scientists do.  In
> order to
> > give their results credibility, they must
> absolutely
> > limit the scope of their tesing and discussion of
> > all testing procedures and results, to the
> specific
> > test subjects.  You will notice he stated,
> > 
> > "The application of this simple rule of thumb is
> > obscured by the influences of diameter
> perturbations
> > in the crooks and upper parts of the instruments.
> ."
> > 
> > He did not say, "all saxophones", or "saxophones
> in
> > general".  "the instruments" , refers to the
> 6
> > saxophones that he tested and nothing else. &
> #160; 
> > 
> > I think you allow yourself a little too much
> > lattitude in your "take" in this case.  I
> can't
> > accept that interpretation of what Nederveen
> says. 
> > I could accept your statement though, if you
> > qualified differently, like, "In my opionion, all
> > saxes are that way.", and you left Nederveen out
> of
> > it.
> > 
> > Toby wrote, "It is next to impossible to maintain
> a
> > constant cone angle when you
> > bend the neck, and the bend itself changes the
> cone
> > angle even if you
> > keep the angle constant across the bend."
> > 
> > I remind you that just a couple of days ago, when
> > discussing the possible effects of the sharper
> neck
> > bend of the MK6 and the 10M, that you stated, more
> > than a few times, that the torroidal bends in
> > saxophone necks, including these, were of such a
> > wide radius, as to render any actual effects
> totally
> > insignificant.   But today, they are
> significant.   So
> > which is it?
> > 
> > I think I got you today.  Better luck
> tomorrow
> Toby.
> > 
> > MM
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- On Fri, 8/14/09, kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp
> > <kymarto123@ ybb. ne.jp> wrote:
> > 
> > From: kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp <kymarto123@ ybb.
> ne.jp>
> > Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on
> mpc
> > volume
> > To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> > Date: Friday, August 14, 2009, 7:42 AM
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Maybe, maybe not. My take is that
> > he was talking about saxes in general. Obviously
> > some are worse than others. It is next to
> impossible
> > to maintain a constant cone angle when you bend
> the
> > neck, and the bend itself changes the cone angle
> > even if you keep the angle constant across the
> bend.
> > Then
> > there is that silly cylindrical section at the
> > tenon...
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Toby
> > 
> > 
> 
=== 以下のメッセージは省略されました ===

Yes,  That's too bad that he is not accessible.  

He doesn't mention a constriction when he describes the simple mathematical truncated cone model, or anywhere in his book.  I don't know why.  

Benade had experience with brass wind instruments, and described the similarity in woodwinds.  There it is, plain as day, in the class notes, in large print with large illustration when introducing the conical reed instrument:

"Cavity + Constriction is the surrogate for the missing cone - as seen by the main cone."

With a cavity or chamber who's inner diameter is larger than that of the truncated body tube opening, there will always be a constriction, as  with Sax's original mouthpiece design,   While the actual design of the constricton plays a roll, a constriction between the chamber and the body tube serves to amplify the higher mode resonances.  It increases the pressure modulation to flow ratio, increasing the imedance of the higher resonance modes.



--- On Sat, 8/15/09, kymarto123@....jp <kymarto123@...> wrote:

From: kymarto123@... <kymarto123@ybb.ne.jp>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc volume
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, August 15, 2009, 8:47 AM






 




    
                  Too bad that Nederveen has never answered my mails or we

might be able to ask him directly. I'm certainly not

bothering Dr. Wolfe for this, but I think that if

Nederveen had not been talking about saxes in general he

would have referred to the specific case(s), as scientists

are supposed to do.



Actually I don't know what perturbations in the neck and

the upper part of the body Nederveen is talking about, but

I am guessing he is talking about the cone angle in the

bends. I am thinking now that perhaps the bends are more

significant than I had thought before, because I cannot

see what other perturbations (apart from the cylindrical

tenon) he could be taking about. Or perhaps it is the

widening of the cone angle just at the end of the neck.

Another possibility is that the act of bending the neck

changes the cone angle. 



From the equation the amount of virtual widening in the

bends certainly seemed insignificant, but things are very

tricky near the top of the horn, so perhaps I was wrong. 



In any case it is an intriguing statement and begs further

clarification.



BTW what do you think of his statement that the chamber

should end at the beginning of the neck? Did you answer

that and I missed it?



Toby



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



> Toby wrote, 

> "Maybe, maybe not. My take is that he was talking

> about saxes in general. "

> 

> OK.  Whoever has the book can read it for

themselves

> and decide.  For those who don't and are

interested,

> the statement was made as Nederveen was describing

> the methods and issues that he had in making the

> scientific analysis of those specific instruments,

> and none other.  He is a scientist and conducted

his

> method of analysis as scientists do.  In order to

> give their results credibility, they must absolutely

> limit the scope of their tesing and discussion of

> all testing procedures and results, to the specific

> test subjects.  You will notice he stated,

> 

> "The application of this simple rule of thumb is

> obscured by the influences of diameter perturbations

> in the crooks and upper parts of the instruments. ."

> 

> He did not say, "all saxophones", or "saxophones in

> general".  "the instruments" , refers to the 6

> saxophones that he tested and nothing else. & #160; 

> 

> I think you allow yourself a little too much

> lattitude in your "take" in this case.  I can't

> accept that interpretation of what Nederveen says. 

> I could accept your statement though, if you

> qualified differently, like, "In my opionion, all

> saxes are that way.", and you left Nederveen out of

> it.

> 

> Toby wrote, "It is next to impossible to maintain a

> constant cone angle when you

> bend the neck, and the bend itself changes the cone

> angle even if you

> keep the angle constant across the bend."

> 

> I remind you that just a couple of days ago, when

> discussing the possible effects of the sharper neck

> bend of the MK6 and the 10M, that you stated, more

> than a few times, that the torroidal bends in

> saxophone necks, including these, were of such a

> wide radius, as to render any actual effects totally

> insignificant.   But today, they are

significant.   So

> which is it?

> 

> I think I got you today.  Better luck tomorrow

Toby.

> 

> MM

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> --- On Fri, 8/14/09, kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp

> <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp> wrote:

> 

> From: kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>

> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc

> volume

> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com

> Date: Friday, August 14, 2009, 7:42 AM

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

>  

> 

> 

> 

> 

>     

>                   Maybe, maybe not. My take is that

> he was talking about saxes in general. Obviously

> some are worse than others. It is next to impossible

> to maintain a constant cone angle when you bend the

> neck, and the bend itself changes the cone angle

> even if you keep the angle constant across the bend.

> Then

>  there is that silly cylindrical section at the

> tenon...

> 

> 

> 

> Toby

> 

> 

> 

> MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:        



>                        Toby,

> 

> 

> 

> And then, I think you may be taking Nederveen's

> comment a little out of context. He did not make

> this comment as regards ALL saxophones in general. 

> He made this observation in the summary of his

> analysis of the following specific saxophones:

> 

> 

> 

> a Schenkelaars tenor

> 

> a Rasco tenor

> 

> a Schenkelaars alto

> 

> a Schenkelaars soprano

> 

> a Solotone soprano

> 

> a Selmer soprano

> 

> 

> 

> Only the Selmer is known to me.  I know that the

MK6

> and some other brands of straight sopranos had a

> sudden constriction in the upper body about 4" from

> the mouthpiece end, termed, "necking-in" .  This

> parallels the narrower taper sometimes added to the

> upper body of oboes, intended

>  to improve intonation between registers.&# 160; 

> 

> 

> 

> I don't know anything about the others.  I have

seen

> often in "off" brands, excessive bore diameter

> mis-matches at  the neck tube/tenon and tenon/body

> tube junctions, in excess of 2mm either way and

> sometimes both.

> 

> 

> 

> I don't think he is talking about tone hole

> perturbations.

> 

> 

> 

> MM

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> --- On Fri, 8/14/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@

> yahoo.com> wrote:

> 

> 

> 

> From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>

> 

> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc

> volume

> 

> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com

> 

> Date: Friday, August 14, 2009, 4:18 AM

> 

> 

> 

>                                I dunno Toby. I come

> to quite a different conclusion from that

> paragraph.&# 160; Take a look at any saxophone neck with

> the mouthpiece on it.  The ONLY bore diameter

> perturbations of any significance occur at the

> mouthpiece throat/neck opening,

>  and the neck tube/tenon sleeve/body tube

> junctions.&# 160; 

> 

> 

> 

> It seems to me that Nederveen is saying that Sax and

> saxophone manufacturers SHOULD HAVE come up with a

> more acoustically optimal means of attaching things

> to each other, instead of opting for that of

> convenience.

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> --- On Fri, 8/14/09, kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp

> <kymarto123@ ybb. ne.jp> wrote:

> 

> 

> 

> From: kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp <kymarto123@ ybb. ne.jp>

> 

> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc

> volume

> 

> To:  MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com

> 

=== 以下のメッセージは省略されました ===




 

      

    
    
	
	 
	
	








	


	
	


      

Professor + Toby

Please do not ignore my earlier post where I provided the audio "Intonation Demonstration".  I will include all information and link here again so you will have no excuse.  Please:

1. read the test discription, 
2. listen to the audio file, and then 
3. explain please, why someone with no chops, playing a completely strange instrument, on a mouthpiece with an overly large chamber that could NEVER play in tune, could play double octaves with that accuracy, if it was not the constriction insert which acoustically corrected the design, as I claim.

Here are the facts again:  

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>

MM


--- On Sat, 8/15/09, ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@...> wrote:

From: ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc volume
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, August 15, 2009, 1:29 PM






 




    
                  i enjoyed your reply which was really on the button: one has to be extremely careful about the application of theory and science--not there is anything wrong with it but Humanity is the factor that contradicts evrything (thank god).
my research has demonstrated too often that the examination of what really great players use is a 'set up' that seems to fly in the face of science or theory because that individual is after some musical result that is their own solution to the pieces interpretation.
hence:- too many players ask for a mouthpiece to make them sound like charlie Parker--for instance-- regrettably nobody ever asks for a mouthpiece that will enable them to THINK like charlie Parker
prof weinberg

--- On Sat, 15/8/09, kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp> wrote:


From: kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc volume
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Saturday, 15 August, 2009, 1:26 PM


  

Thanks for that bit of information, Professor. The neck
seems a particularly nasty place, where small changes in
diameter can create big effects intonationally. I know
this personally from my experiences with shakuhachi
flutes, where the area that would correspond to the neck
needs to be adjusted to a tolerance of about 1/100" for
consistent results.

I know that Lance (you must be reading this) thinks that
my aim is solely to break his balls, but actually I am
more interested in getting correct information out into a
realm where misconception rules. I find that I am as
guilty as the next guy sometimes, when I get out of my
depth and end up posting false stuff. I had a long debate
with jbt not long ago on SOTW, and after pages of thread I
finally wrote to Dr. Wolfe and discovered that we were
both wrong--or at best both only partially right. 

It is actually a bit ludicrous that a bunch of
 amateurs
are arguing points on which even the experts sometimes
fail to agree, and which require quite a bit more
background, understanding (and math) than any of us
possess. I have invited Dr. Wolfe to participate in these
discussions, but he has (wisely I think) declined. 

I believe that with our level of understanding, we can
only end up speculating, and we are probably all wrong
quite a bit of the time, at least as regards the finer
points of what we are discussing. 

I do not act as Lance's foil for my own pleasure, but
because I believe that while he may truly be achieving
good results, he is attributing them inaccurately: quoting
science that neither he (nor I) fully understand as a
cause for results, while the true acoustic situation is
much more complex.

Lance, personally I would be much more comfortable, and
probably a lot less in your face, if you simply shared the
results of
 your experiments without resorting to "science
babble", and I include myself as a purveyor of science
babble. I suspect that you are a consumate technician with
a lot of playing skills as well. With those gifts you can
most probably contribute to the state of the art, but I
suspect that the scientific basis on which you claim your
results is only partially correct at best. 

I am in the same position in terms of formal knowledge,
and we always end up playing "he said, she said". Isn't it
time that we stop pretending that we are experts and try
to help each other and all the other members here by
sharing results and ideas without resorting to a
pseudo-scientific pissing contest?

I am certainly willing if you are.

Toby

--- ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com> wrote:

> an interesting adjacent piece of information: - some
> time ago Keilwerth had an intonation problem with
> their altos; the notes C, B and A in the middle were
> blowing extremely flat while the D was sharp;
> equally the higher B was sharp. I was asked to find
> out why because Keilwerth could not ascertain where
> the manufacturing fault would be. i discovered,
> initially, that the crook angle had increased--this
> meant that the mouthpiece end was higher than
> normal. Developing on from this was the fact that at
> the bendin the crook �the& #65533;bore had
enlarged'
> Theoretically this was impossible -as the crooks
> were made on a C&C former. however after much
> discussion and investigation Keilwerth discovered
> that the incorrect
 figures had been dialled into the
> machine.
> prof weinberg
> 
> --- On Sat, 15/8/09, kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp
> <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp> wrote:
> 
> 
> From: kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc
> volume
> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> Date: Saturday, 15 August, 2009, 9:47 AM
> 
> 
> � 
> 
> 
> 
> Too bad that Nederveen has never answered my mails
> or we
> might be able to ask him directly. I'm certainly not
> bothering Dr. Wolfe for this, but I think that if
> Nederveen had not been talking about saxes in
> general he
> would have referred to the specific case(s), as
> scientists
> are supposed to do.
> 
> Actually I don't know what perturbations in the neck
> and
> the upper part of the body Nederveen is talking
> about, but
> I am guessing he is talking about the cone angle in
> the
> bends. I am thinking now that perhaps the bends
 are
> more
> significant than I had thought before, because I
> cannot
> see what other perturbations (apart from the
> cylindrical
> tenon) he could be taking about. Or perhaps it is
> the
> widening of the cone angle just at the end of the
> neck.
> Another possibility is that the act of bending the
> neck
> changes the cone angle. 
> 
> From the equation the amount of virtual widening in
> the
> bends certainly seemed insignificant, but things are
> very
> tricky near the top of the horn, so perhaps I was
> wrong. 
> 
> In any case it is an intriguing statement and begs
> further
> clarification.
> 
> BTW what do you think of his statement that the
> chamber
> should end at the beginning of the neck? Did you
> answer
> that and I missed it?
> 
> Toby
> 
>
 --- MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> > Toby wrote, 
> > "Maybe, maybe not. My take is that he was talking
> > about saxes in general. "
> > 
> > OK.  Whoever has the book can read it for
> themselves
> > and decide.  For those who don't and are
> interested,
> > the statement was made as Nederveen was describing
> > the methods and issues that he had in making the
> > scientific analysis of those specific instruments,
> > and none other.  He is a scientist and
> conducted
> his
> > method of analysis as scientists do.  In
> order to
> > give their results credibility, they must
> absolutely
> > limit the scope of their tesing and discussion of
> > all testing procedures and results, to the
> specific
> > test
 subjects.  You will notice he stated,
> > 
> > "The application of this simple rule of thumb is
> > obscured by the influences of diameter
> perturbations
> > in the crooks and upper parts of the instruments.
> ."
> > 
> > He did not say, "all saxophones", or "saxophones
> in
> > general".  "the instruments" , refers to the
> 6
> > saxophones that he tested and nothing else. &
> #160; 
> > 
> > I think you allow yourself a little too much
> > lattitude in your "take" in this case.  I
> can't
> > accept that interpretation of what Nederveen
> says. 
> > I could accept your statement though, if you
> > qualified differently, like, "In my opionion, all
> > saxes are that way.", and you left Nederveen out
> of
> >
 it.
> > 
> > Toby wrote, "It is next to impossible to maintain
> a
> > constant cone angle when you
> > bend the neck, and the bend itself changes the
> cone
> > angle even if you
> > keep the angle constant across the bend."
> > 
> > I remind you that just a couple of days ago, when
> > discussing the possible effects of the sharper
> neck
> > bend of the MK6 and the 10M, that you stated, more
> > than a few times, that the torroidal bends in
> > saxophone necks, including these, were of such a
> > wide radius, as to render any actual effects
> totally
> > insignificant.   But today, they are
> significant.   So
> > which is it?
> > 
> > I think I got you today.  Better luck
> tomorrow
> Toby.
> > 
> > MM
>
 > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- On Fri, 8/14/09, kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp
> > <kymarto123@ ybb. ne.jp> wrote:
> > 
> > From: kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp <kymarto123@ ybb.
> ne.jp>
> > Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on
> mpc
> > volume
> > To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> > Date: Friday, August 14, 2009, 7:42 AM
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Maybe, maybe not. My take is that
> > he was talking about saxes in general. Obviously
> > some are worse than others. It is next to
> impossible
> > to maintain a constant cone angle when you bend
> the
> > neck, and the bend itself changes the cone angle
> >
 even if you keep the angle constant across the
> bend.
> > Then
> > there is that silly cylindrical section at the
> > tenon...
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Toby
> > 
> > 
> 
=== 以下のメッセージは省略されました ===


 

      

    
    
	
	 
	
	








	


	
	


      

You must remove the "space" that Yahoo automatically inserts after a "." in my audio link's address.  There are 2 "."'s.

--- On Sat, 8/15/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:

From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc volume
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, August 15, 2009, 1:57 PM






 




    
                  Professor + Toby

Please do not ignore my earlier post where I provided the audio "Intonation Demonstration" .  I will include all information and link here again so you will have no excuse.  Please:

1. read the test discription, 
2. listen to the audio file, and then 
3. explain please, why someone with no chops, playing a completely strange instrument, on a mouthpiece with an overly large chamber that could NEVER play in tune, could play double octaves with that accuracy, if it was not the constriction insert which acoustically corrected the design, as I claim.

Here are the facts again:  

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>

MM


--- On Sat, 8/15/09, ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com> wrote:

From: ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc volume
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Saturday, August 15, 2009, 1:29 PM






 

    
                  i enjoyed your reply which was really on the button: one has to be extremely careful about the application of theory and science--not there is anything wrong with it but Humanity is the factor that contradicts evrything (thank god).
my research has demonstrated too often that the examination of what really great players use is a 'set up' that seems to fly in the face of science or theory because that individual is after some musical result that is their own solution to the pieces interpretation.
hence:- too many players ask for a mouthpiece to make them sound like charlie Parker--for instance-- regrettably nobody ever asks for a mouthpiece that will enable them to THINK like charlie Parker
prof weinberg

--- On Sat, 15/8/09, kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp> wrote:


From: kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc volume
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Saturday, 15 August, 2009, 1:26 PM


  

Thanks for that bit of information, Professor. The neck
seems a particularly nasty place, where small changes in
diameter can create big effects intonationally. I know
this personally from my experiences with shakuhachi
flutes, where the area that would correspond to the neck
needs to be adjusted to a tolerance of about 1/100" for
consistent results.

I know that Lance (you must be reading this) thinks that
my aim is solely to break his balls, but actually I am
more interested in getting correct information out into a
realm where misconception rules. I find that I am as
guilty as the next guy sometimes, when I get out of my
depth and end up posting false stuff. I had a long debate
with jbt not long ago on SOTW, and after pages of thread I
finally wrote to Dr. Wolfe and discovered that we were
both wrong--or at best both only partially right. 

It is actually a bit ludicrous that a bunch of
 amateurs
are arguing points on which even the experts sometimes
fail to agree, and which require quite a bit more
background, understanding (and math) than any of us
possess. I have invited Dr. Wolfe to participate in these
discussions, but he has (wisely I think) declined. 

I believe that with our level of understanding, we can
only end up speculating, and we are probably all wrong
quite a bit of the time, at least as regards the finer
points of what we are discussing. 

I do not act as Lance's foil for my own pleasure, but
because I believe that while he may truly be achieving
good results, he is attributing them inaccurately: quoting
science that neither he (nor I) fully understand as a
cause for results, while the true acoustic situation is
much more complex.

Lance, personally I would be much more comfortable, and
probably a lot less in your face, if you simply shared the
results of
 your experiments without resorting to "science
babble", and I include myself as a purveyor of science
babble. I suspect that you are a consumate technician with
a lot of playing skills as well. With those gifts you can
most probably contribute to the state of the art, but I
suspect that the scientific basis on which you claim your
results is only partially correct at best. 

I am in the same position in terms of formal knowledge,
and we always end up playing "he said, she said". Isn't it
time that we stop pretending that we are experts and try
to help each other and all the other members here by
sharing results and ideas without resorting to a
pseudo-scientific pissing contest?

I am certainly willing if you are.

Toby

--- ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld.
 com> wrote:

> an interesting adjacent piece of information: - some
> time ago Keilwerth had an intonation problem with
> their altos; the notes C, B and A in the middle were
> blowing extremely flat while the D was sharp;
> equally the higher B was sharp. I was asked to find
> out why because Keilwerth could not ascertain where
> the manufacturing fault would be. i discovered,
> initially, that the crook angle had increased--this
> meant that the mouthpiece end was higher than
> normal. Developing on from this was the fact that at
> the bendin the crook �the& #65533;bore had
enlarged'
> Theoretically this was impossible -as the crooks
> were made on a C&C former. however after much
> discussion and investigation Keilwerth discovered
> that the incorrect
 figures had been dialled into the
> machine.
> prof weinberg
> 
> --- On Sat, 15/8/09, kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp
> <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp> wrote:
> 
> 
> From: kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc
> volume
> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
>
 Date: Saturday, 15 August, 2009, 9:47 AM
> 
> 
> � 
> 
> 
> 
> Too bad that Nederveen has never answered my mails
> or we
> might be able to ask him directly. I'm certainly not
> bothering Dr. Wolfe for this, but I think that if
> Nederveen had not been talking about saxes in
> general he
> would have referred to the specific case(s), as
> scientists
> are supposed to do.
> 
> Actually I don't know what perturbations in the neck
> and
> the upper part of the body Nederveen is talking
> about, but
> I am guessing he is talking about the cone angle in
> the
> bends. I am thinking now that perhaps the bends
 are
> more
> significant than I had thought before, because I
> cannot
> see what other perturbations (apart from the
> cylindrical
> tenon) he could be taking about. Or perhaps it is
> the
> widening of the cone angle just at the end of the
> neck.
> Another possibility is that the act of bending the
> neck
> changes the cone angle. 
> 
> From the equation the amount of virtual widening in
> the
> bends certainly seemed insignificant, but things are
> very
> tricky near the top of the horn, so perhaps I was
> wrong. 
> 
> In any case it is an intriguing statement and begs
> further
> clarification.
> 
> BTW what do you think of his statement that the
> chamber
> should end at the beginning of the neck? Did you
> answer
> that and I missed it?
> 
> Toby
> 
>
 --- MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> > Toby wrote, 
> > "Maybe, maybe not. My take is that he was talking
> > about saxes in general. "
> > 
> > OK.  Whoever has the book can read it for
> themselves
> > and decide.  For those who don't and are
> interested,
> > the statement was made as Nederveen was describing
> > the methods and issues that he had in making the
> > scientific analysis of those specific instruments,
> > and none other.  He is a scientist and
> conducted
> his
> > method of analysis as scientists do.  In
> order to
> > give their results credibility, they must
> absolutely
> > limit the scope of their tesing and discussion of
> > all testing procedures and results, to the
> specific
> > test
 subjects.  You will notice he stated,
> > 
> > "The application of this simple rule of thumb is
> > obscured by the influences of diameter
> perturbations
> > in the crooks and upper parts of the instruments.
> ."
> > 
> > He did not say, "all saxophones", or "saxophones
> in
> > general".  "the instruments" , refers to the
> 6
> > saxophones that he tested and nothing else. &
> #160; 
> > 
> > I think you allow yourself a little too much
> > lattitude in your "take" in this case.  I
> can't
> > accept that interpretation of what Nederveen
> says. 
> > I could accept your statement though, if you
> > qualified differently, like, "In my opionion, all
> > saxes are that way.", and you left Nederveen out
> of
> >
 it.
> > 
> > Toby wrote, "It is next to impossible to maintain
> a
> > constant cone angle when you
> > bend the neck, and the bend itself changes the
> cone
> > angle even if you
> > keep the angle constant across the bend."
> > 
> > I remind you that just a couple of days ago, when
> > discussing the possible effects of the sharper
> neck
> > bend of the MK6 and the 10M, that you stated, more
> > than a few times, that the torroidal bends in
> > saxophone necks, including these, were of such a
> > wide radius, as to render any actual effects
> totally
> > insignificant.   But today, they are
> significant.   So
> > which is it?
> > 
> > I think I got you today.  Better luck
> tomorrow
> Toby.
> > 
> > MM
>
 > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- On Fri, 8/14/09, kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp
> > <kymarto123@ ybb. ne.jp> wrote:
> > 
> > From: kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp <kymarto123@ ybb.
> ne.jp>
> > Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on
> mpc
> > volume
> > To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> > Date: Friday, August 14, 2009, 7:42 AM
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Maybe, maybe not. My take is that
> > he was talking about saxes in general. Obviously
> > some are worse than others. It is next to
> impossible
> > to maintain a constant cone angle when you bend
> the
> > neck, and the bend itself changes the cone angle
> >
 even if you keep the angle constant across the
> bend.
> > Then
> > there is that silly cylindrical section at the
> > tenon...
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Toby
> > 
> > 
> 
=== 以下のメッセージは省略されました ===


 

      


	 
	
	


      
 

      

    
    
	
	 
	
	








	


	
	


      

OK, figured it out.  Here is the link.  No excuses now.


http://www.martinmods.com/mp02a.mov




--- On Sat, 8/15/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:

From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc volume
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, August 15, 2009, 1:57 PM






 




    
                  Professor + Toby

Please do not ignore my earlier post where I provided the audio "Intonation Demonstration" .  I will include all information and link here again so you will have no excuse.  Please:

1. read the test discription, 
2. listen to the audio file, and then 
3. explain please, why someone with no chops, playing a completely strange instrument, on a mouthpiece with an overly large chamber that could NEVER play in tune, could play double octaves with that accuracy, if it was not the constriction insert which acoustically corrected the design, as I claim.

Here are the facts again:  

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>

MM


--- On Sat, 8/15/09, ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com> wrote:

From: ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc volume
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Saturday, August 15, 2009, 1:29 PM






 

    
                  i enjoyed your reply which was really on the button: one has to be extremely careful about the application of theory and science--not there is anything wrong with it but Humanity is the factor that contradicts evrything (thank god).
my research has demonstrated too often that the examination of what really great players use is a 'set up' that seems to fly in the face of science or theory because that individual is after some musical result that is their own solution to the pieces interpretation.
hence:- too many players ask for a mouthpiece to make them sound like charlie Parker--for instance-- regrettably nobody ever asks for a mouthpiece that will enable them to THINK like charlie Parker
prof weinberg

--- On Sat, 15/8/09, kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp> wrote:


From: kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc volume
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Saturday, 15 August, 2009, 1:26 PM


  

Thanks for that bit of information, Professor. The neck
seems a particularly nasty place, where small changes in
diameter can create big effects intonationally. I know
this personally from my experiences with shakuhachi
flutes, where the area that would correspond to the neck
needs to be adjusted to a tolerance of about 1/100" for
consistent results.

I know that Lance (you must be reading this) thinks that
my aim is solely to break his balls, but actually I am
more interested in getting correct information out into a
realm where misconception rules. I find that I am as
guilty as the next guy sometimes, when I get out of my
depth and end up posting false stuff. I had a long debate
with jbt not long ago on SOTW, and after pages of thread I
finally wrote to Dr. Wolfe and discovered that we were
both wrong--or at best both only partially right. 

It is actually a bit ludicrous that a bunch of
 amateurs
are arguing points on which even the experts sometimes
fail to agree, and which require quite a bit more
background, understanding (and math) than any of us
possess. I have invited Dr. Wolfe to participate in these
discussions, but he has (wisely I think) declined. 

I believe that with our level of understanding, we can
only end up speculating, and we are probably all wrong
quite a bit of the time, at least as regards the finer
points of what we are discussing. 

I do not act as Lance's foil for my own pleasure, but
because I believe that while he may truly be achieving
good results, he is attributing them inaccurately: quoting
science that neither he (nor I) fully understand as a
cause for results, while the true acoustic situation is
much more complex.

Lance, personally I would be much more comfortable, and
probably a lot less in your face, if you simply shared the
results of
 your experiments without resorting to "science
babble", and I include myself as a purveyor of science
babble. I suspect that you are a consumate technician with
a lot of playing skills as well. With those gifts you can
most probably contribute to the state of the art, but I
suspect that the scientific basis on which you claim your
results is only partially correct at best. 

I am in the same position in terms of formal knowledge,
and we always end up playing "he said, she said". Isn't it
time that we stop pretending that we are experts and try
to help each other and all the other members here by
sharing results and ideas without resorting to a
pseudo-scientific pissing contest?

I am certainly willing if you are.

Toby

--- ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld.
 com> wrote:

> an interesting adjacent piece of information: - some
> time ago Keilwerth had an intonation problem with
> their altos; the notes C, B and A in the middle were
> blowing extremely flat while the D was sharp;
> equally the higher B was sharp. I was asked to find
> out why because Keilwerth could not ascertain where
> the manufacturing fault would be. i discovered,
> initially, that the crook angle had increased--this
> meant that the mouthpiece end was higher than
> normal. Developing on from this was the fact that at
> the bendin the crook �the& #65533;bore had
enlarged'
> Theoretically this was impossible -as the crooks
> were made on a C&C former. however after much
> discussion and investigation Keilwerth discovered
> that the incorrect
 figures had been dialled into the
> machine.
> prof weinberg
> 
> --- On Sat, 15/8/09, kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp
> <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp> wrote:
> 
> 
> From: kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc
> volume
> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
>
 Date: Saturday, 15 August, 2009, 9:47 AM
> 
> 
> � 
> 
> 
> 
> Too bad that Nederveen has never answered my mails
> or we
> might be able to ask him directly. I'm certainly not
> bothering Dr. Wolfe for this, but I think that if
> Nederveen had not been talking about saxes in
> general he
> would have referred to the specific case(s), as
> scientists
> are supposed to do.
> 
> Actually I don't know what perturbations in the neck
> and
> the upper part of the body Nederveen is talking
> about, but
> I am guessing he is talking about the cone angle in
> the
> bends. I am thinking now that perhaps the bends
 are
> more
> significant than I had thought before, because I
> cannot
> see what other perturbations (apart from the
> cylindrical
> tenon) he could be taking about. Or perhaps it is
> the
> widening of the cone angle just at the end of the
> neck.
> Another possibility is that the act of bending the
> neck
> changes the cone angle. 
> 
> From the equation the amount of virtual widening in
> the
> bends certainly seemed insignificant, but things are
> very
> tricky near the top of the horn, so perhaps I was
> wrong. 
> 
> In any case it is an intriguing statement and begs
> further
> clarification.
> 
> BTW what do you think of his statement that the
> chamber
> should end at the beginning of the neck? Did you
> answer
> that and I missed it?
> 
> Toby
> 
>
 --- MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> > Toby wrote, 
> > "Maybe, maybe not. My take is that he was talking
> > about saxes in general. "
> > 
> > OK.  Whoever has the book can read it for
> themselves
> > and decide.  For those who don't and are
> interested,
> > the statement was made as Nederveen was describing
> > the methods and issues that he had in making the
> > scientific analysis of those specific instruments,
> > and none other.  He is a scientist and
> conducted
> his
> > method of analysis as scientists do.  In
> order to
> > give their results credibility, they must
> absolutely
> > limit the scope of their tesing and discussion of
> > all testing procedures and results, to the
> specific
> > test
 subjects.  You will notice he stated,
> > 
> > "The application of this simple rule of thumb is
> > obscured by the influences of diameter
> perturbations
> > in the crooks and upper parts of the instruments.
> ."
> > 
> > He did not say, "all saxophones", or "saxophones
> in
> > general".  "the instruments" , refers to the
> 6
> > saxophones that he tested and nothing else. &
> #160; 
> > 
> > I think you allow yourself a little too much
> > lattitude in your "take" in this case.  I
> can't
> > accept that interpretation of what Nederveen
> says. 
> > I could accept your statement though, if you
> > qualified differently, like, "In my opionion, all
> > saxes are that way.", and you left Nederveen out
> of
> >
 it.
> > 
> > Toby wrote, "It is next to impossible to maintain
> a
> > constant cone angle when you
> > bend the neck, and the bend itself changes the
> cone
> > angle even if you
> > keep the angle constant across the bend."
> > 
> > I remind you that just a couple of days ago, when
> > discussing the possible effects of the sharper
> neck
> > bend of the MK6 and the 10M, that you stated, more
> > than a few times, that the torroidal bends in
> > saxophone necks, including these, were of such a
> > wide radius, as to render any actual effects
> totally
> > insignificant.   But today, they are
> significant.   So
> > which is it?
> > 
> > I think I got you today.  Better luck
> tomorrow
> Toby.
> > 
> > MM
>
 > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- On Fri, 8/14/09, kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp
> > <kymarto123@ ybb. ne.jp> wrote:
> > 
> > From: kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp <kymarto123@ ybb.
> ne.jp>
> > Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on
> mpc
> > volume
> > To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> > Date: Friday, August 14, 2009, 7:42 AM
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Maybe, maybe not. My take is that
> > he was talking about saxes in general. Obviously
> > some are worse than others. It is next to
> impossible
> > to maintain a constant cone angle when you bend
> the
> > neck, and the bend itself changes the cone angle
> >
 even if you keep the angle constant across the
> bend.
> > Then
> > there is that silly cylindrical section at the
> > tenon...
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Toby
> > 
> > 
> 
=== 以下のメッセージは省略されました ===


 

      


	 
	
	


      
 

      

    
    
	
	 
	
	








	


	
	


      

please forgive my seeming obtuse answer but it is the only way i can think this through and keep a musical context.
there are words in all languages that are written the same but have different meanings dependent on pronunciation:- the word PROTEST for example. there is 'a protest' and then one can 'PROTEST'  THE ACCENT IS DIFFERENT. subsequently we introduce tonal variations with the voice ie humour, cynicism, threats and whatever and consequently the meanings mount up yet our word remains with its single spelling. Parker did not think as a result of his sound--sound is a function of content so Parkers sound came as a result of what he wanted to say: as did the rest of his ability including all the other attributes such as intonation and finger work. you as an experienced thinking musician knows what you want to say and consequently the appropriate results appear. However this is not to say that the 'set up' would suit for more intense work day by day, it could be that it tests the muscles too much and as a consequence your lip goes. but i think you get my
 point-good old humanity justifies its exhistance because of its adaptability.
are things that simple--i would submit that they are.
prof weinberg

--- On Sat, 15/8/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@yahoo.com> wrote:


From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc volume
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, 15 August, 2009, 2:59 PM


  







You must remove the "space" that Yahoo automatically inserts after a "." in my audio link's address.  There are 2 ".."'s.

