I've finally finished wading through all of the posts regarding insert 
sleeves.  Let me know if this is a reasonable (simple, non-engineer's) 
summary of what's being discussed:

1- Of course, excess volume in the chamber will cause intonation 
problems (this has been discussed at length here over the years).  
Adding a "sleeve" insert reduces the volume and fixes the volume/length 
balance.  Indeed, reducing the internal volume anywhere inside the piece 
would do this, but adding material closer to the tip (baffle, filling in 
sides) affects the playing characteristics much more.  I think I 
understand this part, having dealt with chamber volume issues on several 
pieces.

2- (I'm totally not sure about this): The frequency of the note being 
produced determines the wavelength in the mouthpiece.  At low 
frequencies, the first anti-node (max pressure/amplitude point) falls 
inside the neck/body.  At higher freqs (shorter wavelengths), this 
anti-node may be inside the chamber, and the sudden change in diameter 
from the neck end to the chamber (the constriction) becomes an issue.  
Putting a sleeve at the end of the neck (essentially extending the neck) 
puts even the shortest wavelengths in a similar tube to the longer ones.

3- There's still a constriction point, but it's not in an area that 
affects the stuff in #2.  So it's not about some smooth transition to 
the constriction, just about moving the point closer to the mpc tip.

4- The sleeve doesn't need to abut the neck exactly (making tuning an 
issue), but there can be a gap between them (one post said a larger gap 
was better than a very small one).

I'm sure a lot of other readers could use help understanding the basics 
of this discussion - it's extremely interesting, and most of us could 
make good use of this info.

Thanks to all who are contributing here!

Dan T

That's very helpful.


> From: Dan Torosian <dtorosian@...>
> Reply-To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 09:17:23 -0500
> To: Mouthpiece Work <MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] simplification of inserts
> 
> 
>  
> I've finally finished wading through all of the posts regarding insert
> sleeves.  Let me know if this is a reasonable (simple, non-engineer's)
> summary of what's being discussed:
> 
> 1- Of course, excess volume in the chamber will cause intonation
> problems (this has been discussed at length here over the years).
> Adding a "sleeve" insert reduces the volume and fixes the volume/length
> balance.  Indeed, reducing the internal volume anywhere inside the piece
> would do this, but adding material closer to the tip (baffle, filling in
> sides) affects the playing characteristics much more.  I think I
> understand this part, having dealt with chamber volume issues on several
> pieces.
> 
> 2- (I'm totally not sure about this): The frequency of the note being
> produced determines the wavelength in the mouthpiece.  At low
> frequencies, the first anti-node (max pressure/amplitude point) falls
> inside the neck/body.  At higher freqs (shorter wavelengths), this
> anti-node may be inside the chamber, and the sudden change in diameter
> from the neck end to the chamber (the constriction) becomes an issue.
> Putting a sleeve at the end of the neck (essentially extending the neck)
> puts even the shortest wavelengths in a similar tube to the longer ones.
> 
> 3- There's still a constriction point, but it's not in an area that
> affects the stuff in #2.  So it's not about some smooth transition to
> the constriction, just about moving the point closer to the mpc tip.
> 
> 4- The sleeve doesn't need to abut the neck exactly (making tuning an
> issue), but there can be a gap between them (one post said a larger gap
> was better than a very small one).
> 
> I'm sure a lot of other readers could use help understanding the basics
> of this discussion - it's extremely interesting, and most of us could
> make good use of this info.
> 
> Thanks to all who are contributing here!
> 
> Dan T
>   
> 
> 
> 

This html message parsed with html2text ---------------------------Helpful if it's accurate! :-)  I'm awaiting
comments/confirmation/debunkments/jeers from those who understand it better
than I do.  
  
Dan  
  
Barry Levine wrote:

> That's very helpful.  
>  
>
>

>>  
>  **From:** Dan Torosian .net>  
>  **Reply-To:** MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com  
>  **Date:** Mon, 17 Aug 2009 09:17:23 -0500  
>  **To:** Mouthpiece Work yahoogroups.com>  
>  **Subject:**[MouthpieceWork] simplification of inserts  
>  
>
>
>  
>
>

>>  
>  I've finally finished wading through all of the posts regarding insert  
>  sleeves. Let me know if this is a reasonable (simple, non-engineer's)  
>  summary of what's being discussed:  
>  
>  1- Of course, excess volume in the chamber will cause intonation  
>  problems (this has been discussed at length here over the years).  
>  Adding a "sleeve" insert reduces the volume and fixes the volume/length  
>  balance. Indeed, reducing the internal volume anywhere inside the piece  
>  would do this, but adding material closer to the tip (baffle, filling in  
>  sides) affects the playing characteristics much more. I think I  
>  understand this part, having dealt with chamber volume issues on several  
>  pieces.  
>  
>  2- (I'm totally not sure about this): The frequency of the note being  
>  produced determines the wavelength in the mouthpiece. At low  
>  frequencies, the first anti- node (max pressure/amplitude point) falls  
>  inside the neck/body. At higher freqs (shorter wavelengths), this  
>  anti-node may be inside the chamber, and the sudden change in diameter  
>  from the neck end to the chamber (the constriction) becomes an issue.  
>  Putting a sleeve at the end of the neck (essentially extending the neck)  
>  puts even the shortest wavelengths in a similar tube to the longer ones.  
>  
>  3- There's still a constriction point, but it's not in an area that  
>  affects the stuff in #2. So it's not about some smooth transition to  
>  the constriction, just about moving the point closer to the mpc tip.  
>  
>  4- The sleeve doesn't need to abut the neck exactly (making tuning an  
>  issue), but there can be a gap between them (one post said a larger gap  
>  was better than a very small one).  
>  
>  I'm sure a lot of other readers could use help understanding the basics  
>  of this discussion - it's extremely interesting, and most of us could  
>  make good use of this info.  
>  
>  Thanks to all who are contributing here!  
>  
>  Dan T  
>  
>  
>  
>
>
>  
>

Dan,

That looks pretty good.

1. Yes

2a. The mouthpiece/constriction has it's own resonance frequecy.  In a playing situation, that frequency will be affected by the nodes of the note being played, so it may be pulled slightly higher or lower.  

2b.In order to get an accurate sounding frequency for the mouthpiece constriction, the constriction must be long enough to handle any frequency shift due to 2a.  Otherwise, the initial determined playing frequency will be too high, due to the throat expansion, and all high frequency response will be affected.

2c. Even if 2b. is satisfied, unless the constriction diameter extends to the actual chamber, higher mode resonant frequencies will be unduly affected by the enlarged throat section.  The instrument will still be far from unplayable or impaired, however, for optimal resonance alignment, it would seem that the constriction diameter should continue uninterrupted to the actual chamber.  This would probably require a complete redesign of the mouthpiece chamber.

3. I'm unclear on what this means.

4. True, but for optimal performance, see # 2c.

Here's something to keep in mind.  If you took a saxophone mouthpiece concept and applied it to any other wind instrument, the player of that instrument would complain that there was a huge step in the bore between the throat and the body tube opening.  Over hundreds of years of development and trial and error testing, got rid of all unnecessary bore irregularities, in the pursuit of accurate tuning and optimal response.  Only the saxophone possessed this mystical relationship between mouthpiece and body opening.   I for one am very interested in finding out just what makes the saxophone acoustically so unique.

--- On Mon, 8/17/09, Dan Torosian <dtorosian@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

From: Dan Torosian <dtorosian@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] simplification of inserts
To: MouthpieceWork@...m
Date: Monday, August 17, 2009, 9:35 PM






 




    
                  



Helpful if it's accurate! :-) 
  I'm awaiting comments/confirmati on/debunkments/ jeers from those who
understand it better than I do.



