Here is a novice acoustics question.  Ferron and others state that for each standing wave there is a (displacement) node at the tip of the mouthpiece and a (displacement) antinode at the first open tonehole. A completed wave in a saxophone travels to the open tonehole and back.  It can be shown mathematically that the actual wavelength of the note is longer than the physical distance from the tip of the mouthpiece to the open tonehole (plus the end correction) times two due to the mouthpiece volume acting as the missing cone.  This seems to confuse the issue, since ideally the antinode would be located at 1/2 the distance between the nodes.

How then can one go about finding exact location in the bore of the instrument of the nodes and antinodes of the harmonics contained in each given note given that the nodes and antinode of the fundamental do not correspond to the physical distance between the tip of the mouthpiece and the first open tonehole?  Also, does this relate in any way to the image of the "sensitive harmonic sites in an alto neck" found on page 19 of Ferron's book. Can anyone tell me how he arrived at those locations for those notes? Thanks.

John

An EXCELLENT question! 
A practical application is where not to put braces in an instrument.

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "John" <jtalcott47@...> wrote:
>
> Here is a novice acoustics question.  Ferron and others state that for each standing wave there is a (displacement) node at the tip of the mouthpiece and a (displacement) antinode at the first open tonehole. A completed wave in a saxophone travels to the open tonehole and back.  It can be shown mathematically that the actual wavelength of the note is longer than the physical distance from the tip of the mouthpiece to the open tonehole (plus the end correction) times two due to the mouthpiece volume acting as the missing cone.  This seems to confuse the issue, since ideally the antinode would be located at 1/2 the distance between the nodes.
> 
> How then can one go about finding exact location in the bore of the instrument of the nodes and antinodes of the harmonics contained in each given note given that the nodes and antinode of the fundamental do not correspond to the physical distance between the tip of the mouthpiece and the first open tonehole?  Also, does this relate in any way to the image of the "sensitive harmonic sites in an alto neck" found on page 19 of Ferron's book. Can anyone tell me how he arrived at those locations for those notes? Thanks.
> 
> John
>

I don't think the Ferron neck node illustration was intended to be 100% accurate.  Ferron suggests drilling holes in the neck (ouch) and then determining the location of others mathematically with that as the point of reference.  Curt Altarac uses a magnet to move an iron object around in the bore.  If you have accurate detailed cross sectional bore measurements of the entire air column, temperature and barometric readings, and math chops, you can make a chart of all nodes for all resonance modes for all the notes.  

Where to put the brace:  Nederveen states that for thick walled instruments (clarinets, etc.), sound radiation from the wall itself was negligible and then admits that this may not be the case with the reletively thin-walled metal saxophones.  Just personally, I would prefer that my saxophone body did not vibrate, as, due to the difference in mass, the vibration of the metal would surely lag behind that of the air, causing phase interference and energy loss.  




________________________________
From: fidlershorns <grassinospam@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, December 21, 2009 10:25:56 AM
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes

  
An EXCELLENT question! 
A practical application is where not to put braces in an instrument.

--- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, "John" <jtalcott47@ ...> wrote:
>
> Here is a novice acoustics question.  Ferron and others state that for each standing wave there is a (displacement) node at the tip of the mouthpiece and a (displacement) antinode at the first open tonehole. A completed wave in a saxophone travels to the open tonehole and back.  It can be shown mathematically that the actual wavelength of the note is longer than the physical distance from the tip of the mouthpiece to the open tonehole (plus the end correction) times two due to the mouthpiece volume acting as the missing cone.  This seems to confuse the issue, since ideally the antinode would be located at 1/2 the distance between the nodes.
> 
> How then can one go about finding exact location in the bore of the instrument of the nodes and antinodes of the harmonics contained in each given note given that the nodes and antinode of the fundamental do not correspond to the physical distance between the tip of the mouthpiece and the first open tonehole?  Also, does this relate in any way to the image of the "sensitive harmonic sites in an alto neck" found on page 19 of Ferron's book. Can anyone tell me how he arrived at those locations for those notes? Thanks.
> 
> John
>


 


      

I have not cracked the book open in a while.  But I got the impression he actually drilled and plugged several holes in a neck to determine the locations empirically.




________________________________
From: John <jtalcott47@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, December 20, 2009 9:07:51 PM
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Locating Nodes and Antinodes

  
.... Also, does this relate in any way to the image of the "sensitive harmonic sites in an alto neck" found on page 19 of Ferron's book. Can anyone tell me how he arrived at those locations for those notes? Thanks.


      

--- On Mon, 12/21/09, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:


From: Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Locating Nodes and Antinodes
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, December 21, 2009, 8:40 AM


  






I have not cracked the book open in a while.  But I got the impression he actually drilled and plugged several holes in a neck to determine the locations empirically.





From: John <jtalcott47@msn. com>
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Sun, December 20, 2009 9:07:51 PM
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Locating Nodes and Antinodes

  

.... Also, does this relate in any way to the image of the "sensitive harmonic sites in an alto neck" found on page 19 of Ferron's book. Can anyone tell me how he arrived at those locations for those notes? Thanks.










      

One other thing - variations of end perturbations (the player's vocal tract, mouthpiece placement, mouthpiece chamber shapes, chamber volume, neck inserts, etc) cause the entire standing wave to shift laterally in the bore to some extent.  The nodes will not be in exactly the same place for every player, for each mouthpiece, or modification one makes to the mouthpiece chamber (add a baffle) or throat (add a neck insert).




________________________________
From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, December 21, 2009 1:30:52 PM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes

  
I don't think the Ferron neck node illustration was intended to be 100% accurate.  Ferron suggests drilling holes in the neck (ouch) and then determining the location of others mathematically with that as the point of reference.  Curt Altarac uses a magnet to move an iron object around in the bore.  If you have accurate detailed cross sectional bore measurements of the entire air column, temperature and barometric readings, and math chops, you can make a chart of all nodes for all resonance modes for all the notes.  

Where to put the brace:  Nederveen states that for thick walled instruments (clarinets, etc.), sound radiation from the wall itself was negligible and then admits that this may not be the case with the reletively thin-walled metal saxophones.  Just personally, I would prefer that my saxophone body did not vibrate, as, due to the difference in mass, the vibration of the metal would surely lag behind that of the air, causing phase interference and energy loss.  




________________________________
From: fidlershorns <grassinospam@ gmail.com>
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Mon, December 21, 2009 10:25:56 AM
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes

  
An EXCELLENT question! 
A practical application is where not to put braces in an instrument.

--- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, "John" <jtalcott47@ ...> wrote:
>
> Here is a novice acoustics question.  Ferron and others state that for each standing wave there is a (displacement) node at the tip of the mouthpiece and a (displacement) antinode at the first open tonehole. A completed wave in a saxophone travels to the open tonehole and back.  It can be shown mathematically that the actual wavelength of the note is longer than the physical distance from the tip of the mouthpiece to the open tonehole (plus the end correction) times two due to the mouthpiece volume acting as the missing cone.  This seems to confuse the issue, since ideally the antinode would be located at 1/2 the distance between the nodes.
> 
> How then can one go about finding exact location in the bore of the instrument of the nodes and antinodes of the harmonics contained in each given note given that the nodes and antinode of the fundamental do not correspond to the physical distance between the tip of the mouthpiece and the first open tonehole?  Also, does this relate in any way to the image of the "sensitive harmonic sites in an alto neck" found on page 19 of Ferron's book. Can anyone tell me how he arrived at those locations for those notes? Thanks.
> 
> John
>



 


      

That’s a very important point. Basically, “your mileage may vary”. There are not a lot of “absolutes” in this area. Ferron’s chart (based on my personal years of experimenting) is pretty much correct. My company sells eight different neck models, each with a different taper. On some of the models, we add  significant weights to specific areas, and have found (and our customers agree) that adding mass at specific points appears to improve response. Our process is NOT to be confused with the “stones” installed by one maker on the rim of their neck. This is hucksterism at its worst.

 

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of MartinMods
Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 3:14 PM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes

 

  

One other thing - variations of end perturbations (the player's vocal tract, mouthpiece placement, mouthpiece chamber shapes, chamber volume, neck inserts, etc) cause the entire standing wave to shift laterally in the bore to some extent.  The nodes will not be in exactly the same place for every player, for each mouthpiece, or modification one makes to the mouthpiece chamber (add a baffle) or throat (add a neck insert).

 

  _____  

From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, December 21, 2009 1:30:52 PM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes

  

I don't think the Ferron neck node illustration was intended to be 100% accurate.  Ferron suggests drilling holes in the neck (ouch) and then determining the location of others mathematically with that as the point of reference.  Curt Altarac uses a magnet to move an iron object around in the bore.  If you have accurate detailed cross sectional bore measurements of the entire air column, temperature and barometric readings, and math chops, you can make a chart of all nodes for all resonance modes for all the notes.  

Where to put the brace:  Nederveen states that for thick walled instruments (clarinets, etc.), sound radiation from the wall itself was negligible and then admits that this may not be the case with the reletively thin-walled metal saxophones.  Just personally, I would prefer that my saxophone body did not vibrate, as, due to the difference in mass, the vibration of the metal would surely lag behind that of the air, causing phase interference and energy loss.  

 

  _____  

From: fidlershorns <grassinospam@ gmail.com>
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Mon, December 21, 2009 10:25:56 AM
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes

  

An EXCELLENT question! 
A practical application is where not to put braces in an instrument.

--- In MouthpieceWork@ <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>  yahoogroups. com, "John" <jtalcott47@ ...> wrote:
>
> Here is a novice acoustics question. Ferron and others state that for each standing wave there is a (displacement) node at the tip of the mouthpiece and a (displacement) antinode at the first open tonehole. A completed wave in a saxophone travels to the open tonehole and back. It can be shown mathematically that the actual wavelength of the note is longer than the physical distance from the tip of the mouthpiece to the open tonehole (plus the end correction) times two due to the mouthpiece volume acting as the missing cone. This seems to confuse the issue, since ideally the antinode would be located at 1/2 the distance between the nodes.
> 
> How then can one go about finding exact location in the bore of the instrument of the nodes and antinodes of the harmonics contained in each given note given that the nodes and antinode of the fundamental do not correspond to the physical distance between the tip of the mouthpiece and the first open tonehole? Also, does this relate in any way to the image of the "sensitive harmonic sites in an alto neck" found on page 19 of Ferron's book. Can anyone tell me how he arrived at those locations for those notes? Thanks.
> 
> John
>

 

 

Weights and thick walls are a good thing I think.  Consider that the
instrument only functions, in the first place, due to the phenomena of
the self perpetuating, locked and sympathetically vibrating resonances
of the first 3 or 4 modes (the fundamental and 2 or 3 harmonics) of any
air column length, and that the misalignment or variation in the amplitude of any of those resonances can substantially affect the tuning,
tone quality, response, and dynamic range of any respective note on the
instrument, even to the point where the instrument will not play. Also consider that any other sounding resonance, non-harmonic or above the open tone hole lattice cut-off frequency, while it may contribute to the sound or tone quality of the note, does not generate any energy to drive the system.   
These resonances cost energy and of themselves would never enable the
instrument to sound one note.  Given all of that happening in just the
feather light air column molecules, why on earth would anyone want to try to couple those complex and delicate air resonance relationships with the limited resonances of the metal instrument body itself? 

What does that have to do with mouthpieces?  Perhaps the neck cork
plays more of a roll that we imagine.  Perhaps, besides it's obviouls
purpose, it serves to prevent the vibrations of the reed hitting the
mouthpiece from being transmitted into the metal saxophone body and interfering with the air column resonances.



________________________________
From: STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, December 21, 2009 4:32:54 PM
Subject: RE: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes

  
My company sells eight
different neck models, each with a different taper. On some of the models, we
add  significant weights to specific areas, and have found (and our customers
agree) that adding mass at specific points appears to improve response.
 
From:MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:MouthpieceW ork@yahoogroups. com] On
Behalf Of MartinMods
Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 3:14 PM
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes
 
  
One other
thing - variations of end perturbations (the player's vocal tract, mouthpiece
placement, mouthpiece chamber shapes, chamber volume, neck inserts, etc) cause
the entire standing wave to shift laterally in the bore to some extent.  The
nodes will not be in exactly the same place for every player, for each
mouthpiece, or modification one makes to the mouthpiece chamber (add a baffle)
or throat (add a neck insert).
 

________________________________
 
From:MartinMods
<lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Mon, December 21, 2009 1:30:52 PM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes

  
I don't
think the Ferron neck node illustration was intended to be 100% accurate. 
Ferron suggests drilling holes in the neck (ouch) and then determining the
location of others mathematically with that as the point of reference. 
Curt Altarac uses a magnet to move an iron object around in the bore.  If
you have accurate detailed cross sectional bore measurements of the entire air
column, temperature and barometric readings, and math chops, you can make a chart
of all nodes for all resonance modes for all the notes.  

Where to put the brace:  Nederveen states that for thick walled
instruments (clarinets, etc.), sound radiation from the wall itself was
negligible and then admits that this may not be the case with the reletively
thin-walled metal saxophones.  Just personally, I would prefer that my
saxophone body did not vibrate, as, due to the difference in mass, the
vibration of the metal would surely lag behind that of the air, causing phase
interference and energy loss.  
 

________________________________
 
From:fidlershorns
<grassinospam@ gmail.com>
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Mon, December 21, 2009 10:25:56 AM
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes

  
An EXCELLENT question! 
A practical application is where not to put braces in an instrument.

--- In MouthpieceWork@
yahoogroups. com, "John" <jtalcott47@ ...> wrote:
>
> Here is a novice acoustics question. Ferron and others state that for each
standing wave there is a (displacement) node at the tip of the mouthpiece and a
(displacement) antinode at the first open tonehole. A completed wave in a
saxophone travels to the open tonehole and back. It can be shown mathematically
that the actual wavelength of the note is longer than the physical distance
from the tip of the mouthpiece to the open tonehole (plus the end correction)
times two due to the mouthpiece volume acting as the missing cone. This seems
to confuse the issue, since ideally the antinode would be located at 1/2 the
distance between the nodes.
> 
> How then can one go about finding exact location in the bore of the
instrument of the nodes and antinodes of the harmonics contained in each given
note given that the nodes and antinode of the fundamental do not correspond to
the physical distance between the tip of the mouthpiece and the first open
tonehole? Also, does this relate in any way to the image of the "sensitive
harmonic sites in an alto neck" found on page 19 of Ferron's book. Can
anyone tell me how he arrived at those locations for those notes? Thanks.
> 
> John
>
 
 
 


      

MartinMods wrote:
> I don't think the Ferron neck node illustration was intended to be 
> 100% accurate.  Ferron suggests drilling holes in the neck (ouch)
<snip>
Check out Michael Brockman's "FrankenSax."   He drilled a couple of 
holes in the neck of his student horn.

http://www.michaelbrockman.com/Frankensax.htm

Hi Lance,

You probably remember the study of body vibrations in brasswinds, in which all significant vibrations were found to be caused by the lips passing their vibrations down the tube.

IIRC Nederveen postulates a possible effect of up to 3 dB on account of the vibrations of the mpc and how it would affect the embouchure. No tests have been done on this, however, to my knowledge.

Since neck weights are something that could easily be A/B'd without changing any other aspect of the setup (and added and subtracted quickly), it seems that this would be a perfect candidate for some controlled tests, since as you know I am a total skeptic when it comes to someone's "impressions".

Toby

MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:                                           
Weights and thick walls are a good thing I think.  Consider that the instrument only functions, in the first place, due to the phenomena of the self perpetuating, locked and sympathetically vibrating resonances of the first 3 or 4 modes (the fundamental and 2 or 3 harmonics) of any air column
 length, and that the misalignment or variation in the amplitude of any of those resonances can substantially affect the tuning, tone quality, response, and dynamic range of any respective note on the instrument, even to the point where the instrument will not play. Also consider that any other
 sounding resonance, non-harmonic or above the open tone hole lattice cut-off frequency, while it may contribute to the sound or tone quality of the note, does not generate any energy to drive the system.    These resonances cost energy and of themselves would never enable the instrument to sound
 one note.  Given all of that happening in just the feather light air column molecules, why on earth would anyone want to try to couple those complex and delicate air resonance relationships with the limited resonances of the metal instrument body itself? 
 
 What does that have to do with mouthpieces?  Perhaps the neck cork plays more of a roll that we imagine.  Perhaps, besides it's obviouls purpose, it serves to prevent the vibrations of the reed hitting the mouthpiece from being transmitted into the metal saxophone body and interfering with the
 air column resonances.


---------------------------------
From: STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, December 21, 2009 4:32:54 PM
Subject: RE: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes

                                            
  My company sells eight different neck models, each with a different taper. On some of the models, we add  significant weights to specific areas, and have found (and our customers agree) that adding mass at specific points appears to improve response.
     
       From: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:MouthpieceW ork@yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of MartinMods
 Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 3:14 PM
 To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
 Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes
   
  
    
     
             One other thing - variations of end perturbations (the player's vocal tract, mouthpiece placement, mouthpiece chamber shapes, chamber volume, neck inserts, etc) cause the entire standing wave to shift laterally in the bore to some extent.  The nodes will not be in exactly the same
 place for every player, for each mouthpiece, or modification one makes to the mouthpiece chamber (add a baffle) or throat (add a neck insert).
   
      
       
---------------------------------
  
  From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
 To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
 Sent: Mon, December 21, 2009 1:30:52 PM
 Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes
 
   
         I don't think the Ferron neck node illustration was intended to be 100% accurate.  Ferron suggests drilling holes in the neck (ouch) and then determining the location of others mathematically with that as the point of reference.  Curt Altarac uses a magnet to move an iron object around in
 the bore.  If you have accurate detailed cross sectional bore measurements of the entire air column, temperature and barometric readings, and math chops, you can make a chart of all nodes for all resonance modes for all the notes.  
 
 Where to put the brace:  Nederveen states that for thick walled instruments (clarinets, etc.), sound radiation from the wall itself was negligible and then admits that this may not be the case with the reletively thin-walled metal saxophones.  Just personally, I would prefer that my saxophone
 body did not vibrate, as, due to the difference in mass, the vibration of the metal would surely lag behind that of the air, causing phase interference and energy loss.  
   
      
       
---------------------------------
  
  From: fidlershorns <grassinospam@ gmail.com>
 To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
 Sent: Mon, December 21, 2009 10:25:56 AM
 Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes
 
   
     An EXCELLENT question! 
 A practical application is where not to put braces in an instrument.
 
 --- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, "John" <jtalcott47@ ...> wrote:
 >
 > Here is a novice acoustics question. Ferron and others state that for each standing wave there is a (displacement) node at the tip of the mouthpiece and a (displacement) antinode at the first open tonehole. A completed wave in a saxophone travels to the open tonehole and back. It can be shown
 mathematically that the actual wavelength of the note is longer than the physical distance from the tip of the mouthpiece to the open tonehole (plus the end correction) times two due to the mouthpiece volume acting as the missing cone. This seems to confuse the issue, since ideally the antinode
 would be located at 1/2 the distance between the nodes.
 > 
 > How then can one go about finding exact location in the bore of the instrument of the nodes and antinodes of the harmonics contained in each given note given that the nodes and antinode of the fundamental do not correspond to the physical distance between the tip of the mouthpiece and the first
 open tonehole? Also, does this relate in any way to the image of the "sensitive harmonic sites in an alto neck" found on page 19 of Ferron's book. Can anyone tell me how he arrived at those locations for those notes? Thanks.
 > 
 > John
 >
   
  
  
  
    
   
  
  
  
    
   
    
   
  
     

      
           

  

        
      
                 
                 
 

Thanks to all those who responded on topic to my question.  

If the length to the point of the missing apex to the cone, the frequency of the note, and the speed of sound were known---wouldn't it be possible to mathematically find the wavelength of the pitch using the formula wavelength = C/F? Once that exact wavelength is determined which is known to be 2X the physical length inside the instrument, it should then be a simple matter to divide 1/2 the wavelength by whole numbers to map the location of nodes and antinodes along the tube.  If this is not the case, what am I missing here?