--- On Sat, 8/15/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:


From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc volume
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Saturday, August 15, 2009, 1:57 PM


  





Professor + Toby

Please do not ignore my earlier post where I provided the audio "Intonation Demonstration" .  I will include all information and link here again so you will have no excuse.  Please:

1. read the test discription, 
2. listen to the audio file, and then 
3. explain please, why someone with no chops, playing a completely strange instrument, on a mouthpiece with an overly large chamber that could NEVER play in tune, could play double octaves with that accuracy, if it was not the constriction insert which acoustically corrected the design, as I claim.

Here are the facts again:  

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>

MM


--- On Sat, 8/15/09, ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com> wrote:


From: ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc volume
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Saturday, August 15, 2009, 1:29 PM


  






i enjoyed your reply which was really on the button: one has to be extremely careful about the application of theory and science--not there is anything wrong with it but Humanity is the factor that contradicts evrything (thank god).
my research has demonstrated too often that the examination of what really great players use is a 'set up' that seems to fly in the face of science or theory because that individual is after some musical result that is their own solution to the pieces interpretation.
hence:- too many players ask for a mouthpiece to make them sound like charlie Parker--for instance-- regrettably nobody ever asks for a mouthpiece that will enable them to THINK like charlie Parker
prof weinberg

--- On Sat, 15/8/09, kymarto123@ybb. . ne.jp <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp> wrote:


From: kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc volume
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Saturday, 15 August, 2009, 1:26 PM


  

Thanks for that bit of information, Professor. The neck
seems a particularly nasty place, where small changes in
diameter can create big effects intonationally. I know
this personally from my experiences with shakuhachi
flutes, where the area that would correspond to the neck
needs to be adjusted to a tolerance of about 1/100" for
consistent results.

I know that Lance (you must be reading this) thinks that
my aim is solely to break his balls, but actually I am
more interested in getting correct information out into a
realm where misconception rules. I find that I am as
guilty as the next guy sometimes, when I get out of my
depth and end up posting false stuff. I had a long debate
with jbt not long ago on SOTW, and after pages of thread I
finally wrote to Dr. Wolfe and discovered that we were
both wrong--or at best both only partially right. 

It is actually a bit ludicrous that a bunch of amateurs
are arguing points on which even the experts sometimes
fail to agree, and which require quite a bit more
background, understanding (and math) than any of us
possess. I have invited Dr. Wolfe to participate in these
discussions, but he has (wisely I think) declined. 

I believe that with our level of understanding, we can
only end up speculating, and we are probably all wrong
quite a bit of the time, at least as regards the finer
points of what we are discussing. 

I do not act as Lance's foil for my own pleasure, but
because I believe that while he may truly be achieving
good results, he is attributing them inaccurately: quoting
science that neither he (nor I) fully understand as a
cause for results, while the true acoustic situation is
much more complex.

Lance, personally I would be much more comfortable, and
probably a lot less in your face, if you simply shared the
results of your experiments without resorting to "science
babble", and I include myself as a purveyor of science
babble. I suspect that you are a consumate technician with
a lot of playing skills as well. With those gifts you can
most probably contribute to the state of the art, but I
suspect that the scientific basis on which you claim your
results is only partially correct at best. 

I am in the same position in terms of formal knowledge,
and we always end up playing "he said, she said". Isn't it
time that we stop pretending that we are experts and try
to help each other and all the other members here by
sharing results and ideas without resorting to a
pseudo-scientific pissing contest?

I am certainly willing if you are.

Toby

--- ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com> wrote:

> an interesting adjacent piece of information: - some
> time ago Keilwerth had an intonation problem with
> their altos; the notes C, B and A in the middle were
> blowing extremely flat while the D was sharp;
> equally the higher B was sharp. I was asked to find
> out why because Keilwerth could not ascertain where
> the manufacturing fault would be. i discovered,
> initially, that the crook angle had increased--this
> meant that the mouthpiece end was higher than
> normal. Developing on from this was the fact that at
> the bendin the crook �the& #65533;bore had
enlarged'
> Theoretically this was impossible -as the crooks
> were made on a C&C former. however after much
> discussion and investigation Keilwerth discovered
> that the incorrect figures had been dialled into the
> machine.
> prof weinberg
> 
> --- On Sat, 15/8/09, kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp
> <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp> wrote:
> 
> 
> From: kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc
> volume
> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> Date: Saturday, 15 August, 2009, 9:47 AM
> 
> 
> � 
> 
> 
> 
> Too bad that Nederveen has never answered my mails
> or we
> might be able to ask him directly. I'm certainly not
> bothering Dr. Wolfe for this, but I think that if
> Nederveen had not been talking about saxes in
> general he
> would have referred to the specific case(s), as
> scientists
> are supposed to do.
> 
> Actually I don't know what perturbations in the neck
> and
> the upper part of the body Nederveen is talking
> about, but
> I am guessing he is talking about the cone angle in
> the
> bends. I am thinking now that perhaps the bends are
> more
> significant than I had thought before, because I
> cannot
> see what other perturbations (apart from the
> cylindrical
> tenon) he could be taking about. Or perhaps it is
> the
> widening of the cone angle just at the end of the
> neck.
> Another possibility is that the act of bending the
> neck
> changes the cone angle. 
> 
> From the equation the amount of virtual widening in
> the
> bends certainly seemed insignificant, but things are
> very
> tricky near the top of the horn, so perhaps I was
> wrong. 
> 
> In any case it is an intriguing statement and begs
> further
> clarification.
> 
> BTW what do you think of his statement that the
> chamber
> should end at the beginning of the neck? Did you
> answer
> that and I missed it?
> 
> Toby
> 
> --- MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> > Toby wrote, 
> > "Maybe, maybe not. My take is that he was talking
> > about saxes in general. "
> > 
> > OK.  Whoever has the book can read it for
> themselves
> > and decide.  For those who don't and are
> interested,
> > the statement was made as Nederveen was describing
> > the methods and issues that he had in making the
> > scientific analysis of those specific instruments,
> > and none other.  He is a scientist and
> conducted
> his
> > method of analysis as scientists do.  In
> order to
> > give their results credibility, they must
> absolutely
> > limit the scope of their tesing and discussion of
> > all testing procedures and results, to the
> specific
> > test subjects.  You will notice he stated,
> > 
> > "The application of this simple rule of thumb is
> > obscured by the influences of diameter
> perturbations
> > in the crooks and upper parts of the instruments.
> ."
> > 
> > He did not say, "all saxophones", or "saxophones
> in
> > general".  "the instruments" , refers to the
> 6
> > saxophones that he tested and nothing else. &
> #160; 
> > 
> > I think you allow yourself a little too much
> > lattitude in your "take" in this case.  I
> can't
> > accept that interpretation of what Nederveen
> says. 
> > I could accept your statement though, if you
> > qualified differently, like, "In my opionion, all
> > saxes are that way.", and you left Nederveen out
> of
> > it.
> > 
> > Toby wrote, "It is next to impossible to maintain
> a
> > constant cone angle when you
> > bend the neck, and the bend itself changes the
> cone
> > angle even if you
> > keep the angle constant across the bend."
> > 
> > I remind you that just a couple of days ago, when
> > discussing the possible effects of the sharper
> neck
> > bend of the MK6 and the 10M, that you stated, more
> > than a few times, that the torroidal bends in
> > saxophone necks, including these, were of such a
> > wide radius, as to render any actual effects
> totally
> > insignificant.   But today, they are
> significant.   So
> > which is it?
> > 
> > I think I got you today.  Better luck
> tomorrow
> Toby.
> > 
> > MM
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- On Fri, 8/14/09, kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp
> > <kymarto123@ ybb. ne.jp> wrote:
> > 
> > From: kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp <kymarto123@ ybb.
> ne.jp>
> > Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on
> mpc
> > volume
> > To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> > Date: Friday, August 14, 2009, 7:42 AM
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Maybe, maybe not. My take is that
> > he was talking about saxes in general. Obviously
> > some are worse than others. It is next to
> impossible
> > to maintain a constant cone angle when you bend
> the
> > neck, and the bend itself changes the cone angle
> > even if you keep the angle constant across the
> bend.
> > Then
> > there is that silly cylindrical section at the
> > tenon...
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Toby
> > 
> > 
> 
=== 以下のメッセージは省略されました ===

Professor + Toby, 

As this was a technical demonstration of acoustic design, perhaps one need evaluate it for what it is in it's simplicity, outside the musical context - without attempting to relate it to music and psychology. 

In plane shop talk:  Anyone who has ever reamed out an Otto Link chamber knows from an unforgettable personal experience, that it can not be played in tune.  The degree of even intonation, stability, and accuracy, of this little demo, would be impossible by even the most experience player.  The only explanation for it is, the insert corrected the design.  

This is a group where we attempt to share information.  There is mine.  If anyone were genuinely interested and curious, then they would attempt to duplicate my findings, or compare directly related similar experiences, as I have done to those of jbtsax, in this case, and others here have reported regarding mine.  Then we could have an intelligent discussion of the results based upon common experience which I'm sure everyone would find interesting.

If not, then the most considerate action for all, would be to start a new conversation.  



--- On Sat, 8/15/09, ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@...> wrote:

From: ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc volume
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, August 15, 2009, 2:18 PM






 




    
                  please forgive my seeming obtuse answer but it is the only way i can think this through and keep a musical context.
there are words in all languages that are written the same but have different meanings dependent on pronunciation: - the word PROTEST for example. there is 'a protest' and then one can 'PROTEST'  THE ACCENT IS DIFFERENT. subsequently we introduce tonal variations with the voice ie humour, cynicism, threats and whatever and consequently the meanings mount up yet our word remains with its single spelling. Parker did not think as a result of his sound--sound is a function of content so Parkers sound came as a result of what he wanted to say: as did the rest of his ability including all the other attributes such as intonation and finger work. you as an experienced thinking musician knows what you want to say and consequently the appropriate results appear. However this is not to say that the 'set up' would suit for more intense work day by day, it could be that it tests the muscles too much and as a consequence your lip goes. but i think you get my
 point-good old humanity justifies its exhistance because of its adaptability.
are things that simple--i would submit that they are.
prof weinberg

--- On Sat, 15/8/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:


From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc volume
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Saturday, 15 August, 2009, 2:59 PM


  





You must remove the "space" that Yahoo automatically inserts after a "." in my audio link's address.  There are 2 ".."'s.

--- On Sat, 8/15/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:


From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc volume
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Saturday, August 15, 2009, 1:57 PM


  





Professor + Toby

Please do not ignore my earlier post where I provided the audio "Intonation Demonstration" .  I will include all information and link here again so you will have no excuse.  Please:

1. read the test discription, 
2. listen to the audio file, and then 
3. explain please, why someone with no chops, playing a completely strange instrument, on a mouthpiece with an overly large chamber that could NEVER play in tune, could play double octaves with that accuracy, if it was not the constriction insert which acoustically corrected the design, as I claim.

Here are the facts again:  

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>

MM


--- On Sat, 8/15/09, ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com> wrote:


From: ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc volume
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Saturday, August 15, 2009, 1:29 PM


  






i enjoyed your reply which was really on the button: one has to be extremely careful about the application of theory and science--not there is anything wrong with it but Humanity is the factor that contradicts evrything (thank god).
my research has demonstrated too often that the examination of what really great players use is a 'set up' that seems to fly in the face of science or theory because that individual is after some musical result that is their own solution to the pieces interpretation.
hence:- too many players ask for a mouthpiece to make them sound like charlie Parker--for instance-- regrettably nobody ever asks for a mouthpiece that will enable them to THINK like charlie Parker
prof weinberg

--- On Sat, 15/8/09, kymarto123@ybb. . ne.jp <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp> wrote:


From: kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc volume
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Saturday, 15 August, 2009, 1:26 PM


  

Thanks for that bit of information, Professor. The neck
seems a particularly nasty place, where small changes in
diameter can create big effects intonationally. I know
this personally from my experiences with shakuhachi
flutes, where the area that would correspond to the neck
needs to be adjusted to a tolerance of about 1/100" for
consistent results.

I know that Lance (you must be reading this) thinks that
my aim is solely to break his balls, but actually I am
more interested in getting correct information out into a
realm where misconception rules. I find that I am as
guilty as the next guy sometimes, when I get out of my
depth and end up posting false stuff. I had a long debate
with jbt not long ago on SOTW, and after pages of thread I
finally wrote to Dr. Wolfe and discovered that we were
both wrong--or at best both only partially right. 

It is actually a bit ludicrous that a bunch of
 amateurs
are arguing points on which even the experts sometimes
fail to agree, and which require quite a bit more
background, understanding (and math) than any of us
possess. I have invited Dr. Wolfe to participate in these
discussions, but he has (wisely I think) declined. 

I believe that with our level of understanding, we can
only end up speculating, and we are probably all wrong
quite a bit of the time, at least as regards the finer
points of what we are discussing. 

I do not act as Lance's foil for my own pleasure, but
because I believe that while he may truly be achieving
good results, he is attributing them inaccurately: quoting
science that neither he (nor I) fully understand as a
cause for results, while the true acoustic situation is
much more complex.

Lance, personally I would be much more comfortable, and
probably a lot less in your face, if you simply shared the
results of
 your experiments without resorting to "science
babble", and I include myself as a purveyor of science
babble. I suspect that you are a consumate technician with
a lot of playing skills as well. With those gifts you can
most probably contribute to the state of the art, but I
suspect that the scientific basis on which you claim your
results is only partially correct at best. 

I am in the same position in terms of formal knowledge,
and we always end up playing "he said, she said". Isn't it
time that we stop pretending that we are experts and try
to help each other and all the other members here by
sharing results and ideas without resorting to a
pseudo-scientific pissing contest?

I am certainly willing if you are.

Toby

--- ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com>
 wrote:

> an interesting adjacent piece of information: - some
> time ago Keilwerth had an intonation problem with
> their altos; the notes C, B and A in the middle were
> blowing extremely flat while the D was sharp;
> equally the higher B was sharp. I was asked to find
> out why because Keilwerth could not ascertain where
> the manufacturing fault would be. i discovered,
> initially, that the crook angle had increased--this
> meant that the mouthpiece end was higher than
> normal. Developing on from this was the fact that at
> the bendin the crook �the& #65533;bore had
enlarged'
> Theoretically this was impossible -as the crooks
> were made on a C&C former. however after much
> discussion and investigation Keilwerth discovered
> that the incorrect figures had been dialled into the
> machine.
> prof weinberg
> 
>
 --- On Sat, 15/8/09, kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp
> <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp> wrote:
> 
> 
> From: kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc
> volume
> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> Date: Saturday, 15 August, 2009, 9:47 AM
> 
> 
> � 
> 
> 
>
 
> Too bad that Nederveen has never answered my mails
> or we
> might be able to ask him directly. I'm certainly not
> bothering Dr. Wolfe for this, but I think that if
> Nederveen had not been talking about saxes in
> general he
> would have referred to the specific case(s), as
> scientists
> are supposed to do.
> 
> Actually I don't know what perturbations in the neck
> and
> the upper part of the body Nederveen is talking
> about, but
> I am guessing he is talking about the cone angle in
> the
> bends. I am thinking now that perhaps the bends are
> more
> significant than I had thought before, because I
> cannot
> see what other perturbations (apart from the
> cylindrical
> tenon) he could be taking about. Or perhaps it is
> the
> widening of the cone angle just at the end of the
> neck.
>
 Another possibility is that the act of bending the
> neck
> changes the cone angle. 
> 
> From the equation the amount of virtual widening in
> the
> bends certainly seemed insignificant, but things are
> very
> tricky near the top of the horn, so perhaps I was
> wrong. 
> 
> In any case it is an intriguing statement and begs
> further
> clarification.
> 
> BTW what do you think of his statement that the
> chamber
> should end at the beginning of the neck? Did you
> answer
> that and I missed it?
> 
> Toby
> 
> --- MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> > Toby wrote, 
> > "Maybe, maybe not. My take is that he was talking
> > about saxes in general. "
> > 
> > OK.  Whoever has the book can read it for
> themselves
> > and
 decide.  For those who don't and are
> interested,
> > the statement was made as Nederveen was describing
> > the methods and issues that he had in making the
> > scientific analysis of those specific instruments,
> > and none other.  He is a scientist and
> conducted
> his
> > method of analysis as scientists do.  In
> order to
> > give their results credibility, they must
> absolutely
> > limit the scope of their tesing and discussion of
> > all testing procedures and results, to the
> specific
> > test subjects.  You will notice he stated,
> > 
> > "The application of this simple rule of thumb is
> > obscured by the influences of diameter
> perturbations
> > in the crooks and upper parts of the instruments.
> ."
> > 
> > He did not
 say, "all saxophones", or "saxophones
> in
> > general".  "the instruments" , refers to the
> 6
> > saxophones that he tested and nothing else. &
> #160; 
> > 
> > I think you allow yourself a little too much
> > lattitude in your "take" in this case.  I
> can't
> > accept that interpretation of what Nederveen
> says. 
> > I could accept your statement though, if you
> > qualified differently, like, "In my opionion, all
> > saxes are that way.", and you left Nederveen out
> of
> > it.
> > 
> > Toby wrote, "It is next to impossible to maintain
> a
> > constant cone angle when you
> > bend the neck, and the bend itself changes the
> cone
> > angle even if you
> > keep the angle constant across the bend."
> > 
>
 > I remind you that just a couple of days ago, when
> > discussing the possible effects of the sharper
> neck
> > bend of the MK6 and the 10M, that you stated, more
> > than a few times, that the torroidal bends in
> > saxophone necks, including these, were of such a
> > wide radius, as to render any actual effects
> totally
> > insignificant.   But today, they are
> significant.   So
> > which is it?
> > 
> > I think I got you today.  Better luck
> tomorrow
> Toby.
> > 
> > MM
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- On Fri, 8/14/09, kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp
> > <kymarto123@ ybb. ne.jp> wrote:
> > 
> > From: kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp <kymarto123@ ybb.
> ne.jp>
> > Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen
 quote on
> mpc
> > volume
> > To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> > Date: Friday, August 14, 2009, 7:42 AM
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Maybe, maybe not. My take is that
> > he was talking about saxes in general. Obviously
> > some are worse than others. It is next to
> impossible
> > to maintain a constant cone angle when you bend
> the
> > neck, and the bend itself changes the cone angle
> > even if you keep the angle constant across the
> bend.
> > Then
> > there is that silly cylindrical section at the
> > tenon...
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Toby
> > 
> > 
> 
=== 以下のメッセージは省略されました
 ===




 

      

    
    
	
	 
	
	








	


	
	


      

So, this is the last time I will address this "Insert" issue here. For readers, I'd just like to go on record as saying:  I have had personal correspondence with 4 mouthpiece professionals (manufacturers and refacers), and two at their initiative, who, while they prefer not to become involved in this public discussion, agree with my view, finding it more than slightly interesting. Further collaborative research is currently underway.  Future developments and announcements in this direction will be made either on my website, www.martinmods.com, their respective websites.

MM

--- On Sat, 8/15/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:

From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc volume
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, August 15, 2009, 3:04 PM






 




    
                  Professor + Toby, 

As this was a technical demonstration of acoustic design, perhaps one need evaluate it for what it is in it's simplicity, outside the musical context - without attempting to relate it to music and psychology. 

In plane shop talk:  Anyone who has ever reamed out an Otto Link chamber knows from an unforgettable personal experience, that it can not be played in tune.  The degree of even intonation, stability, and accuracy, of this little demo, would be impossible by even the most experience player.  The only explanation for it is, the insert corrected the design.  

This is a group where we attempt to share information.  There is mine.  If anyone were genuinely interested and curious, then they would attempt to duplicate my findings, or compare directly related similar experiences, as I have done
 to those of jbtsax, in this case, and others here have reported regarding mine.  Then we could have an intelligent discussion of the results based upon common experience which I'm sure everyone would find interesting.

If not, then the most considerate action for all, would be to start a new conversation.  



--- On Sat, 8/15/09, ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com> wrote:

From: ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc volume
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Saturday, August 15, 2009, 2:18 PM






 

    
                  please forgive my seeming obtuse answer but it is the only way i can think this through and keep a musical context.
there are words in all languages that are written the same but have different meanings dependent on pronunciation: - the word PROTEST for example. there is 'a protest' and then one can 'PROTEST'  THE ACCENT IS DIFFERENT. subsequently we introduce tonal variations with the voice ie humour, cynicism, threats and whatever and consequently the meanings mount up yet our word remains with its single spelling. Parker did not think as a result of his sound--sound is a function of content so Parkers sound came as a result of what he wanted to say: as did the rest of his ability including all the other attributes such as intonation and finger work. you as an experienced thinking musician knows what you want to say and consequently the appropriate results appear. However this is not to say that the 'set up' would suit for more intense work day by day, it could be that it tests the muscles too much and as a consequence your lip goes. but i think you get my
 point-good old humanity justifies its exhistance because of its adaptability.
are things that simple--i would submit that they are.
prof weinberg

--- On Sat, 15/8/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:


From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc volume
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Saturday, 15 August, 2009, 2:59 PM


  





You must remove the "space" that Yahoo automatically inserts after a "." in my audio link's address.  There are 2 ".."'s.

--- On Sat, 8/15/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:


From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc volume
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Saturday, August 15, 2009, 1:57 PM


  





Professor + Toby

Please do not ignore my earlier post where I provided the audio "Intonation Demonstration" .  I will include all information and link here again so you will have no excuse.  Please:

1. read the test discription, 
2. listen to the audio file, and then 
3. explain please, why someone with no chops, playing a completely strange instrument, on a mouthpiece with an overly large chamber that could NEVER play in tune, could play double octaves with that accuracy, if it was not the constriction insert which acoustically corrected the design, as I claim.

Here are the facts again:  

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>

MM


--- On Sat, 8/15/09, ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com> wrote:


From: ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc volume
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Saturday, August 15, 2009, 1:29 PM


  






i enjoyed your reply which was really on the button: one has to be extremely careful about the application of theory and science--not there is anything wrong with it but Humanity is the factor that contradicts evrything (thank god).
my research has demonstrated too often that the examination of what really great players use is a 'set up' that seems to fly in the face of science or theory because that individual is after some musical result that is their own solution to the pieces interpretation.
hence:- too many players ask for a mouthpiece to make them sound like charlie Parker--for instance-- regrettably nobody ever asks for a mouthpiece that will enable them to THINK like charlie Parker
prof weinberg

--- On Sat, 15/8/09, kymarto123@ybb. . ne.jp <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp> wrote:


From: kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc volume
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Saturday, 15 August, 2009, 1:26 PM


  

Thanks for that bit of information, Professor. The neck
seems a particularly nasty place, where small changes in
diameter can create big effects intonationally. I know
this personally from my experiences with shakuhachi
flutes, where the area that would correspond to the neck
needs to be adjusted to a tolerance of about 1/100" for
consistent results.

I know that Lance (you must be reading this) thinks that
my aim is solely to break his balls, but actually I am
more interested in getting correct information out into a
realm where misconception rules. I find that I am as
guilty as the next guy sometimes, when I get out of my
depth and end up posting false stuff. I had a long debate
with jbt not long ago on SOTW, and after pages of thread I
finally wrote to Dr. Wolfe and discovered that we were
both wrong--or at best both only partially right. 

It is actually a bit ludicrous that a bunch of
 amateurs
are arguing points on which even the experts sometimes
fail to agree, and which require quite a bit more
background, understanding (and math) than any of us
possess. I have invited Dr. Wolfe to participate in these
discussions, but he has (wisely I think) declined. 

I believe that with our level of understanding, we can
only end up speculating, and we are probably all wrong
quite a bit of the time, at least as regards the finer
points of what we are discussing. 

I do not act as Lance's foil for my own pleasure, but
because I believe that while he may truly be achieving
good results, he is attributing them inaccurately: quoting
science that neither he (nor I) fully understand as a
cause for results, while the true acoustic situation is
much more complex.

Lance, personally I would be much more comfortable, and
probably a lot less in your face, if you simply shared the
results of
 your experiments without resorting to "science
babble", and I include myself as a purveyor of science
babble. I suspect that you are a consumate technician with
a lot of playing skills as well. With those gifts you can
most probably contribute to the state of the art, but I
suspect that the scientific basis on which you claim your
results is only partially correct at best. 

I am in the same position in terms of formal knowledge,
and we always end up playing "he said, she said". Isn't it
time that we stop pretending that we are experts and try
to help each other and all the other members here by
sharing results and ideas without resorting to a
pseudo-scientific pissing contest?

I am certainly willing if you are.

Toby

--- ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld.
 com>
 wrote:

> an interesting adjacent piece of information: - some
> time ago Keilwerth had an intonation problem with
> their altos; the notes C, B and A in the middle were
> blowing extremely flat while the D was sharp;
> equally the higher B was sharp. I was asked to find
> out why because Keilwerth could not ascertain where
> the manufacturing fault would be. i discovered,
> initially, that the crook angle had increased--this
> meant that the mouthpiece end was higher than
> normal. Developing on from this was the fact that at
> the bendin the crook �the& #65533;bore had
enlarged'
> Theoretically this was impossible -as the crooks
> were made on a C&C former. however after much
> discussion and investigation Keilwerth discovered
> that the incorrect figures had been dialled into the
> machine.
> prof weinberg
> 
>
 --- On Sat, 15/8/09, kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp
> <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp> wrote:
> 
> 
> From: kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc
> volume
> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> Date: Saturday, 15 August, 2009, 9:47 AM
> 
> 
> � 
>
 
> 
>
 
> Too bad that Nederveen has never answered my mails
> or we
> might be able to ask him directly. I'm certainly not
> bothering Dr. Wolfe for this, but I think that if
> Nederveen had not been talking about saxes in
> general he
> would have referred to the specific case(s), as
> scientists
> are supposed to do.
> 
> Actually I don't know what perturbations in the neck
> and
> the upper part of the body Nederveen is talking
> about, but
> I am guessing he is talking about the cone angle in
> the
> bends. I am thinking now that perhaps the bends are
> more
> significant than I had thought before, because I
> cannot
> see what other perturbations (apart from the
> cylindrical
> tenon) he could be taking about. Or perhaps it is
> the
> widening of the cone angle just at the end of the
> neck.
>
 Another possibility is that the act of bending the
> neck
> changes the cone angle. 
> 
> From the equation the amount of virtual widening in
> the
> bends certainly seemed insignificant, but things are
> very
> tricky near the top of the horn, so perhaps I was
> wrong. 
> 
> In any case it is an intriguing statement and begs
> further
> clarification.
> 
> BTW what do you think of his statement that the
> chamber
> should end at the beginning of the neck? Did you
> answer
> that and I missed it?
> 
> Toby
> 
> --- MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> > Toby wrote, 
> > "Maybe, maybe not. My take is that he was talking
> > about saxes in general. "
> > 
> > OK.  Whoever has the book can read it for
> themselves
> > and
 decide.  For those who don't and are
> interested,
> > the statement was made as Nederveen was describing
> > the methods and issues that he had in making the
> > scientific analysis of those specific instruments,
> > and none other.  He is a scientist and
> conducted
> his
> > method of analysis as scientists do.  In
> order to
> > give their results credibility, they must
> absolutely
> > limit the scope of their tesing and discussion of
> > all testing procedures and results, to the
> specific
> > test subjects.  You will notice he stated,
> > 
> > "The application of this simple rule of thumb is
> > obscured by the influences of diameter
> perturbations
> > in the crooks and upper parts of the instruments.
> ."
> > 
> > He did not
 say, "all saxophones", or "saxophones
> in
> > general".  "the instruments" , refers to the
> 6
> > saxophones that he tested and nothing else. &
> #160; 
> > 
> > I think you allow yourself a little too much
> > lattitude in your "take" in this case.  I
> can't
> > accept that interpretation of what Nederveen
> says. 
> > I could accept your statement though, if you
> > qualified differently, like, "In my opionion, all
> > saxes are that way.", and you left Nederveen out
> of
> > it.
> > 
> > Toby wrote, "It is next to impossible to maintain
> a
> > constant cone angle when you
> > bend the neck, and the bend itself changes the
> cone
> > angle even if you
> > keep the angle constant across the bend."
> > 
>
 > I remind you that just a couple of days ago, when
> > discussing the possible effects of the sharper
> neck
> > bend of the MK6 and the 10M, that you stated, more
> > than a few times, that the torroidal bends in
> > saxophone necks, including these, were of such a
> > wide radius, as to render any actual effects
> totally
> > insignificant.   But today, they are
> significant.   So
> > which is it?
> > 
> > I think I got you today.  Better luck
> tomorrow
> Toby..
> > 
> > MM
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- On Fri, 8/14/09, kymarto123@ybb. . ne.jp
> > <kymarto123@ ybb. ne.jp> wrote:
> > 
> > From: kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp <kymarto123@ ybb.
> ne.jp>
> > Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen
 quote on
> mpc
> > volume
> > To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> > Date: Friday, August 14, 2009, 7:42 AM
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Maybe, maybe not. My take is that
> > he was talking about saxes in general. Obviously
> > some are worse than others. It is next to
> impossible
> > to maintain a constant cone angle when you bend
> the
> > neck, and the bend itself changes the cone angle
> > even if you keep the angle constant across the
> bend.
> > Then
> > there is that silly cylindrical section at the
> > tenon...
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Toby
> > 
> > 
> 
=== 以下のメッセージは省略されました
 ===




 

      


	 
	
	


      
 

      

    
    
	
	 
	
	








	


	
	


      

Lance,

You stated in your post:

  "a constriction between the chamber and the body tubeserves to amplify
the higher mode resonances.  It increases thepressure modulation to flow
ratio, increasing the impedance of thehigher resonance modes."

May I ask what your source for this information is?  I am not
challenging your statement in any way, I would simply like to find out
more about this specific area of mouthpiece acoustics.  Thanks.