Dan



Barry Levine wrote:
 

  
  That's very helpful.

  

  
  

    From: Dan Torosian <dtorosian@sbcglobal .net>

    Reply-To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com

    Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 09:17:23 -0500

    To: Mouthpiece Work <MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com>

    Subject: [MouthpieceWork] simplification of inserts

    

    
  

  
   

I've finally finished wading through all of the posts regarding insert 

sleeves.  Let me know if this is a reasonable (simple, non-engineer' s)
    

summary of what's being discussed:

    

1- Of course, excess volume in the chamber will cause intonation 

problems (this has been discussed at length here over the years).  

Adding a "sleeve" insert reduces the volume and fixes the volume/length
    

balance.  Indeed, reducing the internal volume anywhere inside the
piece 

would do this, but adding material closer to the tip (baffle, filling
in 

sides) affects the playing characteristics much more.  I think I 

understand this part, having dealt with chamber volume issues on
several 

pieces.

    

2- (I'm totally not sure about this): The frequency of the note being 

produced determines the wavelength in the mouthpiece.  At low 

frequencies, the first anti-node (max pressure/amplitude point) falls 

inside the neck/body.  At higher freqs (shorter wavelengths) , this
    

anti-node may be inside the chamber, and the sudden change in diameter 

from the neck end to the chamber (the constriction) becomes an issue.  

Putting a sleeve at the end of the neck (essentially extending the
neck) 

puts even the shortest wavelengths in a similar tube to the longer ones.

    

3- There's still a constriction point, but it's not in an area that 

affects the stuff in #2.  So it's not about some smooth transition to 

the constriction, just about moving the point closer to the mpc tip.

    

4- The sleeve doesn't need to abut the neck exactly (making tuning an 

issue), but there can be a gap between them (one post said a larger gap
    

was better than a very small one).

    

I'm sure a lot of other readers could use help understanding the basics
    

of this discussion - it's extremely interesting, and most of us could 

make good use of this info.

    

Thanks to all who are contributing here!

    

Dan T

  

    

    

    
  

  
  
 



 

      

    
    
	
	 
	
	








	


	
	


      

> Over hundreds of years of development and trial and error testing, got rid of
> all unnecessary bore irregularities, in the pursuit of accurate tuning and
> optimal response.  Only the saxophone possessed this mystical relationship
> between mouthpiece and body opening.   I for one am very interested in finding
> out just what makes the saxophone acoustically so unique.
> 
That's one point of view. It's an equally tenable hypothesis that after some
initial design breakthroughs, all subsequent designs are basically only
minor modifications, and often quite klugey at that.

What are you typing on, a QUERTY keyboard, or Dvorak?

Barry 

Barry,

Look at pages 5 and 10 in Wyman's thesis, uploaded in the file section here..  The mouthpiece has a very short shank.  If the end of the neck sat flush with the chamber wall, and the neck taper was long enough to provide a mpc. frequency that matched frs, then this was the perfect design, and could be seen as a breakthrough.  Those are 2 big "ifs".   What came afterward, Benade describes sufficiently, as has been mentioned earlier.

--- On Tue, 8/18/09, Barry Levine <barrylevine@...> wrote:

From: Barry Levine <barrylevine@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] simplification of inserts
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, August 18, 2009, 3:02 AM






 




    
                  


Over hundreds of years of development and trial and error testing, got rid of all unnecessary bore irregularities, in the pursuit of accurate tuning and optimal response.  Only the saxophone possessed this mystical relationship between mouthpiece and body opening.   I for one am very interested in finding out just what makes the saxophone acoustically so unique.



That's one point of view. It's an equally tenable hypothesis that after some initial design breakthroughs, all subsequent designs are basically only minor modifications, and often quite klugey at that.



What are you typing on, a QUERTY keyboard, or Dvorak?



Barry




 

      

    
    
	
	 
	
	








	


	
	


      

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Dan Torosian <dtorosian@...> wrote:
> 
> 2- (I'm totally not sure about this): The frequency of the note being 
> produced determines the wavelength in the mouthpiece.  At low 
> frequencies, the first anti-node (max pressure/amplitude point) falls 
> inside the neck/body.  At higher freqs (shorter wavelengths), this 
> anti-node may be inside the chamber, and the sudden change in diameter 

The saxophone is only a half wavelength long... it radiates half the wave when the wave is moving down the tube, and the other half of the wave when it bounces and comes back up the tube.

The antinode is always in the mouthpiece.  The nodes fall further down the tubing.

OK, look at a guitar string... there are nodes ALWAYS at the ends of the string, either at the nut or at the fingered fret.  Always.  There may be nodes in between the two ends, but the ends are always nodes.  They can't vibrate.

The vibrating air column in the saxophone is just the opposite, with antenodes on each end, and the main node in between.  There may be other nodes, but there are always antinodes on each end.

Why?  Because an antinode is a point of maximum vibration.  A node is a point of no vibration.  And if the reed is buzzing... there has to be an antinode there in the mouthpiece.

Paul Coats

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "tenorman1952" <tenorman1952@...> wrote:
>
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Dan Torosian <dtorosian@> wrote:
> > 
> > 2- (I'm totally not sure about this): The frequency of the note being 
> > produced determines the wavelength in the mouthpiece.  At low 
> > frequencies, the first anti-node (max pressure/amplitude point) falls 
> > inside the neck/body.  At higher freqs (shorter wavelengths), this 
> > anti-node may be inside the chamber, and the sudden change in diameter 
> 
> The saxophone is only a half wavelength long... it radiates half the wave when the wave is moving down the tube, and the other half of the wave when it bounces and comes back up the tube.
> 
> The antinode is always in the mouthpiece.  The nodes fall further down the tubing.
> 
> OK, look at a guitar string... there are nodes ALWAYS at the ends of the string, either at the nut or at the fingered fret.  Always.  There may be nodes in between the two ends, but the ends are always nodes.  They can't vibrate.
> 
> The vibrating air column in the saxophone is just the opposite, with antenodes on each end, and the main node in between.  There may be other nodes, but there are always antinodes on each end.
> 
> Why?  Because an antinode is a point of maximum vibration.  A node is a point of no vibration.  And if the reed is buzzing... there has to be an antinode there in the mouthpiece.
> 
> Paul Coats
>

Sure there has to be a pressure antinode in the mouthpiece, and I'm pretty sure it has to be at the tip.  But the end of the tube is a pressure node (just to pick a nit; it's irrelevant to this discussion).  For sufficiently high frequencies, nodes and antinodes have to be located in the mouthpiece.  So Dan's got this right.

tenorman1952 wrote, "The antinode is always in the mouthpiece.  The nodes fall further down the tubing."

Dan was trying to summarize my earlier statement about the resonance frequency of the mouthpiece/constriction section under playing conditions, and as he admitted, wasn't completely clear on.  