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Lance,
> 
> You probably remember the study of body vibrations in brasswinds, in which all significant vibrations were found to be caused by the lips passing their vibrations down the tube.
> 
> IIRC Nederveen postulates a possible effect of up to 3 dB on account of the vibrations of the mpc and how it would affect the embouchure. No tests have been done on this, however, to my knowledge.
> 
> Since neck weights are something that could easily be A/B'd without changing any other aspect of the setup (and added and subtracted quickly), it seems that this would be a perfect candidate for some controlled tests, since as you know I am a total skeptic when it comes to someone's "impressions".
> 
> Toby
> 
> MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:                                           
> Weights and thick walls are a good thing I think.  Consider that the instrument only functions, in the first place, due to the phenomena of the self perpetuating, locked and sympathetically vibrating resonances of the first 3 or 4 modes (the fundamental and 2 or 3 harmonics) of any air column
>  length, and that the misalignment or variation in the amplitude of any of those resonances can substantially affect the tuning, tone quality, response, and dynamic range of any respective note on the instrument, even to the point where the instrument will not play. Also consider that any other
>  sounding resonance, non-harmonic or above the open tone hole lattice cut-off frequency, while it may contribute to the sound or tone quality of the note, does not generate any energy to drive the system.    These resonances cost energy and of themselves would never enable the instrument to sound
>  one note.  Given all of that happening in just the feather light air column molecules, why on earth would anyone want to try to couple those complex and delicate air resonance relationships with the limited resonances of the metal instrument body itself? 
>  
>  What does that have to do with mouthpieces?  Perhaps the neck cork plays more of a roll that we imagine.  Perhaps, besides it's obviouls purpose, it serves to prevent the vibrations of the reed hitting the mouthpiece from being transmitted into the metal saxophone body and interfering with the
>  air column resonances.
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------
> From: STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...>
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Mon, December 21, 2009 4:32:54 PM
> Subject: RE: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes
> 
>                                             
>   My company sells eight different neck models, each with a different taper. On some of the models, we add  significant weights to specific areas, and have found (and our customers agree) that adding mass at specific points appears to improve response.
>      
>        From: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:MouthpieceW ork@yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of MartinMods
>  Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 3:14 PM
>  To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
>  Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes
>    
>   
>     
>      
>              One other thing - variations of end perturbations (the player's vocal tract, mouthpiece placement, mouthpiece chamber shapes, chamber volume, neck inserts, etc) cause the entire standing wave to shift laterally in the bore to some extent.  The nodes will not be in exactly the same
>  place for every player, for each mouthpiece, or modification one makes to the mouthpiece chamber (add a baffle) or throat (add a neck insert).
>    
>       
>        
> ---------------------------------
>   
>   From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
>  To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
>  Sent: Mon, December 21, 2009 1:30:52 PM
>  Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes
>  
>    
>          I don't think the Ferron neck node illustration was intended to be 100% accurate.  Ferron suggests drilling holes in the neck (ouch) and then determining the location of others mathematically with that as the point of reference.  Curt Altarac uses a magnet to move an iron object around in
>  the bore.  If you have accurate detailed cross sectional bore measurements of the entire air column, temperature and barometric readings, and math chops, you can make a chart of all nodes for all resonance modes for all the notes.  
>  
>  Where to put the brace:  Nederveen states that for thick walled instruments (clarinets, etc.), sound radiation from the wall itself was negligible and then admits that this may not be the case with the reletively thin-walled metal saxophones.  Just personally, I would prefer that my saxophone
>  body did not vibrate, as, due to the difference in mass, the vibration of the metal would surely lag behind that of the air, causing phase interference and energy loss.  
>    
>       
>        
> ---------------------------------
>   
>   From: fidlershorns <grassinospam@ gmail.com>
>  To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
>  Sent: Mon, December 21, 2009 10:25:56 AM
>  Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes
>  
>    
>      An EXCELLENT question! 
>  A practical application is where not to put braces in an instrument.
>  
>  --- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, "John" <jtalcott47@ ...> wrote:
>  >
>  > Here is a novice acoustics question. Ferron and others state that for each standing wave there is a (displacement) node at the tip of the mouthpiece and a (displacement) antinode at the first open tonehole. A completed wave in a saxophone travels to the open tonehole and back. It can be shown
>  mathematically that the actual wavelength of the note is longer than the physical distance from the tip of the mouthpiece to the open tonehole (plus the end correction) times two due to the mouthpiece volume acting as the missing cone. This seems to confuse the issue, since ideally the antinode
>  would be located at 1/2 the distance between the nodes.
>  > 
>  > How then can one go about finding exact location in the bore of the instrument of the nodes and antinodes of the harmonics contained in each given note given that the nodes and antinode of the fundamental do not correspond to the physical distance between the tip of the mouthpiece and the first
>  open tonehole? Also, does this relate in any way to the image of the "sensitive harmonic sites in an alto neck" found on page 19 of Ferron's book. Can anyone tell me how he arrived at those locations for those notes? Thanks.
>  > 
>  > John
>  >
>

What you're missing is the fact that the speed of sound isn't constant, and varies according to a number of factors, including the composition of the medium and the temperature.

Toby

John <jtalcott47@...> wrote:                                           Thanks to all those who responded on topic to my question.  
 
 If the length to the point of the missing apex to the cone, the frequency of the note, and the speed of sound were known---wouldn't it be possible to mathematically find the wavelength of the pitch using the formula wavelength = C/F? Once that exact wavelength is determined which is known to be
 2X the physical length inside the instrument, it should then be a simple matter to divide 1/2 the wavelength by whole numbers to map the location of nodes and antinodes along the tube.  If this is not the case, what am I missing here?
 
 --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
 >
 > Hi Lance,
 > 
 > You probably remember the study of body vibrations in brasswinds, in which all significant vibrations were found to be caused by the lips passing their vibrations down the tube.
 > 
 > IIRC Nederveen postulates a possible effect of up to 3 dB on account of the vibrations of the mpc and how it would affect the embouchure. No tests have been done on this, however, to my knowledge.
 > 
 > Since neck weights are something that could easily be A/B'd without changing any other aspect of the setup (and added and subtracted quickly), it seems that this would be a perfect candidate for some controlled tests, since as you know I am a total skeptic when it comes to someone's
 "impressions".
 > 
 > Toby
 > 
 > MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:                                           
 > Weights and thick walls are a good thing I think.  Consider that the instrument only functions, in the first place, due to the phenomena of the self perpetuating, locked and sympathetically vibrating resonances of the first 3 or 4 modes (the fundamental and 2 or 3 harmonics) of any air column
 >  length, and that the misalignment or variation in the amplitude of any of those resonances can substantially affect the tuning, tone quality, response, and dynamic range of any respective note on the instrument, even to the point where the instrument will not play. Also consider that any other
 >  sounding resonance, non-harmonic or above the open tone hole lattice cut-off frequency, while it may contribute to the sound or tone quality of the note, does not generate any energy to drive the system.    These resonances cost energy and of themselves would never enable the instrument to
 sound
 >  one note.  Given all of that happening in just the feather light air column molecules, why on earth would anyone want to try to couple those complex and delicate air resonance relationships with the limited resonances of the metal instrument body itself? 
 >  
 >  What does that have to do with mouthpieces?  Perhaps the neck cork plays more of a roll that we imagine.  Perhaps, besides it's obviouls purpose, it serves to prevent the vibrations of the reed hitting the mouthpiece from being transmitted into the metal saxophone body and interfering with the
 >  air column resonances.
 > 
 > 
 > ---------------------------------
 > From: STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...>
 > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
 > Sent: Mon, December 21, 2009 4:32:54 PM
 > Subject: RE: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes
 > 
 >                                             
 >   My company sells eight different neck models, each with a different taper. On some of the models, we add  significant weights to specific areas, and have found (and our customers agree) that adding mass at specific points appears to improve response.
 >      
 >        From: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:MouthpieceW ork@yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of MartinMods
 >  Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 3:14 PM
 >  To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
 >  Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes
 >    
 >   
 >     
 >      
 >              One other thing - variations of end perturbations (the player's vocal tract, mouthpiece placement, mouthpiece chamber shapes, chamber volume, neck inserts, etc) cause the entire standing wave to shift laterally in the bore to some extent.  The nodes will not be in exactly the same
 >  place for every player, for each mouthpiece, or modification one makes to the mouthpiece chamber (add a baffle) or throat (add a neck insert).
 >    
 >       
 >        
 > ---------------------------------
 >   
 >   From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
 >  To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
 >  Sent: Mon, December 21, 2009 1:30:52 PM
 >  Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes
 >  
 >    
 >          I don't think the Ferron neck node illustration was intended to be 100% accurate.  Ferron suggests drilling holes in the neck (ouch) and then determining the location of others mathematically with that as the point of reference.  Curt Altarac uses a magnet to move an iron object around
 in
 >  the bore.  If you have accurate detailed cross sectional bore measurements of the entire air column, temperature and barometric readings, and math chops, you can make a chart of all nodes for all resonance modes for all the notes.  
 >  
 >  Where to put the brace:  Nederveen states that for thick walled instruments (clarinets, etc.), sound radiation from the wall itself was negligible and then admits that this may not be the case with the reletively thin-walled metal saxophones.  Just personally, I would prefer that my saxophone
 >  body did not vibrate, as, due to the difference in mass, the vibration of the metal would surely lag behind that of the air, causing phase interference and energy loss.  
 >    
 >       
 >        
 > ---------------------------------
 >   
 >   From: fidlershorns <grassinospam@ gmail.com>
 >  To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
 >  Sent: Mon, December 21, 2009 10:25:56 AM
 >  Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes
 >  
 >    
 >      An EXCELLENT question! 
 >  A practical application is where not to put braces in an instrument.
 >  
 >  --- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, "John" <jtalcott47@ ...> wrote:
 >  >
 >  > Here is a novice acoustics question. Ferron and others state that for each standing wave there is a (displacement) node at the tip of the mouthpiece and a (displacement) antinode at the first open tonehole. A completed wave in a saxophone travels to the open tonehole and back. It can be shown
 >  mathematically that the actual wavelength of the note is longer than the physical distance from the tip of the mouthpiece to the open tonehole (plus the end correction) times two due to the mouthpiece volume acting as the missing cone. This seems to confuse the issue, since ideally the antinode
 >  would be located at 1/2 the distance between the nodes.
 >  > 
 >  > How then can one go about finding exact location in the bore of the instrument of the nodes and antinodes of the harmonics contained in each given note given that the nodes and antinode of the fundamental do not correspond to the physical distance between the tip of the mouthpiece and the
 first
 >  open tonehole? Also, does this relate in any way to the image of the "sensitive harmonic sites in an alto neck" found on page 19 of Ferron's book. Can anyone tell me how he arrived at those locations for those notes? Thanks.
 >  > 
 >  > John
 >  >
 >
 
 
      
                 
                 
 

And actually, another point is that measuring to the virtual apex only really works if the mpc volume is correct. This is a complex issue, but the effective volume changes not only depending on the position of the mpc on the cork, but also on the reed strength and the player's embouchure. Any
 variation actually makes the virtual tip of the cone seem to move, with an attendant variation in the modes and nodes...

Toby

John <jtalcott47@...> wrote:                                           Thanks to all those who responded on topic to my question.  
 
 If the length to the point of the missing apex to the cone, the frequency of the note, and the speed of sound were known---wouldn't it be possible to mathematically find the wavelength of the pitch using the formula wavelength = C/F? Once that exact wavelength is determined which is known to be
 2X the physical length inside the instrument, it should then be a simple matter to divide 1/2 the wavelength by whole numbers to map the location of nodes and antinodes along the tube.  If this is not the case, what am I missing here?
 
 --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
 >
 > Hi Lance,
 > 
 > You probably remember the study of body vibrations in brasswinds, in which all significant vibrations were found to be caused by the lips passing their vibrations down the tube.
 > 
 > IIRC Nederveen postulates a possible effect of up to 3 dB on account of the vibrations of the mpc and how it would affect the embouchure. No tests have been done on this, however, to my knowledge.
 > 
 > Since neck weights are something that could easily be A/B'd without changing any other aspect of the setup (and added and subtracted quickly), it seems that this would be a perfect candidate for some controlled tests, since as you know I am a total skeptic when it comes to someone's
 "impressions".
 > 
 > Toby
 > 
 > MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:                                           
 > Weights and thick walls are a good thing I think.  Consider that the instrument only functions, in the first place, due to the phenomena of the self perpetuating, locked and sympathetically vibrating resonances of the first 3 or 4 modes (the fundamental and 2 or 3 harmonics) of any air column
 >  length, and that the misalignment or variation in the amplitude of any of those resonances can substantially affect the tuning, tone quality, response, and dynamic range of any respective note on the instrument, even to the point where the instrument will not play. Also consider that any other
 >  sounding resonance, non-harmonic or above the open tone hole lattice cut-off frequency, while it may contribute to the sound or tone quality of the note, does not generate any energy to drive the system.    These resonances cost energy and of themselves would never enable the instrument to
 sound
 >  one note.  Given all of that happening in just the feather light air column molecules, why on earth would anyone want to try to couple those complex and delicate air resonance relationships with the limited resonances of the metal instrument body itself? 
 >  
 >  What does that have to do with mouthpieces?  Perhaps the neck cork plays more of a roll that we imagine.  Perhaps, besides it's obviouls purpose, it serves to prevent the vibrations of the reed hitting the mouthpiece from being transmitted into the metal saxophone body and interfering with the
 >  air column resonances.
 > 
 > 
 > ---------------------------------
 > From: STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...>
 > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
 > Sent: Mon, December 21, 2009 4:32:54 PM
 > Subject: RE: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes
 > 
 >                                             
 >   My company sells eight different neck models, each with a different taper. On some of the models, we add  significant weights to specific areas, and have found (and our customers agree) that adding mass at specific points appears to improve response.
 >      
 >        From: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:MouthpieceW ork@yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of MartinMods
 >  Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 3:14 PM
 >  To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
 >  Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes
 >    
 >   
 >     
 >      
 >              One other thing - variations of end perturbations (the player's vocal tract, mouthpiece placement, mouthpiece chamber shapes, chamber volume, neck inserts, etc) cause the entire standing wave to shift laterally in the bore to some extent.  The nodes will not be in exactly the same
 >  place for every player, for each mouthpiece, or modification one makes to the mouthpiece chamber (add a baffle) or throat (add a neck insert).
 >    
 >       
 >        
 > ---------------------------------
 >   
 >   From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
 >  To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
 >  Sent: Mon, December 21, 2009 1:30:52 PM
 >  Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes
 >  
 >    
 >          I don't think the Ferron neck node illustration was intended to be 100% accurate.  Ferron suggests drilling holes in the neck (ouch) and then determining the location of others mathematically with that as the point of reference.  Curt Altarac uses a magnet to move an iron object around
 in
 >  the bore.  If you have accurate detailed cross sectional bore measurements of the entire air column, temperature and barometric readings, and math chops, you can make a chart of all nodes for all resonance modes for all the notes.  
 >  
 >  Where to put the brace:  Nederveen states that for thick walled instruments (clarinets, etc.), sound radiation from the wall itself was negligible and then admits that this may not be the case with the reletively thin-walled metal saxophones.  Just personally, I would prefer that my saxophone
 >  body did not vibrate, as, due to the difference in mass, the vibration of the metal would surely lag behind that of the air, causing phase interference and energy loss.  
 >    
 >       
 >        
 > ---------------------------------
 >   
 >   From: fidlershorns <grassinospam@ gmail.com>
 >  To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
 >  Sent: Mon, December 21, 2009 10:25:56 AM
 >  Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes
 >  
 >    
 >      An EXCELLENT question! 
 >  A practical application is where not to put braces in an instrument.
 >  
 >  --- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, "John" <jtalcott47@ ...> wrote:
 >  >
 >  > Here is a novice acoustics question. Ferron and others state that for each standing wave there is a (displacement) node at the tip of the mouthpiece and a (displacement) antinode at the first open tonehole. A completed wave in a saxophone travels to the open tonehole and back. It can be shown
 >  mathematically that the actual wavelength of the note is longer than the physical distance from the tip of the mouthpiece to the open tonehole (plus the end correction) times two due to the mouthpiece volume acting as the missing cone. This seems to confuse the issue, since ideally the antinode
 >  would be located at 1/2 the distance between the nodes.
 >  > 
 >  > How then can one go about finding exact location in the bore of the instrument of the nodes and antinodes of the harmonics contained in each given note given that the nodes and antinode of the fundamental do not correspond to the physical distance between the tip of the mouthpiece and the
 first
 >  open tonehole? Also, does this relate in any way to the image of the "sensitive harmonic sites in an alto neck" found on page 19 of Ferron's book. Can anyone tell me how he arrived at those locations for those notes? Thanks.
 >  > 
 >  > John
 >  >
 >
 
 
      
                 
                 
 

Bore perturbations and bends in tubing cause nodes to shift position. End perturbations shift the entire standing wave.  If you want to calculate their locations, you must make an accurate mathematical model of the air column.




________________________________
From: John <jtalcott47@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, December 22, 2009 10:00:58 AM
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes

  
Thanks to all those who responded on topic to my question. 

If the length to the point of the missing apex to the cone, the frequency of the note, and the speed of sound were known---wouldn' t it be possible to mathematically find the wavelength of the pitch using the formula wavelength = C/F? Once that exact wavelength is determined which is known to be 2X the physical length inside the instrument, it should then be a simple matter to divide 1/2 the wavelength by whole numbers to map the location of nodes and antinodes along the tube.  If this is not the case, what am I missing here?


      

Hi Toby,

I'm unfamiliar with that study.  Are you saying that the lip vibrations passed to the tube wall were significant to the formation of the harmonic regime?  If not, then how were they significant?

Backus concluded that the wall vibrations of a clarinet are too small
to produce a perceptible sound. Further, he speculated that if it were
possible to make the instrument vibrate sufficiently to be heard, the
consequence would not likely be a pleasant one.... Backus’s further research reveals that the
instrument’s body vibrations are due to the reed vibrating against the
mouthpiece, not due to the vibrations of the enclosed air column.

Nederveen mentions (in the paragraph above the one you referred to) the 1993 Gibiat reference to the saxophone manufacturer who's changed bell design, allowing wall vibration, inhibited the sounding of the instrument.

Influence of wall vibrations on the behavior of a simplified wind instrument
Guillaume Nief, François Gautier, Jean-Pierre Dalmont, and Joël Gilbert- 2007:  Forthis purpose, a simplified single reed instrument consisting of abrass tube connected to a clarinet mouthpiece has been studied.   For a slightly oval-shaped andvery thin brass tube, it is shown theoretically and experimentallythat a coupling between the inner plane acoustic wave andovalling mechanical modes occurs and results in disturbances of theinput impedance, which can slightly affect the tone color ofthe sound produced. It is concluded that the reported effectsare unlikely to occur in real instruments except for someorgan pipes. 







________________________________
From: "kymarto123@..." <kymarto123@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, December 22, 2009 8:29:12 AM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes

  
Hi Lance,

You probably remember the study of body vibrations in brasswinds, in which all significant vibrations were found to be caused by the lips passing their vibrations down the tube.

 

 


      

That seems an interesting point...  where is the virtual apex? Does it shift
a bit?

If one had a way of visualizing the standing waves in a saxophone, and
thereby calculating the location of the virtual apex, I wonder if one would
see variations in that location, depending on the horn and mouthpiece and
notes played; and how those variations would correspond to perceived
qualities of playability in a particular setup.