John





--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
wrote:
>
> Yes,  That's too bad that he is not accessible.Â
>
> He doesn't mention a constriction when he describes the simple
mathematical truncated cone model, or anywhere in his book.  I don't
know why.Â
>
> Benade had experience with brass wind instruments, and described the
similarity in woodwinds.  There it is, plain as day, in the class
notes, in large print with large illustration when introducing the
conical reed instrument:
>
> "Cavity + Constriction is the surrogate for the missing cone - as seen
by the main cone."
>
> With a cavity or chamber who's inner diameter is larger than that of
the truncated body tube opening, there will always be a constriction,
as  with Sax's original mouthpiece design,   While the
actual design of the constricton plays a roll, a constriction between
the chamber and the body tube serves to amplify the higher mode
resonances.  It increases the pressure modulation to flow ratio,
increasing the imedance of the higher resonance modes.
>
>
>
> --- On Sat, 8/15/09, kymarto123@... kymarto123@... wrote:
>
> From: kymarto123@... kymarto123@...
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc volume
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Saturday, August 15, 2009, 8:47 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
>
>
>                   Too bad that Nederveen has never answered my mails
or we
>
> might be able to ask him directly. I'm certainly not
>
> bothering Dr. Wolfe for this, but I think that if
>
> Nederveen had not been talking about saxes in general he
>
> would have referred to the specific case(s), as scientists
>
> are supposed to do.
>
>
>
> Actually I don't know what perturbations in the neck and
>
> the upper part of the body Nederveen is talking about, but
>
> I am guessing he is talking about the cone angle in the
>
> bends. I am thinking now that perhaps the bends are more
>
> significant than I had thought before, because I cannot
>
> see what other perturbations (apart from the cylindrical
>
> tenon) he could be taking about. Or perhaps it is the
>
> widening of the cone angle just at the end of the neck.
>
> Another possibility is that the act of bending the neck
>
> changes the cone angle.
>
>
>
> From the equation the amount of virtual widening in the
>
> bends certainly seemed insignificant, but things are very
>
> tricky near the top of the horn, so perhaps I was wrong.
>
>
>
> In any case it is an intriguing statement and begs further
>
> clarification.
>
>
>
> BTW what do you think of his statement that the chamber
>
> should end at the beginning of the neck? Did you answer
>
> that and I missed it?
>
>
>
> Toby
>
>
>
> --- MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Toby wrote,
>
> > "Maybe, maybe not. My take is that he was talking
>
> > about saxes in general. "
>
> >
>
> > OK.  Whoever has the book can read it for
>
> themselves
>
> > and decide.  For those who don't and are
>
> interested,
>
> > the statement was made as Nederveen was describing
>
> > the methods and issues that he had in making the
>
> > scientific analysis of those specific instruments,
>
> > and none other.  He is a scientist and conducted
>
> his
>
> > method of analysis as scientists do.  In order to
>
> > give their results credibility, they must absolutely
>
> > limit the scope of their tesing and discussion of
>
> > all testing procedures and results, to the specific
>
> > test subjects.  You will notice he stated,
>
> >
>
> > "The application of this simple rule of thumb is
>
> > obscured by the influences of diameter perturbations
>
> > in the crooks and upper parts of the instruments. ."
>
> >
>
> > He did not say, "all saxophones", or "saxophones in
>
> > general".  "the instruments" , refers to the 6
>
> > saxophones that he tested and nothing else. & #160;
>
> >
>
> > I think you allow yourself a little too much
>
> > lattitude in your "take" in this case.  I can't
>
> > accept that interpretation of what Nederveen says. 
>
> > I could accept your statement though, if you
>
> > qualified differently, like, "In my opionion, all
>
> > saxes are that way.", and you left Nederveen out of
>
> > it.
>
> >
>
> > Toby wrote, "It is next to impossible to maintain a
>
> > constant cone angle when you
>
> > bend the neck, and the bend itself changes the cone
>
> > angle even if you
>
> > keep the angle constant across the bend."
>
> >
>
> > I remind you that just a couple of days ago, when
>
> > discussing the possible effects of the sharper neck
>
> > bend of the MK6 and the 10M, that you stated, more
>
> > than a few times, that the torroidal bends in
>
> > saxophone necks, including these, were of such a
>
> > wide radius, as to render any actual effects totally
>
> > insignificant.   But today, they are
>
> significant.   So
>
> > which is it?
>
> >
>
> > I think I got you today.  Better luck tomorrow
>
> Toby.
>
> >
>
> > MM
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > --- On Fri, 8/14/09, kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp
>
> > kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > From: kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
>
> > Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc
>
> > volume
>
> > To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
>
> > Date: Friday, August 14, 2009, 7:42 AM
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >  
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >                   Maybe, maybe not. My take is that
>
> > he was talking about saxes in general. Obviously
>
> > some are worse than others. It is next to impossible
>
> > to maintain a constant cone angle when you bend the
>
> > neck, and the bend itself changes the cone angle
>
> > even if you keep the angle constant across the bend.
>
> > Then
>
> >  there is that silly cylindrical section at the
>
> > tenon...
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Toby
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:        
>
>
>
> >                        Toby,
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > And then, I think you may be taking Nederveen's
>
> > comment a little out of context. He did not make
>
> > this comment as regards ALL saxophones in general. 
>
> > He made this observation in the summary of his
>
> > analysis of the following specific saxophones:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > a Schenkelaars tenor
>
> >
>
> > a Rasco tenor
>
> >
>
> > a Schenkelaars alto
>
> >
>
> > a Schenkelaars soprano
>
> >
>
> > a Solotone soprano
>
> >
>
> > a Selmer soprano
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Only the Selmer is known to me.  I know that the
>
> MK6
>
> > and some other brands of straight sopranos had a
>
> > sudden constriction in the upper body about 4" from
>
> > the mouthpiece end, termed, "necking-in" .  This
>
> > parallels the narrower taper sometimes added to the
>
> > upper body of oboes, intended
>
> >  to improve intonation between registers.&# 160;
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I don't know anything about the others.  I have
>
> seen
>
> > often in "off" brands, excessive bore diameter
>
> > mis-matches at  the neck tube/tenon and tenon/body
>
> > tube junctions, in excess of 2mm either way and
>
> > sometimes both.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I don't think he is talking about tone hole
>
> > perturbations.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > MM
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > --- On Fri, 8/14/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@
>
> > yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
>
> >
>
> > Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc
>
> > volume
>
> >
>
> > To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
>
> >
>
> > Date: Friday, August 14, 2009, 4:18 AM
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >                                I dunno Toby. I come
>
> > to quite a different conclusion from that
>
> > paragraph.&# 160; Take a look at any saxophone neck with
>
> > the mouthpiece on it.  The ONLY bore diameter
>
> > perturbations of any significance occur at the
>
> > mouthpiece throat/neck opening,
>
> >  and the neck tube/tenon sleeve/body tube
>
> > junctions.&# 160;
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > It seems to me that Nederveen is saying that Sax and
>
> > saxophone manufacturers SHOULD HAVE come up with a
>
> > more acoustically optimal means of attaching things
>
> > to each other, instead of opting for that of
>
> > convenience.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > --- On Fri, 8/14/09, kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp
>
> > <kymarto123@ ybb. ne.jp> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > From: kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp <kymarto123@ ybb. ne.jp>
>
> >
>
> > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc
>
> > volume
>
> >
>
> > To:  MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
>
> >
>
> ===
以下のメッセージは省略されました
===
>

i fear the words 'only possible explanation for it is' because it is too restrictive and self assuming. you may well be correct but your deduction is not.
prof weinberg

--- On Sat, 15/8/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:


From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc volume
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, 15 August, 2009, 4:04 PM


  







Professor + Toby, 

As this was a technical demonstration of acoustic design, perhaps one need evaluate it for what it is in it's simplicity, outside the musical context - without attempting to relate it to music and psychology. 

In plane shop talk:  Anyone who has ever reamed out an Otto Link chamber knows from an unforgettable personal experience, that it can not be played in tune.  The degree of even intonation, stability, and accuracy, of this little demo, would be impossible by even the most experience player.  The only explanation for it is, the insert corrected the design.  

This is a group where we attempt to share information.  There is mine.  If anyone were genuinely interested and curious, then they would attempt to duplicate my findings, or compare directly related similar experiences, as I have done to those of jbtsax, in this case, and others here have reported regarding mine.  Then we could have an intelligent discussion of the results based upon common experience which I'm sure everyone would find interesting.

If not, then the most considerate action for all, would be to start a new conversation.  



--- On Sat, 8/15/09, ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com> wrote:


From: ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc volume
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Saturday, August 15, 2009, 2:18 PM


  






please forgive my seeming obtuse answer but it is the only way i can think this through and keep a musical context.
there are words in all languages that are written the same but have different meanings dependent on pronunciation: - the word PROTEST for example. there is 'a protest' and then one can 'PROTEST'  THE ACCENT IS DIFFERENT. subsequently we introduce tonal variations with the voice ie humour, cynicism, threats and whatever and consequently the meanings mount up yet our word remains with its single spelling. Parker did not think as a result of his sound--sound is a function of content so Parkers sound came as a result of what he wanted to say: as did the rest of his ability including all the other attributes such as intonation and finger work. you as an experienced thinking musician knows what you want to say and consequently the appropriate results appear. However this is not to say that the 'set up' would suit for more intense work day by day, it could be that it tests the muscles too much and as a consequence your lip goes. but i think you get my
 point-good old humanity justifies its exhistance because of its adaptability.
are things that simple--i would submit that they are.
prof weinberg

--- On Sat, 15/8/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:


From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc volume
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Saturday, 15 August, 2009, 2:59 PM


  





You must remove the "space" that Yahoo automatically inserts after a "." in my audio link's address.  There are 2 ".."'s.

--- On Sat, 8/15/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:


From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc volume
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Saturday, August 15, 2009, 1:57 PM


  





Professor + Toby

Please do not ignore my earlier post where I provided the audio "Intonation Demonstration" .  I will include all information and link here again so you will have no excuse.  Please:

1. read the test discription, 
2. listen to the audio file, and then 
3. explain please, why someone with no chops, playing a completely strange instrument, on a mouthpiece with an overly large chamber that could NEVER play in tune, could play double octaves with that accuracy, if it was not the constriction insert which acoustically corrected the design, as I claim.

Here are the facts again:  

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>

MM


--- On Sat, 8/15/09, ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com> wrote:


From: ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc volume
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Saturday, August 15, 2009, 1:29 PM


  






i enjoyed your reply which was really on the button: one has to be extremely careful about the application of theory and science--not there is anything wrong with it but Humanity is the factor that contradicts evrything (thank god).
my research has demonstrated too often that the examination of what really great players use is a 'set up' that seems to fly in the face of science or theory because that individual is after some musical result that is their own solution to the pieces interpretation.
hence:- too many players ask for a mouthpiece to make them sound like charlie Parker--for instance-- regrettably nobody ever asks for a mouthpiece that will enable them to THINK like charlie Parker
prof weinberg

--- On Sat, 15/8/09, kymarto123@ybb. . ne.jp <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp> wrote:


From: kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc volume
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Saturday, 15 August, 2009, 1:26 PM


  

Thanks for that bit of information, Professor. The neck
seems a particularly nasty place, where small changes in
diameter can create big effects intonationally. I know
this personally from my experiences with shakuhachi
flutes, where the area that would correspond to the neck
needs to be adjusted to a tolerance of about 1/100" for
consistent results.

I know that Lance (you must be reading this) thinks that
my aim is solely to break his balls, but actually I am
more interested in getting correct information out into a
realm where misconception rules. I find that I am as
guilty as the next guy sometimes, when I get out of my
depth and end up posting false stuff. I had a long debate
with jbt not long ago on SOTW, and after pages of thread I
finally wrote to Dr. Wolfe and discovered that we were
both wrong--or at best both only partially right. 

It is actually a bit ludicrous that a bunch of amateurs
are arguing points on which even the experts sometimes
fail to agree, and which require quite a bit more
background, understanding (and math) than any of us
possess. I have invited Dr. Wolfe to participate in these
discussions, but he has (wisely I think) declined. 

I believe that with our level of understanding, we can
only end up speculating, and we are probably all wrong
quite a bit of the time, at least as regards the finer
points of what we are discussing. 

I do not act as Lance's foil for my own pleasure, but
because I believe that while he may truly be achieving
good results, he is attributing them inaccurately: quoting
science that neither he (nor I) fully understand as a
cause for results, while the true acoustic situation is
much more complex.

Lance, personally I would be much more comfortable, and
probably a lot less in your face, if you simply shared the
results of your experiments without resorting to "science
babble", and I include myself as a purveyor of science
babble. I suspect that you are a consumate technician with
a lot of playing skills as well. With those gifts you can
most probably contribute to the state of the art, but I
suspect that the scientific basis on which you claim your
results is only partially correct at best. 

I am in the same position in terms of formal knowledge,
and we always end up playing "he said, she said". Isn't it
time that we stop pretending that we are experts and try
to help each other and all the other members here by
sharing results and ideas without resorting to a
pseudo-scientific pissing contest?

I am certainly willing if you are.

Toby

--- ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com> wrote:

> an interesting adjacent piece of information: - some
> time ago Keilwerth had an intonation problem with
> their altos; the notes C, B and A in the middle were
> blowing extremely flat while the D was sharp;
> equally the higher B was sharp. I was asked to find
> out why because Keilwerth could not ascertain where
> the manufacturing fault would be. i discovered,
> initially, that the crook angle had increased--this
> meant that the mouthpiece end was higher than
> normal. Developing on from this was the fact that at
> the bendin the crook �the& #65533;bore had
enlarged'
> Theoretically this was impossible -as the crooks
> were made on a C&C former. however after much
> discussion and investigation Keilwerth discovered
> that the incorrect figures had been dialled into the
> machine.
> prof weinberg
> 
> --- On Sat, 15/8/09, kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp
> <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp> wrote:
> 
> 
> From: kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc
> volume
> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> Date: Saturday, 15 August, 2009, 9:47 AM
> 
> 
> � 
> 
> 
> 
> Too bad that Nederveen has never answered my mails
> or we
> might be able to ask him directly. I'm certainly not
> bothering Dr. Wolfe for this, but I think that if
> Nederveen had not been talking about saxes in
> general he
> would have referred to the specific case(s), as
> scientists
> are supposed to do.
> 
> Actually I don't know what perturbations in the neck
> and
> the upper part of the body Nederveen is talking
> about, but
> I am guessing he is talking about the cone angle in
> the
> bends. I am thinking now that perhaps the bends are
> more
> significant than I had thought before, because I
> cannot
> see what other perturbations (apart from the
> cylindrical
> tenon) he could be taking about. Or perhaps it is
> the
> widening of the cone angle just at the end of the
> neck.
> Another possibility is that the act of bending the
> neck
> changes the cone angle. 
> 
> From the equation the amount of virtual widening in
> the
> bends certainly seemed insignificant, but things are
> very
> tricky near the top of the horn, so perhaps I was
> wrong. 
> 
> In any case it is an intriguing statement and begs
> further
> clarification.
> 
> BTW what do you think of his statement that the
> chamber
> should end at the beginning of the neck? Did you
> answer
> that and I missed it?
> 
> Toby
> 
> --- MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> > Toby wrote, 
> > "Maybe, maybe not. My take is that he was talking
> > about saxes in general. "
> > 
> > OK.  Whoever has the book can read it for
> themselves
> > and decide.  For those who don't and are
> interested,
> > the statement was made as Nederveen was describing
> > the methods and issues that he had in making the
> > scientific analysis of those specific instruments,
> > and none other.  He is a scientist and
> conducted
> his
> > method of analysis as scientists do.  In
> order to
> > give their results credibility, they must
> absolutely
> > limit the scope of their tesing and discussion of
> > all testing procedures and results, to the
> specific
> > test subjects.  You will notice he stated,
> > 
> > "The application of this simple rule of thumb is
> > obscured by the influences of diameter
> perturbations
> > in the crooks and upper parts of the instruments.
> ."
> > 
> > He did not say, "all saxophones", or "saxophones
> in
> > general".  "the instruments" , refers to the
> 6
> > saxophones that he tested and nothing else. &
> #160; 
> > 
> > I think you allow yourself a little too much
> > lattitude in your "take" in this case.  I
> can't
> > accept that interpretation of what Nederveen
> says. 
> > I could accept your statement though, if you
> > qualified differently, like, "In my opionion, all
> > saxes are that way.", and you left Nederveen out
> of
> > it.
> > 
> > Toby wrote, "It is next to impossible to maintain
> a
> > constant cone angle when you
> > bend the neck, and the bend itself changes the
> cone
> > angle even if you
> > keep the angle constant across the bend."
> > 
> > I remind you that just a couple of days ago, when
> > discussing the possible effects of the sharper
> neck
> > bend of the MK6 and the 10M, that you stated, more
> > than a few times, that the torroidal bends in
> > saxophone necks, including these, were of such a
> > wide radius, as to render any actual effects
> totally
> > insignificant.   But today, they are
> significant.   So
> > which is it?
> > 
> > I think I got you today.  Better luck
> tomorrow
> Toby..
> > 
> > MM
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- On Fri, 8/14/09, kymarto123@ybb. . ne.jp
> > <kymarto123@ ybb. ne.jp> wrote:
> > 
> > From: kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp <kymarto123@ ybb.
> ne.jp>
> > Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on
> mpc
> > volume
> > To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> > Date: Friday, August 14, 2009, 7:42 AM
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Maybe, maybe not. My take is that
> > he was talking about saxes in general. Obviously
> > some are worse than others. It is next to
> impossible
> > to maintain a constant cone angle when you bend
> the
> > neck, and the bend itself changes the cone angle
> > even if you keep the angle constant across the
> bend.
> > Then
> > there is that silly cylindrical section at the
> > tenon...
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Toby
> > 
> > 
> 
=== 以下のメッセージは省略されました ===

I agree that it is very interesting and a worthy topic for further research and discussion.  

That's from Benade - FMA, in the discription of brass mouthpieces.  He does not go that deeply into it, but there is a little more than I included here.  His course notes from the Stanford class on the development of wind instruments, deals with this some as relates to reed driven conical wind instruments.

Further reading on Brass mouthpieces and lead pipes may provide some more info applicable to saxes.  Basson and oboe reed making for sure.



--- On Sat, 8/15/09, jbtsax <jtalcott47@...> wrote:

From: jbtsax <jtalcott47@...>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Nederveen quote on mpc volume
To: MouthpieceWork@...m
Date: Saturday, August 15, 2009, 4:07 PM






 




    
                  Lance,

You stated in your post:

 "a constriction between the chamber and the body tubeserves to amplify the higher mode resonances.  It increases thepressure modulation to flow ratio, increasing the impedance of thehigher resonance modes."

May I ask what your source for this information is?  I am not challenging your statement in any way, I would simply like to find out more about this specific area of mouthpiece acoustics.  Thanks.

John





--- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ ...> wrote:
>
> Yes,  That's too bad that he is not accessible.  
> 
> He doesn't mention a constriction when he describes the simple mathematical truncated cone model, or anywhere in his book.  I don't know why.  
> 
> Benade had experience with brass wind instruments, and described the similarity in woodwinds.  There it is, plain as day, in the class notes, in large print with large illustration when introducing the conical reed instrument:
> 
> "Cavity + Constriction is the surrogate for the missing cone - as seen by the main cone."
> 
> With a cavity or chamber who's inner diameter is larger than that of the truncated body tube opening, there will always be a constriction, as  with Sax's original mouthpiece design,   While the actual design of the constricton plays a roll, a constriction between the chamber and the body tube serves to amplify the higher mode resonances.  It increases the pressure modulation to flow ratio, increasing the imedance of the higher resonance modes.
> 
> 
> 
> --- On Sat, 8/15/09, kymarto123@. .. kymarto123@. .. wrote:
> 
> From: kymarto123@. .. kymarto123@. ..
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc volume
> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> Date: Saturday, August 15, 2009, 8:47 AM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
>     
>                   Too bad that Nederveen has never answered my mails or we
> 
> might be able to ask him directly. I'm certainly not
> 
> bothering Dr. Wolfe for this, but I think that if
> 
> Nederveen had not been talking about saxes in general he
> 
> would have referred to the specific case(s), as scientists
> 
> are supposed to do.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I don't know what perturbations in the neck and
> 
> the upper part of the body Nederveen is talking about, but
> 
> I am guessing he is talking about the cone angle in the
> 
> bends. I am thinking now that perhaps the bends are more
> 
> significant than I had thought before, because I cannot
> 
> see what other perturbations (apart from the cylindrical
> 
> tenon) he could be taking about. Or perhaps it is the
> 
> widening of the cone angle just at the end of the neck.
> 
> Another possibility is that the act of bending the neck
> 
> changes the cone angle. 
> 
> 
> 
> From the equation the amount of virtual widening in the
> 
> bends certainly seemed insignificant, but things are very
> 
> tricky near the top of the horn, so perhaps I was wrong. 
> 
> 
> 
> In any case it is an intriguing statement and begs further
> 
> clarification.
> 
> 
> 
> BTW what do you think of his statement that the chamber
> 
> should end at the beginning of the neck? Did you answer
> 
> that and I missed it?
> 
> 
> 
> Toby
> 
> 
> 
> --- MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> > Toby wrote, 
> 
> > "Maybe, maybe not. My take is that he was talking
> 
> > about saxes in general. "
> 
> > 
> 
> > OK.  Whoever has the book can read it for
> 
> themselves
> 
> > and decide.  For those who don't and are
> 
> interested,
> 
> > the statement was made as Nederveen was describing
> 
> > the methods and issues that he had in making the
> 
> > scientific analysis of those specific instruments,
> 
> > and none other.  He is a scientist and conducted
> 
> his
> 
> > method of analysis as scientists do.  In order to
> 
> > give their results credibility, they must absolutely
> 
> > limit the scope of their tesing and discussion of
> 
> > all testing procedures and results, to the specific
> 
> > test subjects.  You will notice he stated,
> 
> > 
> 
> > "The application of this simple rule of thumb is
> 
> > obscured by the influences of diameter perturbations
> 
> > in the crooks and upper parts of the instruments. ."
> 
> > 
> 
> > He did not say, "all saxophones", or "saxophones in
> 
> > general".  "the instruments" , refers to the 6
> 
> > saxophones that he tested and nothing else. & #160; 
> 
> > 
> 
> > I think you allow yourself a little too much
> 
> > lattitude in your "take" in this case.  I can't
> 
> > accept that interpretation of what Nederveen says. 
> 
> > I could accept your statement though, if you
> 
> > qualified differently, like, "In my opionion, all
> 
> > saxes are that way.", and you left Nederveen out of
> 
> > it.
> 
> > 
> 
> > Toby wrote, "It is next to impossible to maintain a
> 
> > constant cone angle when you
> 
> > bend the neck, and the bend itself changes the cone
> 
> > angle even if you
> 
> > keep the angle constant across the bend."
> 
> > 
> 
> > I remind you that just a couple of days ago, when
> 
> > discussing the possible effects of the sharper neck
> 
> > bend of the MK6 and the 10M, that you stated, more
> 
> > than a few times, that the torroidal bends in
> 
> > saxophone necks, including these, were of such a
> 
> > wide radius, as to render any actual effects totally
> 
> > insignificant.   But today, they are
> 
> significant.   So
> 
> > which is it?
> 
> > 
> 
> > I think I got you today.  Better luck tomorrow
> 
> Toby.
> 
> > 
> 
> > MM
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > --- On Fri, 8/14/09, kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp
> 
> > kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp> wrote:
> 
> > 
> 
> > From: kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
> 
> > Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc
> 
> > volume
> 
> > To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> 
> > Date: Friday, August 14, 2009, 7:42 AM
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> >  
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> >     
> 
> >                   Maybe, maybe not. My take is that
> 
> > he was talking about saxes in general. Obviously
> 
> > some are worse than others. It is next to impossible
> 
> > to maintain a constant cone angle when you bend the
> 
> > neck, and the bend itself changes the cone angle
> 
> > even if you keep the angle constant across the bend.
> 
> > Then
> 
> >  there is that silly cylindrical section at the
> 
> > tenon...
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > Toby
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:        
> 
> 
> 
> >                        Toby,
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > And then, I think you may be taking Nederveen's
> 
> > comment a little out of context. He did not make
> 
> > this comment as regards ALL saxophones in general. 
> 
> > He made this observation in the summary of his
> 
> > analysis of the following specific saxophones:
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > a Schenkelaars tenor
> 
> > 
> 
> > a Rasco tenor
> 
> > 
> 
> > a Schenkelaars alto
> 
> > 
> 
> > a Schenkelaars soprano
> 
> > 
> 
> > a Solotone soprano
> 
> > 
> 
> > a Selmer soprano
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > Only the Selmer is known to me.  I know that the
> 
> MK6
> 
> > and some other brands of straight sopranos had a
> 
> > sudden constriction in the upper body about 4" from
> 
> > the mouthpiece end, termed, "necking-in" .  This
> 
> > parallels the narrower taper sometimes added to the
> 
> > upper body of oboes, intended
> 
> >  to improve intonation between registers.&# 160; 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > I don't know anything about the others.  I have
> 
> seen
> 
> > often in "off" brands, excessive bore diameter
> 
> > mis-matches at  the neck tube/tenon and tenon/body
> 
> > tube junctions, in excess of 2mm either way and
> 
> > sometimes both.
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > I don't think he is talking about tone hole
> 
> > perturbations.
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > MM
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > --- On Fri, 8/14/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@
> 
> > yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
> 
> > 
> 
> > Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc
> 
> > volume
> 
> > 
> 
> > To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> 
> > 
> 
> > Date: Friday, August 14, 2009, 4:18 AM
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> >                                I dunno Toby. I come
> 
> > to quite a different conclusion from that
> 
> > paragraph.&# 160; Take a look at any saxophone neck with
> 
> > the mouthpiece on it.  The ONLY bore diameter
> 
> > perturbations of any significance occur at the
> 
> > mouthpiece throat/neck opening,
> 
> >  and the neck tube/tenon sleeve/body tube
> 
> > junctions.&# 160; 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > It seems to me that Nederveen is saying that Sax and
> 
> > saxophone manufacturers SHOULD HAVE come up with a
> 
> > more acoustically optimal means of attaching things
> 
> > to each other, instead of opting for that of
> 
> > convenience.
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > --- On Fri, 8/14/09, kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp
> 
> > <kymarto123@ ybb. ne.jp> wrote:
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > From: kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp <kymarto123@ ybb. ne.jp>
> 
> > 
> 
> > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc
> 
> > volume
> 
> > 
> 
> > To:  MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> 
> > 
> 
> === 以下�メッセージ��略�れ��� ===
>


 

      

    
    
	
	 
	
	








	


	
	


      

Professor,

Let's examine my logic then.  Humor me please.

I realize I'm asking you to accept #1. without evidence.  I do so as this is a forum for guys working on mouthpieces.  Shop talk is more appropriate than strict scientific discourse in most cases.  Anyone here who has ever bored out an Otto Link chamber knows that # 1 is correct, and that is for sure quite a few members.  If you have never done this or experienced playing a mouthpiece with an excessively large chamber, you can take their word for it.  If you don't actually play the saxophone at all, then............just read.

1. Mouthpiece with excessively large chamber plays characteristically (upper register very sharp to lower register.) out of tune.

2. Insert cylindrical tube into throat in front of neck.  Same player, same reed, same horn, same hour.

3. Recording made (see #2) which demonstrates none of the characteristic intonation problems exhibited in #1.

Conclusion:  Since the only changing variable was the addition of the constricting/volume displacing cylinder, I deduce that it is this new variable which improved the mouthpieces performance. 

I would gladly entertain any other logical explanation as a possibility, but frankly, I don't see one.



--- On Sat, 8/15/09, ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@...> wrote:

From: ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc volume
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, August 15, 2009, 6:28 PM






 




    
                  i fear the words 'only possible explanation for it is' because it is too restrictive and self assuming. you may well be correct but your deduction is not.
prof weinberg

--- On Sat, 15/8/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:


From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc volume
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Saturday, 15 August, 2009, 4:04 PM


  





Professor + Toby, 

As this was a technical demonstration of acoustic design, perhaps one need evaluate it for what it is in it's simplicity, outside the musical context - without attempting to relate it to music and psychology. 

In plane shop talk:  Anyone who has ever reamed out an Otto Link chamber knows from an unforgettable personal experience, that it can not be played in tune.  The degree of even intonation, stability, and accuracy, of this little demo, would be impossible by even the most experience player.  The only explanation for it is, the insert corrected the design.  

This is a group where we attempt to share information.  There is mine.  If anyone were genuinely interested and curious, then they would attempt to duplicate my findings, or compare directly related similar experiences, as I have done to those of jbtsax, in this case, and others here have reported regarding
 mine.  Then we could have an intelligent discussion of the results based upon common experience which I'm sure everyone would find interesting.

If not, then the most considerate action for all, would be to start a new conversation.  



--- On Sat, 8/15/09, ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com> wrote:


From: ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc volume
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Saturday, August 15, 2009, 2:18 PM


  






please forgive my seeming obtuse answer but it is the only way i can think this through and keep a musical context.
there are words in all languages that are written the same but have different meanings dependent on pronunciation: - the word PROTEST for example. there is 'a protest' and then one can 'PROTEST'  THE ACCENT IS DIFFERENT. subsequently we introduce tonal variations with the voice ie humour, cynicism, threats and whatever and consequently the meanings mount up yet our word remains with its single spelling. Parker did not think as a result of his sound--sound is a function of content so Parkers sound came as a result of what he wanted to say: as did the rest of his ability including all the other attributes such as intonation and finger work. you as an experienced thinking musician knows what you want to say and consequently the appropriate results appear. However this is not to say that the 'set up' would suit for more intense work day by day, it could be that it tests the muscles too much and as a consequence your lip goes. but i think you get my
 point-good old humanity justifies its exhistance because of its adaptability.
are things that simple--i would submit that they are.
prof weinberg

--- On Sat, 15/8/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:


From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc volume
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Saturday, 15 August, 2009, 2:59 PM


  





You must remove the "space" that Yahoo automatically inserts after a "." in my audio link's address.  There are 2 ".."'s.

--- On Sat, 8/15/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:


From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc volume
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Saturday, August 15, 2009, 1:57 PM


  





Professor + Toby

Please do not ignore my earlier post where I provided the audio "Intonation Demonstration" .  I will include all information and link here again so you will have no excuse.  Please:

1. read the test discription, 
2. listen to the audio file, and then 
3. explain please, why someone with no chops, playing a completely strange instrument, on a mouthpiece with an overly large chamber that could NEVER play in tune, could play double octaves with that accuracy, if it was not the constriction insert which acoustically corrected the design, as I claim.

Here are the facts again:  

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>

MM


--- On Sat, 8/15/09, ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com> wrote:


From: ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc volume
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Saturday, August 15, 2009, 1:29 PM


  






i enjoyed your reply which was really on the button: one has to be extremely careful about the application of theory and science--not there is anything wrong with it but Humanity is the factor that contradicts evrything (thank god).
my research has demonstrated too often that the examination of what really great players use is a 'set up' that seems to fly in the face of science or theory because that individual is after some musical result that is their own solution to the pieces interpretation.
hence:- too many players ask for a mouthpiece to make them sound like charlie Parker--for instance-- regrettably nobody ever asks for a mouthpiece that will enable them to THINK like charlie Parker
prof weinberg

--- On Sat, 15/8/09, kymarto123@ybb. . ne.jp <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp> wrote:


From: kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc volume
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Saturday, 15 August, 2009, 1:26 PM


  

Thanks for that bit of information, Professor. The neck
seems a particularly nasty place, where small changes in
diameter can create big effects intonationally. I know
this personally from my experiences with shakuhachi
flutes, where the area that would correspond to the neck
needs to be adjusted to a tolerance of about 1/100" for
consistent results.

I know that Lance (you must be reading this) thinks that
my aim is solely to break his balls, but actually I am
more interested in getting correct information out into a
realm where misconception rules. I find that I am as
guilty as the next guy sometimes, when I get out of my
depth and end up posting false stuff. I had a long debate
with jbt not long ago on SOTW, and after pages of thread I
finally wrote to Dr. Wolfe and discovered that we were
both wrong--or at best both only partially right. 

It is actually a bit ludicrous that a bunch of
 amateurs
are arguing points on which even the experts sometimes
fail to agree, and which require quite a bit more
background, understanding (and math) than any of us
possess. I have invited Dr. Wolfe to participate in these
discussions, but he has (wisely I think) declined. 

I believe that with our level of understanding, we can
only end up speculating, and we are probably all wrong
quite a bit of the time, at least as regards the finer
points of what we are discussing. 

I do not act as Lance's foil for my own pleasure, but
because I believe that while he may truly be achieving
good results, he is attributing them inaccurately: quoting
science that neither he (nor I) fully understand as a
cause for results, while the true acoustic situation is
much more complex.

Lance, personally I would be much more comfortable, and
probably a lot less in your face, if you simply shared the
results of
 your experiments without resorting to "science
babble", and I include myself as a purveyor of science
babble. I suspect that you are a consumate technician with
a lot of playing skills as well. With those gifts you can
most probably contribute to the state of the art, but I
suspect that the scientific basis on which you claim your
results is only partially correct at best. 