The pressure anti-node for this section, like all the other waves, is at the reed.  This resonance wave, does not travel the entire length of the saxophone body.  Due to the impedance difference between the constriction (inertance - neck opening) and the body tube entrance (tapered neck tube), this resonance sees the beginning of the neck  tube taper as the open end of it's short tube, and there lies the displacement anti-node for the moutnpiece/constriction section.  The exact frequency of this wave and the location of the dislplacement anti-node, is influenced by that of the actual tone being played.  Playing notes with frequencies below that of the mouthpiece/constriction section, will pull mp/c's displacement anti-node "South" a bit, and those above, "North", affecting the frequency accordingly







--- On Tue, 8/18/09, frymorgan <frymorgan@...> wrote:

From: frymorgan <frymorgan@...>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: simplification of inserts
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, August 18, 2009, 8:11 AM






 




    
                  --- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, "tenorman1952" <tenorman1952@ ...> wrote:

>

> --- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, Dan Torosian <dtorosian@> wrote:

> > 

> > 2- (I'm totally not sure about this): The frequency of the note being 

> > produced determines the wavelength in the mouthpiece.  At low 

> > frequencies, the first anti-node (max pressure/amplitude point) falls 

> > inside the neck/body.  At higher freqs (shorter wavelengths) , this 

> > anti-node may be inside the chamber, and the sudden change in diameter 

> 

> The saxophone is only a half wavelength long... it radiates half the wave when the wave is moving down the tube, and the other half of the wave when it bounces and comes back up the tube.

> 

> The antinode is always in the mouthpiece.  The nodes fall further down the tubing.

> 

> OK, look at a guitar string... there are nodes ALWAYS at the ends of the string, either at the nut or at the fingered fret.  Always.  There may be nodes in between the two ends, but the ends are always nodes.  They can't vibrate.

> 

> The vibrating air column in the saxophone is just the opposite, with antenodes on each end, and the main node in between.  There may be other nodes, but there are always antinodes on each end.

> 

> Why?  Because an antinode is a point of maximum vibration.  A node is a point of no vibration.  And if the reed is buzzing... there has to be an antinode there in the mouthpiece.

> 

> Paul Coats

>



Sure there has to be a pressure antinode in the mouthpiece, and I'm pretty sure it has to be at the tip.  But the end of the tube is a pressure node (just to pick a nit; it's irrelevant to this discussion).  For sufficiently high frequencies, nodes and antinodes have to be located in the mouthpiece.  So Dan's got this right.




 

      

    
    
	
	 
	
	








	


	
	


      

>> For sufficiently high frequencies, nodes and antinodes have to be located in
>> the mouthpiece.  So Dan's got this right.

Sound travels at approx 1100 ft/sec, and frequency x wavelength = velocity

Therefore a sound of 1000 hz has a wavelength of about 1 ft.
A 2000 hz note has about a 6" wavelength, so it would have a node somewhere
in the mouthpiece.
It's apparent that no saxophone fundamental tones have nodes in the
mouthpiece, it's all a question of harmonics.




> From: "frymorgan" <frymorgan@...>
> Reply-To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 08:11:00 -0000
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: simplification of inserts
> 
> 
>  
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> , "tenorman1952" <tenorman1952@...>
> wrote:
>> >
>> > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> , Dan Torosian <dtorosian@> wrote:
>>> > > 
>>> > > 2- (I'm totally not sure about this): The frequency of the note being
>>> > > produced determines the wavelength in the mouthpiece.  At low
>>> > > frequencies, the first anti-node (max pressure/amplitude point) falls
>>> > > inside the neck/body.  At higher freqs (shorter wavelengths), this
>>> > > anti-node may be inside the chamber, and the sudden change in diameter
>> > 
>> > The saxophone is only a half wavelength long... it radiates half the wave
>> when the wave is moving down the tube, and the other half of the wave when it
>> bounces and comes back up the tube.
>> > 
>> > The antinode is always in the mouthpiece.  The nodes fall further down the
>> tubing.
>> > 
>> > OK, look at a guitar string... there are nodes ALWAYS at the ends of the
>> string, either at the nut or at the fingered fret.  Always.  There may be
>> nodes in between the two ends, but the ends are always nodes.  They can't
>> vibrate.
>> > 
>> > The vibrating air column in the saxophone is just the opposite, with
>> antenodes on each end, and the main node in between.  There may be other
>> nodes, but there are always antinodes on each end.
>> > 
>> > Why?  Because an antinode is a point of maximum vibration.  A node is a
>> point of no vibration.  And if the reed is buzzing... there has to be an
>> antinode there in the mouthpiece.
>> > 
>> > Paul Coats
>> >
> 
> Sure there has to be a pressure antinode in the mouthpiece, and I'm pretty
> sure it has to be at the tip.  But the end of the tube is a pressure node
> (just to pick a nit; it's irrelevant to this discussion).  For sufficiently
> high frequencies, nodes and antinodes have to be located in the mouthpiece.
> So Dan's got this right.
> 
>   
> 
> 
> 

A somewhat different perspective on inserts and the frequency of the
mouthpiece + constriction (complete neck) can be found at these links.

Mouthpiece Volume and Pitch p. 1
<http://www.jbtsaxmusic.net/Neck%20insert%20study.pdf>

Mouthpiece Volume and Pitch p. 2
<http://www.jbtsaxmusic.net/Text%20neck%20insert%20study%202.pdf>

Mouthpiece Plus Neck Pitch Computation
<http://www.jbtsaxmusic.net/Mouthpiece%20plus%20neck%20pitch%20computati\
on.pdf>

Although I find Keith's theories interesting, it is my present
conclusion that using Benade's definition of Frs  (the frequency of the
saxophone mouthpiece plus the neck ) when defining the natural frequency
and volume of the "missing cone" provides the clearest  and easiest way
to represent and measure  the missing cone's volume and natural
frequency required by the saxophone (truncated cone)  to play both at
the correct pitch and in tune with itself.

John



--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
wrote:
>
> Barry,
>
> Look at pages 5 and 10 in Wyman's thesis, uploaded in the file section
here..  The mouthpiece has a very short shank.  If the end of the neck
sat flush with the chamber wall, and the neck taper was long enough to
provide a mpc. frequency that matched frs, then this was the perfect
design, and could be seen as a breakthrough.  Those are 2 big "ifs".  
What came afterward, Benade describes sufficiently, as has been
mentioned earlier.
>
> --- On Tue, 8/18/09, Barry Levine barrylevine@... wrote:
>
> From: Barry Levine barrylevine@...
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] simplification of inserts
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Tuesday, August 18, 2009, 3:02 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Over hundreds of years of development and trial and error testing, got
rid of all unnecessary bore irregularities, in the pursuit of accurate
tuning and optimal response.  Only the saxophone possessed this mystical
relationship between mouthpiece and body opening.   I for one am very
interested in finding out just what makes the saxophone acoustically so
unique.
>
>
>
> That's one point of view. It's an equally tenable hypothesis that
after some initial design breakthroughs, all subsequent designs are
basically only minor modifications, and often quite klugey at that.
>
>
>
> What are you typing on, a QUERTY keyboard, or Dvorak?
>
>
>
> Barry
>

Actually the sax is not really acoustically unique. It
shares it conical shape with the oboe, English horn and
Bassoon (as well as the Sarrusaphone), not to mention the
Tarogato and numberless ethnic instruments like the
Chinese suon'a and the Indian shawm. The clarinet is much
more acoustically unique, sharing its cylindrical
characteristics only with the panpipes and the Korean
piri, to my knowledge.

I do agree with you, though, that the basic mpc design,
with a chamber and a throat, while perhaps not optimal, is
pretty serviceable and gives good results as long as the
two tuning conditions mentioned before are met.

It is pretty interesting to have a look at the measured
impedances of a Selmer alto sax here:

intellagence.eu.com/acoustics2008/acoustics2008/cd1/data/articles/002754.pdf

You'll notice that the natural tube resonances vary by as
much as 39 cents between the flattest and sharpest notes
in the first octave alone, with a max of 27 cents between
neighboring notes. Given that as a starting point, just
how close can we get with mpc mods? Granted, incorrect mpc
params will throw out the octaves, but as long as we have
the correct volume and Helmholtz resonance, we can get
those pretty much back into line. 