Barry



> And actually, another point is that measuring to the virtual apex only really
> works if the mpc volume is correct. This is a complex issue, but the effective
> volume changes not only depending on the position of the mpc on the cork, but
> also on the reed strength and the player's embouchure. Any
> variation actually makes the virtual tip of the cone seem to move, with an
> attendant variation in the modes and nodes...
> 
> Toby
> 
> John <jtalcott47@...> wrote:
> Thanks to all those who responded on topic to my question.
> 
> If the length to the point of the missing apex to the cone, the frequency of
> the note, and the speed of sound were known---wouldn't it be possible to
> mathematically find the wavelength of the pitch using the formula wavelength > C/F? Once that exact wavelength is determined which is known to be
> 2X the physical length inside the instrument, it should then be a simple
> matter to divide 1/2 the wavelength by whole numbers to map the location of
> nodes and antinodes along the tube.  If this is not the case, what am I
> missing here?
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Lance,
>> 
>> You probably remember the study of body vibrations in brasswinds, in which
>> all significant vibrations were found to be caused by the lips passing their
>> vibrations down the tube.
>> 
>> IIRC Nederveen postulates a possible effect of up to 3 dB on account of the
>> vibrations of the mpc and how it would affect the embouchure. No tests have
>> been done on this, however, to my knowledge.
>> 
>> Since neck weights are something that could easily be A/B'd without changing
>> any other aspect of the setup (and added and subtracted quickly), it seems
>> that this would be a perfect candidate for some controlled tests, since as
>> you know I am a total skeptic when it comes to someone's
> "impressions".
>> 
>> Toby
>> 
>> MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
>> Weights and thick walls are a good thing I think.  Consider that the
>> instrument only functions, in the first place, due to the phenomena of the
>> self perpetuating, locked and sympathetically vibrating resonances of the
>> first 3 or 4 modes (the fundamental and 2 or 3 harmonics) of any air column
>> length, and that the misalignment or variation in the amplitude of any of
>> those resonances can substantially affect the tuning, tone quality, response,
>> and dynamic range of any respective note on the instrument, even to the point
>> where the instrument will not play. Also consider that any other
>> sounding resonance, non-harmonic or above the open tone hole lattice cut-off
>> frequency, while it may contribute to the sound or tone quality of the note,
>> does not generate any energy to drive the system.    These resonances cost
>> energy and of themselves would never enable the instrument to
> sound
>> one note.  Given all of that happening in just the feather light air column
>> molecules, why on earth would anyone want to try to couple those complex and
>> delicate air resonance relationships with the limited resonances of the metal
>> instrument body itself?
>> 
>> What does that have to do with mouthpieces?  Perhaps the neck cork plays more
>> of a roll that we imagine.  Perhaps, besides it's obviouls purpose, it serves
>> to prevent the vibrations of the reed hitting the mouthpiece from being
>> transmitted into the metal saxophone body and interfering with the
>> air column resonances.
>> 
>> 
>> ---------------------------------
>> From: STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...>
>> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>> Sent: Mon, December 21, 2009 4:32:54 PM
>> Subject: RE: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes
>> 
>> 
>> My company sells eight different neck models, each with a different taper. On
>> some of the models, we add  significant weights to specific areas, and have
>> found (and our customers agree) that adding mass at specific points appears
>> to improve response.
>> 
>> From: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:MouthpieceW ork@yahoogroups.
>> com] On Behalf Of MartinMods
>> Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 3:14 PM
>> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
>> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> One other thing - variations of end perturbations (the player's vocal tract,
>> mouthpiece placement, mouthpiece chamber shapes, chamber volume, neck
>> inserts, etc) cause the entire standing wave to shift laterally in the bore
>> to some extent.  The nodes will not be in exactly the same
>> place for every player, for each mouthpiece, or modification one makes to the
>> mouthpiece chamber (add a baffle) or throat (add a neck insert).
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ---------------------------------
>> 
>> From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
>> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
>> Sent: Mon, December 21, 2009 1:30:52 PM
>> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes
>> 
>> 
>> I don't think the Ferron neck node illustration was intended to be 100%
>> accurate.  Ferron suggests drilling holes in the neck (ouch) and then
>> determining the location of others mathematically with that as the point of
>> reference.  Curt Altarac uses a magnet to move an iron object around
> in
>> the bore.  If you have accurate detailed cross sectional bore measurements of
>> the entire air column, temperature and barometric readings, and math chops,
>> you can make a chart of all nodes for all resonance modes for all the notes.
>> 
>> Where to put the brace:  Nederveen states that for thick walled instruments
>> (clarinets, etc.), sound radiation from the wall itself was negligible and
>> then admits that this may not be the case with the reletively thin-walled
>> metal saxophones.  Just personally, I would prefer that my saxophone
>> body did not vibrate, as, due to the difference in mass, the vibration of the
>> metal would surely lag behind that of the air, causing phase interference and
>> energy loss.  
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ---------------------------------
>> 
>> From: fidlershorns <grassinospam@ gmail.com>
>> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
>> Sent: Mon, December 21, 2009 10:25:56 AM
>> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes
>> 
>> 
>> An EXCELLENT question!
>> A practical application is where not to put braces in an instrument.
>> 
>> --- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, "John" <jtalcott47@ ...> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Here is a novice acoustics question. Ferron and others state that for each
>>> standing wave there is a (displacement) node at the tip of the mouthpiece
>>> and a (displacement) antinode at the first open tonehole. A completed wave
>>> in a saxophone travels to the open tonehole and back. It can be shown
>> mathematically that the actual wavelength of the note is longer than the
>> physical distance from the tip of the mouthpiece to the open tonehole (plus
>> the end correction) times two due to the mouthpiece volume acting as the
>> missing cone. This seems to confuse the issue, since ideally the antinode
>> would be located at 1/2 the distance between the nodes.
>>> 
>>> How then can one go about finding exact location in the bore of the
>>> instrument of the nodes and antinodes of the harmonics contained in each
>>> given note given that the nodes and antinode of the fundamental do not
>>> correspond to the physical distance between the tip of the mouthpiece and
>>> the
> first
>> open tonehole? Also, does this relate in any way to the image of the
>> "sensitive harmonic sites in an alto neck" found on page 19 of Ferron's book.
>> Can anyone tell me how he arrived at those locations for those notes? Thanks.
>>> 
>>> John
>>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Benade writes that 347 m/sec is a good value to use for the speed of sound for the warm damp air at the upper end of a woodwind.  This corresponds to a temperature of approximately 80 degrees F in dry air.

Mathematically a 1 degree change in temperature at 880 vps changes the wavelength just .4 mm.  That same 1 degree change in temperature changes the pitch by only 2.5 cents given the same wavelength.

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
>
> What you're missing is the fact that the speed of sound isn't constant, and varies according to a number of factors, including the composition of the medium and the temperature.
> 
> Toby
> 
> John <jtalcott47@...> wrote:                                           Thanks to all those who responded on topic to my question.  
>  
>  If the length to the point of the missing apex to the cone, the frequency of the note, and the speed of sound were known---wouldn't it be possible to mathematically find the wavelength of the pitch using the formula wavelength = C/F? Once that exact wavelength is determined which is known to be
>  2X the physical length inside the instrument, it should then be a simple matter to divide 1/2 the wavelength by whole numbers to map the location of nodes and antinodes along the tube.  If this is not the case, what am I missing here?
>  
>  --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@> wrote:
>  >
>  > Hi Lance,
>  > 
>  > You probably remember the study of body vibrations in brasswinds, in which all significant vibrations were found to be caused by the lips passing their vibrations down the tube.
>  > 
>  > IIRC Nederveen postulates a possible effect of up to 3 dB on account of the vibrations of the mpc and how it would affect the embouchure. No tests have been done on this, however, to my knowledge.
>  > 
>  > Since neck weights are something that could easily be A/B'd without changing any other aspect of the setup (and added and subtracted quickly), it seems that this would be a perfect candidate for some controlled tests, since as you know I am a total skeptic when it comes to someone's
>  "impressions".
>  > 
>  > Toby
>  > 
>  > MartinMods <lancelotburt@> wrote:                                           
>  > Weights and thick walls are a good thing I think.  Consider that the instrument only functions, in the first place, due to the phenomena of the self perpetuating, locked and sympathetically vibrating resonances of the first 3 or 4 modes (the fundamental and 2 or 3 harmonics) of any air column
>  >  length, and that the misalignment or variation in the amplitude of any of those resonances can substantially affect the tuning, tone quality, response, and dynamic range of any respective note on the instrument, even to the point where the instrument will not play. Also consider that any other
>  >  sounding resonance, non-harmonic or above the open tone hole lattice cut-off frequency, while it may contribute to the sound or tone quality of the note, does not generate any energy to drive the system.    These resonances cost energy and of themselves would never enable the instrument to
>  sound
>  >  one note.  Given all of that happening in just the feather light air column molecules, why on earth would anyone want to try to couple those complex and delicate air resonance relationships with the limited resonances of the metal instrument body itself? 
>  >  
>  >  What does that have to do with mouthpieces?  Perhaps the neck cork plays more of a roll that we imagine.  Perhaps, besides it's obviouls purpose, it serves to prevent the vibrations of the reed hitting the mouthpiece from being transmitted into the metal saxophone body and interfering with the
>  >  air column resonances.
>  > 
>  > 
>  > ---------------------------------
>  > From: STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@>
>  > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>  > Sent: Mon, December 21, 2009 4:32:54 PM
>  > Subject: RE: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes
>  > 
>  >                                             
>  >   My company sells eight different neck models, each with a different taper. On some of the models, we add  significant weights to specific areas, and have found (and our customers agree) that adding mass at specific points appears to improve response.
>  >      
>  >        From: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:MouthpieceW ork@yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of MartinMods
>  >  Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 3:14 PM
>  >  To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
>  >  Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes
>  >    
>  >   
>  >     
>  >      
>  >              One other thing - variations of end perturbations (the player's vocal tract, mouthpiece placement, mouthpiece chamber shapes, chamber volume, neck inserts, etc) cause the entire standing wave to shift laterally in the bore to some extent.  The nodes will not be in exactly the same
>  >  place for every player, for each mouthpiece, or modification one makes to the mouthpiece chamber (add a baffle) or throat (add a neck insert).
>  >    
>  >       
>  >        
>  > ---------------------------------
>  >   
>  >   From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
>  >  To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
>  >  Sent: Mon, December 21, 2009 1:30:52 PM
>  >  Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes
>  >  
>  >    
>  >          I don't think the Ferron neck node illustration was intended to be 100% accurate.  Ferron suggests drilling holes in the neck (ouch) and then determining the location of others mathematically with that as the point of reference.  Curt Altarac uses a magnet to move an iron object around
>  in
>  >  the bore.  If you have accurate detailed cross sectional bore measurements of the entire air column, temperature and barometric readings, and math chops, you can make a chart of all nodes for all resonance modes for all the notes.  
>  >  
>  >  Where to put the brace:  Nederveen states that for thick walled instruments (clarinets, etc.), sound radiation from the wall itself was negligible and then admits that this may not be the case with the reletively thin-walled metal saxophones.  Just personally, I would prefer that my saxophone
>  >  body did not vibrate, as, due to the difference in mass, the vibration of the metal would surely lag behind that of the air, causing phase interference and energy loss.  
>  >    
>  >       
>  >        
>  > ---------------------------------
>  >   
>  >   From: fidlershorns <grassinospam@ gmail.com>
>  >  To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
>  >  Sent: Mon, December 21, 2009 10:25:56 AM
>  >  Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes
>  >  
>  >    
>  >      An EXCELLENT question! 
>  >  A practical application is where not to put braces in an instrument.
>  >  
>  >  --- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, "John" <jtalcott47@ ...> wrote:
>  >  >
>  >  > Here is a novice acoustics question. Ferron and others state that for each standing wave there is a (displacement) node at the tip of the mouthpiece and a (displacement) antinode at the first open tonehole. A completed wave in a saxophone travels to the open tonehole and back. It can be shown
>  >  mathematically that the actual wavelength of the note is longer than the physical distance from the tip of the mouthpiece to the open tonehole (plus the end correction) times two due to the mouthpiece volume acting as the missing cone. This seems to confuse the issue, since ideally the antinode
>  >  would be located at 1/2 the distance between the nodes.
>  >  > 
>  >  > How then can one go about finding exact location in the bore of the instrument of the nodes and antinodes of the harmonics contained in each given note given that the nodes and antinode of the fundamental do not correspond to the physical distance between the tip of the mouthpiece and the
>  first
>  >  open tonehole? Also, does this relate in any way to the image of the "sensitive harmonic sites in an alto neck" found on page 19 of Ferron's book. Can anyone tell me how he arrived at those locations for those notes? Thanks.
>  >  > 
>  >  > John
>  >  >
>  >
>

Barry,

All you need to do is plug your mathematical air column models into this:  

www.comsol.com

using perturbation theory formulas.




________________________________
From: Barry Levine <barrylevine@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, December 22, 2009 11:45:21 AM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes


If one had a way of visualizing the standing waves in a saxophone, and
thereby calculating the location of the virtual apex, I wonder if one would
see variations in that location, depending on the horn and mouthpiece and
notes played; and how those variations would correspond to perceived
qualities of playability in a particular setup.

Barry


      

I'll check out that site when I'm off this legacy Mac, and can actually see
what it has to offer.

I'm imagining a plexiglass cone with smoke (?) in it, and some chosen sample
tone-holes, so that compressional waves can be visualized.

 Or perhaps an actual soprano or a stritch; and a small pressure sensor that
travels at a fixed rate along the center axis of the horn cone, thereby
mapping the locations of the pressure maxima and minima against a time axis.

    Or... ?

As suggested by Toby's previous post, I wonder if slight variations in the
position of the virtual cone apex might be influential, since that is
somewhere inside the mouthpiece, which itself so influential.

> Barry,
> 
> All you need to do is plug your mathematical air column models into this:
> 
> www.comsol.com
> 
> using perturbation theory formulas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: Barry Levine <barrylevine@...>
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tue, December 22, 2009 11:45:21 AM
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes
> 
> 
> If one had a way of visualizing the standing waves in a saxophone, and
> thereby calculating the location of the virtual apex, I wonder if one would
> see variations in that location, depending on the horn and mouthpiece and
> notes played; and how those variations would correspond to perceived
> qualities of playability in a particular setup.
> 
> Barry
> 
> 
> 

You can't have enough cpu horsepower....

There are online video demonstrations of standing waves in tubes, using smoke, flames, sawdust, and other mediums. That proves that they exist, but doesn't offer any help at all for locating them in any particular instrument.   

Pressure sensor:  the displaced volume of the sensor, wiring, and it's suspension would cause the nodes to shift.




________________________________
From: Barry Levine <barrylevine@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, December 22, 2009 1:10:11 PM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes

  
I'll check out that site when I'm off this legacy Mac, and can actually see
what it has to offer.

I'm imagining a plexiglass cone with smoke (?) in it, and some chosen sample
tone-holes, so that compressional waves can be visualized.

Or perhaps an actual soprano or a stritch; and a small pressure sensor that
travels at a fixed rate along the center axis of the horn cone, thereby
mapping the locations of the pressure maxima and minima against a time axis.

Or... ?

As suggested by Toby's previous post, I wonder if slight variations in the
position of the virtual cone apex might be influential, since that is
somewhere inside the mouthpiece, which itself so influential.

> Barry,
> 
> All you need to do is plug your mathematical air column models into this:
> 
> www.comsol.com
> 
> using perturbation theory formulas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________ _________ _________ __
> From: Barry Levine <barrylevine@ norwoodlight. com>
> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Tue, December 22, 2009 11:45:21 AM
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes
> 
> 
> If one had a way of visualizing the standing waves in a saxophone, and
> thereby calculating the location of the virtual apex, I wonder if one would
> see variations in that location, depending on the horn and mouthpiece and
> notes played; and how those variations would correspond to perceived
> qualities of playability in a particular setup.
> 
> Barry
> 
> 
> 


 


      

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "John" <jtalcott47@...> wrote:
>
> Here is a novice acoustics question.  Ferron and others state that for each standing wave there is a (displacement) node at the tip of the mouthpiece and a (displacement) antinode at the first open tonehole. A completed wave in a saxophone travels to the open tonehole and back.  It can be shown mathematically that the actual wavelength of the note is longer than the physical distance from the tip of the mouthpiece to the open tonehole (plus the end correction) times two due to the mouthpiece volume acting as the missing cone.  This seems to confuse the issue, since ideally the antinode would be located at 1/2 the distance between the nodes.


Answer:


Yes... and this is often questioned with antennas, a "halfwave dipole".

So, why a "halfwave" antenna or a woodwind (and these work to the exact same math, only the constants are different)?

In the antenna half of the wave is transmitted when the voltage is positive, the upper half of the sinewave as seen on a graph.  The other half of the wave is transmitted by the same piece of wire when transmitting the negative half of the wave.

For a wind instrument, half of the wave is created by the pressure pulse moving down the instrument to the open tone hole.  The other half is created when the pressure pulse is reflected back to the mouthpiece, leaving a negative pressure in its wake, back at the open tonehole.

So the same half wave length tubing is used for both halves of the wave.

Paul Coats

I'll wade in a bit more here...

First, how do you find the nodes and antinodes?

Let's look at a guitar string... it is attached at the ends so that they are practically immovable.  The ends of a vibrating string are ALWAYS, I repeat, ALWAYS nodes!  They cannot be anything else, they must be nodes.  So, the antinodes must be distributed in between.  

Have you ever looked at a guitar string vibrating with a strobe?  (I have.)  You will see that there is an antinode, that is, a point of maximum vibration, in the middle.  That is the fundamental.  But you will also see that there are other much smaller nodes and antinodes along the string, the various overtones, or harmonics.

If you touch that string very lightly in the middle, enough to "kill the fundamental" (much as our saxophone's octave vent does), suddenly that vibration in the middle stops, and a node appears there.  There are now antinodes halfway between the middle node and the ends.  The string is now vibrating in two halves, each vibrating twice as fast, and producing a pitch one octave higher.

The string may be touched in other places, making the string vibrate in 3rds', 4ths, etc, whole note multiples.

But a vibrating air column is inside out!  The ends, by the reed vibrating and energizing the air column on one end, and the sound escaping through the first open tone hole on the other... the ends are antinodes, and nodes (and other antinodes) are distributed in between according to the harmonics present.

The saxophone is complicated by the fact that it is conical, and it is the masses of air in motion that determine pitch.  For the same halfwave air column to produce the octave, it would have half of the air mass vibrating in the upper portion, and the other half of the air mass in the lower portion.  So you would have to determine where the dividing line is between those two air masses... and unlike the clarinet, it won't be half way down.  The new antinode will be further down toward the fatter end of the air column.

We don't know exactly where to measure from on the mouthpiece end, and exactly where to measure to on the open tonehole end.  With antennas there are some correction factors, end effects, that can be calculated, but in the end you have to check resonance and then trim the ends of the antenna.  And we wind players have to adjust slides, barrels, and mouthpieces on neck corks.

Paul Coats

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

(trimmed)

 "Just personally, I would prefer that my saxophone body did not vibrate, as, due to the difference in mass, the vibration of the metal would surely lag behind that of the air, causing phase interference and energy loss."


If the energy of the air column is going into the body, vibrating the tube, then that energy is not going out of the first open tone hole and is energy lost (probably as heat).

I am reminded again of guitars, and also steel guitars, where the more solid and rigid the guitar, the more the tone sustains.  The body is not absorbing energy at the ends, the nodes, transferring energy into the body of the guitar and wasting it.  The energy is therefore contained in the string and it resonates more.

And that was the secret to Les Paul's first electric guitar.  And a good, heavy framed pedal steel guitar with a heavy bar will sustain like an organ. 


Paul 

"It can be shown
mathematically that the actual wavelength of the note is longer than
the physical distance from the tip of the mouthpiece to the open
tonehole (plus the end correction) times two due to the mouthpiece
volume acting as the missing cone. This seems to confuse the issue,
since ideally the antinode would be located at 1/2 the distance between
the nodes."

The reason the mathematical, from the apex of the missing cone, wavelength is longer than the actual measured distance from the mouthpiece tip, is because the cross sectional volume of the bore of the mouthpiece chamber is much larger than that of the theoretical missing cone.  I posted a link to a video of a standing wave demonstration here a few weeks ago, where powdered sawdust in a transparent tube showed the locations of the nodes.  There was a great deal of transverse movement of the sawdust at the compression anti-nodes.  I think that if we could follow one point of the energy wave as it moved from one end of the air column and back, that, at any compression anti-node, it would make a little transverse "splat", I-just-hit-my-twin-going-the-other-way,  side trip to reflect off the wall of the instrument, before moving on laterally in the tube.  The total actual distance traveled then would be the same as the theoretical wave.



      

"Bore perturbations and bends in tubing cause nodes to shift position. End perturbations shift the entire standing wave.  If you want to calculate their locations, you must make an accurate mathematical model of the air column".

Can you give an example of what you mean by a "bore perturbation" and by an "end perturbation"?  I am trying to visualize this in the realm of reality, say for example the F# (AD0) on the alto sax.  The idea is  to determine as close as possible the nodes and anti nodes for the first 4 harmonics of that note at a given pitch and temperature. My assumption is that the mathematical computations of the ideal instrument bore would put one very close and that the perturbations you refer to would create minor changes in the positions---say a millimeter or two.

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
>
> Bore perturbations and bends in tubing cause nodes to shift position. End perturbations shift the entire standing wave.  If you want to calculate their locations, you must make an accurate mathematical model of the air column.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: John <jtalcott47@...>
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tue, December 22, 2009 10:00:58 AM
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes
> 
>   
> Thanks to all those who responded on topic to my question. 
> 
> If the length to the point of the missing apex to the cone, the frequency of the note, and the speed of sound were known---wouldn' t it be possible to mathematically find the wavelength of the pitch using the formula wavelength = C/F? Once that exact wavelength is determined which is known to be 2X the physical length inside the instrument, it should then be a simple matter to divide 1/2 the wavelength by whole numbers to map the location of nodes and antinodes along the tube.  If this is not the case, what am I missing here?
>

A perturbation is simply an irregularity.   It can be a planned intentional irregularity or haphazard.  End perts occur at the end of the air column.  In a saxophone, that would be any deviation from the ideal cone.  The mouthpiece chamber is an end pert as is the player's vocal tract.  The tenon diameter mismatch is a perturbation.  Closed tone holes are perturbations. How far the real world, imperfect saxophone's W-curves (node chart) differs from that of a calculated, ideal cone, I couldn't say, but I don't see that it would be of any practical use to be absolutely exact with the one in order to guess about the other.  Just make accurate measurements of the bore you wish to analyze.






From: John <jtalcott47@...>

To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, December 22, 2009 9:29:43 PM
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes

  

"Bore perturbations and bends in tubing cause nodes to shift position. End perturbations shift the entire standing wave.  If you want to calculate their locations, you must make an accurate mathematical model of the air column".

Can you give an example of what you mean by a "bore perturbation" and by an "end perturbation" ?  I am trying to visualize this in the realm of reality, say for example the F# (AD0) on the alto sax.  The idea is  to determine as close as possible the nodes and anti nodes for the first 4 harmonics of that note at a given pitch and temperature. My assumption is that the mathematical computations of the ideal instrument bore would put one very close and that the perturbations you refer to would create minor changes in the positions--- say a millimeter or two.

--- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ ...> wrote:
>
> Bore perturbations and bends in tubing cause nodes to shift position. End perturbations shift the entire standing wave.  If you want to calculate their locations, you must make an accurate mathematical model of the air column.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________ _________ _________ __
> From: John <jtalcott47@ ...>
> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Tue, December 22, 2009 10:00:58 AM
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes
> 
> 
> Thanks to all those who responded on topic to my question. 
> 
> If the length to the point of the missing apex to the cone, the frequency of the note, and the speed of sound were known---wouldn' t it be possible to mathematically find the wavelength of the pitch using the formula wavelength = C/F? Once that exact wavelength is determined which is known to be 2X the physical length inside the instrument, it should then be a simple matter to divide 1/2 the wavelength by whole numbers to map the location of nodes and antinodes along the tube.  If this is not the case, what am I missing here?
>


 


      

Lance,

The brass study I referred to is somewhere on the net--I'll have a look for it. The gist is that what body vibrations were measured with laser interferometry were found to be caused not by the air column but by distortional shock waves from the vibrations of the lips. No one mentioned any change
 in the regime of oscillation, and I doubt there was any effect.

In the evening I spent with Joe Wolfe, he mentioned a new study (perhaps not yet published) by some French researchers. They wanted to get a bead on how wall vibrations actually affect the radiated sound. They needed to get a resonant frequency of the wall to couple at a playing frequency to get
 the pipe to enter "breathing mode", where significant vibrations take place. They got a tube of flute diameter down to 15 microns thickness and it still wasn't vibrating appreciably, so they had to make it quite elliptical to get the resonances low enough for it to breathe.

Even in breathing mode, with quite significant flexing of the walls, they found no measurable difference in the the radiated spectrum.

For John: I don't know exactly why or how accurately you need to know these nodal positions, but at least in the low register, the end correction is about .6 x the diameter of the hole. It bears repeating, however, that any deviation in the volume of the mpc away from the ideal of it being the
 same as that of the missing conic apex, AND any deviation away from the correct resonant frequency of that volume as being the same as that conic tip, with throw your modes out. That means that while you are getting the correct harmonics due to mode locking, the nodes when those modes are not
 locked will not be in the same positions (for example, the palm D may end up sharp or flat as compared to D1 or D2, although the harmonic representing palm D will be in the proper position when D1 or D2 is played. 

The difficulty is that the internal volume and resonant frequency are highly dependent on the player's embouchure and the reed itself. This first phenomenon is why you can lip notes so much. But lipping a note does not have the same effect in the higher modes as the lower. The player unconsciously
 varies the embouchure to keep various modes in tune, but this will make it near impossible to accurately measure the position of the nodes of higher modes (especially, therefore, those significant points in the neck for any given note), as these move quite a bit depending on the strength of the
 reed and what the player is doing with his mouth.

You can probably get in the ballpark, but I don't really know how big the ballpark is or whether such figures will serve you.

For a detailed (and extremely mathematic and rigorous) treatment of what goes on in a sax bore, you should have a look at Gary Scavone's thesis--just google "scavone thesis". Read particularly the second part about waveguide modeling. But I warn you: I have a reasonable background in the subject
 and when he starts talking math I'm lucky to get 20%.

Good luck,

Toby
MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:                                           
A perturbation is simply an irregularity.   It can be a planned intentional irregularity or haphazard.  End perts occur at the end of the air column.  In a saxophone, that would be any deviation from the ideal cone.  The mouthpiece chamber is an end pert as is the player's vocal tract.  The tenon
 diameter mismatch is a perturbation.  Closed tone holes are perturbations. How far the real world, imperfect saxophone's W-curves (node chart) differs from that of a calculated, ideal cone, I couldn't say, but I don't see that it would be of any practical use to be absolutely exact with the one
 in order to guess about the other.  Just make accurate measurements of the bore you wish to  analyze.






From: John <jtalcott47@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, December 22, 2009 9:29:43 PM
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes

                                      
 "Bore perturbations and bends in tubing cause nodes to shift position. End perturbations shift the entire standing wave.  If you want to calculate their locations, you must make an accurate mathematical model of the air column".
 
 Can you give an example of what you mean by a "bore perturbation" and by an "end perturbation" ?  I am trying to visualize this in the realm of reality, say for example the F# (AD0) on the alto sax.  The idea is  to determine as close as possible the nodes and anti nodes for the first 4
 harmonics of that note at a given pitch and temperature. My assumption is that the mathematical computations of the ideal instrument bore would put one very close and that the perturbations you refer to would create minor changes in the positions--- say a millimeter or two.
 
 --- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ ...> wrote:
 >
 > Bore perturbations and bends in tubing cause nodes to shift position. End perturbations shift the entire standing wave.  If you want to calculate their locations, you must make an accurate mathematical model of the air column.
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > ____________ _________ _________ __
 > From: John <jtalcott47@ ...>
 > To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
 > Sent: Tue, December 22, 2009 10:00:58 AM
 > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes
 > 
 >   
 > Thanks to all those who responded on topic to my question. 
 > 
 > If the length to the point of the missing apex to the cone, the frequency of the note, and the speed of sound were known---wouldn' t it be possible to mathematically find the wavelength of the pitch using the formula wavelength = C/F? Once that exact wavelength is determined which is known to
 be 2X the physical length inside the instrument, it should then be a simple matter to divide 1/2 the wavelength by whole numbers to map the location of nodes and antinodes along the tube.  If this is not the case, what am I missing here?
 >
 
 
      
           

  

          
      
                 
                 
 

Nice explanation, but it should be mentioned that it doesn't apply to clarinets or panpipes.

Also, for the sake of clarity, it should be mentioned that there are two properties in a standing wave with have nodes and antinodes. There are points where air displacement is at a minimum and pressure variation at a max and vice-versa. So it is imperative to mention whether a node or antinode is
 one of displacement or pressure. A node is where the stated property varies the least, and an antinode where it varies the most. So a pressure node (which is always a velocity antinode), for instance, is a point at which the pressure is not varying much but there is a lot of air movement going on.

Toby

tenorman1952 <tenorman1952@...> wrote:                                           
 
 --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "John" <jtalcott47@...> wrote:
 >
 > Here is a novice acoustics question.  Ferron and others state that for each standing wave there is a (displacement) node at the tip of the mouthpiece and a (displacement) antinode at the first open tonehole. A completed wave in a saxophone travels to the open tonehole and back.  It can be shown
 mathematically that the actual wavelength of the note is longer than the physical distance from the tip of the mouthpiece to the open tonehole (plus the end correction) times two due to the mouthpiece volume acting as the missing cone.  This seems to confuse the issue, since ideally the antinode
 would be located at 1/2 the distance between the nodes.
 
 Answer:
 
 Yes... and this is often questioned with antennas, a "halfwave dipole".
 
 So, why a "halfwave" antenna or a woodwind (and these work to the exact same math, only the constants are different)?
 
 In the antenna half of the wave is transmitted when the voltage is positive, the upper half of the sinewave as seen on a graph.  The other half of the wave is transmitted by the same piece of wire when transmitting the negative half of the wave.
 
 For a wind instrument, half of the wave is created by the pressure pulse moving down the instrument to the open tone hole.  The other half is created when the pressure pulse is reflected back to the mouthpiece, leaving a negative pressure in its wake, back at the open tonehole.
 
 So the same half wave length tubing is used for both halves of the wave.
 
 Paul Coats
 
 
      
                 
                 
 

Toby,

I don't think there is such a thing as a D1 harmonic mode which represents palm D.  There is just a 4th mode D1 harmonic which is the pitch D3, based upon the bore dimensions and the diameter and placement of the D1 tone hole.   The location of the palm D tone hole, which should also produce the pitch D3, is determined by the bore dimensions and it's own diameter and is therefore unrelated to D1.  Palm D uses different tube resonances.

"That means that while you are getting the correct harmonics due to mode
locking, the nodes when those modes are not locked will not be in the
same positions (for example, the palm D may end up sharp or flat as
compared to D1 or D2, although the harmonic representing palm D will be
in the proper position when D1 or D2 is played."


      

But a vibrating air column is inside out! The ends, by the reed
vibrating and energizing the air column on one end, and the sound
escaping through the first open tone hole on the other... the ends are
antinodes, and nodes (and other antinodes) are distributed in between
according to the harmonics present.

I'm not sure this is entirely accurate.  All of the sources that I have
read and studied indicate that a (displacement) node is always located
at the mouthpiece on a reed instrument.  For the standing wave that
travels back and forth to make a complete wavelength, it is this "closed
end" at the mouthpiece that is the equivalent to the nodes at each end
of a fixed vibrating string.

The saxophone is complicated by the fact that it is conical, and it is
the masses of air in motion that determine pitch. For the same halfwave
air column to produce the octave, it would have half of the air mass
vibrating in the upper portion, and the other half of the air mass in
the lower portion. So you would have to determine where the dividing
line is between those two air masses... and unlike the clarinet, it
won't be half way down. The new antinode will be further down toward the
fatter end of the air column.

Again, I'm not sure that "it is the masses of air in motion that
determine the pitch" is the correct description to use.  This may be
true for a helmholtz resonator in which a larger volume (mass) of air
produces a lower frequency when set into motion, but this does not apply
to the standing wave in a column of air.   Dividing the fundmental's
wave length by whole numbers producing the higher harmonics produce
equal linear segments irregardless of changes in the cone's diameter. 
This link has a good visual representation to verify this statement.  
http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/jw/pipes.html
<http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/jw/pipes.html>


--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "tenorman1952" <tenorman1952@...>
wrote:
>
> I'll wade in a bit more here...
>
> First, how do you find the nodes and antinodes?
>
> Let's look at a guitar string... it is attached at the ends so that
they are practically immovable.  The ends of a vibrating string are
ALWAYS, I repeat, ALWAYS nodes!  They cannot be anything else, they must
be nodes.  So, the antinodes must be distributed in between.
>
> Have you ever looked at a guitar string vibrating with a strobe?  (I
have.)  You will see that there is an antinode, that is, a point of
maximum vibration, in the middle.  That is the fundamental.  But you
will also see that there are other much smaller nodes and antinodes
along the string, the various overtones, or harmonics.
>
> If you touch that string very lightly in the middle, enough to "kill
the fundamental" (much as our saxophone's octave vent does), suddenly
that vibration in the middle stops, and a node appears there.  There are
now antinodes halfway between the middle node and the ends.  The string
is now vibrating in two halves, each vibrating twice as fast, and
producing a pitch one octave higher.
>
> The string may be touched in other places, making the string vibrate
in 3rds', 4ths, etc, whole note multiples.
>
> But a vibrating air column is inside out!  The ends, by the reed
vibrating and energizing the air column on one end, and the sound
escaping through the first open tone hole on the other... the ends are
antinodes, and nodes (and other antinodes) are distributed in between
according to the harmonics present.
>
> The saxophone is complicated by the fact that it is conical, and it is
the masses of air in motion that determine pitch.  For the same halfwave
air column to produce the octave, it would have half of the air mass
vibrating in the upper portion, and the other half of the air mass in
the lower portion.  So you would have to determine where the dividing
line is between those two air masses... and unlike the clarinet, it
won't be half way down.  The new antinode will be further down toward
the fatter end of the air column.
>
> We don't know exactly where to measure from on the mouthpiece end, and
exactly where to measure to on the open tonehole end.  With antennas
there are some correction factors, end effects, that can be calculated,
but in the end you have to check resonance and then trim the ends of the
antenna.  And we wind players have to adjust slides, barrels, and
mouthpieces on neck corks.
>
> Paul Coats
>

At the end of the sound wave is either an open tonehole or the bell opening of the instrument.  The standing wave goes to that location plus the "end correction" length the wave needs to react to the pressure differential and reverse its course.  It is hard for me to visualize a "perturbation" occurring at this.

Also it would seem to me that if the spectrograph of a note played on a well made saxophone showed the first 4 or 5 harmonics to be extremely close to whole number multiples of the fundamental, then one could assume that the nodes would be located at their theoretical mathematical positions.

To do the type of "bore measurements" and analysis you suggest in my opinion would be well beyond the capability of a non professional physicist/acoustician.  

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
>
> A perturbation is simply an irregularity.   It can be a planned intentional irregularity or haphazard.  End perts occur at the end of the air column.  In a saxophone, that would be any deviation from the ideal cone.  The mouthpiece chamber is an end pert as is the player's vocal tract.  The tenon diameter mismatch is a perturbation.  Closed tone holes are perturbations. How far the real world, imperfect saxophone's W-curves (node chart) differs from that of a calculated, ideal cone, I couldn't say, but I don't see that it would be of any practical use to be absolutely exact with the one in order to guess about the other.  Just make accurate measurements of the bore you wish to analyze.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: John <jtalcott47@...>
> 
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tue, December 22, 2009 9:29:43 PM
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes
> 
>   
> 
> "Bore perturbations and bends in tubing cause nodes to shift position. End perturbations shift the entire standing wave.  If you want to calculate their locations, you must make an accurate mathematical model of the air column".
> 
> Can you give an example of what you mean by a "bore perturbation" and by an "end perturbation" ?  I am trying to visualize this in the realm of reality, say for example the F# (AD0) on the alto sax.  The idea is  to determine as close as possible the nodes and anti nodes for the first 4 harmonics of that note at a given pitch and temperature. My assumption is that the mathematical computations of the ideal instrument bore would put one very close and that the perturbations you refer to would create minor changes in the positions--- say a millimeter or two.
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ ...> wrote:
> >
> > Bore perturbations and bends in tubing cause nodes to shift position. End perturbations shift the entire standing wave.  If you want to calculate their locations, you must make an accurate mathematical model of the air column.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ____________ _________ _________ __
> > From: John <jtalcott47@ ...>
> > To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> > Sent: Tue, December 22, 2009 10:00:58 AM
> > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes
> > 
> > 
> > Thanks to all those who responded on topic to my question. 
> > 
> > If the length to the point of the missing apex to the cone, the frequency of the note, and the speed of sound were known---wouldn' t it be possible to mathematically find the wavelength of the pitch using the formula wavelength = C/F? Once that exact wavelength is determined which is known to be 2X the physical length inside the instrument, it should then be a simple matter to divide 1/2 the wavelength by whole numbers to map the location of nodes and antinodes along the tube.  If this is not the case, what am I missing here?
> >
>

Lance:

You have VERY astutely observed that this is an art and not a science. While it is true that calculations can be made that will “get you in the ballpark”, I believe it is almost impossible to do the math and get 100% accurate results. Once you get close to your goal with the math, it’s time for trial and error experimentation. I believe you can get way too wrapped up in the mental masturbation of mathematical analysis. You have to figure out what you want to do, build some necks, and see how they play. Then build some more necks with slight variations and see if they are better or worse. I can only tell you that this system works for me, and that anyone who has visited my prototype shop will attest to the fact that there are many more failed experiments sitting around than successful ones. I think this is the only realistic way to approach instrument design.

 

 

 

sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc

STEVE GOODSON

SAXOPHONE DESIGNER TO THE STARS         

 

our products are ALL rated 

 

cid:339191121@25022009-09F4

 

Steve is a member of

hd_logo NAMMbelieve2nasaconf_GIF

 

 

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.

 

 

 

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of MartinMods
Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2009 9:39 PM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes

 

  

A perturbation is simply an irregularity.  It can be a planned intentional irregularity or haphazard.  End perts occur at the end of the air column.  In a saxophone, that would be any deviation from the ideal cone.  The mouthpiece chamber is an end pert as is the player's vocal tract.  The tenon diameter mismatch is a perturbation.  Closed tone holes are perturbations. How far the real world, imperfect saxophone's W-curves (node chart) differs from that of a calculated, ideal cone, I couldn't say, but I don't see that it would be of any practical use to be absolutely exact with the one in order to guess about the other.  Just make accurate measurements of the bore you wish to analyze.






From: John <jtalcott47@...>

To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, December 22, 2009 9:29:43 PM
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes

  


"Bore perturbations and bends in tubing cause nodes to shift position. End perturbations shift the entire standing wave. If you want to calculate their locations, you must make an accurate mathematical model of the air column".

Can you give an example of what you mean by a "bore perturbation" and by an "end perturbation" ? I am trying to visualize this in the realm of reality, say for example the F# (A=440) on the alto sax. The idea is to determine as close as possible the nodes and anti nodes for the first 4 harmonics of that note at a given pitch and temperature. My assumption is that the mathematical computations of the ideal instrument bore would put one very close and that the perturbations you refer to would create minor changes in the positions--- say a millimeter or two.

--- In MouthpieceWork@ <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>  yahoogroups. com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ ...> wrote:
>
> Bore perturbations and bends in tubing cause nodes to shift position. End perturbations shift the entire standing wave. If you want to calculate their locations, you must make an accurate mathematical model of the air column.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________ _________ _________ __
> From: John <jtalcott47@ ...>
> To: MouthpieceWork@ <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>  yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Tue, December 22, 2009 10:00:58 AM
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes
> 
> 
> Thanks to all those who responded on topic to my question. 
> 
> If the length to the point of the missing apex to the cone, the frequency of the note, and the speed of sound were known---wouldn' t it be possible to mathematically find the wavelength of the pitch using the formula wavelength = C/F? Once that exact wavelength is determined which is known to be 2X the physical length inside the instrument, it should then be a simple matter to divide 1/2 the wavelength by whole numbers to map the location of nodes and antinodes along the tube. If this is not the case, what am I missing here?
>

 

I have not followed the thread completely, so maybe somebody already suggested this. If so - sorry for the duplicate. One possible way to find a node is to put a light, even dusting of baby powder or other fine powder in the bore of the instrument, then play a steady tone. Because of the motion of the air in the column, the powder would be scoured/eroded away from the anti-nodes and would tend to collect at the nodes where the air is relatively stationary. That works for speakers and other acoustic devices, so I guess it might work here too. Would be pretty simple to try. The problem would be seeing where the powder collects, but you might be able to see enough to learn something about the locations of nodes by that method.







--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "John" <jtalcott47@...> wrote:
>
> Here is a novice acoustics question.  Ferron and others state that for each standing wave there is a (displacement) node at the tip of the mouthpiece and a (displacement) antinode at the first open tonehole. A completed wave in a saxophone travels to the open tonehole and back.  It can be shown mathematically that the actual wavelength of the note is longer than the physical distance from the tip of the mouthpiece to the open tonehole (plus the end correction) times two due to the mouthpiece volume acting as the missing cone.  This seems to confuse the issue, since ideally the antinode would be located at 1/2 the distance between the nodes.
> 
> How then can one go about finding exact location in the bore of the instrument of the nodes and antinodes of the harmonics contained in each given note given that the nodes and antinode of the fundamental do not correspond to the physical distance between the tip of the mouthpiece and the first open tonehole?  Also, does this relate in any way to the image of the "sensitive harmonic sites in an alto neck" found on page 19 of Ferron's book. Can anyone tell me how he arrived at those locations for those notes? Thanks.
> 
> John
>

Hi Lance,

Duhhhh...of course you are right; I wasn't thinking, or rather I was thinking of other woodwinds. In fact, on sax there is no single harmonic mode which serves three octaves; except possibly loosely in the third register.

That being said, there is still an important point to consider: Mpc volume changes based on embouchure adjustments have much more effect on short-tube than long-tube notes because of the progressive increase in the truncation ratio. Longer-tube notes have much more cone to fix the frequency
 despite changes in mpc volume, whereas the mpc represents a larger portion of the cone as the tube gets shorter. This is why it is much easier to lip the shorter tube notes, and why beginning players have the most trouble up around C#.

Toby

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

I don't think there is such a thing as a D1 harmonic mode which represents palm D.  There is just a 4th mode D1 harmonic which is the pitch D3, based upon the bore dimensions and the diameter and placement of the D1 tone hole.   The location of the palm D tone hole, which should also produce the
 pitch D3, is determined by the bore dimensions and it's own diameter and is therefore unrelated to D1.  Palm D uses different tube resonances.

"That means that while you are getting the correct harmonics due to mode locking, the nodes when those modes are not locked will not be in the same positions (for example, the palm D may end up sharp or flat as compared to D1 or D2, although the harmonic representing palm D will be in the proper
 position when D1 or D2 is played."

        
      
                 
                 
 

Absolutely.

No one has the ability to predict the finer effects of small changes in neck profile. Math might get you somewhere in the ballpark, and perhaps you can use it to help you tune the modes, but in terms of finer points of timbre and response--no way.

Acousticians say the same thing about flute headjoint profiles: we know that the curve (which is primarily there for tuning purposes) has much to do with the sound and feel of the flute, but we don't really know any more than that.

Science can set up the foundation, but everything beyond remains art, and probably will for a very long time.

Toby

STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...> wrote:                                                 
  Lance:
  You have VERY astutely observed that this is an art and not a science. While it is true that calculations can be made that will $Bc`WH(Bet you in the ballpark$Bc`(B�, I believe it is almost impossible to do the math and get 100% accurate results. Once you get close to your goal with the math,
 it$Bc`QT(B time for trial and error experimentation. I believe you can get way too wrapped up in the mental masturbation of mathematical analysis. You have to figure out what you want to do, build some necks, and see how they play. Then build some more necks with slight variations and see if they are
 better or worse. I can only tell you that this system works for me, and that anyone who has visited my prototype shop will attest to the fact that there are many more failed experiments sitting around than successful ones. I think this is the only realistic way to approach instrument design.
   