I am in the same position in terms of formal knowledge,
and we always end up playing "he said, she said". Isn't it
time that we stop pretending that we are experts and try
to help each other and all the other members here by
sharing results and ideas without resorting to a
pseudo-scientific pissing contest?

I am certainly willing if you are.

Toby

--- ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com>
 wrote:

> an interesting adjacent piece of information: - some
> time ago Keilwerth had an intonation problem with
> their altos; the notes C, B and A in the middle were
> blowing extremely flat while the D was sharp;
> equally the higher B was sharp. I was asked to find
> out why because Keilwerth could not ascertain where
> the manufacturing fault would be. i discovered,
> initially, that the crook angle had increased--this
> meant that the mouthpiece end was higher than
> normal. Developing on from this was the fact that at
> the bendin the crook �the& #65533;bore had
enlarged'
> Theoretically this was impossible -as the crooks
> were made on a C&C former. however after much
> discussion and investigation Keilwerth discovered
> that the incorrect figures had been dialled into the
> machine.
> prof weinberg
> 
>
 --- On Sat, 15/8/09, kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp
> <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp> wrote:
> 
> 
> From: kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc
> volume
> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> Date: Saturday, 15 August, 2009, 9:47 AM
> 
> 
> � 
> 
> 
>
 
> Too bad that Nederveen has never answered my mails
> or we
> might be able to ask him directly. I'm certainly not
> bothering Dr. Wolfe for this, but I think that if
> Nederveen had not been talking about saxes in
> general he
> would have referred to the specific case(s), as
> scientists
> are supposed to do.
> 
> Actually I don't know what perturbations in the neck
> and
> the upper part of the body Nederveen is talking
> about, but
> I am guessing he is talking about the cone angle in
> the
> bends. I am thinking now that perhaps the bends are
> more
> significant than I had thought before, because I
> cannot
> see what other perturbations (apart from the
> cylindrical
> tenon) he could be taking about. Or perhaps it is
> the
> widening of the cone angle just at the end of the
> neck.
>
 Another possibility is that the act of bending the
> neck
> changes the cone angle. 
> 
> From the equation the amount of virtual widening in
> the
> bends certainly seemed insignificant, but things are
> very
> tricky near the top of the horn, so perhaps I was
> wrong. 
> 
> In any case it is an intriguing statement and begs
> further
> clarification.
> 
> BTW what do you think of his statement that the
> chamber
> should end at the beginning of the neck? Did you
> answer
> that and I missed it?
> 
> Toby
> 
> --- MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> > Toby wrote, 
> > "Maybe, maybe not. My take is that he was talking
> > about saxes in general. "
> > 
> > OK.  Whoever has the book can read it for
> themselves
> > and
 decide.  For those who don't and are
> interested,
> > the statement was made as Nederveen was describing
> > the methods and issues that he had in making the
> > scientific analysis of those specific instruments,
> > and none other.  He is a scientist and
> conducted
> his
> > method of analysis as scientists do.  In
> order to
> > give their results credibility, they must
> absolutely
> > limit the scope of their tesing and discussion of
> > all testing procedures and results, to the
> specific
> > test subjects.  You will notice he stated,
> > 
> > "The application of this simple rule of thumb is
> > obscured by the influences of diameter
> perturbations
> > in the crooks and upper parts of the instruments.
> ."
> > 
> > He did not
 say, "all saxophones", or "saxophones
> in
> > general".  "the instruments" , refers to the
> 6
> > saxophones that he tested and nothing else. &
> #160; 
> > 
> > I think you allow yourself a little too much
> > lattitude in your "take" in this case.  I
> can't
> > accept that interpretation of what Nederveen
> says. 
> > I could accept your statement though, if you
> > qualified differently, like, "In my opionion, all
> > saxes are that way.", and you left Nederveen out
> of
> > it.
> > 
> > Toby wrote, "It is next to impossible to maintain
> a
> > constant cone angle when you
> > bend the neck, and the bend itself changes the
> cone
> > angle even if you
> > keep the angle constant across the bend."
> > 
>
 > I remind you that just a couple of days ago, when
> > discussing the possible effects of the sharper
> neck
> > bend of the MK6 and the 10M, that you stated, more
> > than a few times, that the torroidal bends in
> > saxophone necks, including these, were of such a
> > wide radius, as to render any actual effects
> totally
> > insignificant.   But today, they are
> significant.   So
> > which is it?
> > 
> > I think I got you today.  Better luck
> tomorrow
> Toby..
> > 
> > MM
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- On Fri, 8/14/09, kymarto123@ybb. . ne.jp
> > <kymarto123@ ybb. ne.jp> wrote:
> > 
> > From: kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp <kymarto123@ ybb.
> ne.jp>
> > Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork]
 Nederveen quote on
> mpc
> > volume
> > To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> > Date: Friday, August 14, 2009, 7:42 AM
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Maybe, maybe not. My take is that
> > he was talking about saxes in general. Obviously
> > some are worse than others. It is next to
> impossible
> > to maintain a constant cone angle when you bend
> the
> > neck, and the bend itself changes the cone angle
> > even if you keep the angle constant across the
> bend.
> > Then
> > there is that silly cylindrical section at the
> > tenon...
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Toby
> > 
> > 
> 
===
 以下のメッセージは省略されました ===





 

      

    
    
	
	 
	
	








	


	
	


      

i do not disagree, however, do you know of those mouthpieces with chambers similar to what a bored out link would be (some were marketed under the name 'caravan' but i have some from Babbitt. Well- i have experienced a player who could play these as though they were a Dukoff yet i sound as though i am playing in liquid mud. Equally i know one of Americas finest clarinettists-who when i met him--was playing his instrument with a mouthpiece bore at least 3 times larger than required--again the playing was exemplary.
thus is the source of my questioning: i am a very specific type of player and if i step outside of my particular requirements i can sound like a rank beginner.
i am constantly aware of what humans can do to our carefully analysed and studied instruments, it is a source of constant amazement and of course gives us all of those wonderful diversities that we love. i find it difficult to analyse without the human equation added to the theory. so, i submit that you are correct --but i bet there is some sax player somewhere who will blow us and our experiments, both out of the window. And is not that the grand excitement of it all?
prof weinberg

--- On Sat, 15/8/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:


From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc volume
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, 15 August, 2009, 8:17 PM


  







Professor,

Let's examine my logic then..  Humor me please.

I realize I'm asking you to accept #1. without evidence.  I do so as this is a forum for guys working on mouthpieces.  Shop talk is more appropriate than strict scientific discourse in most cases.  Anyone here who has ever bored out an Otto Link chamber knows that # 1 is correct, and that is for sure quite a few members.  If you have never done this or experienced playing a mouthpiece with an excessively large chamber, you can take their word for it.  If you don't actually play the saxophone at all, then........ ....just read.

1. Mouthpiece with excessively large chamber plays characteristically (upper register very sharp to lower register.) out of tune.

2. Insert cylindrical tube into throat in front of neck.  Same player, same reed, same horn, same hour.

3. Recording made (see #2) which demonstrates none of the characteristic intonation problems exhibited in #1.

Conclusion:  Since the only changing variable was the addition of the constricting/ volume displacing cylinder, I deduce that it is this new variable which improved the mouthpieces performance. 

I would gladly entertain any other logical explanation as a possibility, but frankly, I don't see one.



--- On Sat, 8/15/09, ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com> wrote:


From: ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc volume
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. .com
Date: Saturday, August 15, 2009, 6:28 PM


  






i fear the words 'only possible explanation for it is' because it is too restrictive and self assuming. you may well be correct but your deduction is not.
prof weinberg

--- On Sat, 15/8/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:


From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc volume
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Saturday, 15 August, 2009, 4:04 PM


  





Professor + Toby, 

As this was a technical demonstration of acoustic design, perhaps one need evaluate it for what it is in it's simplicity, outside the musical context - without attempting to relate it to music and psychology. 

In plane shop talk:  Anyone who has ever reamed out an Otto Link chamber knows from an unforgettable personal experience, that it can not be played in tune.  The degree of even intonation, stability, and accuracy, of this little demo, would be impossible by even the most experience player.  The only explanation for it is, the insert corrected the design.  

This is a group where we attempt to share information.  There is mine.  If anyone were genuinely interested and curious, then they would attempt to duplicate my findings, or compare directly related similar experiences, as I have done to those of jbtsax, in this case, and others here have reported regarding mine.  Then we could have an intelligent discussion of the results based upon common experience which I'm sure everyone would find interesting.

If not, then the most considerate action for all, would be to start a new conversation.  



--- On Sat, 8/15/09, ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com> wrote:


From: ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc volume
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Saturday, August 15, 2009, 2:18 PM


  






please forgive my seeming obtuse answer but it is the only way i can think this through and keep a musical context.
there are words in all languages that are written the same but have different meanings dependent on pronunciation: - the word PROTEST for example. there is 'a protest' and then one can 'PROTEST'  THE ACCENT IS DIFFERENT. subsequently we introduce tonal variations with the voice ie humour, cynicism, threats and whatever and consequently the meanings mount up yet our word remains with its single spelling. Parker did not think as a result of his sound--sound is a function of content so Parkers sound came as a result of what he wanted to say: as did the rest of his ability including all the other attributes such as intonation and finger work. you as an experienced thinking musician knows what you want to say and consequently the appropriate results appear. However this is not to say that the 'set up' would suit for more intense work day by day, it could be that it tests the muscles too much and as a consequence your lip goes. but i think you get my
 point-good old humanity justifies its exhistance because of its adaptability.
are things that simple--i would submit that they are.
prof weinberg

--- On Sat, 15/8/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:


From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc volume
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Saturday, 15 August, 2009, 2:59 PM


  





You must remove the "space" that Yahoo automatically inserts after a "." in my audio link's address..  There are 2 ".."'s.

--- On Sat, 8/15/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:


From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc volume
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Saturday, August 15, 2009, 1:57 PM


  





Professor + Toby

Please do not ignore my earlier post where I provided the audio "Intonation Demonstration" .  I will include all information and link here again so you will have no excuse.  Please:

1. read the test discription, 
2. listen to the audio file, and then 
3. explain please, why someone with no chops, playing a completely strange instrument, on a mouthpiece with an overly large chamber that could NEVER play in tune, could play double octaves with that accuracy, if it was not the constriction insert which acoustically corrected the design, as I claim.

Here are the facts again:  

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>

MM


--- On Sat, 8/15/09, ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com> wrote:


From: ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc volume
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Saturday, August 15, 2009, 1:29 PM


  






i enjoyed your reply which was really on the button: one has to be extremely careful about the application of theory and science--not there is anything wrong with it but Humanity is the factor that contradicts evrything (thank god).
my research has demonstrated too often that the examination of what really great players use is a 'set up' that seems to fly in the face of science or theory because that individual is after some musical result that is their own solution to the pieces interpretation.
hence:- too many players ask for a mouthpiece to make them sound like charlie Parker--for instance-- regrettably nobody ever asks for a mouthpiece that will enable them to THINK like charlie Parker
prof weinberg

--- On Sat, 15/8/09, kymarto123@ybb. . ne.jp <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp> wrote:


From: kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc volume
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Saturday, 15 August, 2009, 1:26 PM


  

Thanks for that bit of information, Professor. The neck
seems a particularly nasty place, where small changes in
diameter can create big effects intonationally. I know
this personally from my experiences with shakuhachi
flutes, where the area that would correspond to the neck
needs to be adjusted to a tolerance of about 1/100" for
consistent results.

I know that Lance (you must be reading this) thinks that
my aim is solely to break his balls, but actually I am
more interested in getting correct information out into a
realm where misconception rules. I find that I am as
guilty as the next guy sometimes, when I get out of my
depth and end up posting false stuff. I had a long debate
with jbt not long ago on SOTW, and after pages of thread I
finally wrote to Dr. Wolfe and discovered that we were
both wrong--or at best both only partially right. 

It is actually a bit ludicrous that a bunch of amateurs
are arguing points on which even the experts sometimes
fail to agree, and which require quite a bit more
background, understanding (and math) than any of us
possess. I have invited Dr. Wolfe to participate in these
discussions, but he has (wisely I think) declined. 

I believe that with our level of understanding, we can
only end up speculating, and we are probably all wrong
quite a bit of the time, at least as regards the finer
points of what we are discussing. 

I do not act as Lance's foil for my own pleasure, but
because I believe that while he may truly be achieving
good results, he is attributing them inaccurately: quoting
science that neither he (nor I) fully understand as a
cause for results, while the true acoustic situation is
much more complex.

Lance, personally I would be much more comfortable, and
probably a lot less in your face, if you simply shared the
results of your experiments without resorting to "science
babble", and I include myself as a purveyor of science
babble. I suspect that you are a consumate technician with
a lot of playing skills as well. With those gifts you can
most probably contribute to the state of the art, but I
suspect that the scientific basis on which you claim your
results is only partially correct at best. 

I am in the same position in terms of formal knowledge,
and we always end up playing "he said, she said". Isn't it
time that we stop pretending that we are experts and try
to help each other and all the other members here by
sharing results and ideas without resorting to a
pseudo-scientific pissing contest?

I am certainly willing if you are.

Toby

--- ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com> wrote:

> an interesting adjacent piece of information: - some
> time ago Keilwerth had an intonation problem with
> their altos; the notes C, B and A in the middle were
> blowing extremely flat while the D was sharp;
> equally the higher B was sharp. I was asked to find
> out why because Keilwerth could not ascertain where
> the manufacturing fault would be. i discovered,
> initially, that the crook angle had increased--this
> meant that the mouthpiece end was higher than
> normal. Developing on from this was the fact that at
> the bendin the crook �the& #65533;bore had
enlarged'
> Theoretically this was impossible -as the crooks
> were made on a C&C former. however after much
> discussion and investigation Keilwerth discovered
> that the incorrect figures had been dialled into the
> machine.
> prof weinberg
> 
> --- On Sat, 15/8/09, kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp
> <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp> wrote:
> 
> 
> From: kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc
> volume
> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> Date: Saturday, 15 August, 2009, 9:47 AM
> 
> 
> � 
> 
> 
> 
> Too bad that Nederveen has never answered my mails
> or we
> might be able to ask him directly. I'm certainly not
> bothering Dr. Wolfe for this, but I think that if
> Nederveen had not been talking about saxes in
> general he
> would have referred to the specific case(s), as
> scientists
> are supposed to do.
> 
> Actually I don't know what perturbations in the neck
> and
> the upper part of the body Nederveen is talking
> about, but
> I am guessing he is talking about the cone angle in
> the
> bends. I am thinking now that perhaps the bends are
> more
> significant than I had thought before, because I
> cannot
> see what other perturbations (apart from the
> cylindrical
> tenon) he could be taking about. Or perhaps it is
> the
> widening of the cone angle just at the end of the
> neck.
> Another possibility is that the act of bending the
> neck
> changes the cone angle. 
> 
> From the equation the amount of virtual widening in
> the
> bends certainly seemed insignificant, but things are
> very
> tricky near the top of the horn, so perhaps I was
> wrong. 
> 
> In any case it is an intriguing statement and begs
> further
> clarification.
> 
> BTW what do you think of his statement that the
> chamber
> should end at the beginning of the neck? Did you
> answer
> that and I missed it?
> 
> Toby
> 
> --- MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> > Toby wrote, 
> > "Maybe, maybe not. My take is that he was talking
> > about saxes in general. "
> > 
> > OK.  Whoever has the book can read it for
> themselves
> > and decide.  For those who don't and are
> interested,
> > the statement was made as Nederveen was describing
> > the methods and issues that he had in making the
> > scientific analysis of those specific instruments,
> > and none other.  He is a scientist and
> conducted
> his
> > method of analysis as scientists do.  In
> order to
> > give their results credibility, they must
> absolutely
> > limit the scope of their tesing and discussion of
> > all testing procedures and results, to the
> specific
> > test subjects.  You will notice he stated,
> > 
> > "The application of this simple rule of thumb is
> > obscured by the influences of diameter
> perturbations
> > in the crooks and upper parts of the instruments.
> ."
> > 
> > He did not say, "all saxophones", or "saxophones
> in
> > general".  "the instruments" , refers to the
> 6
> > saxophones that he tested and nothing else. &
> #160; 
> > 
> > I think you allow yourself a little too much
> > lattitude in your "take" in this case.  I
> can't
> > accept that interpretation of what Nederveen
> says. 
> > I could accept your statement though, if you
> > qualified differently, like, "In my opionion, all
> > saxes are that way.", and you left Nederveen out
> of
> > it.
> > 
> > Toby wrote, "It is next to impossible to maintain
> a
> > constant cone angle when you
> > bend the neck, and the bend itself changes the
> cone
> > angle even if you
> > keep the angle constant across the bend."
> > 
> > I remind you that just a couple of days ago, when
> > discussing the possible effects of the sharper
> neck
> > bend of the MK6 and the 10M, that you stated, more
> > than a few times, that the torroidal bends in
> > saxophone necks, including these, were of such a
> > wide radius, as to render any actual effects
> totally
> > insignificant.   But today, they are
> significant.   So
> > which is it?
> > 
> > I think I got you today.  Better luck
> tomorrow
> Toby...
> > 
> > MM
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- On Fri, 8/14/09, kymarto123@ybb. . ne.jp
> > <kymarto123@ ybb. ne.jp> wrote:
> > 
> > From: kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp <kymarto123@ ybb.
> ne.jp>
> > Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on
> mpc
> > volume
> > To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> > Date: Friday, August 14, 2009, 7:42 AM
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Maybe, maybe not. My take is that
> > he was talking about saxes in general. Obviously
> > some are worse than others. It is next to
> impossible
> > to maintain a constant cone angle when you bend
> the
> > neck, and the bend itself changes the cone angle
> > even if you keep the angle constant across the
> bend.
> > Then
> > there is that silly cylindrical section at the
> > tenon...
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Toby
> > 
> > 
> 
=== 以下のメッセージは省略されました ===

Professor,

I'm certain there will be more experiments, and with those results we will be able to make a reasonably valid conclusion regarding the "human equation", as you put it. 

MM

--- On Sat, 8/15/09, ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@...> wrote:

From: ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@btopenworld.com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc volume
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, August 15, 2009, 8:43 PM






 




    
                  i do not disagree, however, do you know of those mouthpieces with chambers similar to what a bored out link would be (some were marketed under the name 'caravan' but i have some from Babbitt. Well- i have experienced a player who could play these as though they were a Dukoff yet i sound as though i am playing in liquid mud. Equally i know one of Americas finest clarinettists- who when i met him--was playing his instrument with a mouthpiece bore at least 3 times larger than required--again the playing was exemplary.
thus is the source of my questioning: i am a very specific type of player and if i step outside of my particular requirements i can sound like a rank beginner.
i am constantly aware of what humans can do to our carefully analysed and studied instruments, it is a source of constant amazement and of course gives us all of those wonderful diversities that we love. i find it difficult to analyse without the human equation added to the theory. so, i submit that you are correct --but i bet there is some sax player somewhere who will blow us and our experiments, both out of the window. And is not that the grand excitement of it all?
prof weinberg

--- On Sat, 15/8/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:


From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc volume
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Saturday, 15 August, 2009, 8:17 PM


  





Professor,

Let's examine my logic then..  Humor me please.

I realize I'm asking you to accept #1. without evidence.  I do so as this is a forum for guys working on mouthpieces.  Shop talk is more appropriate than strict scientific discourse in most cases.  Anyone here who has ever bored out an Otto Link chamber knows that # 1 is correct, and that is for sure quite a few members.  If you have never done this or experienced playing a mouthpiece with an excessively large chamber, you can take their word for it.  If you don't actually play the saxophone at all, then........ ....just read.

1. Mouthpiece with excessively large chamber plays characteristically (upper register very sharp to lower register.) out of tune.

2. Insert cylindrical tube into throat in front of neck.  Same player, same reed, same horn, same hour.

3. Recording made (see #2) which demonstrates none of the
 characteristic intonation problems exhibited in #1.

Conclusion:  Since the only changing variable was the addition of the constricting/ volume displacing cylinder, I deduce that it is this new variable which improved the mouthpieces performance. 

I would gladly entertain any other logical explanation as a possibility, but frankly, I don't see one.



--- On Sat, 8/15/09, ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com> wrote:


From: ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc volume
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. .com
Date: Saturday, August 15, 2009, 6:28 PM


  






i fear the words 'only possible explanation for it is' because it is too restrictive and self assuming. you may well be correct but your deduction is not.
prof weinberg

--- On Sat, 15/8/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:


From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc volume
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Saturday, 15 August, 2009, 4:04 PM


  





Professor + Toby, 

As this was a technical demonstration of acoustic design, perhaps one need evaluate it for what it is in it's simplicity, outside the musical context - without attempting to relate it to music and psychology. 

In plane shop talk:  Anyone who has ever reamed out an Otto Link chamber knows from an unforgettable personal experience, that it can not be played in tune.  The degree of even intonation, stability, and accuracy, of this little demo, would be impossible by even the most experience player.  The only explanation for it is, the insert corrected the design.  

This is a group where we attempt to share information.  There is mine.  If anyone were genuinely interested and curious, then they would attempt to duplicate my findings, or compare directly related similar experiences, as I have done to those of jbtsax, in this case, and others here have reported regarding
 mine.  Then we could have an intelligent discussion of the results based upon common experience which I'm sure everyone would find interesting.

If not, then the most considerate action for all, would be to start a new conversation.  



--- On Sat, 8/15/09, ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com> wrote:


From: ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc volume
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Saturday, August 15, 2009, 2:18 PM


  






please forgive my seeming obtuse answer but it is the only way i can think this through and keep a musical context.
there are words in all languages that are written the same but have different meanings dependent on pronunciation: - the word PROTEST for example. there is 'a protest' and then one can 'PROTEST'  THE ACCENT IS DIFFERENT. subsequently we introduce tonal variations with the voice ie humour, cynicism, threats and whatever and consequently the meanings mount up yet our word remains with its single spelling. Parker did not think as a result of his sound--sound is a function of content so Parkers sound came as a result of what he wanted to say: as did the rest of his ability including all the other attributes such as intonation and finger work. you as an experienced thinking musician knows what you want to say and consequently the appropriate results appear. However this is not to say that the 'set up' would suit for more intense work day by day, it could be that it tests the muscles too much and as a consequence your lip goes. but i think you get my
 point-good old humanity justifies its exhistance because of its adaptability.
are things that simple--i would submit that they are.
prof weinberg

--- On Sat, 15/8/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:


From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc volume
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Saturday, 15 August, 2009, 2:59 PM


  





You must remove the "space" that Yahoo automatically inserts after a "." in my audio link's address..  There are 2 "..."'s.

--- On Sat, 8/15/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:


From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc volume
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Saturday, August 15, 2009, 1:57 PM


  





Professor + Toby

Please do not ignore my earlier post where I provided the audio "Intonation Demonstration" .  I will include all information and link here again so you will have no excuse.  Please:

1. read the test discription, 
2. listen to the audio file, and then 
3. explain please, why someone with no chops, playing a completely strange instrument, on a mouthpiece with an overly large chamber that could NEVER play in tune, could play double octaves with that accuracy, if it was not the constriction insert which acoustically corrected the design, as I claim.

Here are the facts again:  

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>

MM


--- On Sat, 8/15/09, ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com> wrote:


From: ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc volume
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Saturday, August 15, 2009, 1:29 PM


  






i enjoyed your reply which was really on the button: one has to be extremely careful about the application of theory and science--not there is anything wrong with it but Humanity is the factor that contradicts evrything (thank god).
my research has demonstrated too often that the examination of what really great players use is a 'set up' that seems to fly in the face of science or theory because that individual is after some musical result that is their own solution to the pieces interpretation.
hence:- too many players ask for a mouthpiece to make them sound like charlie Parker--for instance-- regrettably nobody ever asks for a mouthpiece that will enable them to THINK like charlie Parker
prof weinberg

--- On Sat, 15/8/09, kymarto123@ybb. . ne.jp <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp> wrote:


From: kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc volume
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Saturday, 15 August, 2009, 1:26 PM


  

Thanks for that bit of information, Professor. The neck
seems a particularly nasty place, where small changes in
diameter can create big effects intonationally. I know
this personally from my experiences with shakuhachi
flutes, where the area that would correspond to the neck
needs to be adjusted to a tolerance of about 1/100" for
consistent results.

I know that Lance (you must be reading this) thinks that
my aim is solely to break his balls, but actually I am
more interested in getting correct information out into a
realm where misconception rules. I find that I am as
guilty as the next guy sometimes, when I get out of my
depth and end up posting false stuff. I had a long debate
with jbt not long ago on SOTW, and after pages of thread I
finally wrote to Dr. Wolfe and discovered that we were
both wrong--or at best both only partially right. 

It is actually a bit ludicrous that a bunch of
 amateurs
are arguing points on which even the experts sometimes
fail to agree, and which require quite a bit more
background, understanding (and math) than any of us
possess. I have invited Dr. Wolfe to participate in these
discussions, but he has (wisely I think) declined. 

I believe that with our level of understanding, we can
only end up speculating, and we are probably all wrong
quite a bit of the time, at least as regards the finer
points of what we are discussing. 

I do not act as Lance's foil for my own pleasure, but
because I believe that while he may truly be achieving
good results, he is attributing them inaccurately: quoting
science that neither he (nor I) fully understand as a
cause for results, while the true acoustic situation is
much more complex.

Lance, personally I would be much more comfortable, and
probably a lot less in your face, if you simply shared the
results of
 your experiments without resorting to "science
babble", and I include myself as a purveyor of science
babble. I suspect that you are a consumate technician with
a lot of playing skills as well. With those gifts you can
most probably contribute to the state of the art, but I
suspect that the scientific basis on which you claim your
results is only partially correct at best. 

I am in the same position in terms of formal knowledge,
and we always end up playing "he said, she said". Isn't it
time that we stop pretending that we are experts and try
to help each other and all the other members here by
sharing results and ideas without resorting to a
pseudo-scientific pissing contest?

I am certainly willing if you are.

Toby

--- ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com>
 wrote:

> an interesting adjacent piece of information: - some
> time ago Keilwerth had an intonation problem with
> their altos; the notes C, B and A in the middle were
> blowing extremely flat while the D was sharp;
> equally the higher B was sharp. I was asked to find
> out why because Keilwerth could not ascertain where
> the manufacturing fault would be. i discovered,
> initially, that the crook angle had increased--this
> meant that the mouthpiece end was higher than
> normal. Developing on from this was the fact that at
> the bendin the crook �the& #65533;bore had
enlarged'
> Theoretically this was impossible -as the crooks
> were made on a C&C former. however after much
> discussion and investigation Keilwerth discovered
> that the incorrect figures had been dialled into the
> machine.
> prof weinberg
> 
>
 --- On Sat, 15/8/09, kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp
> <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp> wrote:
> 
> 
> From: kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc
> volume
> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> Date: Saturday, 15 August, 2009, 9:47 AM
> 
> 
> � 
> 
> 
>
 
> Too bad that Nederveen has never answered my mails
> or we
> might be able to ask him directly. I'm certainly not
> bothering Dr. Wolfe for this, but I think that if
> Nederveen had not been talking about saxes in
> general he
> would have referred to the specific case(s), as
> scientists
> are supposed to do.
> 
> Actually I don't know what perturbations in the neck
> and
> the upper part of the body Nederveen is talking
> about, but
> I am guessing he is talking about the cone angle in
> the
> bends. I am thinking now that perhaps the bends are
> more
> significant than I had thought before, because I
> cannot
> see what other perturbations (apart from the
> cylindrical
> tenon) he could be taking about. Or perhaps it is
> the
> widening of the cone angle just at the end of the
> neck.
>
 Another possibility is that the act of bending the
> neck
> changes the cone angle. 
> 
> From the equation the amount of virtual widening in
> the
> bends certainly seemed insignificant, but things are
> very
> tricky near the top of the horn, so perhaps I was
> wrong. 
> 
> In any case it is an intriguing statement and begs
> further
> clarification.
> 
> BTW what do you think of his statement that the
> chamber
> should end at the beginning of the neck? Did you
> answer
> that and I missed it?
> 
> Toby
> 
> --- MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> > Toby wrote, 
> > "Maybe, maybe not. My take is that he was talking
> > about saxes in general. "
> > 
> > OK.  Whoever has the book can read it for
> themselves
> > and
 decide.  For those who don't and are
> interested,
> > the statement was made as Nederveen was describing
> > the methods and issues that he had in making the
> > scientific analysis of those specific instruments,
> > and none other.  He is a scientist and
> conducted
> his
> > method of analysis as scientists do.  In
> order to
> > give their results credibility, they must
> absolutely
> > limit the scope of their tesing and discussion of
> > all testing procedures and results, to the
> specific
> > test subjects.  You will notice he stated,
> > 
> > "The application of this simple rule of thumb is
> > obscured by the influences of diameter
> perturbations
> > in the crooks and upper parts of the instruments.
> ."
> > 
> > He did not
 say, "all saxophones", or "saxophones
> in
> > general".  "the instruments" , refers to the
> 6
> > saxophones that he tested and nothing else. &
> #160; 
> > 
> > I think you allow yourself a little too much
> > lattitude in your "take" in this case.  I
> can't
> > accept that interpretation of what Nederveen
> says. 
> > I could accept your statement though, if you
> > qualified differently, like, "In my opionion, all
> > saxes are that way.", and you left Nederveen out
> of
> > it.
> > 
> > Toby wrote, "It is next to impossible to maintain
> a
> > constant cone angle when you
> > bend the neck, and the bend itself changes the
> cone
> > angle even if you
> > keep the angle constant across the bend."
> > 
>
 > I remind you that just a couple of days ago, when
> > discussing the possible effects of the sharper
> neck
> > bend of the MK6 and the 10M, that you stated, more
> > than a few times, that the torroidal bends in
> > saxophone necks, including these, were of such a
> > wide radius, as to render any actual effects
> totally
> > insignificant.   But today, they are
> significant.   So
> > which is it?
> > 
> > I think I got you today.  Better luck
> tomorrow
> Toby...
> > 
> > MM
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- On Fri, 8/14/09, kymarto123@ybb. . ne.jp
> > <kymarto123@ ybb. ne.jp> wrote:
> > 
> > From: kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp <kymarto123@ ybb.
> ne.jp>
> > Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork]
 Nederveen quote on
> mpc
> > volume
> > To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> > Date: Friday, August 14, 2009, 7:42 AM
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Maybe, maybe not. My take is that
> > he was talking about saxes in general. Obviously
> > some are worse than others. It is next to
> impossible
> > to maintain a constant cone angle when you bend
> the
> > neck, and the bend itself changes the cone angle
> > even if you keep the angle constant across the
> bend.
> > Then
> > there is that silly cylindrical section at the
> > tenon...
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Toby
> > 
> > 
> 
===
 以下のメッセージは省略されました ===






 

      

    
    
	
	 
	
	








	


	
	


      

Why would a mouthpiece manufacturer produce a mouthpiece which didn't match the width of currenty marketed reeds - i.e. reed wider than rails.  I have often found mouthpieces that I liked though they were plagued by this problem.  What are the options?



      

an excellent question- which i know players have been asking for some considerable time.
For some years i have had a close relationship with the industry due to the type of role that the company i work with has with manufacturers. Interestingly  i discovered, to my horror, that manufacturers are not really interested in improving or correcting products according to the wishes of the instrumentalists. they look entirely at market results and profitability. i have learned that if the business plan is correct, it does not matter how lacking in vision the directors are, the company still makes profit.
From a practical point of view the mouthpieces that suffer this problem are made from expensive castings--another reason to leave well alone if they continue to sell.
lastly one could thin the reed with 1200 grade but what a chore!
i agree the paradox offends and seems ridiculous and the solution so obvious and yet it is happening continuously.
one of the 'historic' reasons could be that nobody in these companies actually really plays anymore--those that do,  simply tootle in order to do a quick test. Once upon a time some of those wonderful craftsmen also played a Beethoven symphony, worked in the Music Hall or played in a Band at an extremely high level of competance. Not anymore, some companies (with the introduction of modern production techniques per workers) have even dismissed the production manager--the one who could do all of the procedures and kept an eye on quality--because they are expensive to employ.
i am interested in others ideas
prof weinberg


--- On Sun, 16/8/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:


From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Reed Wider Than Table
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, 16 August, 2009, 12:32 AM


  







Why would a mouthpiece manufacturer produce a mouthpiece which didn't match the width of currenty marketed reeds - i.e. reed wider than rails.  I have often found mouthpieces that I liked though they were plagued by this problem.  What are the options?