Toby

--- Barry Levine <barrylevine@...> wrote:

> > Over hundreds of years of development and trial
> and error testing, got rid of
> > all unnecessary bore irregularities, in the
> pursuit of accurate tuning and
> > optimal response.  Only the saxophone possessed
> this mystical relationship
> > between mouthpiece and body opening.   I for one
> am very interested in finding
> > out just what makes the saxophone acoustically so
> unique.
> > 
> That's one point of view. It's an equally tenable
> hypothesis that after some
> initial design breakthroughs, all subsequent designs
> are basically only
> minor modifications, and often quite klugey at that.
> 
> What are you typing on, a QUERTY keyboard, or
> Dvorak?
> 
> Barry 
> 

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

> 
> tenorman1952 wrote, "The antinode is always in the
> mouthpiece.  The nodes fall further down the
> tubing."
> 
> Dan was trying to summarize my earlier statement
> about the resonance frequency of the
> mouthpiece/constriction section under playing
> conditions, and as he admitted, wasn't completely
> clear on.  
> 
> The pressure anti-node for this section, like all
> the other waves, is at the reed.  This resonance
> wave, does not travel the entire length of the
> saxophone body.  Due to the impedance difference
> between the constriction (inertance - neck opening)
> and the body tube entrance (tapered neck tube), this
> resonance sees the beginning of the neck  tube
taper
> as the open end of it's short tube, and there lies
> the displacement anti-node for the
> moutnpiece/constriction section.  The exact
> frequency of this wave and the location of the
> dislplacement anti-node, is influenced by that of
> the actual tone being played.  Playing notes with
> frequencies below that of the
> mouthpiece/constriction section, will pull mp/c's
> displacement anti-node "South" a bit, and those
> above, "North", affecting the frequency accordingly

To what practical effect?

Toby

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

> Dan,
> 
> That looks pretty good.
> 
> 1. Yes
> 
> 2a. The mouthpiece/constriction has it's own
> resonance frequecy.  In a playing situation, that
> frequency will be affected by the nodes of the note
> being played, so it may be pulled slightly higher or
> lower.  
> 
> 2b.In order to get an accurate sounding frequency
> for the mouthpiece constriction, the constriction
> must be long enough to handle any frequency shift
> due to 2a.  Otherwise, the initial determined
> playing frequency will be too high, due to the
> throat expansion, and all high frequency response
> will be affected.
> 
> 2c. Even if 2b. is satisfied, unless the
> constriction diameter extends to the actual chamber,
> higher mode resonant frequencies will be unduly
> affected by the enlarged throat section.  The
> instrument will still be far from unplayable or
> impaired, however, for optimal resonance alignment,
> it would seem that the constriction diameter should
> continue uninterrupted to the actual chamber.  This
> would probably require a complete redesign of the
> mouthpiece chamber.

Lance,

Do you have any links to support your contention that the
constriction should be the length of the possible node
displacement? I have never read anything like that, and in
fact have read essentially the opposite--that the chamber
should extend to the constriction, at which point the
conic expansion of the body tube begins. I have also read
that--at least as far as tuning goes--the distribution of
the volume in the mpc is not really important, which
includes the throat, of course.

 The only thing that the constriction must do, AFAIK, is
to be the right size in relation to the volume contained
in the space before it (baffle, chamber, reed displacement
and throat combined) to create a resonance frequency to
match that of the missing conic apex, in order to bring
the higher-mode resonances into line. 

The Hh resonance is a function of the size of the
constriction in relation to the compliance of the air mass
in the mpc, and has nothing to do with any nodes or
antinodes, at least as far as I know. 

The antinode you speak of might indeed affect the cycle of
the reed closure, but where is it written that it has
anything to do with intonation? 

Toby

Toby,

I have requested twice now that we continue this discussion privately, which I will gladly do.  Keith has mentioned that this discussion is going in circles.  We can hash it out, and then come back to the group with our conclusion.  Please try to comply.  

Lance

--- On Tue, 8/18/09, kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...> wrote:

From: kymarto123@ybb.ne.jp <kymarto123@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] simplification of inserts
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, August 18, 2009, 3:07 PM






 




    
                  



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



> Dan,

> 

> That looks pretty good.

> 

> 1. Yes

> 

> 2a. The mouthpiece/constric tion has it's own

> resonance frequecy.  In a playing situation, that

> frequency will be affected by the nodes of the note

> being played, so it may be pulled slightly higher or

> lower.  

> 

> 2b.In order to get an accurate sounding frequency

> for the mouthpiece constriction, the constriction

> must be long enough to handle any frequency shift

> due to 2a.  Otherwise, the initial determined

> playing frequency will be too high, due to the

> throat expansion, and all high frequency response

> will be affected.

> 

> 2c. Even if 2b. is satisfied, unless the

> constriction diameter extends to the actual chamber,

> higher mode resonant frequencies will be unduly

> affected by the enlarged throat section.  The

> instrument will still be far from unplayable or

> impaired, however, for optimal resonance alignment,

> it would seem that the constriction diameter should

> continue uninterrupted to the actual chamber.  This

> would probably require a complete redesign of the

> mouthpiece chamber.



Lance,



Do you have any links to support your contention that the

constriction should be the length of the possible node

displacement? I have never read anything like that, and in

fact have read essentially the opposite--that the chamber

should extend to the constriction, at which point the

conic expansion of the body tube begins. I have also read

that--at least as far as tuning goes--the distribution of

the volume in the mpc is not really important, which

includes the throat, of course.



The only thing that the constriction must do, AFAIK, is

to be the right size in relation to the volume contained

in the space before it (baffle, chamber, reed displacement

and throat combined) to create a resonance frequency to

match that of the missing conic apex, in order to bring

the higher-mode resonances into line. 



The Hh resonance is a function of the size of the

constriction in relation to the compliance of the air mass

in the mpc, and has nothing to do with any nodes or

antinodes, at least as far as I know. 



The antinode you speak of might indeed affect the cycle of

the reed closure, but where is it written that it has

anything to do with intonation? 



Toby




 

      

    
    
	
	 
	
	








	


	
	


      

Yes, it is all a question of harmonics.  But it's only 1/4 wavelength to the first displacement antinode (where cross-sectional area first affects pitch).  So the frequencies affected start somewhere in the lower altissimo range.  If we look back to Lance's first posts about this, one of the main points is for better harmonic alignment.
  