   
   
  sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
  STEVE GOODSON
  SAXOPHONE DESIGNER TO THE STARS$B%D%D%D%D%D%D%D%D(B 
   
  our products are ALL rated 
   
  
   
  Steve is a member of
  $B%D(B
   
   
  PLEASE VISIT MY WEBSITES
 http://www.nationofmusic.com/ (retail sales and discussion forum)
 http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/SaxophoneRepair/$B%D(B (discussion group)
 http://www.saxgourmet.com/$B%D(B (saxophone history and information)
 http://saxophonethoughts.blogspot.com/$B%D(B (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.
   
   
   
      From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of MartinMods
 Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2009 9:39 PM
 To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
 Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes
  
  
   
    
            A perturbation is simply an irregularity.  It can be a planned intentional irregularity or haphazard.  End perts occur at the end of the air column.  In a saxophone, that would be any deviation from the ideal cone.  The mouthpiece chamber is an end pert as is the player's vocal tract. 
 The tenon diameter mismatch is a perturbation.  Closed tone holes are perturbations. How far the real world, imperfect saxophone's W-curves (node chart) differs from that of a calculated, ideal cone, I couldn't say, but I don't see that it would be of any practical use to be absolutely exact with
 the one in order to guess about the other.  Just make accurate measurements of the bore you wish to analyze.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 From: John <jtalcott47@...>
    To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
 Sent: Tue, December 22, 2009 9:29:43 PM
 Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes
 
   
    
 "Bore perturbations and bends in tubing cause nodes to shift position. End perturbations shift the entire standing wave. If you want to calculate their locations, you must make an accurate mathematical model of the air column".
 
 Can you give an example of what you mean by a "bore perturbation" and by an "end perturbation" ? I am trying to visualize this in the realm of reality, say for example the F# (AD0) on the alto sax. The idea is to determine as close as possible the nodes and anti nodes for the first 4 harmonics
 of that note at a given pitch and temperature. My assumption is that the mathematical computations of the ideal instrument bore would put one very close and that the perturbations you refer to would create minor changes in the positions--- say a millimeter or two.
 
 --- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ ...> wrote:
 >
 > Bore perturbations and bends in tubing cause nodes to shift position. End perturbations shift the entire standing wave. If you want to calculate their locations, you must make an accurate mathematical model of the air column.
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > ____________ _________ _________ __
 > From: John <jtalcott47@ ...>
 > To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
 > Sent: Tue, December 22, 2009 10:00:58 AM
 > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes
 > 
 > 
 > Thanks to all those who responded on topic to my question. 
 > 
 > If the length to the point of the missing apex to the cone, the frequency of the note, and the speed of sound were known---wouldn' t it be possible to mathematically find the wavelength of the pitch using the formula wavelength = C/F? Once that exact wavelength is determined which is known to
 be 2X the physical length inside the instrument, it should then be a simple matter to divide 1/2 the wavelength by whole numbers to map the location of nodes and antinodes along the tube. If this is not the case, what am I missing here?
 >
  
  
  
  
   
  
    
  
  
     


      
                 
                 
 

"You have to figure out what you want to do,......."

Right.  Any mathematical analysis is worthless unless it is put to the actual physical test.  These are all responses to John's  question, so it would be interesting to know what he would like to do with the knowledge. 

I found Benade's description (FMA p. 478) of how he altered the alignment of various higher mode resonances in a bassoon body,  systematically curing the intonation and tonal characteristics of 3 problem notes, while leaving the rest unaffected, utterly fascinating.   This, for me, would be the most important reason for mapping the W-Curves of a saxophone - to optimize the alignment of body resonances.  I would not consider attempting to design the perfect neck, by any method, until I first had a thorough familiarity with the quality of the regimes which form the notes of the low register scale, and then the middle and upper register, and spent the time neccessary to insure that their resonances were as optimally aligned as possible.  Then I could design a neck that would compliment that body alignment.  That's  my plan.



      

Curt Altarac's method of moving an iron spacer around in the bore, from the outside with a magnet, is very practical and yealds lots of results.  It can even be used to test for the effects of mouthpiece volume distribution.




________________________________
From: "kymarto123@..." <kymarto123@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, December 24, 2009 6:32:52 PM
Subject: RE: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes

  
Absolutely.

No one has the ability to predict the finer effects of small changes in neck profile. Math might get you somewhere in the ballpark, and perhaps you can use it to help you tune the modes, but in terms of finer points of timbre and response--no way.

Acousticians say the same thing about flute headjoint profiles: we know that the curve (which is primarily there for tuning purposes) has much to do with the sound and feel of the flute, but we don't really know any more than that.

Science can set up the foundation, but everything beyond remains art, and probably will for a very long time.

Toby


      

We have a somewhat similar method in the shakuhachi world, of sticking small wet paper squares at various points in the bore, but Curt's method is extremely practical for thin bodied instruments.

Toby

MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:                                           
Curt Altarac's method of moving an iron spacer around in the bore, from the outside with a magnet, is very practical and yealds lots of results.  It can even be used to test for the effects of mouthpiece volume distribution.



---------------------------------
From: "kymarto123@..." <kymarto123@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, December 24, 2009 6:32:52  PM
Subject: RE: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes

                                      Absolutely.
 
 No one has the ability to predict the finer effects of small changes in neck profile. Math might get you somewhere in the ballpark, and perhaps you can use it to help you tune the modes, but in terms of finer points of timbre and response--no way.
 
 Acousticians say the same thing about flute headjoint profiles: we know that the curve (which is primarily there for tuning purposes) has much to do with the sound and feel of the flute, but we don't really know any more than that.
 
 Science can set up the foundation, but everything beyond remains art, and probably will for a very long time.
 
 Toby
 
 




   
  
        
      
                 
                 
 

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
>
> Curt Altarac's method of moving an iron spacer around in the bore, from the outside with a magnet, is very practical and yealds lots of results.  It can even be used to test for the effects of mouthpiece volume distribution.

Lance,
This sounds slick since it isn't messy or destructive. So how do you interpret and use the results? For example - what happens when you get the spacer at a node? 
E v e r e t t

Lance has articulated what my interest is in locating node locations within the bore of a saxophone.  It is to try to find ways that a repair technician can address intonation deficiencies found in certain makes and models of saxophones.  

The use of crescent inserts is an excellent technique, but it has its limitations.  For example on many saxophones the low D is flat and the middle D is sharp often even without using the octave key.  Any method used to bring down the pitch of D2---a crescent insert, or decreasing the opening of the low C key exacerbates the problem with the flat D1.  A similar example is the flat C#2 and very sharp C#3 found on some saxophones.

There has been some discounting the use of acoustic theory and mathematical computation in this discussion.  No one has said that the math is an end in itself, and simply discussing the details of mathematics involved does not suggest that it is.  It is much more helpful in these discussions when those participating share information in clear detail rather than vague and general terms.  

One of the sources of my interest in this topic is the articles written by Jim Gebler on Diagnosing and Adjusting Woodwind Bores published in the Woodwind Quarterly in issues 10, 11, and 12  1995-96.

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
>
> "You have to figure out what you want to do,......."
> 
> Right.  Any mathematical analysis is worthless unless it is put to the actual physical test.  These are all responses to John's  question, so it would be interesting to know what he would like to do with the knowledge. 
> 
> I found Benade's description (FMA p. 478) of how he altered the alignment of various higher mode resonances in a bassoon body,  systematically curing the intonation and tonal characteristics of 3 problem notes, while leaving the rest unaffected, utterly fascinating.   This, for me, would be the most important reason for mapping the W-Curves of a saxophone - to optimize the alignment of body resonances.  I would not consider attempting to design the perfect neck, by any method, until I first had a thorough familiarity with the quality of the regimes which form the notes of the low register scale, and then the middle and upper register, and spent the time neccessary to insure that their resonances were as optimally aligned as possible.  Then I could design a neck that would compliment that body alignment.  That's  my plan.
>

It all depends on which node of which harmonic mode you are at.  

Contracting the bore at a compression anti-node raises the pitch of that harmonic resonance.
Contracting the bore at a displacement anti-node lowers the pitch of that harmonic resonance.

This works for the resonance of the fundamental as well as the higher modes (overtones).

Example:  Sharp E2 - We are given that the mouthpiece volume and Frs are correct.  Overblowing E1 without the octave key, E2 is still sharp, which rules out the lower register pip as the cause, for now.  The harmonic regime for E1 consists of the locked E1, E2, B2, and perhaps E3 resonances.  The note E1 feels like it will go sharp easily.  The note E2 is sharp.  The overblown harmonic B2 is OK.  

We know that if the E2 harmonic resonance peak is sharp in relation to the E1 resonance peak, the E1 regime for will form it's integral relationship, off-peak, at whatever point provides the most combined acoustical energy.  The played E1 will be pitched above the E1 peak somewhat.  The E2, 2nd mode harmonic of the played E1, will be below the E2 peak.  The B2 3rd mode harmonic will be slightly above it's peak.  The played E1 will be less centered and more unstable in pitch than the surrounding notes.   

If we make a constiction at the 2nd mod harmonic (E2) of the played E1's displacement antinode (on my bari that was in the upper bow between the palm E and palm F tone holes) we can lower the E2 resonance peak until it matches the integral relationship formed on the E1 resonance peak.  Then the played E1 will be in tune and match the surrounding notes in tone quality.  The overblown E2 will be in tune (provided the lower register pip design permits - without the octave key at least), and the overblown B2 harmonic will be OK.  

What other notes will this affect?   Well, that's the fun of it.  You have to keep track of what all the modes of all the notes are doing all the time.  






________________________________
From: fidlershorns <grassinospam@gmail.com>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, December 25, 2009 11:02:50 AM
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes

  
--- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ ...> wrote:
>
> Curt Altarac's method of moving an iron spacer around in the bore, from the outside with a magnet, is very practical and yealds lots of results.  It can even be used to test for the effects of mouthpiece volume distribution.

Lance,
This sounds slick since it isn't messy or destructive. So how do you interpret and use the results? For example - what happens when you get the spacer at a node? 
E v e r e t t


 


      

As interesting as this technical discussion is (and I seriously mean that!),
here's something I just don't get:

If a player desires the best possible intonation, response, and other
playing characteristics, what is the point of spending a large amount of
time and money "retrofitting" and instrument with a poor initial design?
Even if you could (and I am not convinced that perfection is possible)
correct all of the deficiencies enumerated in this discussion on an older
instrument, you are still stuck with the poor ergonomics, bad tone hole
placement, and other weaknesses. Sure, you can fix a lot of that, but the
reality is that if you want the best possible instrument, you need to go out
and purchase the current state of the art. It's probably more cost efficient
to do so.

 

This is of course spoken by a man who manufactures new saxophones and ALSO
has a huge collection of "vintage" instruments.

 

I'm retired from playing gigs now, but if I were out there making a living
playing, I would want the best, easiest to play instrument possible, with no
compromises. For the life of me I don't understand any other logic. I think
a valid analogy is "which works better and easier for the drive to the
office: a '55 Chevy (which does have a certain cool factor) or a new Lexus?"
I think the answer is obvious.

 

If there is something wrong with the fundamental design of your horn, neck,
or mouthpiece, you should buy a better one rather than try to make the
preverbal silk purse from the sow's ear....   

 

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of John
Sent: Thursday, December 24, 2009 10:03 PM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes

 

  

Lance has articulated what my interest is in locating node locations within
the bore of a saxophone. It is to try to find ways that a repair technician
can address intonation deficiencies found in certain makes and models of
saxophones. 

The use of crescent inserts is an excellent technique, but it has its
limitations. For example on many saxophones the low D is flat and the middle
D is sharp often even without using the octave key. Any method used to bring
down the pitch of D2---a crescent insert, or decreasing the opening of the
low C key exacerbates the problem with the flat D1. A similar example is the
flat C#2 and very sharp C#3 found on some saxophones.

There has been some discounting the use of acoustic theory and mathematical
computation in this discussion. No one has said that the math is an end in
itself, and simply discussing the details of mathematics involved does not
suggest that it is. It is much more helpful in these discussions when those
participating share information in clear detail rather than vague and
general terms. 

One of the sources of my interest in this topic is the articles written by
Jim Gebler on Diagnosing and Adjusting Woodwind Bores published in the
Woodwind Quarterly in issues 10, 11, and 12 1995-96.

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> , MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
wrote:
>
> "You have to figure out what you want to do,......."
> 
> Right. Any mathematical analysis is worthless unless it is put to the
actual physical test. These are all responses to John's question, so it
would be interesting to know what he would like to do with the knowledge. 
> 
> I found Benade's description (FMA p. 478) of how he altered the alignment
of various higher mode resonances in a bassoon body, systematically curing
the intonation and tonal characteristics of 3 problem notes, while leaving
the rest unaffected, utterly fascinating. This, for me, would be the most
important reason for mapping the W-Curves of a saxophone - to optimize the
alignment of body resonances. I would not consider attempting to design the
perfect neck, by any method, until I first had a thorough familiarity with
the quality of the regimes which form the notes of the low register scale,
and then the middle and upper register, and spent the time neccessary to
insure that their resonances were as optimally aligned as possible. Then I
could design a neck that would compliment that body alignment. That's my
plan.
>

  "If a player desires the best possible intonation, response, and
other playing characteristics, what is the point of spending a large amount of
time and money “retrofitting” and instrument with a poor initial
design? 

Well, whether for mouthpieces or horns, we're getting into subjective value judgements here, where there is no right or wrong, only what the individual player prefers, for whatever reason.

Just to observe general trends however, I'd say that if a player prefers easy intonation, even response, a modern mechanism, and a characteristic sound, they would be better off with a modern saxophone design, complimented by a modern baffled mouthpiece.

On the other hand, if tonal complexity and a broad and responsive tonal flexibility are the prerequisit, as in my case, the vintage horn/mouthpiece is the way to go. Modern horns just don't have it.  All other playing aspects which excede the capabilities of a solid developed playing technique can reletively easisly be remedied by comparison.


      

The question of  "poor initial design" is interesting. Undoubtedly modern horns have better key layouts, and there have been improvements in that area (such as the C#/B clutch). That being said, I find that I generally prefer the older table layout. I'm left-handed, so perhaps my stronger fingers
 on that hand are a factor, but I like the shorter throw of the old design, even though it is a bit stiff sometimes. I do miss the C#/B clutch, however.

But keys aside, I would question whether the good vintage brands actually had a poorer design. As we all know, every bore is a trade-off between various factors, and different eras seemed to optimize the bore towards different goals. Early horns appear to have been designed for rich, sweet tone at
 the expense of volume. Since the mpcs from those days were generally closed-tip designs used with fairly stiff reeds, there was not as much need to try to lock in the pitch or have it slot so much, since the mpc/reed combination was much less flexible than a modern setup.

You see a big change with the advent of electrified instruments in the 60s and 70s. All of a sudden saxes had to compete with screaming electric guitars and keyboards, and so edge and volume became the watchwords. My understanding is that the "improved" Mk VII bore was specifically designed to be
 loud and facilitate altissimos, which were then coming into fashion big time. 

There is unquestionably a different feel between modern and vintage horns in terms of tone and response. I have an old Conn straight sop and a Selmer Super alto, both of which, I feel, "sing" in a way that modern horns don't. I value the expressiveness and feel of the way the things respond when I
 play over the convenience of modern keywork and intonation. If I needed those things, I would probably go ahead and play a modern horn, but in my situation I can live with the disadvantages (usually).

Yes, a Lexus will get you from A to B in comfort and ease, but it is not nearly as much fun as driving a TR4 or an MG-B, for all the heartaches those machines can cause.

Toby

MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:                                           


       "If a player desires the best possible intonation, response, and other playing characteristics, what is the point of spending a large amount of time and money $B!H(Bretrofitting$B!I(B and instrument with a poor initial design? 

Well, whether for mouthpieces or horns, we're getting into subjective value judgements here, where there is no right or wrong, only what the individual player prefers, for whatever reason.

Just to observe general trends however, I'd say that if a player prefers easy intonation, even response, a modern mechanism, and a characteristic sound, they would be better off with a modern saxophone design, complimented by a modern baffled mouthpiece.

On the other hand, if tonal complexity and a broad and responsive tonal flexibility are the prerequisit, as in my case, the vintage horn/mouthpiece is the way to go. Modern horns just don't have it.  All other playing aspects which excede the capabilities of a solid developed playing technique can
 reletively easisly be remedied by comparison.



  

        
      
                 
                 
 

“Modern horns just don’t have it”……..

I think this is a myth……true, many modern horns are pretty bright and thin sounding due to the alloy (high zinc content) that is often employed, HOWEVER, there are a number of options available to the player from a variety of manufacturers which have successfully resolved this problem. Yamaha, Selmer, Cannonball are probably the worst, and they have merely followed the trend of increasingly brighter tones that have become popular in recent times. Fortunately, a few makers have resisted this trend.

 

I really don’t subscribe to this “old horns are better” business. Too many compromises are often necessary in order to make them play satisfactorily.

 

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of MartinMods
Sent: Friday, December 25, 2009 11:32 PM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes

 

  

 

"If a player desires the best possible intonation, response, and other playing characteristics, what is the point of spending a large amount of time and money “retrofitting” and instrument with a poor initial design? 

Well, whether for mouthpieces or horns, we're getting into subjective value judgements here, where there is no right or wrong, only what the individual player prefers, for whatever reason.

Just to observe general trends however, I'd say that if a player prefers easy intonation, even response, a modern mechanism, and a characteristic sound, they would be better off with a modern saxophone design, complimented by a modern baffled mouthpiece.

On the other hand, if tonal complexity and a broad and responsive tonal flexibility are the prerequisit, as in my case, the vintage horn/mouthpiece is the way to go. Modern horns just don't have it.  All other playing aspects which excede the capabilities of a solid developed playing technique can reletively easisly be remedied by comparison.



 

MM - “Modern horns just don’t have it.” (sound)
SG -I think this is a myth……"

There is nothing mythological or intangible about it  This is a subjective value judgment, based upon my personal experience and personal preference, and need not be valid for anyone else, though I think it is for some.   I have yet to play, or hear played, any modern saxophone that can offer an accomplished player the same sonic character as a great vintage horn.  There are modern horns with a lot going for them - a great upper register and altissimo,  great projection, great intonation - but, there is always a narrow range of notes, usually the upper low register and the lower middle register, which suffer a loss of tonal complexity and a diminished range of tonal response as a result of design priorities. 

This sonic difference may be a small, or perhaps even a non-existent matter for many players, but I think I can safely say that for accomplished musicians, who learned to play a vintage instrument,  it is of paramount importance.  You have often said, "The sound comes from the player.  The horn is just the tool."   That is true, and all I'm saying here is, I can't get my sound on a modern saxophone.  The modern tool doesn't do what I want it to do.  Until one does then, my only recourse is to "retro-fit" vintage horns.

Besides, I can buy a great vintage horn and retro-fit it, for half of what many top modern horns cost.  It's win/win.  






________________________________
From: STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, December 26, 2009 9:50:45 AM
Subject: RE: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes

  
“Modern horns just don’t have it”……..
I think this is a myth……true, many modern horns are pretty
bright and thin sounding due to the alloy (high zinc content) that is often
employed, HOWEVER, there are a number of options available to the player from a
variety of manufacturers which have successfully resolved this problem. Yamaha,
Selmer, Cannonball are probably the worst, and they have merely followed the
trend of increasingly brighter tones that have become popular in recent times.
Fortunately, a few makers have resisted this trend.
 
I really don’t subscribe to this “old horns are better”
business. Too many compromises are often necessary in order to make them play
satisfactorily.
 
From:MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:MouthpieceW ork@yahoogroups. com] On
Behalf Of MartinMods
Sent: Friday, December 25, 2009 11:32 PM
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes
 
  
 
"If a player desires the best possible
intonation, response, and other playing characteristics, what is the point of
spending a large amount of time and money “retrofitting” and instrument with a
poor initial design? 

Well, whether for mouthpieces or horns, we're getting into subjective value
judgements here, where there is no right or wrong, only what the individual
player prefers, for whatever reason.

Just to observe general trends however, I'd say that if a player prefers easy
intonation, even response, a modern mechanism, and a characteristic sound, they
would be better off with a modern saxophone design, complimented by a modern
baffled mouthpiece.

On the other hand, if tonal complexity and a broad and responsive tonal
flexibility are the prerequisit, as in my case, the vintage horn/mouthpiece is
the way to go. Modern horns just don't have it.  All other playing aspects
which excede the capabilities of a solid developed playing technique can reletively
easisly be remedied by comparison.


 
 


      

> As interesting as this technical discussion is (and I seriously mean
that!),
> here's something I just don't get:
>
> If a player desires the best possible intonation, response, and other
> playing characteristics, what is the point of spending a large amount
of
> time and money "retrofitting" and instrument with a poor initial
design?
> Even if you could (and I am not convinced that perfection is possible)
> correct all of the deficiencies enumerated in this discussion on an
older
> instrument, you are still stuck with the poor ergonomics, bad tone
hole
> placement, and other weaknesses. Sure, you can fix a lot of that, but
the
> reality is that if you want the best possible instrument, you need to
go out
> and purchase the current state of the art. It's probably more cost
efficient
> to do so.