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
>
> Why would a mouthpiece manufacturer produce a mouthpiece which didn't match the width of currenty marketed reeds - i.e. reed wider than rails.  I have often found mouthpieces that I liked though they were plagued by this problem.  What are the options?
>

I have wondered about this myself, I have one idea -- for one, a narrower window seems to create a somewhat more centered (and quieter) sound (regardless of characterization we can agree narrow windows sound different from wider ones, and one sound or the other may be preferable to some).  So why thin rails around a narrow window?  Doesn't the air between the rail and the reed have some dampening effect on the reed?  So maybe thin rails -> less dampening of the reed, coupled with intentionally narrow window leaves us with some reed overhanging the sides.

As for what to do about it, if it is a hard rubber piece or some vintages of STM, sometimes you can just open it up until it gets wide enough.  

I'm sorry, but your lack of direct experience in the musical instrument
industry is very obvious from your post...

 

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of ANTON WEINBERG
Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2009 2:07 AM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Reed Wider Than Table

 

  


an excellent question- which i know players have been asking for some
considerable time.

For some years i have had a close relationship with the industry due to the
type of role that the company i work with has with manufacturers.
Interestingly  i discovered, to my horror, that manufacturers are not really
interested in improving or correcting products according to the wishes of
the instrumentalists. they look entirely at market results and
profitability. i have learned that if the business plan is correct, it does
not matter how lacking in vision the directors are, the company still makes
profit.

From a practical point of view the mouthpieces that suffer this problem are
made from expensive castings--another reason to leave well alone if they
continue to sell.

lastly one could thin the reed with 1200 grade but what a chore!

i agree the paradox offends and seems ridiculous and the solution so obvious
and yet it is happening continuously.

one of the 'historic' reasons could be that nobody in these companies
actually really plays anymore--those that do,  simply tootle in order to do
a quick test. Once upon a time some of those wonderful craftsmen also played
a Beethoven symphony, worked in the Music Hall or played in a Band at an
extremely high level of competance. Not anymore, some companies (with the
introduction of modern production techniques per workers) have even
dismissed the production manager--the one who could do all of the procedures
and kept an eye on quality--because they are expensive to employ.

i am interested in others ideas

prof weinberg



--- On Sun, 16/8/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:


From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Reed Wider Than Table
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, 16 August, 2009, 12:32 AM

  


Why would a mouthpiece manufacturer produce a mouthpiece which didn't match
the width of currenty marketed reeds - i.e. reed wider than rails.  I have
often found mouthpieces that I liked though they were plagued by this
problem.  What are the options?

what does your answer mean? it is incomplete.
prof weinberg

--- On Sun, 16/8/09, STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...> wrote:


From: STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...>
Subject: RE: [MouthpieceWork] Reed Wider Than Table
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, 16 August, 2009, 3:07 PM


  





I’m sorry, but your lack of direct experience in the musical instrument industry is very obvious from your post…….
 


From: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:MouthpieceW ork@yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of ANTON WEINBERG
Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2009 2:07 AM
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Reed Wider Than Table
 
  








an excellent question- which i know players have been asking for some considerable time.

For some years i have had a close relationship with the industry due to the type of role that the company i work with has with manufacturers. Interestingly  i discovered, to my horror, that manufacturers are not really interested in improving or correcting products according to the wishes of the instrumentalists. they look entirely at market results and profitability. i have learned that if the business plan is correct, it does not matter how lacking in vision the directors are, the company still makes profit.

From a practical point of view the mouthpieces that suffer this problem are made from expensive castings--another reason to leave well alone if they continue to sell.

lastly one could thin the reed with 1200 grade but what a chore!

i agree the paradox offends and seems ridiculous and the solution so obvious and yet it is happening continuously.

one of the 'historic' reasons could be that nobody in these companies actually really plays anymore--those that do,  simply tootle in order to do a quick test. Once upon a time some of those wonderful craftsmen also played a Beethoven symphony, worked in the Music Hall or played in a Band at an extremely high level of competance. Not anymore, some companies (with the introduction of modern production techniques per workers) have even dismissed the production manager--the one who could do all of the procedures and kept an eye on quality--because they are expensive to employ.

i am interested in others ideas

prof weinberg



--- On Sun, 16/8/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:


From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Reed Wider Than Table
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Sunday, 16 August, 2009, 12:32 AM

  






Why would a mouthpiece manufacturer produce a mouthpiece which didn't match the width of currenty marketed reeds - i.e. reed wider than rails.  I have often found mouthpieces that I liked though they were plagued by this problem.  What are the options?

You are QUITE incorrect in your assertion that many people in the instrument business cannot play, or that the motivation for product development is financial only……..also that most mouthpiece blanks are cast…….or that quality control is not important

 

I work in the instrument manufacturing business full time, and have done so for many years……..you are apparently very uninformed as to the realities 

 

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of ANTON WEINBERG
Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2009 11:41 AM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [MouthpieceWork] Reed Wider Than Table

 

  


what does your answer mean? it is incomplete.

prof weinberg

--- On Sun, 16/8/09, STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...> wrote:


From: STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...>
Subject: RE: [MouthpieceWork] Reed Wider Than Table
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, 16 August, 2009, 3:07 PM

  

I’m sorry, but your lack of direct experience in the musical instrument industry is very obvious from your post…….

 

From: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:MouthpieceW ork@yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of ANTON WEINBERG
Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2009 2:07 AM
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Reed Wider Than Table

 

  


an excellent question- which i know players have been asking for some considerable time.

For some years i have had a close relationship with the industry due to the type of role that the company i work with has with manufacturers. Interestingly  i discovered, to my horror, that manufacturers are not really interested in improving or correcting products according to the wishes of the instrumentalists. they look entirely at market results and profitability. i have learned that if the business plan is correct, it does not matter how lacking in vision the directors are, the company still makes profit.

From a practical point of view the mouthpieces that suffer this problem are made from expensive castings--another reason to leave well alone if they continue to sell.

lastly one could thin the reed with 1200 grade but what a chore!

i agree the paradox offends and seems ridiculous and the solution so obvious and yet it is happening continuously.

one of the 'historic' reasons could be that nobody in these companies actually really plays anymore--those that do,  simply tootle in order to do a quick test. Once upon a time some of those wonderful craftsmen also played a Beethoven symphony, worked in the Music Hall or played in a Band at an extremely high level of competance. Not anymore, some companies (with the introduction of modern production techniques per workers) have even dismissed the production manager--the one who could do all of the procedures and kept an eye on quality--because they are expensive to employ.

i am interested in others ideas

prof weinberg



--- On Sun, 16/8/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:


From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Reed Wider Than Table
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Sunday, 16 August, 2009, 12:32 AM 

  


Why would a mouthpiece manufacturer produce a mouthpiece which didn't match the width of currenty marketed reeds - i.e. reed wider than rails.  I have often found mouthpieces that I liked though they were plagued by this problem.  What are the options?

i would be most prudent before you make any assumptions about me without researchable evidence and equally not assume that everyone is talking about you.
the larger worldwide companies have all gone through particular individual financial and design changes over the last decade which has had significant impact on those wishing to take up music and those teaching it in the education system and equally the councils who govern the educational budgets. here in the UK we have had an involved in depth role with Yamaha, Selmer, Leblanc and Buffet over a long period of time.
i speak from direct indepth experience and my reply was a spring board for other contributors to voice their concerns. i would get over yourself-if possible.
prof weinberg

--- On Sun, 16/8/09, STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...> wrote:


From: STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...>
Subject: RE: [MouthpieceWork] Reed Wider Than Table
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, 16 August, 2009, 5:57 PM


  





You are QUITE incorrect in your assertion that many people in the instrument business cannot play, or that the motivation for product development is financial only……..also that most mouthpiece blanks are cast…….or that quality control is not important
 
I work in the instrument manufacturing business full time, and have done so for many years……..you are apparently very uninformed as to the realities 
 


From: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:MouthpieceW ork@yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of ANTON WEINBERG
Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2009 11:41 AM
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Subject: RE: [MouthpieceWork] Reed Wider Than Table
 
  








what does your answer mean? it is incomplete.

prof weinberg

--- On Sun, 16/8/09, STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@cox. net> wrote:


From: STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@cox. net>
Subject: RE: [MouthpieceWork] Reed Wider Than Table
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Sunday, 16 August, 2009, 3:07 PM

  



I’m sorry, but your lack of direct experience in the musical instrument industry is very obvious from your post…….
 


From: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:MouthpieceW ork@yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of ANTON WEINBERG
Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2009 2:07 AM
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Reed Wider Than Table
 
  





an excellent question- which i know players have been asking for some considerable time.

For some years i have had a close relationship with the industry due to the type of role that the company i work with has with manufacturers. Interestingly  i discovered, to my horror, that manufacturers are not really interested in improving or correcting products according to the wishes of the instrumentalists. they look entirely at market results and profitability. i have learned that if the business plan is correct, it does not matter how lacking in vision the directors are, the company still makes profit.

From a practical point of view the mouthpieces that suffer this problem are made from expensive castings--another reason to leave well alone if they continue to sell.

lastly one could thin the reed with 1200 grade but what a chore!

i agree the paradox offends and seems ridiculous and the solution so obvious and yet it is happening continuously.

one of the 'historic' reasons could be that nobody in these companies actually really plays anymore--those that do,  simply tootle in order to do a quick test. Once upon a time some of those wonderful craftsmen also played a Beethoven symphony, worked in the Music Hall or played in a Band at an extremely high level of competance. Not anymore, some companies (with the introduction of modern production techniques per workers) have even dismissed the production manager--the one who could do all of the procedures and kept an eye on quality--because they are expensive to employ.

i am interested in others ideas

prof weinberg



--- On Sun, 16/8/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:


From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Reed Wider Than Table
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Sunday, 16 August, 2009, 12:32 AM 

  





Why would a mouthpiece manufacturer produce a mouthpiece which didn't match the width of currenty marketed reeds - i.e. reed wider than rails.  I have often found mouthpieces that I liked though they were plagued by this problem.  What are the options?

I would strongly urge you to “get over yourself”…….I correspond regularly with the designers at Selmer, Yamaha, and numerous other manufacturers, and would suggest you try fooling someone who doesn’t know better, but not me……..

 

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of ANTON WEINBERG
Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2009 12:11 PM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [MouthpieceWork] Reed Wider Than Table

 

  


i would be most prudent before you make any assumptions about me without researchable evidence and equally not assume that everyone is talking about you.

the larger worldwide companies have all gone through particular individual financial and design changes over the last decade which has had significant impact on those wishing to take up music and those teaching it in the education system and equally the councils who govern the educational budgets. here in the UK we have had an involved in depth role with Yamaha, Selmer, Leblanc and Buffet over a long period of time.

i speak from direct indepth experience and my reply was a spring board for other contributors to voice their concerns. i would get over yourself-if possible.

prof weinberg

--- On Sun, 16/8/09, STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...> wrote:


From: STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...>
Subject: RE: [MouthpieceWork] Reed Wider Than Table
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, 16 August, 2009, 5:57 PM

  

You are QUITE incorrect in your assertion that many people in the instrument business cannot play, or that the motivation for product development is financial only……..also that most mouthpiece blanks are cast…….or that quality control is not important

 

I work in the instrument manufacturing business full time, and have done so for many years……..you are apparently very uninformed as to the realities 

 

From: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:MouthpieceW ork@yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of ANTON WEINBERG
Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2009 11:41 AM
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Subject: RE: [MouthpieceWork] Reed Wider Than Table

  

  


what does your answer mean? it is incomplete.

prof weinberg

--- On Sun, 16/8/09, STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@cox. net> wrote:


From: STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@cox. net>
Subject: RE: [MouthpieceWork] Reed Wider Than Table
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Sunday, 16 August, 2009, 3:07 PM

  

I’m sorry, but your lack of direct experience in the musical instrument industry is very obvious from your post…….

 

From: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:MouthpieceW ork@yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of ANTON WEINBERG
Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2009 2:07 AM
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Reed Wider Than Table

  

  


an excellent question- which i know players have been asking for some considerable time.

For some years i have had a close relationship with the industry due to the type of role that the company i work with has with manufacturers. Interestingly  i discovered, to my horror, that manufacturers are not really interested in improving or correcting products according to the wishes of the instrumentalists. they look entirely at market results and profitability. i have learned that if the business plan is correct, it does not matter how lacking in vision the directors are, the company still makes profit.

From a practical point of view the mouthpieces that suffer this problem are made from expensive castings--another reason to leave well alone if they continue to sell.

lastly one could thin the reed with 1200 grade but what a chore!

i agree the paradox offends and seems ridiculous and the solution so obvious and yet it is happening continuously.

one of the 'historic' reasons could be that nobody in these companies actually really plays anymore--those that do,  simply tootle in order to do a quick test. Once upon a time some of those wonderful craftsmen also played a Beethoven symphony, worked in the Music Hall or played in a Band at an extremely high level of competance. Not anymore, some companies (with the introduction of modern production techniques per workers) have even dismissed the production manager--the one who could do all of the procedures and kept an eye on quality--because they are expensive to employ.

i am interested in others ideas

prof weinberg



--- On Sun, 16/8/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:


From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Reed Wider Than Table
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Sunday, 16 August, 2009, 12:32 AM 

  


Why would a mouthpiece manufacturer produce a mouthpiece which didn't match the width of currenty marketed reeds - i.e. reed wider than rails.  I have often found mouthpieces that I liked though they were plagued by this problem.  What are the options?

i think that such replies as yours do not warrant an answer, it is too pathetic to bother with
prof weinberg

--- On Sun, 16/8/09, STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...> wrote:


From: STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...>
Subject: RE: [MouthpieceWork] Reed Wider Than Table
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, 16 August, 2009, 6:16 PM


  





I would strongly urge you to “get over yourself”…….I correspond regularly with the designers at Selmer, Yamaha, and numerous other manufacturers, and would suggest you try fooling someone who doesn’t know better, but not me……..
 


From: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:MouthpieceW ork@yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of ANTON WEINBERG
Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2009 12:11 PM
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Subject: RE: [MouthpieceWork] Reed Wider Than Table
 
  








i would be most prudent before you make any assumptions about me without researchable evidence and equally not assume that everyone is talking about you.

the larger worldwide companies have all gone through particular individual financial and design changes over the last decade which has had significant impact on those wishing to take up music and those teaching it in the education system and equally the councils who govern the educational budgets. here in the UK we have had an involved in depth role with Yamaha, Selmer, Leblanc and Buffet over a long period of time.

i speak from direct indepth experience and my reply was a spring board for other contributors to voice their concerns. i would get over yourself-if possible.

prof weinberg

--- On Sun, 16/8/09, STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@cox. net> wrote:

From: STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@cox. net>
Subject: RE: [MouthpieceWork] Reed Wider Than Table
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Sunday, 16 August, 2009, 5:57 PM

  



You are QUITE incorrect in your assertion that many people in the instrument business cannot play, or that the motivation for product development is financial only……..also that most mouthpiece blanks are cast…….or that quality control is not important
 
I work in the instrument manufacturing business full time, and have done so for many years……..you are apparently very uninformed as to the realities 
 


From: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:MouthpieceW ork@yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of ANTON WEINBERG
Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2009 11:41 AM
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Subject: RE: [MouthpieceWork] Reed Wider Than Table
  
  





what does your answer mean? it is incomplete.

prof weinberg

--- On Sun, 16/8/09, STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@cox. net> wrote:


From: STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@cox. net>
Subject: RE: [MouthpieceWork] Reed Wider Than Table
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Sunday, 16 August, 2009, 3:07 PM

  



I’m sorry, but your lack of direct experience in the musical instrument industry is very obvious from your post…….
 


From: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:MouthpieceW ork@yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of ANTON WEINBERG
Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2009 2:07 AM
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Reed Wider Than Table
  
  





an excellent question- which i know players have been asking for some considerable time.

For some years i have had a close relationship with the industry due to the type of role that the company i work with has with manufacturers. Interestingly  i discovered, to my horror, that manufacturers are not really interested in improving or correcting products according to the wishes of the instrumentalists. they look entirely at market results and profitability. i have learned that if the business plan is correct, it does not matter how lacking in vision the directors are, the company still makes profit.

From a practical point of view the mouthpieces that suffer this problem are made from expensive castings--another reason to leave well alone if they continue to sell.

lastly one could thin the reed with 1200 grade but what a chore!

i agree the paradox offends and seems ridiculous and the solution so obvious and yet it is happening continuously.

one of the 'historic' reasons could be that nobody in these companies actually really plays anymore--those that do,  simply tootle in order to do a quick test. Once upon a time some of those wonderful craftsmen also played a Beethoven symphony, worked in the Music Hall or played in a Band at an extremely high level of competance. Not anymore, some companies (with the introduction of modern production techniques per workers) have even dismissed the production manager--the one who could do all of the procedures and kept an eye on quality--because they are expensive to employ.

i am interested in others ideas

prof weinberg



--- On Sun, 16/8/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:


From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Reed Wider Than Table
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Sunday, 16 August, 2009, 12:32 AM 

  




Why would a mouthpiece manufacturer produce a mouthpiece which didn't match the width of currenty marketed reeds - i.e. reed wider than rails.  I have often found mouthpieces that I liked though they were plagued by this problem.  What are the options?

This "discussion" is getting more heated than is warrented.  Anton has given a resonable reason why some mouthpieces have reed overhang.  But in the process the reply seems like an insult to the entire music industry to Steve.

I would rather see the discussion produce another reason why reed overhang happens and what to do about it.  Trading insults is unproductive and needs to stop.


      

thank you for your sanity. i have posted a message to all members.
prof weinberg

--- On Sun, 16/8/09, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:


From: Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...>
Subject: RE: [MouthpieceWork] Reed Wider Than Table
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, 16 August, 2009, 6:36 PM


  



This "discussion" is getting more heated than is warrented. Anton has given a resonable reason why some mouthpieces have reed overhang. But in the process the reply seems like an insult to the entire music industry to Steve.

I would rather see the discussion produce another reason why reed overhang happens and what to do about it. Trading insults is unproductive and needs to stop.

As a consumer of a wide variety of saxophone products for over 3 decades, I find Prof. Weinberg's statements about music industry corparate policy and quality control to ring true about some companies but these statements do not apply to every company producing musical products. 

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@...> wrote:
>
> an excellent question- which i know players have been asking for some considerable time.
> For some years i have had a close relationship with the industry due to the type of role that the company i work with has with manufacturers. Interestingly  i discovered, to my horror, that manufacturers are not really interested in improving or correcting products according to the wishes of the instrumentalists. they look entirely at market results and profitability. i have learned that if the business plan is correct, it does not matter how lacking in vision the directors are, the company still makes profit.
> From a practical point of view the mouthpieces that suffer this problem are made from expensive castings--another reason to leave well alone if they continue to sell.
> lastly one could thin the reed with 1200 grade but what a chore!
> i agree the paradox offends and seems ridiculous and the solution so obvious and yet it is happening continuously.
> one of the 'historic' reasons could be that nobody in these companies actually really plays anymore--those that do,  simply tootle in order to do a quick test. Once upon a time some of those wonderful craftsmen also played a Beethoven symphony, worked in the Music Hall or played in a Band at an extremely high level of competance. Not anymore, some companies (with the introduction of modern production techniques per workers) have even dismissed the production manager--the one who could do all of the procedures and kept an eye on quality--because they are expensive to employ.
> i am interested in others ideas
> prof weinberg
> 
> 
> --- On Sun, 16/8/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
> 
> 
> From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Reed Wider Than Table
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Sunday, 16 August, 2009, 12:32 AM
> 
> 
>   
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would a mouthpiece manufacturer produce a mouthpiece which didn't match the width of currenty marketed reeds - i.e. reed wider than rails.  I have often found mouthpieces that I liked though they were plagued by this problem.  What are the options?
>

thank you for your reply. i have posted a message to all members
prof weinberg

--- On Sun, 16/8/09, Greg Wier <gregwier@...> wrote:


From: Greg Wier <gregwier@...>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Reed Wider Than Table
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, 16 August, 2009, 6:46 PM


  



As a consumer of a wide variety of saxophone products for over 3 decades, I find Prof. Weinberg's statements about music industry corparate policy and quality control to ring true about some companies but these statements do not apply to every company producing musical products. 

--- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ ...> wrote:
>
> an excellent question- which i know players have been asking for some considerable time.
> For some years i have had a close relationship with the industry due to the type of role that the company i work with has with manufacturers. Interestingly  i discovered, to my horror, that manufacturers are not really interested in improving or correcting products according to the wishes of the instrumentalists. they look entirely at market results and profitability. i have learned that if the business plan is correct, it does not matter how lacking in vision the directors are, the company still makes profit.
> From a practical point of view the mouthpieces that suffer this problem are made from expensive castings--another reason to leave well alone if they continue to sell.
> lastly one could thin the reed with 1200 grade but what a chore!
> i agree the paradox offends and seems ridiculous and the solution so obvious and yet it is happening continuously.
> one of the 'historic' reasons could be that nobody in these companies actually really plays anymore--those that do,  simply tootle in order to do a quick test. Once upon a time some of those wonderful craftsmen also played a Beethoven symphony, worked in the Music Hall or played in a Band at an extremely high level of competance. Not anymore, some companies (with the introduction of modern production techniques per workers) have even dismissed the production manager--the one who could do all of the procedures and kept an eye on quality--because they are expensive to employ.
> i am interested in others ideas
> prof weinberg
> 
> 
> --- On Sun, 16/8/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ ...> wrote:
> 
> 
> From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ ...>
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Reed Wider Than Table
> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> Date: Sunday, 16 August, 2009, 12:32 AM
> 
> 
>   
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would a mouthpiece manufacturer produce a mouthpiece which didn't match the width of currenty marketed reeds - i.e. reed wider than rails.  I have often found mouthpieces that I liked though they were plagued by this problem.  What are the options?
>

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:
>
> This "discussion" is getting more heated than is warrented.  Anton has given a resonable reason why some mouthpieces have reed overhang.  But in the process the reply seems like an insult to the entire music industry to Steve.
> 
> I would rather see the discussion produce another reason why reed overhang happens and what to do about it.  Trading insults is unproductive and needs to stop.
>

It's worse that just more heated than warranted.  Getting a little overenthusiastic in an opinionated discussion is one thing.  This was something else.  If all Steve has to offer is drive-by personal attacks I would really rather he didn't bother.  We are all the poorer for it.

Insofar as "drive by personal attacks" are concerned: the information
offered by the poster was incorrect. There's nothing more to it than that.
It's not personal, just a matter of keeping the facts straight. The name
calling and personal attacks came from someone else, not me. Let's be VERY
clear about it. Re-read the posts. 

 

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of frymorgan
Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2009 4:46 PM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: moderation

 

  

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> , Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...>
wrote:
>
> This "discussion" is getting more heated than is warrented. Anton has
given a resonable reason why some mouthpieces have reed overhang. But in the
process the reply seems like an insult to the entire music industry to
Steve.
> 
> I would rather see the discussion produce another reason why reed overhang
happens and what to do about it. Trading insults is unproductive and needs
to stop.
>

It's worse that just more heated than warranted. Getting a little
overenthusiastic in an opinionated discussion is one thing. This was
something else. If all Steve has to offer is drive-by personal attacks I
would really rather he didn't bother. We are all the poorer for it.

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "STEVE GOODSON" <saxgourmet@...> wrote:
>
> Insofar as "drive by personal attacks" are concerned: the information
> offered by the poster was incorrect. There's nothing more to it than that.
> It's not personal, just a matter of keeping the facts straight. The name
> calling and personal attacks came from someone else, not me. Let's be VERY
> clear about it. Re-read the posts. 
> 
>  


Seriously??  Let's recap:

MartinMods: Why do manufacturers make mouthpieces narrower than reeds?

Weinberg: For some years i have had a close relationship with the industry due to the type of role that the company i work with has with manufacturers. Interestingly  i discovered, to my horror, that manufacturers are not really interested in improving or correcting products according to the wishes of the instrumentalists. they look entirely at market results and profitability. i have learned that if the business plan is correct, it does not matter how lacking in vision the directors are, the company still makes profit.

From a practical point of view the mouthpieces that suffer this problem are made from expensive castings--another reason to leave well alone if they continue to sell.

Goodson: I'm sorry, but your lack of direct experience in the musical instrument industry is very obvious from your post…….

So you offer no counter argument, set no facts straight, just shout the guy down and call him a liar.  Sorry man, if that isn't a personal attack to you, then we're not even speaking the same language.

> > Why would a mouthpiece manufacturer produce a mouthpiece which didn't match the width of currenty marketed reeds - i.e. reed wider than rails.  I have often found mouthpieces that I liked though they were plagued by this problem.  What are the options?
> >
>
To put the discussion back on track,an inaccurately programmed CNC machine can result in the body of the mouthpiece being too narrow at the edges of the table which results in impeded reed vibration.

Adjusting each reed can become tiresome. The table height can be reduced until the table spreads enough to accomodate the reed and then the curve and baffle are adjusted.  One must be careful not to make the table too thin. 

 

Greg,  you're talking about a major refacing of the mouthpiece to cure this
reed overhang. And changing its internal volume by taking down the table.

Well and good. But why in the world would I want to do this with anything
except an inexpensive mouthpiece that I regarded as a blank to begin with?

Actually, I have a (relatively) inexpensive metal Chinese-made mouthpiece
from Ebay like this - narrow table, reed overhang.  It didn't play too
badly, btw, (not really well either!) but that's not really the point here.
I just think the reed overhang doesn't make that much of a difference. It's
the curvature of the facing on the rails and the inside geometry that
matter. If (as a gedanken experiment) you built up the outside of such a
piece to match the reed, I think it would still sound the same. You'd just
have thicker rails.

Whereas,  if one sands the rails of the reed because one doesn't like the
overhang, that's going to change the character of the reed a GREAT deal.
Brighter, buzzier.

Esthetically, the overhand isn't pleasing. And perhaps in some cases it may
cause some discomfort. But I don't think it matters otherwise.

> From: "Greg Wier" <gregwier@...>
> Reply-To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 01:42:03 -0000
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Reed Wider Than Table
> 
> 
>  
>>> > > Why would a mouthpiece manufacturer produce a mouthpiece which didn't
>>> match the width of currenty marketed reeds - i.e. reed wider than rails.  I
>>> have often found mouthpieces that I liked though they were plagued by this
>>> problem.  What are the options?
>>> > >
>> >
> To put the discussion back on track,an inaccurately programmed CNC machine can
> result in the body of the mouthpiece being too narrow at the edges of the
> table which results in impeded reed vibration.
> 
> Adjusting each reed can become tiresome. The table height can be reduced until
> the table spreads enough to accomodate the reed and then the curve and baffle
> are adjusted.  One must be careful not to make the table too thin. 

Thanks.  I'm glad we were able to get to that finally.  But, look at me.. I'm one to talk.  Lol.

--- On Mon, 8/17/09, Greg Wier <gregwier@netscape.com> wrote:

From: Greg Wier <gregwier@...>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Reed Wider Than Table
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, August 17, 2009, 1:42 AM






 




    
                  > > Why would a mouthpiece manufacturer produce a mouthpiece which didn't match the width of currenty marketed reeds - i.e. reed wider than rails.  I have often found mouthpieces that I liked though they were plagued by this problem.  What are the options?

> >

>

To put the discussion back on track,an inaccurately programmed CNC machine can result in the body of the mouthpiece being too narrow at the edges of the table which results in impeded reed vibration.



Adjusting each reed can become tiresome. The table height can be reduced until the table spreads enough to accomodate the reed and then the curve and baffle are adjusted.  One must be careful not to make the table too thin.. 




 

      

    
    
	
	 
	
	








	


	
	


      

The overhang can be very uncomfortable over long playing periods, or intense playing, and I have had it actually break the skin at times.  As far as trimming the sides of the reeds, that's not a problem as regards reed strength - one just gets stronger reeds and trims them first, before testing, curing, and balancing.  My problem with trimming reeds is, they never end up straight due to the thinness of the tip, and the slight angle that they must be cut/sanded/or whatever, which goes across the grain just enough to cause them to split or end up uneven.



--- On Mon, 8/17/09, Barry Levine <barrylevine@...> wrote:

From: Barry Levine <barrylevine@norwoodlight.com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Reed Wider Than Table
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, August 17, 2009, 3:09 AM






 




    
                  


Greg,  you're talking about a major refacing of the mouthpiece to cure this reed overhang. And changing its internal volume by taking down the table.  



Well and good. But why in the world would I want to do this with anything except an inexpensive mouthpiece that I regarded as a blank to begin with?



Actually, I have a (relatively) inexpensive metal Chinese-made mouthpiece from Ebay like this - narrow table, reed overhang.  It didn't play too badly, btw, (not really well either!) but that's not really the point here.  I just think the reed overhang doesn't make that much of a difference. It's the curvature of the facing on the rails and the inside geometry that matter. If (as a gedanken experiment) you built up the outside of such a piece to match the reed, I think it would still sound the same. You'd just have thicker rails.



Whereas,  if one sands the rails of the reed because one doesn't like the overhang, that's going to change the character of the reed a GREAT deal.. Brighter, buzzier.



Esthetically, the overhand isn't pleasing. And perhaps in some cases it may cause some discomfort. But I don't think it matters otherwise. 



From: "Greg Wier" <gregwier@netscape. com>

Reply-To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com

Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 01:42:03 -0000

To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com

Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Reed Wider Than Table





 

> > Why would a mouthpiece manufacturer produce a mouthpiece which didn't match the width of currenty marketed reeds - i.e. reed wider than rails.  I have often found mouthpieces that I liked though they were plagued by this problem.  What are the options?

> >

>

To put the discussion back on track,an inaccurately programmed CNC machine can result in the body of the mouthpiece being too narrow at the edges of the table which results in impeded reed vibration.



Adjusting each reed can become tiresome. The table height can be reduced until the table spreads enough to accomodate the reed and then the curve and baffle are adjusted.  One must be careful not to make the table too thin. 






 

      

    
    
	
	 
	
	








	


	
	


      

--                                                                Hi,
 I think the reed overhang makes a big difference in the mouthpiece's responsiveness. I played on a "70's metal on my tenor for over ten years that had a reed overhang. I would always sand both edges of the reed down on an emery board, or else the piece was too brash- sounding and hard to control. I finally got fed up after being stuck on a gig without a sanded-down reed  and got rid of it.
    I also read about Branford Marsalis playing a classical soprano mouthpiece with a clarinet reed. Try it. It lets you whisper on the soprano far more easily than with a slightly wider soprano reed.
  Overhang  is always one of the first things I check for in a mouthpiece now.      Peter Deley 
 
In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Barry Levine <barrylevine@...> wrote:
>
> Greg,  you're talking about a major refacing of the mouthpiece to cure this
> reed overhang. And changing its internal volume by taking down the table.
> 
> Well and good. But why in the world would I want to do this with anything
> except an inexpensive mouthpiece that I regarded as a blank to begin with?
> 
> Actually, I have a (relatively) inexpensive metal Chinese-made mouthpiece
> from Ebay like this - narrow table, reed overhang.  It didn't play too
> badly, btw, (not really well either!) but that's not really the point here.
> I just think the reed overhang doesn't make that much of a difference. It's
> the curvature of the facing on the rails and the inside geometry that
> matter. If (as a gedanken experiment) you built up the outside of such a
> piece to match the reed, I think it would still sound the same. You'd just
> have thicker rails.
> 
> Whereas,  if one sands the rails of the reed because one doesn't like the
> overhang, that's going to change the character of the reed a GREAT deal.
> Brighter, buzzier.
> 
> Esthetically, the overhand isn't pleasing. And perhaps in some cases it may
> cause some discomfort. But I don't think it matters otherwise.
> 
> > From: "Greg Wier" <gregwier@...>
> > Reply-To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> > Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 01:42:03 -0000
> > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Reed Wider Than Table
> > 
> > 
> >  
> >>> > > Why would a mouthpiece manufacturer produce a mouthpiece which didn't
> >>> match the width of currenty marketed reeds - i.e. reed wider than rails.  I
> >>> have often found mouthpieces that I liked though they were plagued by this
> >>> problem.  What are the options?
> >>> > >
> >> >
> > To put the discussion back on track,an inaccurately programmed CNC machine can
> > result in the body of the mouthpiece being too narrow at the edges of the
> > table which results in impeded reed vibration.
> > 
> > Adjusting each reed can become tiresome. The table height can be reduced until
> > the table spreads enough to accomodate the reed and then the curve and baffle
> > are adjusted.  One must be careful not to make the table too thin.
>

I'd like to turn this around and ask a question about an alto mouthpiece
that I just got. I bought an Aizen which is a copy of an old Meyer bros, and
is very well made. I absolutely LOVE this mouthpiece and the way it sounds,
but.  the rails, as they get towards the tip, are actually slightly wider
than the reed. I have to center the reed perfectly to get it to cover as the
rails are very thin. What is the effect of this on sound, playability, etc.
Can it be fixed ? Should I touch it if I like the sound of the mouthpiece
for fear of changing that ?
 