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Barry Levine <barrylevine@...> wrote:
>
> >> For sufficiently high frequencies, nodes and antinodes have to be located in
> >> the mouthpiece.  So Dan's got this right.
> 
> Sound travels at approx 1100 ft/sec, and frequency x wavelength = velocity
> 
> Therefore a sound of 1000 hz has a wavelength of about 1 ft.
> A 2000 hz note has about a 6" wavelength, so it would have a node somewhere
> in the mouthpiece.
> It's apparent that no saxophone fundamental tones have nodes in the
> mouthpiece, it's all a question of harmonics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > From: "frymorgan" <frymorgan@...>
> > Reply-To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> > Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 08:11:00 -0000
> > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: simplification of inserts
> > 
> > 
> >  
> > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> > <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> , "tenorman1952" <tenorman1952@>
> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > --- In MouthpieceWork@...m
> >> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> , Dan Torosian <dtorosian@> wrote:
> >>> > > 
> >>> > > 2- (I'm totally not sure about this): The frequency of the note being
> >>> > > produced determines the wavelength in the mouthpiece.  At low
> >>> > > frequencies, the first anti-node (max pressure/amplitude point) falls
> >>> > > inside the neck/body.  At higher freqs (shorter wavelengths), this
> >>> > > anti-node may be inside the chamber, and the sudden change in diameter
> >> > 
> >> > The saxophone is only a half wavelength long... it radiates half the wave
> >> when the wave is moving down the tube, and the other half of the wave when it
> >> bounces and comes back up the tube.
> >> > 
> >> > The antinode is always in the mouthpiece.  The nodes fall further down the
> >> tubing.
> >> > 
> >> > OK, look at a guitar string... there are nodes ALWAYS at the ends of the
> >> string, either at the nut or at the fingered fret.  Always.  There may be
> >> nodes in between the two ends, but the ends are always nodes.  They can't
> >> vibrate.
> >> > 
> >> > The vibrating air column in the saxophone is just the opposite, with
> >> antenodes on each end, and the main node in between.  There may be other
> >> nodes, but there are always antinodes on each end.
> >> > 
> >> > Why?  Because an antinode is a point of maximum vibration.  A node is a
> >> point of no vibration.  And if the reed is buzzing... there has to be an
> >> antinode there in the mouthpiece.
> >> > 
> >> > Paul Coats
> >> >
> > 
> > Sure there has to be a pressure antinode in the mouthpiece, and I'm pretty
> > sure it has to be at the tip.  But the end of the tube is a pressure node
> > (just to pick a nit; it's irrelevant to this discussion).  For sufficiently
> > high frequencies, nodes and antinodes have to be located in the mouthpiece.
> > So Dan's got this right.
> > 
> >   
> > 
> > 
> >
>

John,

As I mentioned before in our other online exchange, including the neck gives you only a rough idea of whether you are matching frs, for as the system sees it, and the system's point of view is all important, the truncation point is NOT at the big end of the neck. I emailed Dr. Joe Wolfe to verify this.  What the system "sees" acoustically as the truncation and it's frs is determined by the transition from the constriction into the body tube entrance, due to the difference in impedance.  Due to this difference, a PARTIAL reflection of the wave occurs, which heads back to the mouthpiece/reed..  This point of partial reflection is the diplacement anti-node of the mouthpiece/constriction resonance wave, and the distance from this point to the tip of the reed, including effects of bore diameter, determine it's frequency.  That is the acoustical truncation point.

The constriction on a saxophone is the narrowest point of the bore - the opening of the neck.  The entrance to the body tube is just a fraction of a mm further, where the neck cone begins to expand.  That is the point that the system sees as the point of truncation, regardless of where the neck tenon is located.  

Benade is a little unclear in what he meant by including the neck.  It makes it easy to determine what the frequency of the mouthpiece/constriction with that of the neck itself added, is, and since you can calculate the theoretical resonance frequency for any point on any cone by using Benade's formula, you get a general idea of whether you are close to frs, but you are not calculating the actual  frs nor are you determining the actual playing frequency of the substitution.  

Lance





--- On Tue, 8/18/09, jbtsax <jtalcott47@...> wrote:

From: jbtsax <jtalcott47@...>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: simplification of inserts
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, August 18, 2009, 5:05 AM






 




    
                  A somewhat different perspective on inserts and the frequency of the mouthpiece + constriction (complete neck) can be found at these links.

Mouthpiece Volume and Pitch p. 1  

Mouthpiece Volume and Pitch p. 2 

Mouthpiece Plus Neck Pitch Computation 

Although I find Keith's theories interesting, it is my present conclusion that using Benade's definition of Frs  (the frequency of the saxophone mouthpiece plus the neck ) when defining the natural frequency and volume of the "missing cone" provides the clearest  and easiest way to represent and measure  the missing cone's volume and natural frequency required by the saxophone (truncated cone)  to play both at the correct pitch and in tune with itself.

John



--- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ ...> wrote:
>
> Barry,
> 
> Look at pages 5 and 10 in Wyman's thesis, uploaded in the file section here..  The mouthpiece has a very short shank.  If the end of the neck sat flush with the chamber wall, and the neck taper was long enough to provide a mpc. frequency that matched frs, then this was the perfect design, and could be seen as a breakthrough.  Those are 2 big "ifs".   What came afterward, Benade describes sufficiently, as has been mentioned earlier.
> 
> --- On Tue, 8/18/09, Barry Levine barrylevine@ ... wrote:
> 
> From: Barry Levine barrylevine@ ...
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] simplification of inserts
> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> Date: Tuesday, August 18, 2009, 3:02 AM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
>     
>                   
> 
> 
> Over hundreds of years of development and trial and error testing, got rid of all unnecessary bore irregularities, in the pursuit of accurate tuning and optimal response.  Only the saxophone possessed this mystical relationship between mouthpiece and body opening.   I for one am very interested in finding out just what makes the saxophone acoustically so unique.
> 
> 
> 
> That's one point of view. It's an equally tenable hypothesis that after some initial design breakthroughs, all subsequent designs are basically only minor modifications, and often quite klugey at that.
> 
> 
> 
> What are you typing on, a QUERTY keyboard, or Dvorak?
> 
> 
> 
> Barry
>


 

      

    
    
	
	 
	
	








	


	
	


      

This html message parsed with html2text ---------------------------Thanks. As to #3, I meant that the fact that there is a sudden change in
diameter (a constriction point) somewhere in the system (currently where the
neck ends; but your insert would essentially extend the neck tube farther into
the chamber) is not the key issue - rather, moving that constriction close
enough to the tip so that the shortest wavelengths are past that point (not in
the larger chamber) is the essential difference you're talking about.  
  
Dan  
  
MartinMods wrote:

> Dan,  
>  
>  That looks pretty good.  
>  
>  1\\. Yes  
>  
>  2a. The mouthpiece/constriction has it's own resonance frequecy.. In a
> playing situation, that frequency will be affected by the nodes of the note
> being played, so it may be pulled slightly higher or lower.  
>  
>  2b.In order to get an accurate sounding frequency for the mouthpiece
> constriction, the constriction must be long enough to handle any frequency
> shift due to 2a. Otherwise, the initial determined playing frequency will be
> too high, due to the throat expansion, and all high frequency response will
> be affected.  
>  
>  2c. Even if 2b. is satisfied, unless the constriction diameter extends to
> the actual chamber, higher mode resonant frequencies will be unduly affected
> by the enlarged throat section. The instrument will still be far from
> unplayable or impaired, however, for optimal resonance alignment, it would
> seem that the constriction diameter should continue uninterrupted to the
> actual chamber. This would probably require a complete redesign of the
> mouthpiece chamber.  
>  
>  3\\. I'm unclear on what this means.  
>  
>  4\\. True, but for optimal performance, see # 2c.  
>  
>  Here's something to keep in mind. If you took a saxophone mouthpiece
> concept and applied it to any other wind instrument, the player of that
> instrument would complain that there was a huge step in the bore between the
> throat and the body tube opening. Over hundreds of years of development and
> trial and error testing, got rid of all unnecessary bore irregularities, in
> the pursuit of accurate tuning and optimal response. Only the saxophone
> possessed this mystical relationship between mouthpiece and body opening. I
> for one am very interested in finding out just what makes the saxophone
> acoustically so unique.  
>  
>  \\--- On **Mon, 8/17/09, Dan Torosian _.net>_** wrote:  
>
>

>>  
>  From: Dan Torosian .net>  
>  Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] simplification of inserts  
>  To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com  
>  Date: Monday, August 17, 2009, 9:35 PM  
>  
>  Helpful if it's accurate! :-)  I'm awaiting comments/confirmati
> on/debunkments/ jeers from those who understand it better than I do.  
>  
>  Dan  
>  
>  Barry Levine wrote:
>>