When a customer brings in an old 6M, Truetone, Balanced Action, or
Martin that they truly love the sound on and ask can you do anything for
this note or set of notes so I don't have to fight the pitch as much, as
a technician I want to learn and develop the skills to be able  to help
them.  Curt Alterac has done some excellent work in this area as have
Jim Gebler and others.  This is more about helping people and preserving
the wonderful heritage of the instrument by revitalizing the great saxes
of the past  than about making money by selling new instruments.

There are far more players out there who play and love the sound of
vintage horns in spite of all of their quirks than people who want to
buy a shiny new Asian made saxophone with all the bells and whistles. 
Very few saxophone players actually play for a living.  Most play just
for their own enjoyment, as teachers, and as weekend gig players.   The
vintage horns have a personality and character not found on newer horns
and some of us would not trade ours for all of saxes in Taiwan.  It is
not always about  money and profit.  There are other values and
priorities that are just as important in my view.


> From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of John
> Sent: Thursday, December 24, 2009 10:03 PM
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes
>
>
>
>
>
> Lance has articulated what my interest is in locating node locations
within
> the bore of a saxophone. It is to try to find ways that a repair
technician
> can address intonation deficiencies found in certain makes and models
of
> saxophones.
>
> The use of crescent inserts is an excellent technique, but it has its
> limitations. For example on many saxophones the low D is flat and the
middle
> D is sharp often even without using the octave key. Any method used to
bring
> down the pitch of D2---a crescent insert, or decreasing the opening of
the
> low C key exacerbates the problem with the flat D1. A similar example
is the
> flat C#2 and very sharp C#3 found on some saxophones.
>
> There has been some discounting the use of acoustic theory and
mathematical
> computation in this discussion. No one has said that the math is an
end in
> itself, and simply discussing the details of mathematics involved does
not
> suggest that it is. It is much more helpful in these discussions when
those
> participating share information in clear detail rather than vague and
> general terms.
>
> One of the sources of my interest in this topic is the articles
written by
> Jim Gebler on Diagnosing and Adjusting Woodwind Bores published in the
> Woodwind Quarterly in issues 10, 11, and 12 1995-96.
>
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> , MartinMods lancelotburt@
> wrote:
> >
> > "You have to figure out what you want to do,......."
> >
> > Right. Any mathematical analysis is worthless unless it is put to
the
> actual physical test. These are all responses to John's question, so
it
> would be interesting to know what he would like to do with the
knowledge.
> >
> > I found Benade's description (FMA p. 478) of how he altered the
alignment
> of various higher mode resonances in a bassoon body, systematically
curing
> the intonation and tonal characteristics of 3 problem notes, while
leaving
> the rest unaffected, utterly fascinating. This, for me, would be the
most
> important reason for mapping the W-Curves of a saxophone - to optimize
the
> alignment of body resonances. I would not consider attempting to
design the
> perfect neck, by any method, until I first had a thorough familiarity
with
> the quality of the regimes which form the notes of the low register
scale,
> and then the middle and upper register, and spent the time neccessary
to
> insure that their resonances were as optimally aligned as possible.
Then I
> could design a neck that would compliment that body alignment. That's
my
> plan.
> >
>

MartinMods- "I
have yet to play, or hear played, any modern saxophone that can offer
an accomplished player the same sonic character as a great vintage horn."

Then you have never played a Steve Goodson designed Sax!!!

 
Jim Moncher
Colorado Springs, CO 
 
719.268.0834
719.331.3706
 
"Without jazz, what would music be? But without the sax, what would jazz be? It's jazz that ensured the success of the sax, and vice versa"




________________________________
From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, December 26, 2009 11:33:10 AM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes

  
MM - “Modern horns just don’t have it.” (sound)
SG -I think this is a myth……"

There is nothing mythological or intangible about it  This is a subjective value judgment, based upon my personal experience and personal preference, and need not be valid for anyone else, though I think it is for some.   I have yet to play, or hear played, any modern saxophone that can offer an accomplished player the same sonic character as a great vintage horn.  There are modern horns with a lot going for them - a great upper register and altissimo,  great projection, great intonation - but, there is always a narrow range of notes, usually the upper low register and the lower middle register, which suffer a loss of tonal complexity and a diminished range of tonal response as a result of design priorities. 

This sonic difference may be a small, or perhaps even a non-existent matter for many players, but I think I can safely say that for accomplished musicians, who learned to play a vintage instrument,  it is of paramount importance.  You have often said, "The sound comes from the player.  The horn is just the tool."   That is true, and all I'm saying here is, I can't get my sound on a modern saxophone.  The modern tool doesn't do what I want it to do.  Until one does then, my only recourse is to "retro-fit" vintage horns.

Besides, I can buy a great vintage horn and retro-fit it, for half of what many top modern horns cost.  It's win/win.  






________________________________
From: STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@cox. net>
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Sat, December 26, 2009 9:50:45 AM
Subject: RE: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes

  
“Modern horns just don’t have it”……..
I think this is a myth……true, many modern horns are pretty
bright and thin sounding due to the alloy (high zinc content) that is often
employed, HOWEVER, there are a number of options available to the player from a
variety of manufacturers which have successfully resolved this problem. Yamaha,
Selmer, Cannonball are probably the worst, and they have merely followed the
trend of increasingly brighter tones that have become popular in recent times.
Fortunately, a few makers have resisted this trend.
 
I really don’t subscribe to this “old horns are better”
business. Too many compromises are often necessary in order to make them play
satisfactorily.
 
From:MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:MouthpieceW ork@yahoogroups. com] On
Behalf Of MartinMods
Sent: Friday, December 25, 2009 11:32 PM
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes
 
  
 
"If a player desires the best possible
intonation, response, and other playing characteristics, what is the point of
spending a large amount of time and money “retrofitting” and instrument with a
poor initial design? 

Well, whether for mouthpieces or horns, we're getting into subjective value
judgements here, where there is no right or wrong, only what the individual
player prefers, for whatever reason.

Just to observe general trends however, I'd say that if a player prefers easy
intonation, even response, a modern mechanism, and a characteristic sound, they
would be better off with a modern saxophone design, complimented by a modern
baffled mouthpiece.

On the other hand, if tonal complexity and a broad and responsive tonal
flexibility are the prerequisit, as in my case, the vintage horn/mouthpiece is
the way to go. Modern horns just don't have it.  All other playing aspects
which excede the capabilities of a solid developed playing technique can reletively
easisly be remedied by comparison.


 

 

Well, we seem to have strayed a bit from the subject of mouthpieces here.........

To sum up:  I think Steve's horns are certainly respectable.  I have yet to hear any recording of one however, that could compare to any of the body of fine saxophone recordings by top professionals on vintage instruments made in the last 40 years.  I'm all ears though.




________________________________
From: BariAxMan <bariaxman@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, December 26, 2009 3:21:20 PM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes

  
MartinMods- "I
have yet to play, or hear played, any modern saxophone that can offer
an accomplished player the same sonic character as a great vintage horn."

Then you have never played a Steve Goodson designed Sax!!!

 
Jim Moncher
Colorado Springs, CO 
 
719.268.0834
719.331.3706
 
"Without jazz, what would music be? But without the sax, what would jazz be? It's jazz that ensured the success of the sax, and vice versa"




________________________________
From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Sat, December 26, 2009 11:33:10 AM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes

  
MM - “Modern horns just don’t have it.” (sound)
SG -I think this is a myth……"

There is nothing mythological or intangible about it  This is a subjective value judgment, based upon my personal experience and personal preference, and need not be valid for anyone else, though I think it is for some.   I have yet to play, or hear played, any modern saxophone that can offer an accomplished player the same sonic character as a great vintage horn.  There are modern horns with a lot going for them - a great upper register and altissimo,  great projection, great intonation - but, there is always a narrow range of notes, usually the upper low register and the lower middle register, which suffer a loss of tonal complexity and a diminished range of tonal response as a result of design priorities. 

This sonic difference may be a small, or perhaps even a non-existent matter for many players, but I think I can safely say that for accomplished musicians, who learned to play a vintage instrument,  it is of paramount importance.  You have often said, "The sound comes from the player.  The horn is just the tool."   That is true, and all I'm saying here is, I can't get my sound on a modern saxophone.  The modern tool doesn't do what I want it to do.  Until one does then, my only recourse is to "retro-fit" vintage horns.

Besides, I can buy a great vintage horn and retro-fit it, for half of what many top modern horns cost.  It's win/win.  






________________________________
From: STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@cox. net>
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Sat, December 26, 2009 9:50:45 AM
Subject: RE: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes

  
“Modern horns just don’t have it”……..
I think this is a myth……true, many modern horns are pretty
bright and thin sounding due to the alloy (high zinc content) that is often
employed, HOWEVER, there are a number of options available to the player from a
variety of manufacturers which have successfully resolved this problem. Yamaha,
Selmer, Cannonball are probably the worst, and they have merely followed the
trend of increasingly brighter tones that have become popular in recent times.
Fortunately, a few makers have resisted this trend.
 
I really don’t subscribe to this “old horns are better”
business. Too many compromises are often necessary in order to make them play
satisfactorily.
 
From:MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:MouthpieceW ork@yahoogroups. com] On
Behalf Of MartinMods
Sent: Friday, December 25, 2009 11:32 PM
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes
 
  
 
"If a player desires the best possible
intonation, response, and other playing characteristics, what is the point of
spending a large amount of time and money “retrofitting” and instrument with a
poor initial design? 

Well, whether for mouthpieces or horns, we're getting into subjective value
judgements here, where there is no right or wrong, only what the individual
player prefers, for whatever reason.

Just to observe general trends however, I'd say that if a player prefers easy
intonation, even response, a modern mechanism, and a characteristic sound, they
would be better off with a modern saxophone design, complimented by a modern
baffled mouthpiece.

On the other hand, if tonal complexity and a broad and responsive tonal
flexibility are the prerequisit, as in my case, the vintage horn/mouthpiece is
the way to go. Modern horns just don't have it.  All other playing aspects
which excede the capabilities of a solid developed playing technique can reletively
easisly be remedied by comparison.


 

 


      

I’d be interested in knowing specifically which modern horns you have tried that are constructed in “non-standard” alloys……….

 

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of MartinMods
Sent: Saturday, December 26, 2009 12:33 PM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes

 

  

MM - “Modern horns just don’t have it.” (sound)

SG -I think this is a myth……"

There is nothing mythological or intangible about it  This is a subjective value judgment, based upon my personal experience and personal preference, and need not be valid for anyone else, though I think it is for some.   I have yet to play, or hear played, any modern saxophone that can offer an accomplished player the same sonic character as a great vintage horn.  There are modern horns with a lot going for them - a great upper register and altissimo,  great projection, great intonation - but, there is always a narrow range of notes, usually the upper low register and the lower middle register, which suffer a loss of tonal complexity and a diminished range of tonal response as a result of design priorities. 

This sonic difference may be a small, or perhaps even a non-existent matter for many players, but I think I can safely say that for accomplished musicians, who learned to play a vintage instrument,  it is of paramount importance.  You have often said, "The sound comes from the player.  The horn is just the tool."   That is true, and all I'm saying here is, I can't get my sound on a modern saxophone.  The modern tool doesn't do what I want it to do.  Until one does then, my only recourse is to "retro-fit" vintage horns.

Besides, I can buy a great vintage horn and retro-fit it, for half of what many top modern horns cost.  It's win/win.  



 

  _____  

From: STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, December 26, 2009 9:50:45 AM
Subject: RE: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes

  

“Modern horns just don’t have it”……..

I think this is a myth……true, many modern horns are pretty bright and thin sounding due to the alloy (high zinc content) that is often employed, HOWEVER, there are a number of options available to the player from a variety of manufacturers which have successfully resolved this problem. Yamaha, Selmer, Cannonball are probably the worst, and they have merely followed the trend of increasingly brighter tones that have become popular in recent times. Fortunately, a few makers have resisted this trend.

 

I really don’t subscribe to this “old horns are better” business. Too many compromises are often necessary in order to make them play satisfactorily.

 

From: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:MouthpieceW ork@yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of MartinMods
Sent: Friday, December 25, 2009 11:32 PM
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes

 

  

 

"If a player desires the best possible intonation, response, and other playing characteristics, what is the point of spending a large amount of time and money “retrofitting” and instrument with a poor initial design? 

Well, whether for mouthpieces or horns, we're getting into subjective value judgements here, where there is no right or wrong, only what the individual player prefers, for whatever reason.

Just to observe general trends however, I'd say that if a player prefers easy intonation, even response, a modern mechanism, and a characteristic sound, they would be better off with a modern saxophone design, complimented by a modern baffled mouthpiece.

On the other hand, if tonal complexity and a broad and responsive tonal flexibility are the prerequisit, as in my case, the vintage horn/mouthpiece is the way to go. Modern horns just don't have it.  All other playing aspects which excede the capabilities of a solid developed playing technique can reletively easisly be remedied by comparison.

 

 

I think the current collapse in vintage horn values (I'm talking about
actual selling prices, not inflated "asking" prices) speaks volumes about
what the saxophone playing public actually has come to know and believe
about the relative merits of vintage horns..... I would also submit that the
market for vintage instruments is absolutely miniscule compared to the
market for new professional grade instruments...there's lots of talk, but
not a lot of actual sales...of course I know that most of the buyers of high
end instruments are "hobby" players. They understand very well that for the
best performance, you have to buy the current state of the art, and they
vote with their checkbooks...the vintage market makes lots of noise, but it
is really tiny, because consumers have better alternatives and they know it.
If this were not the case, vintage prices would be rising, and they're
not....prices for top quality new instruments have increased significantly
recently, and the demand is apparently still there. People are not stupid,
and they now shop carefully and examine all their options.

 

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of John
Sent: Saturday, December 26, 2009 10:33 AM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes

 

  


> As interesting as this technical discussion is (and I seriously mean
that!),
> here's something I just don't get:
> 
> If a player desires the best possible intonation, response, and other
> playing characteristics, what is the point of spending a large amount of
> time and money "retrofitting" and instrument with a poor initial design?
> Even if you could (and I am not convinced that perfection is possible)
> correct all of the deficiencies enumerated in this discussion on an older
> instrument, you are still stuck with the poor ergonomics, bad tone hole
> placement, and other weaknesses. Sure, you can fix a lot of that, but the
> reality is that if you want the best possible instrument, you need to go
out
> and purchase the current state of the art. It's probably more cost
efficient
> to do so.

When a customer brings in an old 6M, Truetone, Balanced Action, or Martin
that they truly love the sound on and ask can you do anything for this note
or set of notes so I don't have to fight the pitch as much, as a technician
I want to learn and develop the skills to be able  to help them.  Curt
Alterac has done some excellent work in this area as have Jim Gebler and
others.  This is more about helping people and preserving the wonderful
heritage of the instrument by revitalizing the great saxes of the past  than
about making money by selling new instruments.

There are far more players out there who play and love the sound of vintage
horns in spite of all of their quirks than people who want to buy a shiny
new Asian made saxophone with all the bells and whistles.  Very few
saxophone players actually play for a living.  Most play just for their own
enjoyment, as teachers, and as weekend gig players.   The vintage horns have
a personality and character not found on newer horns and some of us would
not trade ours for all of saxes in Taiwan.  It is not always about  money
and profit.  There are other values and priorities that are just as
important in my view.


> From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of John
> Sent: Thursday, December 24, 2009 10:03 PM
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lance has articulated what my interest is in locating node locations
within
> the bore of a saxophone. It is to try to find ways that a repair
technician
> can address intonation deficiencies found in certain makes and models of
> saxophones. 
> 
> The use of crescent inserts is an excellent technique, but it has its
> limitations. For example on many saxophones the low D is flat and the
middle
> D is sharp often even without using the octave key. Any method used to
bring
> down the pitch of D2---a crescent insert, or decreasing the opening of the
> low C key exacerbates the problem with the flat D1. A similar example is
the
> flat C#2 and very sharp C#3 found on some saxophones.
> 
> There has been some discounting the use of acoustic theory and
mathematical
> computation in this discussion. No one has said that the math is an end in
> itself, and simply discussing the details of mathematics involved does not
> suggest that it is. It is much more helpful in these discussions when
those
> participating share information in clear detail rather than vague and
> general terms. 
> 
> One of the sources of my interest in this topic is the articles written by
> Jim Gebler on Diagnosing and Adjusting Woodwind Bores published in the
> Woodwind Quarterly in issues 10, 11, and 12 1995-96.
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> , MartinMods lancelotburt@
> wrote:
> >
> > "You have to figure out what you want to do,......."
> > 
> > Right. Any mathematical analysis is worthless unless it is put to the
> actual physical test. These are all responses to John's question, so it
> would be interesting to know what he would like to do with the knowledge. 
> > 
> > I found Benade's description (FMA p. 478) of how he altered the
alignment
> of various higher mode resonances in a bassoon body, systematically curing
> the intonation and tonal characteristics of 3 problem notes, while leaving
> the rest unaffected, utterly fascinating. This, for me, would be the most
> important reason for mapping the W-Curves of a saxophone - to optimize the
> alignment of body resonances. I would not consider attempting to design
the
> perfect neck, by any method, until I first had a thorough familiarity with
> the quality of the regimes which form the notes of the low register scale,
> and then the middle and upper register, and spent the time neccessary to
> insure that their resonances were as optimally aligned as possible. Then I
> could design a neck that would compliment that body alignment. That's my
> plan.
> >
>

Not that there is an bias at play here (-:
----- Original Message -----
From: STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, 26 Dec 2009 12:54:34 -0600 (CST)
Subject: RE: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes

I think the current collapse in vintage horn values (I'm talking about
actual selling prices, not inflated "asking" prices) speaks volumes about
what the saxophone playing public actually has come to know and believe
about the relative merits of vintage horns..... I would also submit that the
market for vintage instruments is absolutely miniscule compared to the
market for new professional grade instruments...there's lots of talk, but
not a lot of actual sales...of course I know that most of the buyers of high
end instruments are "hobby" players. They understand very well that for the
best performance, you have to buy the current state of the art, and they
vote with their checkbooks...the vintage market makes lots of noise, but it
is really tiny, because consumers have better alternatives and they know it.
If this were not the case, vintage prices would be rising, and they're
not....prices for top quality new instruments have increased significantly
recently, and the demand is apparently still there. People are not stupid,
and they now shop carefully and examine all their options.

 

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of John
Sent: Saturday, December 26, 2009 10:33 AM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes

 

  


> As interesting as this technical discussion is (and I seriously mean
that!),
> here's something I just don't get:
> 
> If a player desires the best possible intonation, response, and other
> playing characteristics, what is the point of spending a large amount of
> time and money "retrofitting" and instrument with a poor initial design?
> Even if you could (and I am not convinced that perfection is possible)
> correct all of the deficiencies enumerated in this discussion on an older
> instrument, you are still stuck with the poor ergonomics, bad tone hole
> placement, and other weaknesses. Sure, you can fix a lot of that, but the
> reality is that if you want the best possible instrument, you need to go
out
> and purchase the current state of the art. It's probably more cost
efficient
> to do so.

When a customer brings in an old 6M, Truetone, Balanced Action, or Martin
that they truly love the sound on and ask can you do anything for this note
or set of notes so I don't have to fight the pitch as much, as a technician
I want to learn and develop the skills to be able  to help them.  Curt
Alterac has done some excellent work in this area as have Jim Gebler and
others.  This is more about helping people and preserving the wonderful
heritage of the instrument by revitalizing the great saxes of the past  than
about making money by selling new instruments.

There are far more players out there who play and love the sound of vintage
horns in spite of all of their quirks than people who want to buy a shiny
new Asian made saxophone with all the bells and whistles.  Very few
saxophone players actually play for a living.  Most play just for their own
enjoyment, as teachers, and as weekend gig players.   The vintage horns have
a personality and character not found on newer horns and some of us would
not trade ours for all of saxes in Taiwan.  It is not always about  money
and profit.  There are other values and priorities that are just as
important in my view.