From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of pfdeley
Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2009 11:39 PM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Reed Wider Than Table
 
  
-- Hi,
I think the reed overhang makes a big difference in the mouthpiece's
responsiveness. I played on a "70's metal on my tenor for over ten years
that had a reed overhang. I would always sand both edges of the reed down on
an emery board, or else the piece was too brash- sounding and hard to
control. I finally got fed up after being stuck on a gig without a
sanded-down reed and got rid of it.
I also read about Branford Marsalis playing a classical soprano mouthpiece
with a clarinet reed. Try it. It lets you whisper on the soprano far more
easily than with a slightly wider soprano reed.
Overhang is always one of the first things I check for in a mouthpiece now.
Peter Deley 

In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
, Barry Levine <barrylevine@...> wrote:
>
> Greg, you're talking about a major refacing of the mouthpiece to cure this
> reed overhang. And changing its internal volume by taking down the table.
> 
> Well and good. But why in the world would I want to do this with anything
> except an inexpensive mouthpiece that I regarded as a blank to begin with?
> 
> Actually, I have a (relatively) inexpensive metal Chinese-made mouthpiece
> from Ebay like this - narrow table, reed overhang. It didn't play too
> badly, btw, (not really well either!) but that's not really the point
here.
> I just think the reed overhang doesn't make that much of a difference.
It's
> the curvature of the facing on the rails and the inside geometry that
> matter. If (as a gedanken experiment) you built up the outside of such a
> piece to match the reed, I think it would still sound the same. You'd just
> have thicker rails.
> 
> Whereas, if one sands the rails of the reed because one doesn't like the
> overhang, that's going to change the character of the reed a GREAT deal.
> Brighter, buzzier.
> 
> Esthetically, the overhand isn't pleasing. And perhaps in some cases it
may
> cause some discomfort. But I don't think it matters otherwise.
> 
> > From: "Greg Wier" <gregwier@...>
> > Reply-To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> 
> > Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 01:42:03 -0000
> > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> 
> > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Reed Wider Than Table
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >>> > > Why would a mouthpiece manufacturer produce a mouthpiece which
didn't
> >>> match the width of currenty marketed reeds - i.e. reed wider than
rails.  I
> >>> have often found mouthpieces that I liked though they were plagued by
this
> >>> problem.  What are the options?
> >>> > >
> >> >
> > To put the discussion back on track,an inaccurately programmed CNC
machine can
> > result in the body of the mouthpiece being too narrow at the edges of
the
> > table which results in impeded reed vibration.
> > 
> > Adjusting each reed can become tiresome. The table height can be reduced
until
> > the table spreads enough to accomodate the reed and then the curve and
baffle
> > are adjusted. One must be careful not to make the table too thin.
>

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.52/2298 - Release Date: 08/16/09
06:09:00
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.52/2298 - Release Date: 08/16/09
06:09:00

I've always used clarinet reeds on soprano, because it's a better sounding reed.  Sax players have been doing that long before Branford was a gleam........

--- On Mon, 8/17/09, pfdeley <pfdeley@...> wrote:

From: pfdeley <pfdeley@...>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Reed Wider Than Table
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, August 17, 2009, 3:39 AM






 




    
                  --                                                                Hi,

 I think the reed overhang makes a big difference in the mouthpiece's responsiveness. I played on a "70's metal on my tenor for over ten years that had a reed overhang. I would always sand both edges of the reed down on an emery board, or else the piece was too brash- sounding and hard to control.. I finally got fed up after being stuck on a gig without a sanded-down reed  and got rid of it.

    I also read about Branford Marsalis playing a classical soprano mouthpiece with a clarinet reed. Try it. It lets you whisper on the soprano far more easily than with a slightly wider soprano reed.

  Overhang  is always one of the first things I check for in a mouthpiece now.      Peter Deley 

 

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

>

> Greg,  you're talking about a major refacing of the mouthpiece to cure this

> reed overhang. And changing its internal volume by taking down the table.

> 

> Well and good. But why in the world would I want to do this with anything

> except an inexpensive mouthpiece that I regarded as a blank to begin with?

> 

> Actually, I have a (relatively) inexpensive metal Chinese-made mouthpiece

> from Ebay like this - narrow table, reed overhang.  It didn't play too

> badly, btw, (not really well either!) but that's not really the point here.

> I just think the reed overhang doesn't make that much of a difference. It's

> the curvature of the facing on the rails and the inside geometry that

> matter. If (as a gedanken experiment) you built up the outside of such a

> piece to match the reed, I think it would still sound the same. You'd just

> have thicker rails.

> 

> Whereas,  if one sands the rails of the reed because one doesn't like the

> overhang, that's going to change the character of the reed a GREAT deal.

> Brighter, buzzier.

> 

> Esthetically, the overhand isn't pleasing. And perhaps in some cases it may

> cause some discomfort. But I don't think it matters otherwise.

> 

> > From: "Greg Wier" <gregwier@.. .>

> > Reply-To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com

> > Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 01:42:03 -0000

> > To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com

> > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Reed Wider Than Table

> > 

> > 

> >  

> >>> > > Why would a mouthpiece manufacturer produce a mouthpiece which didn't

> >>> match the width of currenty marketed reeds - i.e. reed wider than rails.  I

> >>> have often found mouthpieces that I liked though they were plagued by this

> >>> problem.  What are the options?

> >>> > >

> >> >

> > To put the discussion back on track,an inaccurately programmed CNC machine can

> > result in the body of the mouthpiece being too narrow at the edges of the

> > table which results in impeded reed vibration.

> > 

> > Adjusting each reed can become tiresome. The table height can be reduced until

> > the table spreads enough to accomodate the reed and then the curve and baffle

> > are adjusted.  One must be careful not to make the table too thin.

>




 

      

    
    
	
	 
	
	








	


	
	


      

thankyou for your reply, but i was accused of intentially fooling people as well as providing wrong information. i never speak unless i have substantial evidence to back up what i say that is collected direct from the source in question. i am always able to supply exhaustive evidence for what i say. but i have far more interesting things to do than put up with these infantile accusations by someone who clearly has a chip on their shoulder. There are good reasons why i have stood in the Oval office with 2 Presidents. Therefore It is my decision to end my contributions to these discussions. anyone who is interested can visit www.antonweinberg.com
many thanks
prof weinberg

--- On Sun, 16/8/09, frymorgan <frymorgan@...> wrote:


From: frymorgan <frymorgan@...>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: moderation
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, 16 August, 2009, 10:46 PM


  



--- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@ ...> wrote:
>
> This "discussion" is getting more heated than is warrented. Anton has given a resonable reason why some mouthpieces have reed overhang. But in the process the reply seems like an insult to the entire music industry to Steve.
> 
> I would rather see the discussion produce another reason why reed overhang happens and what to do about it. Trading insults is unproductive and needs to stop.
>

It's worse that just more heated than warranted. Getting a little overenthusiastic in an opinionated discussion is one thing. This was something else. If all Steve has to offer is drive-by personal attacks I would really rather he didn't bother. We are all the poorer for it.

   I'm sure Brandford would not claim that he started it. The point is that a slightly too narrow reed is better than a slight too wide one.   Peter                                                     --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
>
> I've always used clarinet reeds on soprano, because it's a better sounding reed.  Sax players have been doing that long before Branford was a gleam........
> 
> --- On Mon, 8/17/09, pfdeley <pfdeley@...> wrote:
> 
> From: pfdeley <pfdeley@...>
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Reed Wider Than Table
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Monday, August 17, 2009, 3:39 AM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
>     
>                   --                                                                Hi,
> 
>  I think the reed overhang makes a big difference in the mouthpiece's responsiveness. I played on a "70's metal on my tenor for over ten years that had a reed overhang. I would always sand both edges of the reed down on an emery board, or else the piece was too brash- sounding and hard to control.. I finally got fed up after being stuck on a gig without a sanded-down reed  and got rid of it.
> 
>     I also read about Branford Marsalis playing a classical soprano mouthpiece with a clarinet reed. Try it. It lets you whisper on the soprano far more easily than with a slightly wider soprano reed.
> 
>   Overhang  is always one of the first things I check for in a mouthpiece now.      Peter Deley 
> 
>  
> 
> In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, Barry Levine <barrylevine@ ...> wrote:
> 
> >
> 
> > Greg,  you're talking about a major refacing of the mouthpiece to cure this
> 
> > reed overhang. And changing its internal volume by taking down the table.
> 
> > 
> 
> > Well and good. But why in the world would I want to do this with anything
> 
> > except an inexpensive mouthpiece that I regarded as a blank to begin with?
> 
> > 
> 
> > Actually, I have a (relatively) inexpensive metal Chinese-made mouthpiece
> 
> > from Ebay like this - narrow table, reed overhang.  It didn't play too
> 
> > badly, btw, (not really well either!) but that's not really the point here.
> 
> > I just think the reed overhang doesn't make that much of a difference. It's
> 
> > the curvature of the facing on the rails and the inside geometry that
> 
> > matter. If (as a gedanken experiment) you built up the outside of such a
> 
> > piece to match the reed, I think it would still sound the same. You'd just
> 
> > have thicker rails.
> 
> > 
> 
> > Whereas,  if one sands the rails of the reed because one doesn't like the
> 
> > overhang, that's going to change the character of the reed a GREAT deal.
> 
> > Brighter, buzzier.
> 
> > 
> 
> > Esthetically, the overhand isn't pleasing. And perhaps in some cases it may
> 
> > cause some discomfort. But I don't think it matters otherwise.
> 
> > 
> 
> > > From: "Greg Wier" <gregwier@ .>
> 
> > > Reply-To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> 
> > > Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 01:42:03 -0000
> 
> > > To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> 
> > > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Reed Wider Than Table
> 
> > > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > >  
> 
> > >>> > > Why would a mouthpiece manufacturer produce a mouthpiece which didn't
> 
> > >>> match the width of currenty marketed reeds - i.e. reed wider than rails.  I
> 
> > >>> have often found mouthpieces that I liked though they were plagued by this
> 
> > >>> problem.  What are the options?
> 
> > >>> > >
> 
> > >> >
> 
> > > To put the discussion back on track,an inaccurately programmed CNC machine can
> 
> > > result in the body of the mouthpiece being too narrow at the edges of the
> 
> > > table which results in impeded reed vibration.
> 
> > > 
> 
> > > Adjusting each reed can become tiresome. The table height can be reduced until
> 
> > > the table spreads enough to accomodate the reed and then the curve and baffle
> 
> > > are adjusted.  One must be careful not to make the table too thin.
> 
> >
>

I think the clarinet reed's cut has much more heart.  That's the reason I played them.  Not because of width.

--- On Mon, 8/17/09, pfdeley <pfdeley@...> wrote:

From: pfdeley <pfdeley@...>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Reed Wider Than Table
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, August 17, 2009, 5:09 AM






 




    
                     I'm sure Brandford would not claim that he started it. The point is that a slightly too narrow reed is better than a slight too wide one.   Peter                                                     --- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ ...> wrote:

>

> I've always used clarinet reeds on soprano, because it's a better sounding reed.  Sax players have been doing that long before Branford was a gleam....... .

> 

> --- On Mon, 8/17/09, pfdeley <pfdeley@... > wrote:

> 

> From: pfdeley <pfdeley@... >

> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Reed Wider Than Table

> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com

> Date: Monday, August 17, 2009, 3:39 AM

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

>  

> 

> 

> 

> 

>     

>                   --                                                                Hi,

> 

>  I think the reed overhang makes a big difference in the mouthpiece's responsiveness. I played on a "70's metal on my tenor for over ten years that had a reed overhang. I would always sand both edges of the reed down on an emery board, or else the piece was too brash- sounding and hard to control.. I finally got fed up after being stuck on a gig without a sanded-down reed  and got rid of it.

> 

>     I also read about Branford Marsalis playing a classical soprano mouthpiece with a clarinet reed. Try it. It lets you whisper on the soprano far more easily than with a slightly wider soprano reed.

> 

>   Overhang  is always one of the first things I check for in a mouthpiece now.      Peter Deley 

> 

>  

> 

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

> 

> >

> 

> > Greg,  you're talking about a major refacing of the mouthpiece to cure this

> 

> > reed overhang. And changing its internal volume by taking down the table.

> 

> > 

> 

> > Well and good. But why in the world would I want to do this with anything

> 

> > except an inexpensive mouthpiece that I regarded as a blank to begin with?

> 

> > 

> 

> > Actually, I have a (relatively) inexpensive metal Chinese-made mouthpiece

> 

> > from Ebay like this - narrow table, reed overhang.  It didn't play too

> 

> > badly, btw, (not really well either!) but that's not really the point here.

> 

> > I just think the reed overhang doesn't make that much of a difference. It's

> 

> > the curvature of the facing on the rails and the inside geometry that

> 

> > matter. If (as a gedanken experiment) you built up the outside of such a

> 

> > piece to match the reed, I think it would still sound the same. You'd just

> 

> > have thicker rails.

> 

> > 

> 

> > Whereas,  if one sands the rails of the reed because one doesn't like the

> 

> > overhang, that's going to change the character of the reed a GREAT deal.

> 

> > Brighter, buzzier.

> 

> > 

> 

> > Esthetically, the overhand isn't pleasing. And perhaps in some cases it may

> 

> > cause some discomfort. But I don't think it matters otherwise.

> 

> > 

> 

> > > From: "Greg Wier" <gregwier@ .>

> 

> > > Reply-To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com

> 

> > > Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 01:42:03 -0000

> 

> > > To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com

> 

> > > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Reed Wider Than Table

> 

> > > 

> 

> > > 

> 

> > >  

> 

> > >>> > > Why would a mouthpiece manufacturer produce a mouthpiece which didn't

> 

> > >>> match the width of currenty marketed reeds - i.e. reed wider than rails.  I

> 

> > >>> have often found mouthpieces that I liked though they were plagued by this

> 

> > >>> problem.  What are the options?

> 

> > >>> > >

> 

> > >> >

> 

> > > To put the discussion back on track,an inaccurately programmed CNC machine can

> 

> > > result in the body of the mouthpiece being too narrow at the edges of the

> 

> > > table which results in impeded reed vibration.

> 

> > > 

> 

> > > Adjusting each reed can become tiresome. The table height can be reduced until

> 

> > > the table spreads enough to accomodate the reed and then the curve and baffle

> 

> > > are adjusted.  One must be careful not to make the table too thin.

> 

> >

>




 

      

    
    
	
	 
	
	








	


	
	


      

The rails outside the width of the reed don't affect anything except perhaps your comfort.  I actually somewhat prefer the tip to be a little wider than the outside of the reed, makes it a little easier to center the reed.  

I wouldn't call this a fix because the above isn't a fault, but you can thin the outside of the rails so they match the reed, but it's only cosmetic. 

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "Jerry M. Zucker" <jerry.zucker@...> wrote:
>
> I'd like to turn this around and ask a question about an alto mouthpiece
> that I just got. I bought an Aizen which is a copy of an old Meyer bros, and
> is very well made. I absolutely LOVE this mouthpiece and the way it sounds,
> but.  the rails, as they get towards the tip, are actually slightly wider
> than the reed. I have to center the reed perfectly to get it to cover as the
> rails are very thin. What is the effect of this on sound, playability, etc.
> Can it be fixed ? Should I touch it if I like the sound of the mouthpiece
> for fear of changing that ?
>  
> From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of pfdeley
> Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2009 11:39 PM
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Reed Wider Than Table
>  
>   
> -- Hi,
> I think the reed overhang makes a big difference in the mouthpiece's
> responsiveness. I played on a "70's metal on my tenor for over ten years
> that had a reed overhang. I would always sand both edges of the reed down on
> an emery board, or else the piece was too brash- sounding and hard to
> control. I finally got fed up after being stuck on a gig without a
> sanded-down reed and got rid of it.
> I also read about Branford Marsalis playing a classical soprano mouthpiece
> with a clarinet reed. Try it. It lets you whisper on the soprano far more
> easily than with a slightly wider soprano reed.
> Overhang is always one of the first things I check for in a mouthpiece now.
> Peter Deley 
> 
> In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
> , Barry Levine <barrylevine@> wrote:
> >
> > Greg, you're talking about a major refacing of the mouthpiece to cure this
> > reed overhang. And changing its internal volume by taking down the table.
> > 
> > Well and good. But why in the world would I want to do this with anything
> > except an inexpensive mouthpiece that I regarded as a blank to begin with?
> > 
> > Actually, I have a (relatively) inexpensive metal Chinese-made mouthpiece
> > from Ebay like this - narrow table, reed overhang. It didn't play too
> > badly, btw, (not really well either!) but that's not really the point
> here.
> > I just think the reed overhang doesn't make that much of a difference.
> It's
> > the curvature of the facing on the rails and the inside geometry that
> > matter. If (as a gedanken experiment) you built up the outside of such a
> > piece to match the reed, I think it would still sound the same. You'd just
> > have thicker rails.
> > 
> > Whereas, if one sands the rails of the reed because one doesn't like the
> > overhang, that's going to change the character of the reed a GREAT deal.
> > Brighter, buzzier.
> > 
> > Esthetically, the overhand isn't pleasing. And perhaps in some cases it
> may
> > cause some discomfort. But I don't think it matters otherwise.
> > 
> > > From: "Greg Wier" <gregwier@>
> > > Reply-To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> 
> > > Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 01:42:03 -0000
> > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> 
> > > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Reed Wider Than Table
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > >>> > > Why would a mouthpiece manufacturer produce a mouthpiece which
> didn't
> > >>> match the width of currenty marketed reeds - i.e. reed wider than
> rails.  I
> > >>> have often found mouthpieces that I liked though they were plagued by
> this
> > >>> problem.  What are the options?
> > >>> > >
> > >> >
> > > To put the discussion back on track,an inaccurately programmed CNC
> machine can
> > > result in the body of the mouthpiece being too narrow at the edges of
> the
> > > table which results in impeded reed vibration.
> > > 
> > > Adjusting each reed can become tiresome. The table height can be reduced
> until
> > > the table spreads enough to accomodate the reed and then the curve and
> baffle
> > > are adjusted. One must be careful not to make the table too thin.
> >
> 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.52/2298 - Release Date: 08/16/09
> 06:09:00
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
> Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.52/2298 - Release Date: 08/16/09
> 06:09:00
>

  Isn't that more  a question of the type of reed, French cut or American cut, Vandoren vs Rico?    Peter
   --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
>
> I think the clarinet reed's cut has much more heart.  That's the reason I played them.  Not because of width.
> 
> --- On Mon, 8/17/09, pfdeley <pfdeley@...> wrote:
> 
> From: pfdeley <pfdeley@...>
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Reed Wider Than Table
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Monday, August 17, 2009, 5:09 AM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
>     
>                      I'm sure Brandford would not claim that he started it. The point is that a slightly too narrow reed is better than a slight too wide one.   Peter                                                     --- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ ...> wrote:
> 
> >
> 
> > I've always used clarinet reeds on soprano, because it's a better sounding reed.  Sax players have been doing that long before Branford was a gleam....... .
> 
> > 
> 
> > --- On Mon, 8/17/09, pfdeley <pfdeley@ > wrote:
> 
> > 
> 
> > From: pfdeley <pfdeley@ >
> 
> > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Reed Wider Than Table
> 
> > To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> 
> > Date: Monday, August 17, 2009, 3:39 AM
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> >  
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> >     
> 
> >                   --                                                                Hi,
> 
> > 
> 
> >  I think the reed overhang makes a big difference in the mouthpiece's responsiveness. I played on a "70's metal on my tenor for over ten years that had a reed overhang. I would always sand both edges of the reed down on an emery board, or else the piece was too brash- sounding and hard to control.. I finally got fed up after being stuck on a gig without a sanded-down reed  and got rid of it.
> 
> > 
> 
> >     I also read about Branford Marsalis playing a classical soprano mouthpiece with a clarinet reed. Try it. It lets you whisper on the soprano far more easily than with a slightly wider soprano reed.
> 
> > 
> 
> >   Overhang  is always one of the first things I check for in a mouthpiece now.      Peter Deley 
> 
> > 
> 
> >  
> 
> > 
> 
> > In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, Barry Levine <barrylevine@ ...> wrote:
> 
> > 
> 
> > >
> 
> > 
> 
> > > Greg,  you're talking about a major refacing of the mouthpiece to cure this
> 
> > 
> 
> > > reed overhang. And changing its internal volume by taking down the table.
> 
> > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > > Well and good. But why in the world would I want to do this with anything
> 
> > 
> 
> > > except an inexpensive mouthpiece that I regarded as a blank to begin with?
> 
> > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > > Actually, I have a (relatively) inexpensive metal Chinese-made mouthpiece
> 
> > 
> 
> > > from Ebay like this - narrow table, reed overhang.  It didn't play too
> 
> > 
> 
> > > badly, btw, (not really well either!) but that's not really the point here.
> 
> > 
> 
> > > I just think the reed overhang doesn't make that much of a difference. It's
> 
> > 
> 
> > > the curvature of the facing on the rails and the inside geometry that
> 
> > 
> 
> > > matter. If (as a gedanken experiment) you built up the outside of such a
> 
> > 
> 
> > > piece to match the reed, I think it would still sound the same. You'd just
> 
> > 
> 
> > > have thicker rails.
> 
> > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > > Whereas,  if one sands the rails of the reed because one doesn't like the
> 
> > 
> 
> > > overhang, that's going to change the character of the reed a GREAT deal.
> 
> > 
> 
> > > Brighter, buzzier.
> 
> > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > > Esthetically, the overhand isn't pleasing. And perhaps in some cases it may
> 
> > 
> 
> > > cause some discomfort. But I don't think it matters otherwise.
> 
> > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > > > From: "Greg Wier" <gregwier@ .>
> 
> > 
> 
> > > > Reply-To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> 
> > 
> 
> > > > Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 01:42:03 -0000
> 
> > 
> 
> > > > To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> 
> > 
> 
> > > > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Reed Wider Than Table
> 
> > 
> 
> > > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > > >  
> 
> > 
> 
> > > >>> > > Why would a mouthpiece manufacturer produce a mouthpiece which didn't
> 
> > 
> 
> > > >>> match the width of currenty marketed reeds - i.e. reed wider than rails.  I
> 
> > 
> 
> > > >>> have often found mouthpieces that I liked though they were plagued by this
> 
> > 
> 
> > > >>> problem.  What are the options?
> 
> > 
> 
> > > >>> > >
> 
> > 
> 
> > > >> >
> 
> > 
> 
> > > > To put the discussion back on track,an inaccurately programmed CNC machine can
> 
> > 
> 
> > > > result in the body of the mouthpiece being too narrow at the edges of the
> 
> > 
> 
> > > > table which results in impeded reed vibration.
> 
> > 
> 
> > > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > > > Adjusting each reed can become tiresome. The table height can be reduced until
> 
> > 
> 
> > > > the table spreads enough to accomodate the reed and then the curve and baffle
> 
> > 
> 
> > > > are adjusted.  One must be careful not to make the table too thin.
> 
> > 
> 
> > >
> 
> >
>

  I think Jerry's problem was that the width between the rails was too wide making it difficult to center the reed. I've seen such mouthpieces and have no idea what to do about them except find a wider reed.    Peter 
                                             --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "frymorgan" <frymorgan@...> wrote:
>
> The rails outside the width of the reed don't affect anything except perhaps your comfort.  I actually somewhat prefer the tip to be a little wider than the outside of the reed, makes it a little easier to center the reed.  
> 
> I wouldn't call this a fix because the above isn't a fault, but you can thin the outside of the rails so they match the reed, but it's only cosmetic. 
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "Jerry M. Zucker" <jerry.zucker@> wrote:
> >
> > I'd like to turn this around and ask a question about an alto mouthpiece
> > that I just got. I bought an Aizen which is a copy of an old Meyer bros, and
> > is very well made. I absolutely LOVE this mouthpiece and the way it sounds,
> > but.  the rails, as they get towards the tip, are actually slightly wider
> > than the reed. I have to center the reed perfectly to get it to cover as the
> > rails are very thin. What is the effect of this on sound, playability, etc.
> > Can it be fixed ? Should I touch it if I like the sound of the mouthpiece
> > for fear of changing that ?
> >  
> > From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
> > On Behalf Of pfdeley
> > Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2009 11:39 PM
> > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Reed Wider Than Table
> >  
> >   
> > -- Hi,
> > I think the reed overhang makes a big difference in the mouthpiece's
> > responsiveness. I played on a "70's metal on my tenor for over ten years
> > that had a reed overhang. I would always sand both edges of the reed down on
> > an emery board, or else the piece was too brash- sounding and hard to
> > control. I finally got fed up after being stuck on a gig without a
> > sanded-down reed and got rid of it.
> > I also read about Branford Marsalis playing a classical soprano mouthpiece
> > with a clarinet reed. Try it. It lets you whisper on the soprano far more
> > easily than with a slightly wider soprano reed.
> > Overhang is always one of the first things I check for in a mouthpiece now.
> > Peter Deley 
> > 
> > In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
> > , Barry Levine <barrylevine@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Greg, you're talking about a major refacing of the mouthpiece to cure this
> > > reed overhang. And changing its internal volume by taking down the table.
> > > 
> > > Well and good. But why in the world would I want to do this with anything
> > > except an inexpensive mouthpiece that I regarded as a blank to begin with?
> > > 
> > > Actually, I have a (relatively) inexpensive metal Chinese-made mouthpiece
> > > from Ebay like this - narrow table, reed overhang. It didn't play too
> > > badly, btw, (not really well either!) but that's not really the point
> > here.
> > > I just think the reed overhang doesn't make that much of a difference.
> > It's
> > > the curvature of the facing on the rails and the inside geometry that
> > > matter. If (as a gedanken experiment) you built up the outside of such a
> > > piece to match the reed, I think it would still sound the same. You'd just
> > > have thicker rails.
> > > 
> > > Whereas, if one sands the rails of the reed because one doesn't like the
> > > overhang, that's going to change the character of the reed a GREAT deal.
> > > Brighter, buzzier.
> > > 
> > > Esthetically, the overhand isn't pleasing. And perhaps in some cases it
> > may
> > > cause some discomfort. But I don't think it matters otherwise.
> > > 
> > > > From: "Greg Wier" <gregwier@>
> > > > Reply-To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> > <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> 
> > > > Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 01:42:03 -0000
> > > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> > <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> 
> > > > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Reed Wider Than Table
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > >>> > > Why would a mouthpiece manufacturer produce a mouthpiece which
> > didn't
> > > >>> match the width of currenty marketed reeds - i.e. reed wider than
> > rails.  I
> > > >>> have often found mouthpieces that I liked though they were plagued by
> > this
> > > >>> problem.  What are the options?
> > > >>> > >
> > > >> >
> > > > To put the discussion back on track,an inaccurately programmed CNC
> > machine can
> > > > result in the body of the mouthpiece being too narrow at the edges of
> > the
> > > > table which results in impeded reed vibration.
> > > > 
> > > > Adjusting each reed can become tiresome. The table height can be reduced
> > until
> > > > the table spreads enough to accomodate the reed and then the curve and
> > baffle
> > > > are adjusted. One must be careful not to make the table too thin.
> > >
> > 
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> > Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.52/2298 - Release Date: 08/16/09
> > 06:09:00
> > No virus found in this outgoing message.
> > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
> > Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.52/2298 - Release Date: 08/16/09
> > 06:09:00
> >
>

I prefer wider windows toward the tip, myself.  It might be the best way to get more sound out of a piece without particularly changing the color of the sound.  Yeah, you've got to line up the reed right.  But aren't we doing that anyway?

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "pfdeley" <pfdeley@...> wrote:
>
>   I think Jerry's problem was that the width between the rails was too wide making it difficult to center the reed. I've seen such mouthpieces and have no idea what to do about them except find a wider reed.    Peter 
>                                              --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "frymorgan" <frymorgan@> wrote:
> >
> > The rails outside the width of the reed don't affect anything except perhaps your comfort.  I actually somewhat prefer the tip to be a little wider than the outside of the reed, makes it a little easier to center the reed.  
> > 
> > I wouldn't call this a fix because the above isn't a fault, but you can thin the outside of the rails so they match the reed, but it's only cosmetic. 
> > 
> > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "Jerry M. Zucker" <jerry.zucker@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'd like to turn this around and ask a question about an alto mouthpiece
> > > that I just got. I bought an Aizen which is a copy of an old Meyer bros, and
> > > is very well made. I absolutely LOVE this mouthpiece and the way it sounds,
> > > but.  the rails, as they get towards the tip, are actually slightly wider
> > > than the reed. I have to center the reed perfectly to get it to cover as the
> > > rails are very thin. What is the effect of this on sound, playability, etc.
> > > Can it be fixed ? Should I touch it if I like the sound of the mouthpiece
> > > for fear of changing that ?
> > >  
> > > From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
> > > On Behalf Of pfdeley
> > > Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2009 11:39 PM
> > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> > > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Reed Wider Than Table
> > >  
> > >   
> > > -- Hi,
> > > I think the reed overhang makes a big difference in the mouthpiece's
> > > responsiveness. I played on a "70's metal on my tenor for over ten years
> > > that had a reed overhang. I would always sand both edges of the reed down on
> > > an emery board, or else the piece was too brash- sounding and hard to
> > > control. I finally got fed up after being stuck on a gig without a
> > > sanded-down reed and got rid of it.
> > > I also read about Branford Marsalis playing a classical soprano mouthpiece
> > > with a clarinet reed. Try it. It lets you whisper on the soprano far more
> > > easily than with a slightly wider soprano reed.
> > > Overhang is always one of the first things I check for in a mouthpiece now.
> > > Peter Deley 
> > > 
> > > In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > , Barry Levine <barrylevine@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Greg, you're talking about a major refacing of the mouthpiece to cure this
> > > > reed overhang. And changing its internal volume by taking down the table.
> > > > 
> > > > Well and good. But why in the world would I want to do this with anything
> > > > except an inexpensive mouthpiece that I regarded as a blank to begin with?
> > > > 
> > > > Actually, I have a (relatively) inexpensive metal Chinese-made mouthpiece
> > > > from Ebay like this - narrow table, reed overhang. It didn't play too
> > > > badly, btw, (not really well either!) but that's not really the point
> > > here.
> > > > I just think the reed overhang doesn't make that much of a difference.
> > > It's
> > > > the curvature of the facing on the rails and the inside geometry that
> > > > matter. If (as a gedanken experiment) you built up the outside of such a
> > > > piece to match the reed, I think it would still sound the same. You'd just
> > > > have thicker rails.
> > > > 
> > > > Whereas, if one sands the rails of the reed because one doesn't like the
> > > > overhang, that's going to change the character of the reed a GREAT deal.
> > > > Brighter, buzzier.
> > > > 
> > > > Esthetically, the overhand isn't pleasing. And perhaps in some cases it
> > > may
> > > > cause some discomfort. But I don't think it matters otherwise.
> > > > 
> > > > > From: "Greg Wier" <gregwier@>
> > > > > Reply-To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> > > <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> 
> > > > > Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 01:42:03 -0000
> > > > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> > > <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> 
> > > > > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Reed Wider Than Table
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > >>> > > Why would a mouthpiece manufacturer produce a mouthpiece which
> > > didn't
> > > > >>> match the width of currenty marketed reeds - i.e. reed wider than
> > > rails.  I
> > > > >>> have often found mouthpieces that I liked though they were plagued by
> > > this
> > > > >>> problem.  What are the options?
> > > > >>> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > > To put the discussion back on track,an inaccurately programmed CNC
> > > machine can
> > > > > result in the body of the mouthpiece being too narrow at the edges of
> > > the
> > > > > table which results in impeded reed vibration.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Adjusting each reed can become tiresome. The table height can be reduced
> > > until
> > > > > the table spreads enough to accomodate the reed and then the curve and
> > > baffle
> > > > > are adjusted. One must be careful not to make the table too thin.
> > > >
> > > 
> > > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> > > Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.52/2298 - Release Date: 08/16/09
> > > 06:09:00
> > > No virus found in this outgoing message.
> > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
> > > Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.52/2298 - Release Date: 08/16/09
> > > 06:09:00
> > >
> >
>

Babbitt STMs occasionally have reed overhang.  These are made by forging the two separate halves and brazing them together.  So this process can create different widths if there is production variation in the forging or brazing processes.
 