>>> That's very helpful.  
>  
>
>>>

>>>>  
>  **From:** Dan Torosian [](mailto:dtorosian@...)  
>  **Reply-To:** MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com  
>  **Date:** Mon, 17 Aug 2009 09:17:23 -0500  
>  **To:** Mouthpiece Work [](mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com)  
>  **Subject:**[MouthpieceWork] simplification of inserts  
>  
>
>>>

>>>  
>
>>>

>>>>  
>  I've finally finished wading through all of the posts regarding insert  
>  sleeves. Let me know if this is a reasonable (simple, non-engineer' s)  
>  summary of what's being discussed:  
>  
>  1- Of course, excess volume in the chamber will cause intonation  
>  problems (this has been discussed at length here over the years).  
>  Adding a "sleeve" insert reduces the volume and fixes the volume/length  
>  balance. Indeed, reducing the internal volume anywhere inside the piece  
>  would do this, but adding material closer to the tip (baffle, filling in  
>  sides) affects the playing characteristics much more. I think I  
>  understand this part, having dealt with chamber volume issues on several  
>  pieces.  
>  
>  2- (I'm totally not sure about this): The frequency of the note being  
>  produced determines the wavelength in the mouthpiece. At low  
>  frequencies, the first anti-node (max pressure/amplitude point) falls  
>  inside the neck/body. At higher freqs (shorter wavelengths) , this  
>  anti- node may be inside the chamber, and the sudden change in diameter  
>  from the neck end to the chamber (the constriction) becomes an issue.  
>  Putting a sleeve at the end of the neck (essentially extending the neck)  
>  puts even the shortest wavelengths in a similar tube to the longer ones.  
>  
>  3- There's still a constriction point, but it's not in an area that  
>  affects the stuff in #2. So it's not about some smooth transition to  
>  the constriction, just about moving the point closer to the mpc tip.  
>  
>  4- The sleeve doesn't need to abut the neck exactly (making tuning an  
>  issue), but there can be a gap between them (one post said a larger gap  
>  was better than a very small one).  
>  
>  I'm sure a lot of other readers could use help understanding the basics  
>  of this discussion - it's extremely interesting, and most of us could  
>  make good use of this info.  
>  
>  Thanks to all who are contributing here!  
>  
>  Dan T  
>  
>  
>  
>
>>>

>>>  
>  
>  
> ---  
>  
>

It finally became clear to me that when Benade mentions
including the neck, he means that one cannot measure the
constriction of the mpc by itself: the neck must be
included because it is the end of the neck, and where it
is in relation to the interior of the mpc, which
determines the point of constriction.

At least that's how I read it.

Toby

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

> John,
> 
> As I mentioned before in our other online exchange,
> including the neck gives you only a rough idea of
> whether you are matching frs, for as the system sees
> it, and the system's point of view is all important,
> the truncation point is NOT at the big end of the
> neck. I emailed Dr. Joe Wolfe to verify this.  What
> the system "sees" acoustically as the truncation and
> it's frs is determined by the transition from the
> constriction into the body tube entrance, due to the
> difference in impedance.  Due to this difference, a
> PARTIAL reflection of the wave occurs, which heads
> back to the mouthpiece/reed..  This point of
partial
> reflection is the diplacement anti-node of the
> mouthpiece/constriction resonance wave, and the
> distance from this point to the tip of the reed,
> including effects of bore diameter, determine it's
> frequency.  That is the acoustical truncation
point.
> 
> The constriction on a saxophone is the narrowest
> point of the bore - the opening of the neck.  The
> entrance to the body tube is just a fraction of a mm
> further, where the neck cone begins to expand. 
That
> is the point that the system sees as the point of
> truncation, regardless of where the neck tenon is
> located.  
> 
> Benade is a little unclear in what he meant by
> including the neck.  It makes it easy to determine
> what the frequency of the mouthpiece/constriction
> with that of the neck itself added, is, and since
> you can calculate the theoretical resonance
> frequency for any point on any cone by using
> Benade's formula, you get a general idea of whether
> you are close to frs, but you are not calculating
> the actual  frs nor are you determining the actual
> playing frequency of the substitution.  
> 
> Lance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- On Tue, 8/18/09, jbtsax <jtalcott47@...>
> wrote:
> 
> From: jbtsax <jtalcott47@...>
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: simplification of
> inserts
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Tuesday, August 18, 2009, 5:05 AM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
>     
>                   A somewhat different perspective
> on inserts and the frequency of the mouthpiece +
> constriction (complete neck) can be found at these
> links.
> 
> Mouthpiece Volume and Pitch p. 1  
> 
> Mouthpiece Volume and Pitch p. 2 
> 
> Mouthpiece Plus Neck Pitch Computation 
> 
> Although I find Keith's theories interesting, it is
> my present conclusion that using Benade's definition
> of Frs  (the frequency of the saxophone mouthpiece
> plus the neck ) when defining the natural frequency
> and volume of the "missing cone" provides the
> clearest  and easiest way to represent and
measure 
> the missing cone's volume and natural frequency
> required by the saxophone (truncated cone)  to play
> both at the correct pitch and in tune with itself.
> 
> John
> 
> 
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, MartinMods
> <lancelotburt@ ...> wrote:
> >
> > Barry,
> > 
> > Look at pages 5 and 10 in Wyman's thesis, uploaded
> in the file section here..  The mouthpiece has a
> very short shank.  If the end of the neck sat flush
> with the chamber wall, and the neck taper was long
> enough to provide a mpc. frequency that matched frs,
> then this was the perfect design, and could be seen
> as a breakthrough.  Those are 2 big
"ifs".   What
> came afterward, Benade describes sufficiently, as
> has been mentioned earlier.
> > 
> > --- On Tue, 8/18/09, Barry Levine barrylevine@ ...
> wrote:
> > 
> > From: Barry Levine barrylevine@ ...
> > Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] simplification of
> inserts
> > To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> > Date: Tuesday, August 18, 2009, 3:02 AM
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >     
> >                   
> > 
> > 
> > Over hundreds of years of development and trial
> and error testing, got rid of all unnecessary bore
> irregularities, in the pursuit of accurate tuning
> and optimal response.  Only the saxophone possessed
> this mystical relationship between mouthpiece and
> body opening.   I for one am very interested
in
> finding out just what makes the saxophone
> acoustically so unique.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > That's one point of view. It's an equally tenable
> hypothesis that after some initial design
> breakthroughs, all subsequent designs are basically
> only minor modifications, and often quite klugey at
> that.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > What are you typing on, a QUERTY keyboard, or
> Dvorak?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Barry
> >
> 
> 
>  
> 
>       
> 
>     
>     
> 	
> 	 
> 	
> 	
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 	
> 
> 
> 	
> 	
> 
> 
>       

I'm so weary of reading about inserts!   Putting mouthpiece volume aside, let's talk about how different baffle shapes and or slopes affect intonation.  Any comments?  I don't know anything about inserts.



      

A lot to digest in this thread.  One of the things I haven't had a chance to try is "quicky" inserts.  Take a mp that you like, but that may not play in tune on upper and lower registers.  Is it possible to "tune" it with inserts in the neck?

If you taped the outside of the neck with masking tape and then dipped the neck in parafin, you could add .5mm to the neck taper to the length of the dip.  Pull the masking tape off and see what the effect is.  Another dip, to a lesser or deeper amount, and what is the result?  Dip in hot water and the test is back to neutral.  