> From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of John
> Sent: Thursday, December 24, 2009 10:03 PM
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lance has articulated what my interest is in locating node locations
within
> the bore of a saxophone. It is to try to find ways that a repair
technician
> can address intonation deficiencies found in certain makes and models of
> saxophones. 
> 
> The use of crescent inserts is an excellent technique, but it has its
> limitations. For example on many saxophones the low D is flat and the
middle
> D is sharp often even without using the octave key. Any method used to
bring
> down the pitch of D2---a crescent insert, or decreasing the opening of the
> low C key exacerbates the problem with the flat D1. A similar example is
the
> flat C#2 and very sharp C#3 found on some saxophones.
> 
> There has been some discounting the use of acoustic theory and
mathematical
> computation in this discussion. No one has said that the math is an end in
> itself, and simply discussing the details of mathematics involved does not
> suggest that it is. It is much more helpful in these discussions when
those
> participating share information in clear detail rather than vague and
> general terms. 
> 
> One of the sources of my interest in this topic is the articles written by
> Jim Gebler on Diagnosing and Adjusting Woodwind Bores published in the
> Woodwind Quarterly in issues 10, 11, and 12 1995-96.
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> , MartinMods lancelotburt@
> wrote:
> >
> > "You have to figure out what you want to do,......."
> > 
> > Right. Any mathematical analysis is worthless unless it is put to the
> actual physical test. These are all responses to John's question, so it
> would be interesting to know what he would like to do with the knowledge. 
> > 
> > I found Benade's description (FMA p. 478) of how he altered the
alignment
> of various higher mode resonances in a bassoon body, systematically curing
> the intonation and tonal characteristics of 3 problem notes, while leaving
> the rest unaffected, utterly fascinating. This, for me, would be the most
> important reason for mapping the W-Curves of a saxophone - to optimize the
> alignment of body resonances. I would not consider attempting to design
the
> perfect neck, by any method, until I first had a thorough familiarity with
> the quality of the regimes which form the notes of the low register scale,
> and then the middle and upper register, and spent the time neccessary to
> insure that their resonances were as optimally aligned as possible. Then I
> could design a neck that would compliment that body alignment. That's my
> plan.
> >
>

Besides which, there is no evidence that the metal used has any effect on the sound.

Toby

MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:                                           
MM - $B!H(BModern horns just don$B!G(Bt have it.$B!I(B (sound)

   SG -I think this is a myth$B!D!D(B"

There is nothing mythological or intangible about it  This is a subjective value judgment, based upon my personal experience and personal preference, and need not be valid for anyone else, though I think it is for some.   I have yet to play, or hear played, any modern saxophone that can offer an
 accomplished player the same sonic character as a great vintage horn.  There are modern horns with a lot going for them - a great upper register and altissimo,  great projection, great intonation - but, there is always a narrow range of notes, usually the upper low register and the lower middle
 register, which suffer a loss of tonal complexity and a diminished range of tonal response as a result of  design priorities. 

This sonic difference may be a small, or perhaps even a non-existent matter for many players, but I think I can safely say that for accomplished musicians, who learned to play a vintage instrument,  it is of paramount importance.  You have often said, "The sound comes from the player.  The horn is
 just the tool."   That is true, and all I'm saying here is, I can't get my sound on a modern saxophone.  The modern tool doesn't do what I want it to do.  Until one does then, my only recourse is to "retro-fit" vintage horns.

Besides, I can buy a great vintage horn and retro-fit it, for half of what many top modern horns cost.  It's win/win.  





---------------------------------
From: STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, December 26, 2009 9:50:45 AM
Subject: RE: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes

                                            
  $B!H(BModern horns just don$B!G(Bt have it$B!I!D!D(B..
   I think this is a myth$B!D!D(Btrue, many modern horns are pretty bright and thin sounding due to the alloy (high zinc content) that is often employed, HOWEVER, there are a number of options available to the player from a variety of manufacturers which have successfully resolved this problem.
 Yamaha, Selmer, Cannonball are probably the worst, and they have merely followed the trend of increasingly brighter tones that have become popular in recent times. Fortunately, a few makers have resisted this trend.
     
   I really don$B!G(Bt subscribe to this $B!H(Bold horns are better$B!I(B business. Too many compromises are often necessary in order to make them play satisfactorily.
     
       From: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:MouthpieceW ork@yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of MartinMods
 Sent: Friday, December 25, 2009 11:32 PM
 To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
 Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes
   
  
    
     
               
   
    "If a player desires the best possible intonation, response, and other playing characteristics, what is the point of spending a large amount of time and money $B!H(Bretrofitting$B!I(B and instrument with a poor initial design? 
 
 Well, whether for mouthpieces or horns, we're getting into subjective value judgements here, where there is no right or wrong, only what the individual player prefers, for whatever reason.
 
 Just to observe general trends however, I'd say that if a player prefers easy intonation, even response, a modern mechanism, and a characteristic sound, they would be better off with a modern saxophone design, complimented by a modern baffled mouthpiece.
 
 On the other hand, if tonal complexity and a broad and responsive tonal flexibility are the prerequisit, as in my case, the vintage horn/mouthpiece is the way to go. Modern horns just don't have it.  All other playing aspects which excede the capabilities of a solid developed playing technique
 can reletively easisly be remedied by comparison.
 
 
   
  
    
   
    
   
  
     

      
           

  

        
      
                 
                 
 

I would love to give Steve's horns a try. He is, to my knowledge, the only maker spending any time and money trying to improve horn design. I recently spoke with Dr. Joe Wolfe, and he tells me that even Yamaha has scrapped their formal R&D program. Everyone is feeling pressure from below and
 trying to cut costs, and R&D is the first place to feel it. Kudos to Steve for bucking the trend.

Toby

MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:                                           
Well, we seem to have strayed a bit from the subject of mouthpieces here.........

To sum up:  I think Steve's horns are certainly respectable.  I have yet to hear any recording of one however, that could compare to any of the body of fine saxophone recordings by top professionals on vintage instruments made in the last 40 years.  I'm all ears though.


---------------------------------
From: BariAxMan <bariaxman@...>
To:  MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, December 26, 2009 3:21:20 PM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes

                                      
MartinMods - "I have yet to play, or hear played, any modern saxophone that can offer an accomplished player the same sonic character as a great vintage horn."

Then you have never played a Steve Goodson designed Sax!!!
 
Jim Moncher
Colorado Springs, CO 
 
719.268.0834
719.331.3706
 
"Without jazz, what would music be? But without the sax, what would jazz be? It's jazz that ensured the success of the sax, and vice versa"




---------------------------------
From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Sat, December 26, 2009 11:33:10 AM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes  and  Antinodes

                                      
MM - $B!H(BModern horns just don$B!G(Bt have it.$B!I(B (sound)

   SG -I think this is a myth$B!D!D(B"

There is nothing mythological or intangible about it  This is a subjective value judgment, based upon my personal experience and personal preference, and need not be valid for anyone else, though I think it is for some.   I have yet to play, or hear played, any modern saxophone that can offer an
 accomplished player the same sonic character as a great vintage horn.  There are modern horns with a lot going for them - a great upper register and altissimo,  great projection, great intonation - but, there is always a narrow range of notes, usually the upper low register and the lower middle
 register, which suffer a loss of tonal complexity and a diminished range of tonal response as a result of  design priorities. 

This sonic difference may be a small, or perhaps even a non-existent matter for many players, but I think I can safely say that for accomplished musicians, who learned to play a vintage instrument,  it is of paramount importance.  You have often said, "The sound comes from the player.  The horn is
 just the tool."   That is true, and all I'm saying here is, I can't get my sound on a modern saxophone.  The modern tool doesn't do what I want it to do.  Until one does then, my only recourse is to "retro-fit" vintage horns.

Besides, I can buy a great vintage horn and retro-fit it, for half of what many top modern horns cost.  It's win/win.  





---------------------------------
From: STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@cox. net>
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Sat, December 26, 2009 9:50:45 AM
Subject: RE: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes

                                            
  $B!H(BModern horns just don$B!G(Bt have it$B!I!D!D(B..
   I think this is a myth$B!D!D(Btrue, many modern horns are pretty bright and thin sounding due to the alloy (high zinc content) that is often employed, HOWEVER, there are a number of options available to the player from a variety of manufacturers which have successfully resolved this problem.
 Yamaha, Selmer, Cannonball are probably the worst, and they have merely followed the trend of increasingly brighter tones that have become popular in recent times. Fortunately, a few makers have resisted this trend.
     
   I really don$B!G(Bt subscribe to this $B!H(Bold horns are better$B!I(B business. Too many compromises are often necessary in order to make them play satisfactorily.
     
       From: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:MouthpieceW ork@yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of MartinMods
 Sent: Friday, December 25, 2009 11:32 PM
 To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
 Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes
   
  
    
     
               
   
    "If a player desires the best possible intonation, response, and other playing characteristics, what is the point of spending a large amount of time and money $B!H(Bretrofitting$B!I(B and instrument with a poor initial design? 
 
 Well, whether for mouthpieces or horns, we're getting into subjective value judgements here, where there is no right or wrong, only what the individual player prefers, for whatever reason.
 
 Just to observe general trends however, I'd say that if a player prefers easy intonation, even response, a modern mechanism, and a characteristic sound, they would be better off with a modern saxophone design, complimented by a modern baffled mouthpiece.
 
 On the other hand, if tonal complexity and a broad and responsive tonal flexibility are the prerequisit, as in my case, the vintage horn/mouthpiece is the way to go. Modern horns just don't have it.  All other playing aspects which excede the capabilities of a solid developed playing technique
 can reletively easisly be remedied by comparison.
 
 
   
  
    
   
    
   
  
     

      
           

  

              
           

  
      
           

  

        
      
                 
                 
 

I agree, Pete……the guys who have been touting vintage horns in this thread are in the business of fixing them

 

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of peteleoni@...
Sent: Saturday, December 26, 2009 6:16 PM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes

 

  

Not that there is an bias at play here (-:
----- Original Message -----
From: STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@... <mailto:saxgourmet%40cox.net> >
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> 
Sent: Sat, 26 Dec 2009 12:54:34 -0600 (CST)
Subject: RE: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes

I think the current collapse in vintage horn values (I'm talking about
actual selling prices, not inflated "asking" prices) speaks volumes about
what the saxophone playing public actually has come to know and believe
about the relative merits of vintage horns..... I would also submit that the
market for vintage instruments is absolutely miniscule compared to the
market for new professional grade instruments...there's lots of talk, but
not a lot of actual sales...of course I know that most of the buyers of high
end instruments are "hobby" players. They understand very well that for the
best performance, you have to buy the current state of the art, and they
vote with their checkbooks...the vintage market makes lots of noise, but it
is really tiny, because consumers have better alternatives and they know it.
If this were not the case, vintage prices would be rising, and they're
not....prices for top quality new instruments have increased significantly
recently, and the demand is apparently still there. People are not stupid,
and they now shop carefully and examine all their options.

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>  [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> ]
On Behalf Of John
Sent: Saturday, December 26, 2009 10:33 AM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> 
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes

> As interesting as this technical discussion is (and I seriously mean
that!),
> here's something I just don't get:
> 
> If a player desires the best possible intonation, response, and other
> playing characteristics, what is the point of spending a large amount of
> time and money "retrofitting" and instrument with a poor initial design?
> Even if you could (and I am not convinced that perfection is possible)
> correct all of the deficiencies enumerated in this discussion on an older
> instrument, you are still stuck with the poor ergonomics, bad tone hole
> placement, and other weaknesses. Sure, you can fix a lot of that, but the
> reality is that if you want the best possible instrument, you need to go
out
> and purchase the current state of the art. It's probably more cost
efficient
> to do so.

When a customer brings in an old 6M, Truetone, Balanced Action, or Martin
that they truly love the sound on and ask can you do anything for this note
or set of notes so I don't have to fight the pitch as much, as a technician
I want to learn and develop the skills to be able to help them. Curt
Alterac has done some excellent work in this area as have Jim Gebler and
others. This is more about helping people and preserving the wonderful
heritage of the instrument by revitalizing the great saxes of the past than
about making money by selling new instruments.

There are far more players out there who play and love the sound of vintage
horns in spite of all of their quirks than people who want to buy a shiny
new Asian made saxophone with all the bells and whistles. Very few
saxophone players actually play for a living. Most play just for their own
enjoyment, as teachers, and as weekend gig players. The vintage horns have
a personality and character not found on newer horns and some of us would
not trade ours for all of saxes in Taiwan. It is not always about money
and profit. There are other values and priorities that are just as
important in my view.

> From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> 
[mailto:MouthpieceWork@...m <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> ]
> On Behalf Of John
> Sent: Thursday, December 24, 2009 10:03 PM
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> 
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lance has articulated what my interest is in locating node locations
within
> the bore of a saxophone. It is to try to find ways that a repair
technician
> can address intonation deficiencies found in certain makes and models of
> saxophones. 
> 
> The use of crescent inserts is an excellent technique, but it has its
> limitations. For example on many saxophones the low D is flat and the
middle
> D is sharp often even without using the octave key. Any method used to
bring
> down the pitch of D2---a crescent insert, or decreasing the opening of the
> low C key exacerbates the problem with the flat D1. A similar example is
the
> flat C#2 and very sharp C#3 found on some saxophones.
> 
> There has been some discounting the use of acoustic theory and
mathematical
> computation in this discussion. No one has said that the math is an end in
> itself, and simply discussing the details of mathematics involved does not
> suggest that it is. It is much more helpful in these discussions when
those
> participating share information in clear detail rather than vague and
> general terms. 
> 
> One of the sources of my interest in this topic is the articles written by
> Jim Gebler on Diagnosing and Adjusting Woodwind Bores published in the
> Woodwind Quarterly in issues 10, 11, and 12 1995-96.
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> 
> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> , MartinMods lancelotburt@
> wrote:
> >
> > "You have to figure out what you want to do,......."
> > 
> > Right. Any mathematical analysis is worthless unless it is put to the
> actual physical test. These are all responses to John's question, so it
> would be interesting to know what he would like to do with the knowledge. 
> > 
> > I found Benade's description (FMA p. 478) of how he altered the
alignment
> of various higher mode resonances in a bassoon body, systematically curing
> the intonation and tonal characteristics of 3 problem notes, while leaving
> the rest unaffected, utterly fascinating. This, for me, would be the most
> important reason for mapping the W-Curves of a saxophone - to optimize the
> alignment of body resonances. I would not consider attempting to design
the
> perfect neck, by any method, until I first had a thorough familiarity with
> the quality of the regimes which form the notes of the low register scale,
> and then the middle and upper register, and spent the time neccessary to
> insure that their resonances were as optimally aligned as possible. Then I
> could design a neck that would compliment that body alignment. That's my
> plan.
> >
>

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "STEVE GOODSON" <saxgourmet@...> wrote:
>
> I agree, Pete……the guys who have been touting vintage horns in this thread are in the business of fixing them
> 
 
LOL!!!! Says the guy who sells great new horns!!! :-)


(and fixes the old ones if the price is right!)
     I do not know of anyone locally bought a Cannonball that has regretted selling their nice vintage Selmer or Martin. I'd go new if I could justify the cost, too.

> When a customer brings in an old 6M, Truetone, Balanced Action, or
> Martin that they truly love the sound on and ask can you do anything for
> this note or set of notes so I don't have to fight the pitch as much, as
> a technician I want to learn and develop the skills to be able  to help
> them.  


I have spent many, many hours correcting intonation issues on some instruments, and the time spent is very difficult to recover from the customer.  Correcting one note will often affect others, or perhaps the entire register.  I have even made special mouthpieces for particularly troublesome instruments.  The time involved is a killer.

Paul C.

Exactly! "Fixing" design problems is difficult, at best.



Sonus Instrument Repair

Tom Tapscott

802 Glendale Dr

Clarksville, TN 37043

931-551-9411

sonusrepair@...

--- On Sun, 12/27/09, tenorman1952 <tenorman1952@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: tenorman1952 <tenorman1952@...>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, December 27, 2009, 9:27 AM







 



  


    
      
      
      

> When a customer brings in an old 6M, Truetone, Balanced Action, or

> Martin that they truly love the sound on and ask can you do anything for

> this note or set of notes so I don't have to fight the pitch as much, as

> a technician I want to learn and develop the skills to be able  to help

> them.  



I have spent many, many hours correcting intonation issues on some instruments, and the time spent is very difficult to recover from the customer.  Correcting one note will often affect others, or perhaps the entire register.  I have even made special mouthpieces for particularly troublesome instruments.  The time involved is a killer.



Paul C.





    
     

    
    


 



  






      

"I agree, Pete.  The guys who have been touting vintage horns in this thread are in the business of fixing them."

LOL. So what?...Modern horns need just as much repair and maintenance
as any other.  Every modern horn sold is more potential work for repair men. 
Without modern horns, there wouldn't be enough saxophones to go
around.  They are a good thing, and a good choice for most amateur
players, IMO.   

Top recording pros seem to still prefer vintage horns for some reason. 
It's a pretty competitive arena, and where your livelihood depends on
your sound, only the best sound will do.  Until we have a large
body of fine professional recordings by top artists on these modern
horns, redefining our concept of what a great saxophone sounds like, and we stop listening to Dexter, Charlie, Sonny, John, etc.,
the vintage horns will still have a place.  If you know of any, point
them out, 'cause I can't find them...... and I don't mean bland,
over-processed smooth jazz productions.

What Theo Wanne is doing with audio demos of mouthpieces on his website
is most impressive - professional recordings, professional players, a
polished presentation.  In contrast, the amateur, consumer video camera
demo recordings offered by almost all saxophone dealers (Canonball has
some decent recordings) leave so much to be desired, one often can't
help questioning the integrity of the product.  That's only natural.  Television, movies, and the internet have made us accustom to the highest quality media in advertising. 
Some of the performances are just so atrociously, horrendously bad, you
actually have to question the dealer's sanity.

I understand the concern of the modern horn dealer.  Every resale of a vintage horn is
lost revenue.  Business would be better if they did not exist.  I'm still not convinced that the music would be though.  







________________________________
From: Tom Tapscott <sonusrepair@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, December 27, 2009 10:56:17 AM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes

  
Exactly! "Fixing" design problems is difficult, at best.



Sonus Instrument Repair
Tom Tapscott
802 Glendale Dr
Clarksville, TN 37043
931-551-9411
sonusrepair@ yahoo.com

--- On Sun, 12/27/09, tenorman1952 <tenorman1952@ yahoo.com> wrote:


>From: tenorman1952 <tenorman1952@ yahoo.com>
>Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes
>To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
>Date: Sunday, December 27, 2009, 9:27 AM
>
>
>>
>
>
>
>  >
>
> 
>>      
> 
>
>>> When a customer brings in an old 6M, Truetone, Balanced Action, or
>>> Martin that they truly love the sound on and ask can you do anything for
>>> this note or set of notes so I don't have to fight the pitch as much, as
>>> a technician I want to learn and develop the skills to be able  to help
>>> them. 
>
>>I have spent many, many hours correcting intonation issues on some instruments, and the time spent is very difficult to recover from the customer.  Correcting one note will often affect others, or perhaps the entire register.  I have even made special mouthpieces for particularly troublesome instruments.  The time involved is a killer.
>
>>Paul C.
>
> 

 


      

"I have spent many, many hours correcting intonation issues on some
instruments, and the time spent is very difficult to recover from the
customer. Correcting one note will often affect others, or perhaps the
entire register. I have even made special mouthpieces for particularly
troublesome instruments. The time involved is a killer."

Certainly.  For some instruments and some players, it is not worth the effort.  For others though, it is.  Modification and fine acoustical tuning are better left a high-end service, for accomplished players with superior instruments.  it is there that one sees results and rewards.



      

I've overhauled HUNDREDS of vintage horns....even if you can get them to
play in tune and respond properly, you've still got an old horn with all its
limitations..this is the main reason I got into the saxophone design
business....people often say "Coltrane and Parker sounded great on an old
horn" and it's true that they did. But consider if you will how much better
they might have sounded on an instrument that was not so much work to play!

 

The replication of the "sound" of horns of the past is easy, all it takes is
the will to do so. Tastes have changed, and most manufacturers today
manufacture horns that are brighter in sound. Trust me, if they were not
selling, they would not be doing so!  There is no mystery or magic involved.
Some manufacturers (including my company and a few others) offer players
options which result in a variety of available tones. 

 

I really think this discussion is a little inappropriate for a mouthpiece
refacing group, and invite the participants to move it to the saxophone
repair group on Yahoo.

 

 

 

sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc

STEVE GOODSON

SAXOPHONE DESIGNER TO THE STARS         

 

our products are ALL rated 

 

cid:339191121@25022009-09F4

 

Steve is a member of

hd_logo NAMMbelieve2nasaconf_GIF

 

 

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.

 

 

 

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of tenorman1952
Sent: Sunday, December 27, 2009 9:28 AM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes

 

  


> When a customer brings in an old 6M, Truetone, Balanced Action, or
> Martin that they truly love the sound on and ask can you do anything for
> this note or set of notes so I don't have to fight the pitch as much, as
> a technician I want to learn and develop the skills to be able to help
> them. 

I have spent many, many hours correcting intonation issues on some
instruments, and the time spent is very difficult to recover from the
customer. Correcting one note will often affect others, or perhaps the
entire register. I have even made special mouthpieces for particularly
troublesome instruments. The time involved is a killer.

Paul C.

I think it would be a great idea to take the New vs Vintage arguments over to Steve's forum.  This was a good thread on the basics of acoustics until it got hijacked.  To bring it back to the general topic:

I have been studying the saxophone sound spectrum graphs at the UNSW site and have discovered that in the second register it looks as if the notes have only the even numbered overtones.  Is this true, and does anyone know the explanation for this.