I agree that reed overhang can cause irritation.  I also cut my lower lip once, in my youth, while playing very loud outside using a Bari plastic reed on a Brilhart Level Air.
 
Overhang also robs the set-up of sound.  The reed area that is overhanging or on the side rails is not doing anything to help produce sound (besides providing a seal).  
 
Rail overhang is not so bad.  If too wide, reed centering is more difficult.  Near the tip, I think rail overhang can make articulation a little slower.  This is just an impression, not the result of a structured test.
 
A wide window provides a nice full sound but it can make the reed edges wear out a little sooner and can sound a little buzzy.  I have seen custom HR MP by Jary where he added epoxy (probably black Apoxie) to narrow a wide window.  I'm concerned that it may not hold up well.  
 
I once saved a hacked up BD Hollywood that the body was filed so that there was a lot of reed overhang.  I used a brass powder epoxy but told the client it might not hold up well.  I never heard back.  There is a photo at the end of my "Repairs and Custom Mouthpiece Work " Photos.  Also, this material tarnishes to dark brown so it will not stay a nice as shown in the photos.
 
Bass clarinet reeds are a little wider than tenor sax reeds so they are fair game to try on a mouthpiece that has a window that is too wide.
 
Sop sax reeds are a little wider than clarinet reeds.  I do not care for clarinet reeds on sop sax but I have only tried a few.  



Check out: http://www.MojoMouthpieceWork.com


















      

AFAIK it doesn't matter much. The advice I have heard is
to trim the reed to match the mpc. This can be quite
important when the tip of the reed is a different shape
than the tip rail of the mpc; it is much less important
for the side rails, but there is no reason to have the
overhang--just trim it off.

Toby

--- Barry Levine <barrylevine@...> wrote:

> Greg,  you're talking about a major refacing of the
> mouthpiece to cure this
> reed overhang. And changing its internal volume by
> taking down the table.
> 
> Well and good. But why in the world would I want to
> do this with anything
> except an inexpensive mouthpiece that I regarded as
> a blank to begin with?
> 
> Actually, I have a (relatively) inexpensive metal
> Chinese-made mouthpiece
> from Ebay like this - narrow table, reed overhang. 
> It didn't play too
> badly, btw, (not really well either!) but that's not
> really the point here.
> I just think the reed overhang doesn't make that
> much of a difference. It's
> the curvature of the facing on the rails and the
> inside geometry that
> matter. If (as a gedanken experiment) you built up
> the outside of such a
> piece to match the reed, I think it would still
> sound the same. You'd just
> have thicker rails.
> 
> Whereas,  if one sands the rails of the reed because
> one doesn't like the
> overhang, that's going to change the character of
> the reed a GREAT deal.
> Brighter, buzzier.
> 
> Esthetically, the overhand isn't pleasing. And
> perhaps in some cases it may
> cause some discomfort. But I don't think it matters
> otherwise.
> 
> > From: "Greg Wier" <gregwier@...>
> > Reply-To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> > Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 01:42:03 -0000
> > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Reed Wider Than
> Table
> > 
> > 
> >  
> >>> > > Why would a mouthpiece manufacturer produce
> a mouthpiece which didn't
> >>> match the width of currenty marketed reeds -
> i.e. reed wider than rails.  I
> >>> have often found mouthpieces that I liked though
> they were plagued by this
> >>> problem.  What are the options?
> >>> > >
> >> >
> > To put the discussion back on track,an
> inaccurately programmed CNC machine can
> > result in the body of the mouthpiece being too
> narrow at the edges of the
> > table which results in impeded reed vibration.
> > 
> > Adjusting each reed can become tiresome. The table
> height can be reduced until
> > the table spreads enough to accomodate the reed
> and then the curve and baffle
> > are adjusted.  One must be careful not to make the
> table too thin. 
> 
> 

  Nice summary. I think you have successfully put the topic to rest.
  Peter--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:
>
> Babbitt STMs occasionally have reed overhang.  These are made by forging the two separate halves and brazing them together.  So this process can create different widths if there is production variation in the forging or brazing processes.
>  
> I agree that reed overhang can cause irritation.  I also cut my lower lip once, in my youth, while playing very loud outside using a Bari plastic reed on a Brilhart Level Air.
>  
> Overhang also robs the set-up of sound.  The reed area that is overhanging or on the side rails is not doing anything to help produce sound (besides providing a seal).  
>  
> Rail overhang is not so bad.  If too wide, reed centering is more difficult.  Near the tip, I think rail overhang can make articulation a little slower.  This is just an impression, not the result of a structured test.
>  
> A wide window provides a nice full sound but it can make the reed edges wear out a little sooner and can sound a little buzzy.  I have seen custom HR MP by Jary where he added epoxy (probably black Apoxie) to narrow a wide window.  I'm concerned that it may not hold up well.  
>  
> I once saved a hacked up BD Hollywood that the body was filed so that there was a lot of reed overhang.  I used a brass powder epoxy but told the client it might not hold up well.  I never heard back.  There is a photo at the end of my "Repairs and Custom Mouthpiece Work " Photos.  Also, this material tarnishes to dark brown so it will not stay a nice as shown in the photos.
>  
> Bass clarinet reeds are a little wider than tenor sax reeds so they are fair game to try on a mouthpiece that has a window that is too wide.
>  
> Sop sax reeds are a little wider than clarinet reeds.  I do not care for clarinet reeds on sop sax but I have only tried a few.  
> 
> 
> 
> Check out: http://www.MojoMouthpieceWork.com
>

Lance,

How do you know that you would not achieve the same
results with a different geometry having the same
constriction and volume? I am not questioning the fact
that once you achieve the correct parameters in those
areas you are going to get much better intonation, but you
seem to be attributing it to the long constriction you
made via the insert. How about a smaller chamber, or a
chamber that ends directly at the neck, as Nederveen seems
to suggest? 

My reading indicates that the two conditions that need to
be met are the correct volume and the correct diameter
constriction to go along with that volume. You achieved
that with your insert, fine. I have no problem with that,
but there are other ways to achieve it.

Optimally, for a Helmholtz resonator, you would want a
circular compliance and as short a constriction as
possible. You may not need the optimal, but you need
something that will actually allow the resonance.  This is
what is written in Fletcher and Rossing:

"At low frequencies the matching is achieved if the
internal volume of the mpc is equal to that of the missing
conical apex, *which requires that the mpc have a slightly
bulbous internal shape so that it actually constitutes a
sort of Helmholtz resonator* [emphasis mine]. The
high-frequency match can them be achieved by arranging the
shape of the constriction where it joins the main part of
the instrument so that the Helmholtz resonance frequency
of the mpc is the same as the first resonance of the
missing conical apex, at which it is half a wavelength
long."

I don't claim to know how pure the sound of the Hh
resonator has to be to make this work, as different shapes
of Hh resonator with different openings will all sound a
decent note when played (think of a coke bottle, for
instance). Probably in this case a long constriction such
as what you made works fine (except if you need to move
the mpc). It is very possible that a chamber that opens
directly onto the neck would work as well or better, and
it has the advantage that you can still move the mpc on
the neck.

I have done no experiments, but it seems entirely possible
that having the end of the mpc actually protude into the
chamber would still work fine. For normal tuning you could
arrange things so that the end of the neck is flush with
the end of the chamber, filling the throat entirely. This
still allows the mpc to move, although it compromises the
ideal.

 It also seems entirely possible that having a normal
throat would also work just as well as your insert, IF the
constriction and chamber were of the correct sizes.

What you have done is to take a mpc with a chamber which
is too large and modified it so that the volume is correct
by adding an insert, no? How about simply making the
chamber the correct size in the first place, remembering
that baffle +chamber + throat volume (plus a dash for reed
compliance) = total internal volume?

Toby

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

> Professor + Toby
> 
> Please do not ignore my earlier post where I
> provided the audio "Intonation Demonstration".� I
> will include all information and link here again so
> you will have no excuse.� Please:
> 
> 1. read the test discription, 
> 2. listen to the audio file, and then 
> 3. explain please, why someone with no chops,
> playing a completely strange instrument, on a
> mouthpiece with an overly large chamber that could
> NEVER play in tune, could play double octaves with
> that accuracy, if it was not the constriction insert
> which acoustically corrected the design, as I claim.
> 
> Here are the facts again:� 
> 
> 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>
> 
> MM
> 
> 
> --- On Sat, 8/15/09, ANTON WEINBERG
> <anton.weinberg@...> wrote:
> 
> From: ANTON WEINBERG
> <anton.weinberg@...>
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc
> volume
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Saturday, August 15, 2009, 1:29 PM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> �
> 
> 
> 
> 
>     
>                   i enjoyed your reply which was
> really on the button: one has to be extremely
> careful about the application of theory and
> science--not there is anything wrong with it but
> Humanity is the factor that contradicts evrything
> (thank god).
> my research has demonstrated too often that the
> examination of what really great players use is a
> 'set up' that seems to fly in the face of science or
> theory because that individual is after some musical
> result that is their own solution to the pieces
> interpretation.
> hence:- too many players ask for a mouthpiece to
> make them sound like charlie Parker--for instance--
> regrettably nobody ever asks for a mouthpiece that
> will enable them to THINK like charlie Parker
> prof weinberg
> 
> --- On Sat, 15/8/09, kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp
> <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp> wrote:
> 
> 
> From: kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc
> volume
> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> Date: Saturday, 15 August, 2009, 1:26 PM
> 
> 
> � 
> 
> Thanks for that bit of information, Professor. The
> neck
> seems a particularly nasty place, where small
> changes in
> diameter can create big effects intonationally. I
> know
> this personally from my experiences with shakuhachi
> flutes, where the area that would correspond to the
> neck
> needs to be adjusted to a tolerance of about 1/100"
> for
> consistent results.
> 
> I know that Lance (you must be reading this) thinks
> that
> my aim is solely to break his balls, but actually I
> am
> more interested in getting correct information out
> into a
> realm where misconception rules. I find that I am as
> guilty as the next guy sometimes, when I get out of
> my
> depth and end up posting false stuff. I had a long
> debate
> with jbt not long ago on SOTW, and after pages of
> thread I
> finally wrote to Dr. Wolfe and discovered that we
> were
> both wrong--or at best both only partially right. 
> 
> It is actually a bit ludicrous that a bunch of
>  amateurs
> are arguing points on which even the experts
> sometimes
> fail to agree, and which require quite a bit more
> background, understanding (and math) than any of us
> possess. I have invited Dr. Wolfe to participate in
> these
> discussions, but he has (wisely I think) declined. 
> 
> I believe that with our level of understanding, we
> can
> only end up speculating, and we are probably all
> wrong
> quite a bit of the time, at least as regards the
> finer
> points of what we are discussing. 
> 
> I do not act as Lance's foil for my own pleasure,
> but
> because I believe that while he may truly be
> achieving
> good results, he is attributing them inaccurately:
> quoting
> science that neither he (nor I) fully understand as
> a
> cause for results, while the true acoustic situation
> is
> much more complex.
> 
> Lance, personally I would be much more comfortable,
> and
> probably a lot less in your face, if you simply
> shared the
> results of
>  your experiments without resorting to "science
> babble", and I include myself as a purveyor of
> science
> babble. I suspect that you are a consumate
> technician with
> a lot of playing skills as well. With those gifts
> you can
> most probably contribute to the state of the art,
> but I
> suspect that the scientific basis on which you claim
> your
> results is only partially correct at best. 
> 
> I am in the same position in terms of formal
> knowledge,
> and we always end up playing "he said, she said".
> Isn't it
> time that we stop pretending that we are experts and
> try
> to help each other and all the other members here by
> sharing results and ideas without resorting to a
> pseudo-scientific pissing contest?
> 
> I am certainly willing if you are.
> 
> Toby
> 
> --- ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld.
> com> wrote:
> 
> > an interesting adjacent piece of information: -
> some
> 
== $B0J2<$N%a%C%;!<%8$O>JN,$5$l$^$7$?(B =

Sounds good. I think I can do more or less the same with
my normal mpc with a normal chamber...

Toby

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

> OK, figured it out.� Here is the link.� No
excuses
> now.
> 
> 
> http://www.martinmods.com/mp02a.mov
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- On Sat, 8/15/09, MartinMods
> <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
> 
> From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc
> volume
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Saturday, August 15, 2009, 1:57 PM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> �
> 
> 
> 
> 
>     
>                   Professor + Toby
> 
> Please do not ignore my earlier post where I
> provided the audio "Intonation Demonstration" .�
I
> will include all information and link here again so
> you will have no excuse.� Please:
> 
> 1. read the test discription, 
> 2. listen to the audio file, and then 
> 3. explain please, why someone with no chops,
> playing a completely strange instrument, on a
> mouthpiece with an overly large chamber that could
> NEVER play in tune, could play double octaves with
> that accuracy, if it was not the constriction insert
> which acoustically corrected the design, as I claim.
> 
> Here are the facts again:� 
> 
> 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>
> 
> MM
> 
> 
> --- On Sat, 8/15/09, ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@
> btopenworld. com> wrote:
> 
> From: ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld.
> com>
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc
> volume
> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> Date: Saturday, August 15, 2009, 1:29 PM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> �
> 
>     
>                   i enjoyed your reply which was
> really on the button: one has to be extremely
> careful about the application of theory and
> science--not there is anything wrong with it but
> Humanity is the factor that contradicts evrything
> (thank god).
> my research has demonstrated too often that the
> examination of what really great players use is a
> 'set up' that seems to fly in the face of science or
> theory because that individual is after some musical
> result that is their own solution to the pieces
> interpretation.
> hence:- too many players ask for a mouthpiece to
> make them sound like charlie Parker--for instance--
> regrettably nobody ever asks for a mouthpiece that
> will enable them to THINK like charlie Parker
> prof weinberg
> 
> --- On Sat, 15/8/09, kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp
> <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp> wrote:
> 
> 
> From: kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc
> volume
> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> Date: Saturday, 15 August, 2009, 1:26 PM
> 
> 
> � 
> 
> Thanks for that bit of information, Professor. The
> neck
> seems a particularly nasty place, where small
> changes in
> diameter can create big effects intonationally. I
> know
> this personally from my experiences with shakuhachi
> flutes, where the area that would correspond to the
> neck
> needs to be adjusted to a tolerance of about 1/100"
> for
> consistent results.
> 
> I know that Lance (you must be reading this) thinks
> that
> my aim is solely to break his balls, but actually I
> am
> more interested in getting correct information out
> into a
> realm where misconception rules. I find that I am as
> guilty as the next guy sometimes, when I get out of
> my
> depth and end up posting false stuff. I had a long
> debate
> with jbt not long ago on SOTW, and after pages of
> thread I
> finally wrote to Dr. Wolfe and discovered that we
> were
> both wrong--or at best both only partially right. 
> 
> It is actually a bit ludicrous that a bunch of
>  amateurs
> are arguing points on which even the experts
> sometimes
> fail to agree, and which require quite a bit more
> background, understanding (and math) than any of us
> possess. I have invited Dr. Wolfe to participate in
> these
> discussions, but he has (wisely I think) declined. 
> 
> I believe that with our level of understanding, we
> can
> only end up speculating, and we are probably all
> wrong
> quite a bit of the time, at least as regards the
> finer
> points of what we are discussing. 
> 
> I do not act as Lance's foil for my own pleasure,
> but
> because I believe that while he may truly be
> achieving
> good results, he is attributing them inaccurately:
> quoting
> science that neither he (nor I) fully understand as
> a
> cause for results, while the true acoustic situation
> is
> much more complex.
> 
> Lance, personally I would be much more comfortable,
> and
> probably a lot less in your face, if you simply
> shared the
> results of
>  your experiments without resorting to "science
> babble", and I include myself as a purveyor of
> science
> babble. I suspect that you are a consumate
> technician with
> 
== $B0J2<$N%a%C%;!<%8$O>JN,$5$l$^$7$?(B =

Just to make myself perfectly clear. I totally agree that
you have improved the intonation by correcting the
parameters necessary for good intonation with your neck
insert, given the excessive size of the chamber when you
started.

Toby 

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

> Professor + Toby, 
> 
> As this was a technical demonstration of acoustic
> design, perhaps one need evaluate it for what it is
> in it's simplicity, outside the musical context -
> without attempting to relate it to music and
> psychology. 
> 
> In plane shop talk:� Anyone who has ever reamed
out
> an Otto Link chamber knows from an unforgettable
> personal experience, that it can not be played in
> tune.� The degree of even intonation, stability,
> and accuracy, of this little demo, would be
> impossible by even the most experience player.�
The
> only explanation for it is, the insert corrected the
> design.� 
> 
> This is a group where we attempt to share
> information.� There is mine.� If anyone
were
> genuinely interested and curious, then they would
> attempt to duplicate my findings, or compare
> directly related similar experiences, as I have done
> to those of jbtsax, in this case, and others here
> have reported regarding mine.� Then we could have
> an intelligent discussion of the results based upon
> common experience which I'm sure everyone would find
> interesting.
> 
> If not, then the most considerate action for all,
> would be to start a new conversation.� 
> 
> 
> 
> --- On Sat, 8/15/09, ANTON WEINBERG
> <anton.weinberg@...> wrote:
> 
> From: ANTON WEINBERG
> <anton.weinberg@...>
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc
> volume
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Saturday, August 15, 2009, 2:18 PM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> �
> 
> 
> 
> 
>     
>                   please forgive my seeming obtuse
> answer but it is the only way i can think this
> through and keep a musical context.
> there are words in all languages that are written
> the same but have different meanings dependent on
> pronunciation: - the word PROTEST for example. there
> is 'a protest' and then one can 'PROTEST'� THE
> ACCENT IS DIFFERENT. subsequently we introduce tonal
> variations with the voice ie humour, cynicism,
> threats and whatever and consequently the meanings
> mount up yet our word remains with its single
> spelling. Parker did not think as a result of his
> sound--sound is a function of content so Parkers
> sound came as a result of what he wanted to say: as
> did the rest of his ability including all the other
> attributes such as intonation and finger work. you
> as an experienced thinking musician knows what you
> want to say and consequently the appropriate results
> appear. However this is not to say that the 'set up'
> would suit for more intense work day by day, it
> could be that it tests the muscles too much and as a
> consequence your lip goes. but i think you get my
>  point-good old humanity justifies its exhistance
> because of its adaptability.
> are things that simple--i would submit that they
> are.
> prof weinberg
> 
> --- On Sat, 15/8/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@
> yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc
> volume
> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> Date: Saturday, 15 August, 2009, 2:59 PM
> 
> 
> � 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must remove the "space" that Yahoo automatically
> inserts after a "." in my audio link's address.�
> There are 2 ".."'s.
> 
> --- On Sat, 8/15/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@
> yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc
> volume
> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> Date: Saturday, August 15, 2009, 1:57 PM
> 
> 
> � 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Professor + Toby
> 
> Please do not ignore my earlier post where I
> provided the audio "Intonation Demonstration" .�
I
> will include all information and link here again so
> you will have no excuse.� Please:
> 
> 1. read the test discription, 
> 2. listen to the audio file, and then 
> 3. explain please, why someone with no chops,
> playing a completely strange instrument, on a
> mouthpiece with an overly large chamber that could
> NEVER play in tune, could play double octaves with
> that accuracy, if it was not the constriction insert
> which acoustically corrected the design, as I claim.
> 
> Here are the facts again:� 
> 
> 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>
> 
> MM
> 
> 
> --- On Sat, 8/15/09, ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@
> btopenworld. com> wrote:
> 
> 
> From: ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld.
> com>
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc
> volume
> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> Date: Saturday, August 15, 2009, 1:29 PM
> 
> 
> � 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i enjoyed your reply which was really on the button:
> one has to be extremely careful about the
> application of theory and science--not there is
> anything wrong with it but Humanity is the factor
> that contradicts evrything (thank god).
> my research has demonstrated too often that the
> examination of what really great players use is a
> 'set up' that seems to fly in the face of science or
> theory because that individual is after some musical
> result that is their own solution to the pieces
> interpretation.
> hence:- too many players ask for a mouthpiece to
> make them sound like charlie Parker--for instance--
> regrettably nobody ever asks for a mouthpiece that
> will enable them to THINK like charlie Parker
> prof weinberg
> 
== $B0J2<$N%a%C%;!<%8$O>JN,$5$l$^$7$?(B =

F&R go into some detail as regards brass mpcs, including
the effects of different cup shapes. I'm not sure how much
directly applies to reed mpcs, as brass and winds have
completely different reed modes. Reeds swing inward and
have natural resonances much higher than the playing
frequency, whereas lips swing outward (or sideways in the
highest modes) and have to match the playing frequency.
These are quite different cases acoustically.

I'll try to do some reading and post anything relevant to
woodwind vs brass mpcs.

Toby

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

> I agree that it is very interesting and a worthy
> topic for further research and discussion.$B%D(B 
> 
> That's from Benade - FMA, in the discription of
> brass mouthpieces.$B%D(B He does not go that deeply into
> it, but there is a little more than I included
> here.$B%D(B His course notes from the Stanford class on
> the development of wind instruments, deals with this
> some as relates to reed driven conical wind
> instruments.
> 
> Further reading on Brass mouthpieces and lead pipes
> may provide some more info applicable to saxes.$B%D(B
> Basson and oboe reed making for sure.
> 
> 
> 
> --- On Sat, 8/15/09, jbtsax <jtalcott47@...>
> wrote:
> 
> From: jbtsax <jtalcott47@...>
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Nederveen quote on mpc
> volume
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Saturday, August 15, 2009, 4:07 PM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> $B%D(B
> 
> 
> 
> 
>     
>                   Lance,
> 
> You stated in your post:
> 
> $B%D(B"a constriction between the chamber and the body
> tubeserves to amplify the higher mode resonances.$B%D(B
> It increases thepressure modulation to flow ratio,
> increasing the impedance of thehigher resonance
> modes."
> 
> May I ask what your source for this information
> is?$B%D(B I am not challenging your statement in any
> way, I would simply like to find out more about this
> specific area of mouthpiece acoustics.$B%D(B Thanks.
> 
> John
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, MartinMods
> <lancelotburt@ ...> wrote:
> >
> > Yes,$B%F$D(B That's too bad that he is not
> accessible.$B%F$D(B 
> > 
> > He doesn't mention a constriction when he
> describes the simple mathematical truncated cone
> model, or anywhere in his book.$B%F$D(B I don't know
> why.$B%F$D(B 
> > 
> > Benade had experience with brass wind instruments,
> and described the similarity in woodwinds.$B%F$D(B There
> it is, plain as day, in the class notes, in large
> print with large illustration when introducing the
> conical reed instrument:
> > 
> > "Cavity + Constriction is the surrogate for the
> missing cone - as seen by the main cone."
> > 
> > With a cavity or chamber who's inner diameter is
> larger than that of the truncated body tube opening,
> there will always be a constriction, as$B%F$D(B with
> Sax's original mouthpiece design,$B%F$D%F$D(B While the
> actual design of the constricton plays a roll, a
> constriction between the chamber and the body tube
> serves to amplify the higher mode resonances.$B%F$D(B It
> increases the pressure modulation to flow ratio,
> increasing the imedance of the higher resonance
> modes.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- On Sat, 8/15/09, kymarto123@. .. kymarto123@.
> .. wrote:
> > 
> > From: kymarto123@. .. kymarto123@. ..
> > Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on
> mpc volume
> > To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> > Date: Saturday, August 15, 2009, 8:47 AM
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > $B%F$D(B
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >     
> >                   Too bad that Nederveen has never
> answered my mails or we
> > 
> > might be able to ask him directly. I'm certainly
> not
> > 
> > bothering Dr. Wolfe for this, but I think that if
> > 
> > Nederveen had not been talking about saxes in
> general he
> > 
> > would have referred to the specific case(s), as
> scientists
> > 
> > are supposed to do.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Actually I don't know what perturbations in the
> neck and
> > 
> > the upper part of the body Nederveen is talking
> about, but
> > 
> > I am guessing he is talking about the cone angle
> in the
> > 
> > bends. I am thinking now that perhaps the bends
> are more
> > 
> > significant than I had thought before, because I
> cannot
> > 
> > see what other perturbations (apart from the
> cylindrical
> > 
> > tenon) he could be taking about. Or perhaps it is
> the
> > 
> > widening of the cone angle just at the end of the
> neck.
> > 
> > Another possibility is that the act of bending the
> neck
> > 
> > changes the cone angle. 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > From the equation the amount of virtual widening
> in the
> > 
> > bends certainly seemed insignificant, but things
> are very
> > 
> > tricky near the top of the horn, so perhaps I was
> wrong. 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > In any case it is an intriguing statement and begs
> further
> > 
> > clarification.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > BTW what do you think of his statement that the
> chamber
> > 
> > should end at the beginning of the neck? Did you
> answer
> > 
> > that and I missed it?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Toby
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > Toby wrote, 
> > 
> > > "Maybe, maybe not. My take is that he was
> talking
> > 
> 
=$B!<%O%$%7!"%[!%b'%F!%%5!#%7!%%/!"%^%;%O%[%c!"%*!"(B�
$B!+!"%-!"%=(B =

--- On Mon, 8/17/09, kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...> wrote:

>I have done no experiments...

Please do some.  Your trial experiances seem to be out of balance with what is needed to gain more insight.


      

Your opinion.  Thanks.  Don't take this as an attack, but realize this.  You can read and listen to other's advice for as long as you want, and you may form a huge opinion and think that you actually know something, but until you actually have the physical experience yourself, you possess only 1/2 of what one needs for knowledge. 

What I am saying is this: If you ever attempted to "just trim it off" as you so casually advise us, you would see that to do so cleanly and evenly, without splitting the reed, is practically impossible.  One can not equate trimming the sides of the reed with trimming the tip of the reed.  

When trimming the tip, one cuts primarily accross the grain at a 90 degree angle, or close to it.  This presents very little problem or possibility of the reed splitting -least one performs the trimming in haste and the reed splits on  a corner edge.

When trimming the sides (width) of the reed, one is faced with these issues:

1. The table/rails of the mouthpiece get wider toward the tip, if even only slightly whereas,

2. the grain of the cane runs straight.

3. From the outside edge of the side rail, the body of the mouthpiece slopes away at about a 75 degree angle, rather than falling off at 90 degrees perpendicular to the rail surface.

4. The side edge of the reed get very, very thin and flexible toward the tip.

So, how do we just, "trim" the width of the reed then?

1. Sandpaper:  If you sand the reed on it's side, regardless of what type of motion one uses (side to side. front to back, oval) you will notice that the tip reacts differently to sanding than the thicker parts.  More often than not, the tip ends up either narrower or wider, than the rest of the reed depending on which type of motion was used.  It is also very easy to split the reed at the corner of the tip and it takes a long time to do a large reed.

2.  Trim along mouthpiece rail:  This presents all kinds of problems.  a. you run a good chance of eventually scraping your side rails off.  b. If you cut from back to tip, the reed splits.  c. If you cut from tip to butt, you can't get a clean start since the tip of the reed is even with the tip of the mouthpiece. d. If you move the reed down, to get a good starting cut, the reed will be narrower than the mouthpiece.  e. this may not be a problem IF you get a clean cut, BUT, since the sides of the mouthpiece fall off the rails at a 75 degree angle and your rasor has an angled edge, you will bevel the side edges of the reed inwards at least 65 degrees.  f. the beveling will be noticeably uneven.  g. the uneven beveling towards the tip, will cause the reed tp play poorly and undependibly.

So Toby.  Perhaps I am wrong, and you know of a way to trim reeds cleanly and evenly to reduce their width, matching the widening profile of the table/rails of a mouthpiece.  If you do, then please give us the details, and I will learn something and apologize.  If not, then please realize that here, advice based purely on textbook, hearsay opinion, and not actual personal experience is really worthless and annoying to read.  At least for me.

MM





--- On Mon, 8/17/09, kymarto123@... <kymarto123@ybb.ne.jp> wrote:

From: kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Reed Wider Than Table
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, August 17, 2009, 2:28 PM






 




    
                  AFAIK it doesn't matter much. The advice I have heard is

to trim the reed to match the mpc. This can be quite

important when the tip of the reed is a different shape

than the tip rail of the mpc; it is much less important

for the side rails, but there is no reason to have the

overhang--just trim it off.



Toby



--- Barry Levine <barrylevine@ norwoodlight. com> wrote:



> Greg,  you're talking about a major refacing of the

> mouthpiece to cure this

> reed overhang. And changing its internal volume by

> taking down the table.

> 

> Well and good. But why in the world would I want to

> do this with anything

> except an inexpensive mouthpiece that I regarded as

> a blank to begin with?

> 

> Actually, I have a (relatively) inexpensive metal

> Chinese-made mouthpiece

> from Ebay like this - narrow table, reed overhang. 

> It didn't play too

> badly, btw, (not really well either!) but that's not

> really the point here.

> I just think the reed overhang doesn't make that

> much of a difference. It's

> the curvature of the facing on the rails and the

> inside geometry that

> matter. If (as a gedanken experiment) you built up

> the outside of such a

> piece to match the reed, I think it would still

> sound the same. You'd just

> have thicker rails.

> 

> Whereas,  if one sands the rails of the reed because

> one doesn't like the

> overhang, that's going to change the character of

> the reed a GREAT deal.

> Brighter, buzzier.

> 

> Esthetically, the overhand isn't pleasing. And

> perhaps in some cases it may

> cause some discomfort. But I don't think it matters

> otherwise.

> 

> > From: "Greg Wier" <gregwier@netscape. com>

> > Reply-To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com

> > Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 01:42:03 -0000

> > To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com

> > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Reed Wider Than

> Table

> > 

> > 

> >  

> >>> > > Why would a mouthpiece manufacturer produce

> a mouthpiece which didn't

> >>> match the width of currenty marketed reeds -

> i.e. reed wider than rails.  I

> >>> have often found mouthpieces that I liked though

> they were plagued by this

> >>> problem.  What are the options?

> >>> > >

> >> >

> > To put the discussion back on track,an

> inaccurately programmed CNC machine can

> > result in the body of the mouthpiece being too

> narrow at the edges of the

> > table which results in impeded reed vibration.

> > 

> > Adjusting each reed can become tiresome. The table

> height can be reduced until

> > the table spreads enough to accomodate the reed

> and then the curve and baffle

> > are adjusted.  One must be careful not to make the

> table too thin. 

> 

> 




 

      

    
    
	
	 
	
	








	


	
	


      

Toby,

I emailed you directly and suggested that we continue this discussion outside this group forum.  While I find it interesting, I am aware that most of the group members would like to get back to "tech talk".  I know that you are traveling, so perhaps you have not seen that email yet.  

--- On Mon, 8/17/09, kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...> wrote:

From: kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc volume
To: MouthpieceWork@...m
Date: Monday, August 17, 2009, 3:03 PM






 




    
                  Lance,



How do you know that you would not achieve the same

results with a different geometry having the same

constriction and volume? I am not questioning the fact

that once you achieve the correct parameters in those

areas you are going to get much better intonation, but you

seem to be attributing it to the long constriction you

made via the insert. How about a smaller chamber, or a

chamber that ends directly at the neck, as Nederveen seems

to suggest? 



My reading indicates that the two conditions that need to

be met are the correct volume and the correct diameter

constriction to go along with that volume. You achieved

that with your insert, fine. I have no problem with that,

but there are other ways to achieve it.



Optimally, for a Helmholtz resonator, you would want a

circular compliance and as short a constriction as

possible. You may not need the optimal, but you need

something that will actually allow the resonance.  This is

what is written in Fletcher and Rossing:



"At low frequencies the matching is achieved if the

internal volume of the mpc is equal to that of the missing

conical apex, *which requires that the mpc have a slightly

bulbous internal shape so that it actually constitutes a

sort of Helmholtz resonator* [emphasis mine]. The

high-frequency match can them be achieved by arranging the

shape of the constriction where it joins the main part of

the instrument so that the Helmholtz resonance frequency

of the mpc is the same as the first resonance of the

missing conical apex, at which it is half a wavelength

long."



I don't claim to know how pure the sound of the Hh

resonator has to be to make this work, as different shapes

of Hh resonator with different openings will all sound a

decent note when played (think of a coke bottle, for

instance). Probably in this case a long constriction such

as what you made works fine (except if you need to move

the mpc). It is very possible that a chamber that opens

directly onto the neck would work as well or better, and

it has the advantage that you can still move the mpc on

the neck.