If you like the results, do a similar dip in sealing wax, and the effect is close to permanent.

Just want to get somebody else to try it before I *#$@-up one of my own necks.

Mark

on 8/18/09 10:09 PM, MartinMods at lancelotburt@... wrote:

> I'm so weary of reading about inserts!   Putting mouthpiece volume aside,
> let's talk about how different baffle shapes and or slopes affect intonation. 
> Any comments?  I don't know anything about inserts.


I find baffle inserts almost indispensible in making adjustments to the
response and projecting power of the mouthpieces I play.

They do take up some additional volume in the chamber, and require some
mouthpiece position adjustment on the cork, but generally I don't find they
cause intonation problems.  I should qualify that - I recently did add an
extension to my favorite tenor mpc for stability, so it would be hanging
onto a longer length of cork.

Baffle insets allow me to get good projection and a free-blowing feel from
relatively soft reeds (2.5 on tenor, 1.5-2 on soprano).

The shape makes some difference. A baffle insert along the lines of the
Runyons (with more slope at its leading edge) gives a brighter sound than a
long-sloped wedge. The closer the front edge of a baffle insert is towards
the tip rail, the brighter the sound; or more accurately, the harsher, if
it's too close.

I've made Runyon-style baffle inserts with and without "spoilers". I never
noticed any particular difference or advantage with the spoiler, but since
it wasn't the exact article, I withhold final judgment.

Larger baffle inserts can make subtoning more difficult.

My biggest problem with the baffle insert in my tenor mpc is that it creates
an annoying saliva rattle, because I'm a wet player and the baffle insert is
relatively close to the reed at one point.

Last coment/question:  Has anyone played a Strathon or the Ponzol model with
movable baffle inserts?

Barry

I created some inserts using vinyl tubing with about 1/16" thick sidewalls,
cutting out a "slat" so it would fit inside the mouthpiece.

I did notice that about 1/2" of such an insert significantly improved the
low B flat stability of a refaced and modified Rico Metalite mpc I have
(with the throat hogged out and the sidewalls cheeked out).

on 8/19/09 1:19 AM, flemingml2000 at marklfleming@... wrote:

> A lot to digest in this thread.  One of the things I haven't had a chance to
> try is "quicky" inserts.  Take a mp that you like, but that may not play in
> tune on upper and lower registers.  Is it possible to "tune" it with inserts
> in the neck?
> 
> If you taped the outside of the neck with masking tape and then dipped the
> neck in parafin, you could add .5mm to the neck taper to the length of the
> dip.  Pull the masking tape off and see what the effect is.  Another dip, to a
> lesser or deeper amount, and what is the result?  Dip in hot water and the
> test is back to neutral.
> 
> If you like the results, do a similar dip in sealing wax, and the effect is
> close to permanent.
> 
> Just want to get somebody else to try it before I *#$@-up one of my own necks.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Barry Levine <barrylevine@...> wrote:
> 
> Last coment/question:  Has anyone played a Strathon or the Ponzol model with movable baffle inserts?
> 
Yes.  I played on a Strathon for a year.  It was great and educational.  For the few wedding gigs I did it was nice to lower the baffle (slide it away from the tip) for the cocktail light jazz set and raise it for the later rock/r&b dance sets.  The effect was non-linear.  It was very sensitve to adjustments near the tip and was somewhat dead for the last 1/3rd of the range away from the tip.

I owned and sold the Ponzol.  I never played it much.  The baffle was not easy to reposition.  You needed to use a small allen wrench on it from inside the mouthpiece.  So it was better to just find a "best" spot and leave it there.

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "Keith Bradbury" <kwbradbury@...> wrote:
>Nick Brignola played a Strathon in the late 70's. early 80's when I met him. He said he just left the baffle  where it was when he got it. He thought it was somewhere in the middle and played it because he just liked the mouthpiece in general.   Peter
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Barry Levine <barrylevine@> wrote:
> > 
> > Last coment/question:  Has anyone played a Strathon or the Ponzol model with movable baffle inserts?
> > 
> Yes.  I played on a Strathon for a year.  It was great and educational.  For the few wedding gigs I did it was nice to lower the baffle (slide it away from the tip) for the cocktail light jazz set and raise it for the later rock/r&b dance sets.  The effect was non-linear.  It was very sensitve to adjustments near the tip and was somewhat dead for the last 1/3rd of the range away from the tip.
> 
> I owned and sold the Ponzol.  I never played it much.  The baffle was not easy to reposition.  You needed to use a small allen wrench on it from inside the mouthpiece.  So it was better to just find a "best" spot and leave it there.
>

I flirted with a Strathon in the 80's. Of course, I did a lot of stupid
things in the 80's. It played pretty well, and being able to change the
playing characteristics was cool, although I now believe that the owners of
these mouthpieces often change the baffle position just because they can. I
found that it was less than air tight around the adjusting mechanism. 

 

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Keith Bradbury
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 1:17 PM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Baffled on Baffles

 

  

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> , Barry Levine <barrylevine@...>
wrote:
> 
> Last coment/question: Has anyone played a Strathon or the Ponzol model
with movable baffle inserts?
> 
Yes. I played on a Strathon for a year. It was great and educational. For
the few wedding gigs I did it was nice to lower the baffle (slide it away
from the tip) for the cocktail light jazz set and raise it for the later
rock/r&b dance sets. The effect was non-linear. It was very sensitve to
adjustments near the tip and was somewhat dead for the last 1/3rd of the
range away from the tip.

I owned and sold the Ponzol. I never played it much. The baffle was not easy
to reposition. You needed to use a small allen wrench on it from inside the
mouthpiece. So it was better to just find a "best" spot and leave it there.

I have seen pictures/videos of Nick Brignola playing his Strathon.  It looks like the baffle is just a little back from all the way forward.  I found this a good spot too.  All the way to the tip seemed to choke the sound some.  
 
Several layers reported leaks in the slide mechnism.   Mine was fabulously air tight. 


      

Didn't Tom Scott play a Strathon on tenor?  His sound on it was unmistakable. His sound was not warm enough for me but instantly recognizable. I'm sure that I read in an interview that he just liked the ease in which it played and cut with the baffle pushed forward. 

cheers

Ross McIntyre

Tom did use one for a while. He's currently playing a JodyJazz DV with a
Fibracell Premier reed.

 

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Ross and Helen McIntyre
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 4:39 PM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Baffled on Baffles

 

  

Didn't Tom Scott play a Strathon on tenor?  His sound on it was
unmistakable. His sound was not warm enough for me but instantly
recognizable. I'm sure that I read in an interview that he just liked the
ease in which it played and cut with the baffle pushed forward. 

 

cheers

 

Ross McIntyre

Morgan,

How's the insert research coming along? 

I just saw this thread on SOTW.  				how to fix flat palm key notes on Martin bari?

I'm surprised that no one asked MMM what mouthpiece he was playing on.  Sounds to me like it's a small chamber.  If he used a large chamber, he'd have to push in, and then the palm keys would be fine, wouldn't you say?

Lance



--- On Tue, 8/18/09, frymorgan <frymorgan@...> wrote:

From: frymorgan <frymorgan@...>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: simplification of inserts
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, August 18, 2009, 4:44 PM






 




    
                  Yes, it is all a question of harmonics.  But it's only 1/4 wavelength to the first displacement antinode (where cross-sectional area first affects pitch).  So the frequencies affected start somewhere in the lower altissimo range.  If we look back to Lance's first posts about this, one of the main points is for better harmonic alignment.

  



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

>

> >> For sufficiently high frequencies, nodes and antinodes have to be located in

> >> the mouthpiece.  So Dan's got this right.

> 

> Sound travels at approx 1100 ft/sec, and frequency x wavelength = velocity

> 

> Therefore a sound of 1000 hz has a wavelength of about 1 ft.

> A 2000 hz note has about a 6" wavelength, so it would have a node somewhere

> in the mouthpiece.

> It's apparent that no saxophone fundamental tones have nodes in the

> mouthpiece, it's all a question of harmonics.

> 

> 

> 

> 

> > From: "frymorgan" <frymorgan@. ..>

> > Reply-To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com

> > Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 08:11:00 -0000

> > To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com

> > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: simplification of inserts

> > 

> > 

> >  

> > --- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com

> > <mailto:MouthpieceW ork%40yahoogroup s.com> , "tenorman1952" <tenorman1952@ >

> > wrote:

> >> >

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

> >> <mailto:MouthpieceW ork%40yahoogroup s.com> , Dan Torosian <dtorosian@> wrote:

> >>> > > 

> >>> > > 2- (I'm totally not sure about this): The frequency of the note being

> >>> > > produced determines the wavelength in the mouthpiece.  At low

> >>> > > frequencies, the first anti-node (max pressure/amplitude point) falls

> >>> > > inside the neck/body.  At higher freqs (shorter wavelengths) , this

> >>> > > anti-node may be inside the chamber, and the sudden change in diameter

> >> > 

> >> > The saxophone is only a half wavelength long... it radiates half the wave

> >> when the wave is moving down the tube, and the other half of the wave when it

> >> bounces and comes back up the tube.

> >> > 

> >> > The antinode is always in the mouthpiece.  The nodes fall further down the

> >> tubing.

> >> > 

> >> > OK, look at a guitar string... there are nodes ALWAYS at the ends of the

> >> string, either at the nut or at the fingered fret.  Always.  There may be

> >> nodes in between the two ends, but the ends are always nodes.  They can't

> >> vibrate.

> >> > 

> >> > The vibrating air column in the saxophone is just the opposite, with

> >> antenodes on each end, and the main node in between.  There may be other

> >> nodes, but there are always antinodes on each end.

> >> > 

> >> > Why?  Because an antinode is a point of maximum vibration.  A node is a

> >> point of no vibration.  And if the reed is buzzing... there has to be an

> >> antinode there in the mouthpiece.

> >> > 

> >> > Paul Coats

> >> >

> > 

> > Sure there has to be a pressure antinode in the mouthpiece, and I'm pretty

> > sure it has to be at the tip.  But the end of the tube is a pressure node

> > (just to pick a nit; it's irrelevant to this discussion).  For sufficiently

> > high frequencies, nodes and antinodes have to be located in the mouthpiece.

> > So Dan's got this right.

> > 

> >   

> > 

> > 

> >

>




 

      

    
    
	
	 
	
	








	


	
	


      

Inserts are stalled ATM.  Spent last week down in London, but the project is in the queue for hopefully this week.

MMM's plam key thing -- chamber size was my initial thought as well.  I really thought I had mentioned it but looking back at the thread now, I can't find the post so I guess I didn't.  I'll go do that.     

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
>
> Morgan,
> 
> How's the insert research coming along? 
> 
> I just saw this thread on SOTW.  				how to fix flat palm key notes on Martin bari?
> 
> I'm surprised that no one asked MMM what mouthpiece he was playing on.  Sounds to me like it's a small chamber.  If he used a large chamber, he'd have to push in, and then the palm keys would be fine, wouldn't you say?
> 
> Lance
> 
> 
> 
> --- On Tue, 8/18/09, frymorgan <frymorgan@...> wrote:
> 
> From: frymorgan <frymorgan@...>
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: simplification of inserts
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Tuesday, August 18, 2009, 4:44 PM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
>     
>                   Yes, it is all a question of harmonics.  But it's only 1/4 wavelength to the first displacement antinode (where cross-sectional area first affects pitch).  So the frequencies affected start somewhere in the lower altissimo range.  If we look back to Lance's first posts about this, one of the main points is for better harmonic alignment.
> 
>   
> 
> 
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, Barry Levine <barrylevine@ ...> wrote:
> 
> >
> 
> > >> For sufficiently high frequencies, nodes and antinodes have to be located in
> 
> > >> the mouthpiece.  So Dan's got this right.
> 
> > 
> 
> > Sound travels at approx 1100 ft/sec, and frequency x wavelength = velocity
> 
> > 
> 
> > Therefore a sound of 1000 hz has a wavelength of about 1 ft.
> 
> > A 2000 hz note has about a 6" wavelength, so it would have a node somewhere
> 
> > in the mouthpiece.
> 
> > It's apparent that no saxophone fundamental tones have nodes in the
> 
> > mouthpiece, it's all a question of harmonics.
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > > From: "frymorgan" <frymorgan@ ..>
> 
> > > Reply-To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> 
> > > Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 08:11:00 -0000
> 
> > > To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> 
> > > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: simplification of inserts
> 
> > > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > >  
> 
> > > --- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> 
> > > <mailto:MouthpieceW ork%40yahoogroup s.com> , "tenorman1952" <tenorman1952@ >
> 
> > > wrote:
> 
> > >> >
> 
> > >> > --- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> 
> > >> <mailto:MouthpieceW ork%40yahoogroup s.com> , Dan Torosian <dtorosian@> wrote:
> 
> > >>> > > 
> 
> > >>> > > 2- (I'm totally not sure about this): The frequency of the note being
> 
> > >>> > > produced determines the wavelength in the mouthpiece.  At low
> 
> > >>> > > frequencies, the first anti-node (max pressure/amplitude point) falls
> 
> > >>> > > inside the neck/body.  At higher freqs (shorter wavelengths) , this
> 
> > >>> > > anti-node may be inside the chamber, and the sudden change in diameter
> 
> > >> > 
> 
> > >> > The saxophone is only a half wavelength long... it radiates half the wave
> 
> > >> when the wave is moving down the tube, and the other half of the wave when it
> 
> > >> bounces and comes back up the tube.
> 
> > >> > 
> 
> > >> > The antinode is always in the mouthpiece.  The nodes fall further down the
> 
> > >> tubing.
> 
> > >> > 
> 
> > >> > OK, look at a guitar string... there are nodes ALWAYS at the ends of the
> 
> > >> string, either at the nut or at the fingered fret.  Always.  There may be
> 
> > >> nodes in between the two ends, but the ends are always nodes.  They can't
> 
> > >> vibrate.
> 
> > >> > 
> 
> > >> > The vibrating air column in the saxophone is just the opposite, with
> 
> > >> antenodes on each end, and the main node in between.  There may be other
> 
> > >> nodes, but there are always antinodes on each end.
> 
> > >> > 
> 
> > >> > Why?  Because an antinode is a point of maximum vibration.  A node is a
> 
> > >> point of no vibration.  And if the reed is buzzing... there has to be an
> 
> > >> antinode there in the mouthpiece.
> 
> > >> > 
> 
> > >> > Paul Coats
> 
> > >> >
> 
> > > 
> 
> > > Sure there has to be a pressure antinode in the mouthpiece, and I'm pretty
> 
> > > sure it has to be at the tip.  But the end of the tube is a pressure node
> 
> > > (just to pick a nit; it's irrelevant to this discussion).  For sufficiently
> 
> > > high frequencies, nodes and antinodes have to be located in the mouthpiece.
> 
> > > So Dan's got this right.
> 
> > > 
> 
> > >   
> 
> > > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > >
> 
> >
>