I have done no experiments, but it seems entirely possible

that having the end of the mpc actually protude into the

chamber would still work fine. For normal tuning you could

arrange things so that the end of the neck is flush with

the end of the chamber, filling the throat entirely. This

still allows the mpc to move, although it compromises the

ideal.



It also seems entirely possible that having a normal

throat would also work just as well as your insert, IF the

constriction and chamber were of the correct sizes.



What you have done is to take a mpc with a chamber which

is too large and modified it so that the volume is correct

by adding an insert, no? How about simply making the

chamber the correct size in the first place, remembering

that baffle +chamber + throat volume (plus a dash for reed

compliance) = total internal volume?



Toby



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



> Professor + Toby

> 

> Please do not ignore my earlier post where I

> provided the audio "Intonation Demonstration" .� I

> will include all information and link here again so

> you will have no excuse.� Please:

> 

> 1. read the test discription, 

> 2. listen to the audio file, and then 

> 3. explain please, why someone with no chops,

> playing a completely strange instrument, on a

> mouthpiece with an overly large chamber that could

> NEVER play in tune, could play double octaves with

> that accuracy, if it was not the constriction insert

> which acoustically corrected the design, as I claim.

> 

> Here are the facts again:� 

> 

> 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.& #65533;

> 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>

> 

> MM

> 

> 

> --- On Sat, 8/15/09, ANTON WEINBERG

> <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com> wrote:

> 

> From: ANTON WEINBERG

> <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld. com>

> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc

> volume

> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com

> Date: Saturday, August 15, 2009, 1:29 PM

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> �

> 

> 

> 

> 

>     

>                   i enjoyed your reply which was

> really on the button: one has to be extremely

> careful about the application of theory and

> science--not there is anything wrong with it but

> Humanity is the factor that contradicts evrything

> (thank god).

> my research has demonstrated too often that the

> examination of what really great players use is a

> 'set up' that seems to fly in the face of science or

> theory because that individual is after some musical

> result that is their own solution to the pieces

> interpretation.

> hence:- too many players ask for a mouthpiece to

> make them sound like charlie Parker--for instance--

> regrettably nobody ever asks for a mouthpiece that

> will enable them to THINK like charlie Parker

> prof weinberg

> 

> --- On Sat, 15/8/09, kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp

> <kymarto123@ ybb. ne.jp> wrote:

> 

> 

> From: kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp <kymarto123@ ybb. ne.jp>

> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc

> volume

> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com

> Date: Saturday, 15 August, 2009, 1:26 PM

> 

> 

> � 

> 

> Thanks for that bit of information, Professor. The

> neck

> seems a particularly nasty place, where small

> changes in

> diameter can create big effects intonationally. I

> know

> this personally from my experiences with shakuhachi

> flutes, where the area that would correspond to the

> neck

> needs to be adjusted to a tolerance of about 1/100"

> for

> consistent results.

> 

> I know that Lance (you must be reading this) thinks

> that

> my aim is solely to break his balls, but actually I

> am

> more interested in getting correct information out

> into a

> realm where misconception rules. I find that I am as

> guilty as the next guy sometimes, when I get out of

> my

> depth and end up posting false stuff. I had a long

> debate

> with jbt not long ago on SOTW, and after pages of

> thread I

> finally wrote to Dr. Wolfe and discovered that we

> were

> both wrong--or at best both only partially right. 

> 

> It is actually a bit ludicrous that a bunch of

>  amateurs

> are arguing points on which even the experts

> sometimes

> fail to agree, and which require quite a bit more

> background, understanding (and math) than any of us

> possess. I have invited Dr. Wolfe to participate in

> these

> discussions, but he has (wisely I think) declined. 

> 

> I believe that with our level of understanding, we

> can

> only end up speculating, and we are probably all

> wrong

> quite a bit of the time, at least as regards the

> finer

> points of what we are discussing. 

> 

> I do not act as Lance's foil for my own pleasure,

> but

> because I believe that while he may truly be

> achieving

> good results, he is attributing them inaccurately:

> quoting

> science that neither he (nor I) fully understand as

> a

> cause for results, while the true acoustic situation

> is

> much more complex.

> 

> Lance, personally I would be much more comfortable,

> and

> probably a lot less in your face, if you simply

> shared the

> results of

>  your experiments without resorting to "science

> babble", and I include myself as a purveyor of

> science

> babble. I suspect that you are a consumate

> technician with

> a lot of playing skills as well. With those gifts

> you can

> most probably contribute to the state of the art,

> but I

> suspect that the scientific basis on which you claim

> your

> results is only partially correct at best. 

> 

> I am in the same position in terms of formal

> knowledge,

> and we always end up playing "he said, she said".

> Isn't it

> time that we stop pretending that we are experts and

> try

> to help each other and all the other members here by

> sharing results and ideas without resorting to a

> pseudo-scientific pissing contest?

> 

> I am certainly willing if you are.

> 

> Toby

> 

> --- ANTON WEINBERG <anton.weinberg@ btopenworld.

> com> wrote:

> 

> > an interesting adjacent piece of information: -

> some

> 

=== 以下のメッセージは省略されました ===




 

      

    
    
	
	 
	
	








	


	
	


      

So, I think the only way to cleanly trim the width of the reed requires a metal (steel) template - a sheet of metal with slits in it that match the outer edge of the mouthpiece rails.  One centers the reed, locks it in place (for safety, it should have a locking mechanism - to save the thumb or fingers), and inserting a razor into the top of the slit, quickly slices the reed cleanly and evenly, from tip to butt, with a square edge.



--- On Mon, 8/17/09, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:

From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Reed Wider Than Table
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, August 17, 2009, 4:25 PM






 




    
                  Your opinion.  Thanks.  Don't take this as an attack, but realize this.  You can read and listen to other's advice for as long as you want, and you may form a huge opinion and think that you actually know something, but until you actually have the physical experience yourself, you possess only 1/2 of what one needs for knowledge. 

What I am saying is this: If you ever attempted to "just trim it off" as you so casually advise us, you would see that to do so cleanly and evenly, without splitting the reed, is practically impossible.  One can not equate trimming the sides of the reed with trimming the tip of the reed.  

When trimming the tip, one cuts primarily accross the grain at a 90 degree angle, or close
 to it.  This presents very little problem or possibility of the reed splitting -least one performs the trimming in haste and the reed splits on  a corner edge.

When trimming the sides (width) of the reed, one is faced with these issues:

1. The table/rails of the mouthpiece get wider toward the tip, if even only slightly whereas,

2. the grain of the cane runs straight.

3. From the outside edge of the side rail, the body of the mouthpiece slopes away at about a 75 degree angle, rather than falling off at 90 degrees perpendicular to the rail surface.

4. The side edge of the reed get very, very thin and flexible toward the tip.

So, how do we just, "trim" the width of the reed then?

1. Sandpaper:  If you sand the reed on it's side, regardless of what type of motion one uses (side to side. front to back, oval) you will notice that the tip reacts differently to sanding than the thicker
 parts.  More often than not, the tip ends up either narrower or wider, than the rest of the reed depending on which type of motion was used.  It is also very easy to split the reed at the corner of the tip and it takes a long time to do a large reed.

2.  Trim along mouthpiece rail:  This presents all kinds of problems.  a. you run a good chance of eventually scraping your side rails off.  b. If you cut from back to tip, the reed splits.  c. If you cut from tip to butt, you can't get a clean start since the tip of the reed is even with the tip of the mouthpiece. d. If you move the reed down, to get a good starting cut, the reed will be narrower than the mouthpiece.  e. this may not be a problem IF you get a clean cut, BUT, since the sides of the mouthpiece fall off the rails at a 75 degree
 angle and your rasor has an angled edge, you will bevel the side edges of the reed inwards at least 65 degrees.  f. the beveling will be noticeably uneven.  g. the uneven beveling towards the tip, will cause the reed tp play poorly and undependibly.

So Toby.  Perhaps I am wrong, and you know of a way to trim reeds cleanly and evenly to reduce their width, matching the widening profile of the table/rails of a mouthpiece.  If you do, then please give us the details, and I will learn something and apologize.  If not, then please realize that here, advice based purely on textbook, hearsay opinion, and not actual personal experience is really worthless and annoying to read.  At least for me.

MM





--- On Mon, 8/17/09, kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp> wrote:

From: kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Reed Wider Than Table
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Monday, August 17, 2009, 2:28 PM






 

    
                  AFAIK it doesn't matter much. The advice I have heard is

to trim the reed to match the mpc. This can be quite

important when the tip of the reed is a different shape

than the tip rail of the mpc; it is much less important

for the side rails, but there is no reason to have the

overhang--just trim it off.



Toby



--- Barry Levine <barrylevine@ norwoodlight. com> wrote:



> Greg,  you're talking about a major refacing of the

> mouthpiece to cure this

> reed overhang. And changing its internal volume by

> taking down the table.

> 

> Well and good. But why in the world would I want to

> do this with anything

> except an inexpensive mouthpiece that I regarded as

> a blank to begin with?

> 

> Actually, I have a (relatively) inexpensive metal

> Chinese-made mouthpiece

> from Ebay like this - narrow table, reed overhang. 

> It didn't play too

> badly, btw, (not really well either!) but that's not

> really the point here.

> I just think the reed overhang doesn't make that

> much of a difference. It's

> the curvature of the facing on the rails and the

> inside geometry that

> matter. If (as a gedanken experiment) you built up

> the outside of such a

> piece to match the reed, I think it would still

> sound the same. You'd just

> have thicker rails.

> 

> Whereas,  if one sands the rails of the reed because

> one doesn't like the

> overhang, that's going to change the character of

> the reed a GREAT deal.

> Brighter, buzzier.

> 

> Esthetically, the overhand isn't pleasing. And

> perhaps in some cases it may

> cause some discomfort. But I don't think it matters

> otherwise.

> 

> > From: "Greg Wier" <gregwier@netscape. com>

> > Reply-To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com

> > Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 01:42:03 -0000

> > To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com

> > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Reed Wider Than

> Table

> > 

> > 

> >  

> >>> > > Why would a mouthpiece manufacturer produce

> a mouthpiece which didn't

> >>> match the width of currenty marketed reeds -

> i.e. reed wider than rails.  I

> >>> have often found mouthpieces that I liked though

> they were plagued by this

> >>> problem.  What are the options?

> >>> > >

> >> >

> > To put the discussion back on track,an

> inaccurately programmed CNC machine can

> > result in the body of the mouthpiece being too

> narrow at the edges of the

> > table which results in impeded reed vibration.

> > 

> > Adjusting each reed can become tiresome. The table

> height can be reduced until

> > the table spreads enough to accomodate the reed

> and then the curve and baffle

> > are adjusted.  One must be careful not to make the

> table too thin. 

> 

> 




 

      


	 
	
	




      
 

      

    
    
	
	 
	
	








	


	
	


      

-Hi Jerry,  I think you can have the rails narrowed at the tip so you don't have to fuss so much.  There shouldn't be any negative effects on how it plays.  Just have it done by a careful mouthpiece guy...have a sample reed available to work with.    -- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "Jerry M. Zucker" <jerry.zucker@...> wrote:
>
> I'd like to turn this around and ask a question about an alto mouthpiece
> that I just got. I bought an Aizen which is a copy of an old Meyer bros, and
> is very well made. I absolutely LOVE this mouthpiece and the way it sounds,
> but.  the rails, as they get towards the tip, are actually slightly wider
> than the reed. I have to center the reed perfectly to get it to cover as the
> rails are very thin. What is the effect of this on sound, playability, etc.
> Can it be fixed ? Should I touch it if I like the sound of the mouthpiece
> for fear of changing that ?
>  
> From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of pfdeley
> Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2009 11:39 PM
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Reed Wider Than Table
>  
>   
> -- Hi,
> I think the reed overhang makes a big difference in the mouthpiece's
> responsiveness. I played on a "70's metal on my tenor for over ten years
> that had a reed overhang. I would always sand both edges of the reed down on
> an emery board, or else the piece was too brash- sounding and hard to
> control. I finally got fed up after being stuck on a gig without a
> sanded-down reed and got rid of it.
> I also read about Branford Marsalis playing a classical soprano mouthpiece
> with a clarinet reed. Try it. It lets you whisper on the soprano far more
> easily than with a slightly wider soprano reed.
> Overhang is always one of the first things I check for in a mouthpiece now.
> Peter Deley 
> 
> In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
> , Barry Levine <barrylevine@> wrote:
> >
> > Greg, you're talking about a major refacing of the mouthpiece to cure this
> > reed overhang. And changing its internal volume by taking down the table.
> > 
> > Well and good. But why in the world would I want to do this with anything
> > except an inexpensive mouthpiece that I regarded as a blank to begin with?
> > 
> > Actually, I have a (relatively) inexpensive metal Chinese-made mouthpiece
> > from Ebay like this - narrow table, reed overhang. It didn't play too
> > badly, btw, (not really well either!) but that's not really the point
> here.
> > I just think the reed overhang doesn't make that much of a difference.
> It's
> > the curvature of the facing on the rails and the inside geometry that
> > matter. If (as a gedanken experiment) you built up the outside of such a
> > piece to match the reed, I think it would still sound the same. You'd just
> > have thicker rails.
> > 
> > Whereas, if one sands the rails of the reed because one doesn't like the
> > overhang, that's going to change the character of the reed a GREAT deal.
> > Brighter, buzzier.
> > 
> > Esthetically, the overhand isn't pleasing. And perhaps in some cases it
> may
> > cause some discomfort. But I don't think it matters otherwise.
> > 
> > > From: "Greg Wier" <gregwier@>
> > > Reply-To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> 
> > > Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 01:42:03 -0000
> > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> 
> > > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Reed Wider Than Table
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > >>> > > Why would a mouthpiece manufacturer produce a mouthpiece which
> didn't
> > >>> match the width of currenty marketed reeds - i.e. reed wider than
> rails.  I
> > >>> have often found mouthpieces that I liked though they were plagued by
> this
> > >>> problem.  What are the options?
> > >>> > >
> > >> >
> > > To put the discussion back on track,an inaccurately programmed CNC
> machine can
> > > result in the body of the mouthpiece being too narrow at the edges of
> the
> > > table which results in impeded reed vibration.
> > > 
> > > Adjusting each reed can become tiresome. The table height can be reduced
> until
> > > the table spreads enough to accomodate the reed and then the curve and
> baffle
> > > are adjusted. One must be careful not to make the table too thin.
> >
> 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.52/2298 - Release Date: 08/16/09
> 06:09:00
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
> Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.52/2298 - Release Date: 08/16/09
> 06:09:00
>

You can't narrow the rails past their inside edge.  If the reed already barely covers the opening, you need a wider reed.  Oliveri clarinet reeds are wider at the tip than other brands.  I don't think they make sax reeds, other than plastic though.  

--- On Mon, 8/17/09, John Price <john_w_price33@...> wrote:

From: John Price <john_w_price33@...>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Reed Wider Than Table
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, August 17, 2009, 6:19 PM






 




    
                  -Hi Jerry,  I think you can have the rails narrowed at the tip so you don't have to fuss so much.  There shouldn't be any negative effects on how it plays.  Just have it done by a careful mouthpiece guy...have a sample reed available to work with.    -- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, "Jerry M. Zucker" <jerry.zucker@ ...> wrote:

>

> I'd like to turn this around and ask a question about an alto mouthpiece

> that I just got. I bought an Aizen which is a copy of an old Meyer bros, and

> is very well made. I absolutely LOVE this mouthpiece and the way it sounds,

> but.  the rails, as they get towards the tip, are actually slightly wider

> than the reed. I have to center the reed perfectly to get it to cover as the

> rails are very thin. What is the effect of this on sound, playability, etc.

> Can it be fixed ? Should I touch it if I like the sound of the mouthpiece

> for fear of changing that ?

>  

> From: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com]

> On Behalf Of pfdeley

> Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2009 11:39 PM

> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com

> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Reed Wider Than Table

>  

>   

> -- Hi,

> I think the reed overhang makes a big difference in the mouthpiece's

> responsiveness. I played on a "70's metal on my tenor for over ten years

> that had a reed overhang. I would always sand both edges of the reed down on

> an emery board, or else the piece was too brash- sounding and hard to

> control. I finally got fed up after being stuck on a gig without a

> sanded-down reed and got rid of it.

> I also read about Branford Marsalis playing a classical soprano mouthpiece

> with a clarinet reed. Try it. It lets you whisper on the soprano far more

> easily than with a slightly wider soprano reed.

> Overhang is always one of the first things I check for in a mouthpiece now.

> Peter Deley 

> 

> In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com <mailto:MouthpieceW ork%40yahoogroup s.com>

> , Barry Levine <barrylevine@ > wrote:

> >

> > Greg, you're talking about a major refacing of the mouthpiece to cure this

> > reed overhang. And changing its internal volume by taking down the table.

> > 

> > Well and good. But why in the world would I want to do this with anything

> > except an inexpensive mouthpiece that I regarded as a blank to begin with?

> > 

> > Actually, I have a (relatively) inexpensive metal Chinese-made mouthpiece

> > from Ebay like this - narrow table, reed overhang. It didn't play too

> > badly, btw, (not really well either!) but that's not really the point

> here.

> > I just think the reed overhang doesn't make that much of a difference.

> It's

> > the curvature of the facing on the rails and the inside geometry that

> > matter. If (as a gedanken experiment) you built up the outside of such a

> > piece to match the reed, I think it would still sound the same. You'd just

> > have thicker rails.

> > 

> > Whereas, if one sands the rails of the reed because one doesn't like the

> > overhang, that's going to change the character of the reed a GREAT deal.

> > Brighter, buzzier.

> > 

> > Esthetically, the overhand isn't pleasing. And perhaps in some cases it

> may

> > cause some discomfort. But I don't think it matters otherwise.

> > 

> > > From: "Greg Wier" <gregwier@>

> > > Reply-To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com

> <mailto:MouthpieceW ork%40yahoogroup s.com> 

> > > Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 01:42:03 -0000

> > > To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com

> <mailto:MouthpieceW ork%40yahoogroup s.com> 

> > > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Reed Wider Than Table

> > > 

> > > 

> > > 

> > >>> > > Why would a mouthpiece manufacturer produce a mouthpiece which

> didn't

> > >>> match the width of currenty marketed reeds - i.e. reed wider than

> rails.  I

> > >>> have often found mouthpieces that I liked though they were plagued by

> this

> > >>> problem.  What are the options?

> > >>> > >

> > >> >

> > > To put the discussion back on track,an inaccurately programmed CNC

> machine can

> > > result in the body of the mouthpiece being too narrow at the edges of

> the

> > > table which results in impeded reed vibration.

> > > 

> > > Adjusting each reed can become tiresome. The table height can be reduced

> until

> > > the table spreads enough to accomodate the reed and then the curve and

> baffle

> > > are adjusted. One must be careful not to make the table too thin.

> >

> 

> No virus found in this incoming message.

> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

> Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.52/2298 - Release Date: 08/16/09

> 06:09:00

> No virus found in this outgoing message.

> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 

> Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.52/2298 - Release Date: 08/16/09

> 06:09:00

>




 

      

    
    
	
	 
	
	








	


	
	


      

Depends on how clean you want the trim. If you consider
that you don't really need to trim at all below the break
(except for aesthetics) then things get somewhat easier.
Personally with a metal mpc I find it pretty simple to put
the reed in place, press the mpc with reed face down from
just behind the lig on a cutting surface like a cutting
board and trim along the edge of the tip rails with a
razor knife like an Xacto. I wouldn't do this with hard
rubber though. 

It is also very possible to do this without the mpc: trim
with the knife and finish with fine sandpaper. This takes
some patience and a sharp knife. Perhaps it is all those
years making oboe reeds...I also don't really care if it
is straight, as long as it seals on the rails I am OK with
it. 

One problem with Lance's suggestion, which my mpc method
shares, is the rounded stock of the reed, which will not
allow you to hold the whole thing flat for a clean cut
beyond the end of the scrape. Since it doesn't vibrate
there is really no reason to trim it, and I think that the
thickness makes cutting it with a razor knife very
difficult in one go. Try it if you don't believe me.

Toby

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

> So, I think the only way to cleanly trim the width
> of the reed requires a metal (steel) template - a
> sheet of metal with slits in it that match the outer
> edge of the mouthpiece rails.  One centers the
reed,
> locks it in place (for safety, it should have a
> locking mechanism - to save the thumb or fingers),
> and inserting a razor into the top of the slit,
> quickly slices the reed cleanly and evenly, from tip
> to butt, with a square edge.
> 
> 
> 
> --- On Mon, 8/17/09, MartinMods
> <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
> 
> From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Reed Wider Than
> Table
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Monday, August 17, 2009, 4:25 PM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
>     
>                   Your opinion.  Thanks. 
Don't take
> this as an attack, but realize this.  You can read
> and listen to other's advice for as long as you
> want, and you may form a huge opinion and think that
> you actually know something, but until you actually
> have the physical experience yourself, you possess
> only 1/2 of what one needs for knowledge. 
> 
> What I am saying is this: If you ever attempted to
> "just trim it off" as you so casually advise us, you
> would see that to do so cleanly and evenly, without
> splitting the reed, is practically impossible.  One
> can not equate trimming the sides of the reed with
> trimming the tip of the reed.  
> 
> When trimming the tip, one cuts primarily accross
> the grain at a 90 degree angle, or close
>  to it.  This presents very little problem or
> possibility of the reed splitting -least one
> performs the trimming in haste and the reed splits
> on  a corner edge.
> 
> When trimming the sides (width) of the reed, one is
> faced with these issues:
> 
> 1. The table/rails of the mouthpiece get wider
> toward the tip, if even only slightly whereas,
> 
> 2. the grain of the cane runs straight.
> 
> 3. From the outside edge of the side rail, the body
> of the mouthpiece slopes away at about a 75 degree
> angle, rather than falling off at 90 degrees
> perpendicular to the rail surface.
> 
> 4. The side edge of the reed get very, very thin and
> flexible toward the tip.
> 
> So, how do we just, "trim" the width of the reed
> then?
> 
> 1. Sandpaper:  If you sand the reed on it's side,
> regardless of what type of motion one uses (side to
> side. front to back, oval) you will notice that the
> tip reacts differently to sanding than the thicker
>  parts.  More often than not, the tip ends up
either
> narrower or wider, than the rest of the reed
> depending on which type of motion was used.  It is
> also very easy to split the reed at the corner of
> the tip and it takes a long time to do a large reed.
> 
> 2.  Trim along mouthpiece rail:  This presents
all
> kinds of problems.  a. you run a good chance of
> eventually scraping your side rails off.  b. If you
> cut from back to tip, the reed splits.  c. If you
> cut from tip to butt, you can't get a clean start
> since the tip of the reed is even with the tip of
> the mouthpiece. d. If you move the reed down, to get
> a good starting cut, the reed will be narrower than
> the mouthpiece.  e. this may not be a problem IF
you
> get a clean cut, BUT, since the sides of the
> mouthpiece fall off the rails at a 75 degree
>  angle and your rasor has an angled edge, you will
> bevel the side edges of the reed inwards at least 65
> degrees.  f. the beveling will be noticeably
> uneven.  g. the uneven beveling towards the tip,
> will cause the reed tp play poorly and undependibly.
> 
> So Toby.  Perhaps I am wrong, and you know of a way
> to trim reeds cleanly and evenly to reduce their
> width, matching the widening profile of the
> table/rails of a mouthpiece.  If you do, then
please
> give us the details, and I will learn something and
> apologize.  If not, then please realize that here,
> advice based purely on textbook, hearsay opinion,
> and not actual personal experience is really
> worthless and annoying to read.  At least for me.
> 
> MM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- On Mon, 8/17/09, kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp
> <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp> wrote:
> 
> From: kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Reed Wider Than
> Table
> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> Date: Monday, August 17, 2009, 2:28 PM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
>     
>                   AFAIK it doesn't matter much. The
> advice I have heard is
> 
> to trim the reed to match the mpc. This can be quite
> 
> important when the tip of the reed is a different
> shape
> 
> than the tip rail of the mpc; it is much less
> important
> 
> for the side rails, but there is no reason to have
> the
> 
> overhang--just trim it off.
> 
> 
> 
> Toby
> 
> 
> 
> --- Barry Levine <barrylevine@ norwoodlight. com>
> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> > Greg,  you're talking about a major refacing of
> the
> 
> > mouthpiece to cure this
> 
> > reed overhang. And changing its internal volume by
> 
> > taking down the table.
> 
> > 
> 
> > Well and good. But why in the world would I want
> to
> 
> > do this with anything
> 
> > except an inexpensive mouthpiece that I regarded
> as
> 
> > a blank to begin with?
> 
> > 
> 
> > Actually, I have a (relatively) inexpensive metal
> 
> > Chinese-made mouthpiece
> 
> > from Ebay like this - narrow table, reed overhang.
> 
> 
> > It didn't play too
> 
> > badly, btw, (not really well either!) but that's
> not
> 
> > really the point here.
> 
> > I just think the reed overhang doesn't make that
> 
> > much of a difference. It's
> 
> 
== $B0J2<$N%a%C%;!<%8$O>JN,$5$l$^$7$?(B =

Hi Lance,

Unfortunately I am doing quite a bit of work these days
and only take potshots when I see a message that interests
me, and half of them end up in my spambox (thanks,
Yahoo...) so I'm never able to follow a thread. 

Is this answer really not "tech talk"? Am I going to
theoretical places that you, for instance, are not? I only
ask this because all my posts are only responses to what I
find posted by other members.

It occurred to me that perhaps we should try to talk
directly. Do you use skype? You can find me under Toby
Marshall or toby_marshall (I'm never sure which). A normal
dialog, instead of this cumbersome posting system, might
go a long way to helping us explore our differences, and
it would also leave everybody else out of the loop, which
I suspect is what you want to do, either for your sake or
theirs or both. 

I wish you no ill will, but again I have to say that I
find it hard to resist challenging your assumptions if I
think they are in error--but here direct talking might
make it easier to sort out any miscommunication and
misunderstanding.

Best,
Toby

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

> Toby,
> 
> I emailed you directly and suggested that we
> continue this discussion outside this group
forum.�
> While I find it interesting, I am aware that most of
> the group members would like to get back to "tech
> talk".� I know that you are traveling, so perhaps
> you have not seen that email yet.� 
> 
> --- On Mon, 8/17/09, kymarto123@...
> <kymarto123@...> wrote:
> 
> From: kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...>
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Nederveen quote on mpc
> volume
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Monday, August 17, 2009, 3:03 PM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> �
> 
> 
> 
> 
>     
>                   Lance,
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know that you would not achieve the same
> 
> results with a different geometry having the same
> 
> constriction and volume? I am not questioning the
> fact
> 
> that once you achieve the correct parameters in
> those
> 
> areas you are going to get much better intonation,
> but you
> 
> seem to be attributing it to the long constriction
> you
> 
> made via the insert. How about a smaller chamber, or
> a
> 
> chamber that ends directly at the neck, as Nederveen
> seems
> 
> to suggest? 
> 
> 
> 
> My reading indicates that the two conditions that
> need to
> 
> be met are the correct volume and the correct
> diameter
> 
> constriction to go along with that volume. You
> achieved
> 
> that with your insert, fine. I have no problem with
> that,
> 
> but there are other ways to achieve it.
> 
> 
> 
> Optimally, for a Helmholtz resonator, you would want
> a
> 
> circular compliance and as short a constriction as
> 
> possible. You may not need the optimal, but you need
> 
> something that will actually allow the resonance. 
> This is
> 
> what is written in Fletcher and Rossing:
> 
> 
> 
> "At low frequencies the matching is achieved if the
> 
> internal volume of the mpc is equal to that of the
> missing
> 
> conical apex, *which requires that the mpc have a
> slightly
> 
> bulbous internal shape so that it actually
> constitutes a
> 
> sort of Helmholtz resonator* [emphasis mine]. The
> 
> high-frequency match can them be achieved by
> arranging the
> 
> shape of the constriction where it joins the main
> part of
> 
> the instrument so that the Helmholtz resonance
> frequency
> 
> of the mpc is the same as the first resonance of the
> 
> missing conical apex, at which it is half a
> wavelength
> 
> long."
> 
> 
> 
> I don't claim to know how pure the sound of the Hh
> 
> resonator has to be to make this work, as different
> shapes
> 
> of Hh resonator with different openings will all
> sound a
> 
> decent note when played (think of a coke bottle, for
> 
> instance). Probably in this case a long constriction
> such
> 
> as what you made works fine (except if you need to
> move
> 
> the mpc). It is very possible that a chamber that
> opens
> 
> directly onto the neck would work as well or better,
> and
> 
> it has the advantage that you can still move the mpc
> on
> 
> the neck.
> 
> 
> 
> I have done no experiments, but it seems entirely
> possible
> 
> that having the end of the mpc actually protude into
> the
> 
> chamber would still work fine. For normal tuning you
> could
> 
> arrange things so that the end of the neck is flush
> with
> 
> the end of the chamber, filling the throat entirely.
> This
> 
> still allows the mpc to move, although it
> compromises the
> 
> ideal.
> 
> 
> 
> It also seems entirely possible that having a normal
> 
> throat would also work just as well as your insert,
> IF the
> 
> constriction and chamber were of the correct sizes.
> 
> 
> 
> What you have done is to take a mpc with a chamber
> which
> 
> is too large and modified it so that the volume is
> correct
> 
> by adding an insert, no? How about simply making the
> 
> chamber the correct size in the first place,
> remembering
> 
> that baffle +chamber + throat volume (plus a dash
> for reed
> 
> compliance) = total internal volume?
> 
> 
> 
> Toby
> 
> 
> 
== $B0J2<$N%a%C%;!<%8$O>JN,$5$l$^$7$?(B =

I intend to, when I have time, but it is important to
understand that the results of any trials need to be
explained by established physical principles if they are
to lead to further insights.

If you guys want me to stop posting about the physics of
what we are discussing just let me know and I am out of
here.

Toby

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

> --- On Mon, 8/17/09, kymarto123@...
> <kymarto123@...> wrote:
> 
> >I have done no experiments...
> 
> Please do some.  Your trial experiances seem to be
> out of balance with what is needed to gain more
> insight.
> 
> 
>       
> 

I've never had a problem making a reed narrower.  I have a diamond "whetstone" on my bench that has 4 grits (200 to 600).  I draw the reed down the stone heel first.  Never had a split or a problem.  I've done it with cane and 3 types of plastic reeds.  Since I generally check the reeds using the Ridenour method, I'm not worried too much about "altering" the dynamics of the reed.  In fact, I see the reed as a piece of marble in the general shape of the statue I want to create, not as a Michelangelo masterpiece that shouldn't be altered.

A little off topic, but I recently bought some Rico Plasticover reeds to use as a "baseline" reed when testing mouthpiece modifications.  I thought they'd be uniform.  The first one stuck to my lip and tore off a little flesh.  The second try, the plastic tore off and stuck to my lip.  The others actually warped after playing a little and I had to put them in a reed case to flatten them out.  It could be that I have "Satin saliva", but the idea of Plasticovers as a basline is out.  Plus, they can't be adjusted without tearing through the plastic.  A bit like a car that can't be tuned up.

Mark

Thanks 

Yes, you pretty much have to take plasticovers as they come.

--- On Wed, 8/19/09, flemingml2000 <marklfleming@...> wrote:

From: flemingml2000 <marklfleming@...>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Reed Wider Than Table
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, August 19, 2009, 4:59 AM






 




    
                  I've never had a problem making a reed narrower.  I have a diamond "whetstone" on my bench that has 4 grits (200 to 600).  I draw the reed down the stone heel first.  Never had a split or a problem.  I've done it with cane and 3 types of plastic reeds.  Since I generally check the reeds using the Ridenour method, I'm not worried too much about "altering" the dynamics of the reed.  In fact, I see the reed as a piece of marble in the general shape of the statue I want to create, not as a Michelangelo masterpiece that shouldn't be altered.



A little off topic, but I recently bought some Rico Plasticover reeds to use as a "baseline" reed when testing mouthpiece modifications.  I thought they'd be uniform.  The first one stuck to my lip and tore off a little flesh.  The second try, the plastic tore off and stuck to my lip.  The others actually warped after playing a little and I had to put them in a reed case to flatten them out.  It could be that I have "Satin saliva", but the idea of Plasticovers as a basline is out.  Plus, they can't be adjusted without tearing through the plastic.  A bit like a car that can't be tuned up.



Mark