This one piece of information, if it is true, makes a great deal difference in the location of the nodes of a notes harmonics because only certain whole number multiples of the frequency of the note played are included.

John

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "STEVE GOODSON" <saxgourmet@...> wrote:
>
> I've overhauled HUNDREDS of vintage horns....even if you can get them to
> play in tune and respond properly, you've still got an old horn with all its
> limitations..this is the main reason I got into the saxophone design
> business....people often say "Coltrane and Parker sounded great on an old
> horn" and it's true that they did. But consider if you will how much better
> they might have sounded on an instrument that was not so much work to play!
> 
>  
> 
> The replication of the "sound" of horns of the past is easy, all it takes is
> the will to do so. Tastes have changed, and most manufacturers today
> manufacture horns that are brighter in sound. Trust me, if they were not
> selling, they would not be doing so!  There is no mystery or magic involved.
> Some manufacturers (including my company and a few others) offer players
> options which result in a variety of available tones. 
> 
>  
> 
> I really think this discussion is a little inappropriate for a mouthpiece
> refacing group, and invite the participants to move it to the saxophone
> repair group on Yahoo.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
> 
> STEVE GOODSON
> 
> SAXOPHONE DESIGNER TO THE STARS         
> 
>  
> 
> our products are ALL rated 
> 
>  
> 
> cid:339191121@25022009-09F4
> 
>  
> 
> Steve is a member of
> 
> hd_logo NAMMbelieve2nasaconf_GIF
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 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.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of tenorman1952
> Sent: Sunday, December 27, 2009 9:28 AM
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes
> 
>  
> 
>   
> 
> 
> > When a customer brings in an old 6M, Truetone, Balanced Action, or
> > Martin that they truly love the sound on and ask can you do anything for
> > this note or set of notes so I don't have to fight the pitch as much, as
> > a technician I want to learn and develop the skills to be able to help
> > them. 
> 
> I have spent many, many hours correcting intonation issues on some
> instruments, and the time spent is very difficult to recover from the
> customer. Correcting one note will often affect others, or perhaps the
> entire register. I have even made special mouthpieces for particularly
> troublesome instruments. The time involved is a killer.
> 
> Paul C.
>

John,  

The second register is based upon the overtone series of the first octave, since it is merely an overblown low note's 2nd harmonic mode.  So, the overtones of D2 are, A2, D3, F#3, A3, C4, etc...   You can demonstrate this easily by over-blowing the sequence on your horn.

MM




________________________________
From: John <jtalcott47@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, December 27, 2009 5:28:22 PM
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes

  
I think it would be a great idea to take the New vs Vintage arguments over to Steve's forum.  This was a good thread on the basics of acoustics until it got hijacked.  To bring it back to the general topic:

I have been studying the saxophone sound spectrum graphs at the UNSW site and have discovered that in the second register it looks as if the notes have only the even numbered overtones.  Is this true, and does anyone know the explanation for this.

This one piece of information, if it is true, makes a great deal difference in the location of the nodes of a notes harmonics because only certain whole number multiples of the frequency of the note played are included.

John

--- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, "STEVE GOODSON" <saxgourmet@ ...> wrote:
>
> I've overhauled HUNDREDS of vintage horns....even if you can get them to
> play in tune and respond properly, you've still got an old horn with all its
> limitations. .this is the main reason I got into the saxophone design
> business.... people often say "Coltrane and Parker sounded great on an old
> horn" and it's true that they did. But consider if you will how much better
> they might have sounded on an instrument that was not so much work to play!
> 
> 
> 
> The replication of the "sound" of horns of the past is easy, all it takes is
> the will to do so. Tastes have changed, and most manufacturers today
> manufacture horns that are brighter in sound. Trust me, if they were not
> selling, they would not be doing so!  There is no mystery or magic involved.
> Some manufacturers (including my company and a few others) offer players
> options which result in a variety of available tones. 
> 
> 
> 
> I really think this discussion is a little inappropriate for a mouthpiece
> refacing group, and invite the participants to move it to the saxophone
> repair group on Yahoo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
> 
> STEVE GOODSON
> 
> SAXOPHONE DESIGNER TO THE STARS 
> 
> 
> 
> our products are ALL rated 
> 
> 
> 
> cid:339191121@ 25022009- 09F4
> 
> 
> 
> Steve is a member of
> 
> hd_logo NAMMbelieve2nasacon f_GIF
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLEASE VISIT MY WEBSITES
>  <http://www.nationofmusic.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.saxgourmet.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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com]
> On Behalf Of tenorman1952
> Sent: Sunday, December 27, 2009 9:28 AM
> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > When a customer brings in an old 6M, Truetone, Balanced Action, or
> > Martin that they truly love the sound on and ask can you do anything for
> > this note or set of notes so I don't have to fight the pitch as much, as
> > a technician I want to learn and develop the skills to be able to help
> > them. 
> 
> I have spent many, many hours correcting intonation issues on some
> instruments, and the time spent is very difficult to recover from the
> customer. Correcting one note will often affect others, or perhaps the
> entire register. I have even made special mouthpieces for particularly
> troublesome instruments. The time involved is a killer.
> 
> Paul C.
>


 


      

That's what I thought too.  You can check it out at Saxophone acoustics
<http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/music/saxophone/>    Print the harmonic
spectrum for the Tenor sax D4 and D5 and then overlay one over the
other.  Also do G4 and G5.  It is plain to see that the odd numbered
harmonics are missing in the series for the higher octave note.  Very
interesting . . . .

The sequence of overtones you listed are still those of the 1st harmonic
(fundamental)---you are just starting on the second one.  One might try
to produce overtones playing D with the octave key and see what happens.

John


--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
wrote:
>
> John,
>
> The second register is based upon the overtone series of the first
octave, since it is merely an overblown low note's 2nd harmonic mode. 
So, the overtones of D2 are, A2, D3, F#3, A3, C4, etc...   You can
demonstrate this easily by over-blowing the sequence on your horn.
>
> MM
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: John jtalcott47@...
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sun, December 27, 2009 5:28:22 PM
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes
>
>
> I think it would be a great idea to take the New vs Vintage arguments
over to Steve's forum.  This was a good thread on the basics of
acoustics until it got hijacked.  To bring it back to the general topic:
>
> I have been studying the saxophone sound spectrum graphs at the UNSW
site and have discovered that in the second register it looks as if the
notes have only the even numbered overtones.  Is this true, and does
anyone know the explanation for this.
>
> This one piece of information, if it is true, makes a great deal
difference in the location of the nodes of a notes harmonics because
only certain whole number multiples of the frequency of the note played
are included.
>
> John
>
> --- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, "STEVE GOODSON" <saxgourmet@
...> wrote:
> >
> > I've overhauled HUNDREDS of vintage horns....even if you can get
them to
> > play in tune and respond properly, you've still got an old horn with
all its
> > limitations. .this is the main reason I got into the saxophone
design
> > business.... people often say "Coltrane and Parker sounded great on
an old
> > horn" and it's true that they did. But consider if you will how much
better
> > they might have sounded on an instrument that was not so much work
to play!
> >
> >
> >
> > The replication of the "sound" of horns of the past is easy, all it
takes is
> > the will to do so. Tastes have changed, and most manufacturers today
> > manufacture horns that are brighter in sound. Trust me, if they were
not
> > selling, they would not be doing so!  There is no mystery or magic
involved.
> > Some manufacturers (including my company and a few others) offer
players
> > options which result in a variety of available tones.
> >
> >
> >
> > I really think this discussion is a little inappropriate for a
mouthpiece
> > refacing group, and invite the participants to move it to the
saxophone
> > repair group on Yahoo.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
> >
> > STEVE GOODSON
> >
> > SAXOPHONE DESIGNER TO THE STARS
> >
> >
> >
> > our products are ALL rated
> >
> >
> >
> > cid:339191121@ 25022009- 09F4
> >
> >
> >
> > Steve is a member of
> >
> > hd_logo NAMMbelieve2nasacon f_GIF
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > PLEASE VISIT MY WEBSITES
> >  <http://www.nationofmusic.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.saxgourmet.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.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@
yahoogroups. com]
> > On Behalf Of tenorman1952
> > Sent: Sunday, December 27, 2009 9:28 AM
> > To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > When a customer brings in an old 6M, Truetone, Balanced Action, or
> > > Martin that they truly love the sound on and ask can you do
anything for
> > > this note or set of notes so I don't have to fight the pitch as
much, as
> > > a technician I want to learn and develop the skills to be able to
help
> > > them.
> >
> > I have spent many, many hours correcting intonation issues on some
> > instruments, and the time spent is very difficult to recover from
the
> > customer. Correcting one note will often affect others, or perhaps
the
> > entire register. I have even made special mouthpieces for
particularly
> > troublesome instruments. The time involved is a killer.
> >
> > Paul C.
> >
>

My analyzer confirms that.




________________________________
From: John <jtalcott47@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, December 28, 2009 11:57:20 AM
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes

  
That's what I thought too.  You can check it out at Saxophone acoustics   Print the harmonic spectrum for the Tenor sax D4 and D5 and then overlay one over the other.  Also do G4 and G5.  It is plain to see that the odd numbered harmonics are missing in the series for the higher octave note.  Very interesting . . . .

The sequence of overtones you listed are still those of the 1st harmonic (fundamental) ---you are just starting on the second one.  One might try to produce overtones playing D with the octave key and see what happens.

John


--- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ ...> wrote:
>
> John, 
> 
> The second register is based upon the overtone series of the first octave, since it is merely an overblown low note's 2nd harmonic mode.  So, the overtones of D2 are, A2, D3, F#3, A3, C4, etc...   You can demonstrate this easily by over-blowing the sequence on your horn.
> 
> MM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________ _________ _________ __
> From: John jtalcott47@. ..
> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Sun, December 27, 2009 5:28:22 PM
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes
> 
> 
> I think it would be a great idea to take the New vs Vintage arguments over to Steve's forum.  This was a good thread on the basics of acoustics until it got hijacked.  To bring it back to the general topic:
> 
> I have been studying the saxophone sound spectrum graphs at the UNSW site and have discovered that in the second register it looks as if the notes have only the even numbered overtones.  Is this true, and does anyone know the explanation for this.
> 
> This one piece of information, if it is true, makes a great deal difference in the location of the nodes of a notes harmonics because only certain whole number multiples of the frequency of the note played are included.
> 
> John
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, "STEVE GOODSON" <saxgourmet@ ...> wrote:
> >
> > I've overhauled HUNDREDS of vintage horns....even if you can get them to
> > play in tune and respond properly, you've still got an old horn with all its
> > limitations. .this is the main reason I got into the saxophone design
> > business.... people often say "Coltrane and Parker sounded great on an old
> > horn" and it's true that they did. But consider if you will how much better
> > they might have sounded on an instrument that was not so much work to play!
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > The replication of the "sound" of horns of the past is easy, all it takes is
> > the will to do so. Tastes have changed, and most manufacturers today
> > manufacture horns that are brighter in sound. Trust me, if they were not
> > selling, they would not be doing so!  There is no mystery or magic involved.
> > Some manufacturers (including my company and a few others) offer players
> > options which result in a variety of available tones. 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > I really think this discussion is a little inappropriate for a mouthpiece
> > refacing group, and invite the participants to move it to the saxophone
> > repair group on Yahoo.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
> > 
> > STEVE GOODSON
> > 
> > SAXOPHONE DESIGNER TO THE STARS 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > our products are ALL rated 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > cid:339191121@ 25022009- 09F4
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Steve is a member of
> > 
> > hd_logo NAMMbelieve2nasacon f_GIF
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 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.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > From: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:MouthpieceW ork@ yahoogroups. com]
> > On Behalf Of tenorman1952
> > Sent: Sunday, December 27, 2009 9:28 AM
> > To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > When a customer brings in an old 6M, Truetone, Balanced Action, or
> > > Martin that they truly love the sound on and ask can you do anything for
> > > this note or set of notes so I don't have to fight the pitch as much, as
> > > a technician I want to learn and develop the skills to be able to help
> > > them. 
> > 
> > I have spent many, many hours correcting intonation issues on some
> > instruments, and the time spent is very difficult to recover from the
> > customer. Correcting one note will often affect others, or perhaps the
> > entire register. I have even made special mouthpieces for particularly
> > troublesome instruments. The time involved is a killer.
> > 
> > Paul C.
> >
>

 


      

Posted on Steve's behalf:

From: "STEVE GOODSON" <saxgourmet@...> 
Date: Wed Dec 30, 2009 11:04 am 
Subject: RE: Fw: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes   

I think I am the only one participating in this discussion who actually manufactures saxophones, mouthpieces, and necks (and will stand for correction if I am not alone). All the math does is get you to a starting point. From there, you must experiment. There are simply too many variables, many of which are not understood by myself or anybody else. Santy Runyon really drove this point home to me when I was learning from him. You could visit Santy's workshop and see an almost infinite number of variations on the same basic theme. You play them all, and have other people play them all, and then manufacture the one that works the best. I use the same approach. We build multiple prototypes of the same horn, neck, or mouthpiece and then evaluate which design works best. Anybody who has visited my prototype shop will attest to the fact that my bench is awash in failed experiments. Knowing what doesn't work is critical knowledge. 
 
The design of instruments and accessories is very much an art and not an absolute science. I don’t know of anyone (and I mean ANYONE, and I think I know and correspond with all the significant designers in the industry) who designs and manufactures instruments and accessories for a successful living who considers the math to be the absolute answer. You have to build some stuff and see how it plays. Then build some more with slight variations and see if it plays better or worse.

It sounds as if the majority of members here have done a significant amount of empirical experimentation themselves, and many with more than just mouthpieces.  I know that I have.  Some of the members, including myself successfully market the results of their work as services and/or products worldwide.  The fact that we, by choice or other, still perform all aspects of our craft ourselves, by hand, on a small scale, targeting a specialized high end market, does not necessarily diminish the quality of our work or the amount of our knowledge in comparison to those who have chosen to let 3rd party craftsmen do all the work for them on a large scale,  in order to target a mass, less specialized market.  The size of the text does not determine the validity or value of the message.

That being said, my point is simply, regardless of how many variables there are to a given sound, there is only one spectral analysis, only one unique overtone amplitude/alignment relationship for that sound.  One who becomes thoroughly familiar with these relationships, how making small changes in the relationships affects the nature of the sound, and which physical parts of the instrument determine them will be more efficient in their empirical testing, than one who does not.  Letting science guide your emiprical testing can only be a plus.




________________________________
From: MojoBari <kwbradbury@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, December 30, 2009 11:52:15 AM
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes

  
Posted on Steve's behalf:

From: "STEVE GOODSON" <saxgourmet@cox. net> 
Date: Wed Dec 30, 2009 11:04 am 
Subject: RE: Fw: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes 

I think I am the only one participating in this discussion who actually manufactures saxophones, mouthpieces, and necks (and will stand for correction if I am not alone). All the math does is get you to a starting point. From there, you must experiment. There are simply too many variables, many of which are not understood by myself or anybody else. Santy Runyon really drove this point home to me when I was learning from him. You could visit Santy's workshop and see an almost infinite number of variations on the same basic theme. You play them all, and have other people play them all, and then manufacture the one that works the best. I use the same approach. We build multiple prototypes of the same horn, neck, or mouthpiece and then evaluate which design works best. Anybody who has visited my prototype shop will attest to the fact that my bench is awash in failed experiments. Knowing what doesn't work is critical knowledge. 

The design of instruments and accessories is very much an art and not an absolute science. I don’t know of anyone (and I mean ANYONE, and I think I know and correspond with all the significant designers in the industry) who designs and manufactures instruments and accessories for a successful living who considers the math to be the absolute answer. You have to build some stuff and see how it plays. Then build some more with slight variations and see if it plays better or worse.


 


      

>>>Letting science guide your emiprical testing can only be a plus.

It can be a minus if it slows you down too much.  I had an old boss who was fond of saying "7 out of 10 beats 5 out of 5".  The implication being that 10 empirical tests will beat out 5 highly analyzed tests with similar costs to the 10.

This type of thinking is very application specific though.  If ones health is at risk, 5 out of 5 usually wins.



      

....and thus the importance of developing the aural sensation/overtone relationship skill so that it becomes second nature, which was the whole point.




________________________________
From: Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@yahoo.com>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, December 30, 2009 1:24:26 PM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes

  
>>>Letting science guide your emiprical testing can only be a plus.
 
It can be a minus if it slows you down too much.  I had an old boss who was fond of saying "7 out of 10 beats 5 out of 5".  The implication being that 10 empirical tests will beat out 5 highly analyzed tests with similar costs to the 10.
 
This type of thinking is very application specific though.  If ones health is at risk, 5 out of 5 usually wins.


 


      

After a great deal of computations, discussions, and analysis I have
come to the determination that the diagrams of the "Sensitive Harmonic
Positions" in Ferron's book are in error.  To be specific the part where
he divides the difference in length of the distance between the anti
nodes of two notes a half step apart by 3 to find the distance between
them.

Here is an example from page 104 of The Saxophone Is My Voice

The distance from the point of the cone to a hole he has drilled that is
supposed to represent 1/4 the wavelength of G  is 362.81.

He then divides that length by 1.05946 (the 12th root of 2) to find the
1/4 wavelength of G# which is 342.448

He subtracts the shorter wavelength from the longer wavelength to get
the difference of 20.362.

At this point he divides the difference in length by 3 in order to get
the space between the antinodes of the waves of the two adjacent notes.
There is no plausible reason I can see for difference between the two
lengths to be divided by 3.

The following is true:

Any given pitch when multiplied by 1.05946 gives the pitch of the next
higher semitone.
Any given pitch when divided by 1.05946 gives the pitch of the next
lower semitone.  The converse is true for wavelengths.

Any given wavelength when divided by 1.05946 gives the wavelength of the
next higher semitone.
Any given wavelength when multiplied by 1.05946 gives the wavelength of
the next lower semitone.

The same is true for both fractions and multiples of a wavelength.  
Therefore to find the spacing between the nodes or antinodes of two
waves that are a half step apart one need only subtract the shorter from
the longer.  There is no need to divide by 3.

The following link illustrates the spacial relationships of the anti
node locations are in an alto sax neck for the notes F#, G, G#   Neck
Node Study <http://jbtsaxmusic.homestead.com/Acoustics.html>

As you can see, there is no way that the neck of an alto could have the
antinodes of 3 octaves, and the tenor 3 1/2 octaves as Ferron's
illustrations show. Of course if someone can MATHEMATICALLY show that I
am wrong,  I will eat crow for these remarks.

John








--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "John" <jtalcott47@...> wrote:
>
> Here is a novice acoustics question.  Ferron and others state that for
each standing wave there is a (displacement) node at the tip of the
mouthpiece and a (displacement) antinode at the first open tonehole. A
completed wave in a saxophone travels to the open tonehole and back.  It
can be shown mathematically that the actual wavelength of the note is
longer than the physical distance from the tip of the mouthpiece to the
open tonehole (plus the end correction) times two due to the mouthpiece
volume acting as the missing cone.  This seems to confuse the issue,
since ideally the antinode would be located at 1/2 the distance between
the nodes.
>
> How then can one go about finding exact location in the bore of the
instrument of the nodes and antinodes of the harmonics contained in each
given note given that the nodes and antinode of the fundamental do not
correspond to the physical distance between the tip of the mouthpiece
and the first open tonehole?  Also, does this relate in any way to the
image of the "sensitive harmonic sites in an alto neck" found on page 19
of Ferron's book. Can anyone tell me how he arrived at those locations
for those notes? Thanks.
>
> John
>

John,

The length of the wavelength of G  (or any other note) is a function of the volume of the conical air column, the formula for which is on page 102. v = (distance x base radius squared x pi)/3.

Lance




________________________________
From: John <jtalcott47@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, January 3, 2010 10:53:40 PM
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes

  
After a great deal of computations, discussions, and analysis I have come to the determination that the diagrams of the "Sensitive Harmonic Positions" in Ferron's book are in error.  To be specific the part where he divides the difference in length of the distance between the anti nodes of two notes a half step apart by 3 to find the distance between them.

Here is an example from page 104 of The Saxophone Is My Voice

The distance from the point of the cone to a hole he has drilled that is supposed to represent 1/4 the wavelength of G  is 362.81.

He then divides that length by 1.05946 (the 12th root of 2) to find the 1/4 wavelength of G# which is 342.448

He subtracts the shorter wavelength from the longer wavelength to get the difference of 20.362.

At this point he divides the difference in length by 3 in order to get the space between the antinodes of the waves of the two adjacent notes.  
There is no plausible reason I can see for difference between the two lengths to be divided by 3.  

The following is true:

Any given pitch when multiplied by 1.05946 gives the pitch of the next higher semitone.
Any given pitch when divided by 1.05946 gives the pitch of the next lower semitone.  The converse is true for wavelengths.

Any given wavelength when divided by 1.05946 gives the wavelength of the next higher semitone.
Any given wavelength when multiplied by 1.05946 gives the wavelength of the next lower semitone.

The same is true for both fractions and multiples of a wavelength.   Therefore to find the spacing between the nodes or antinodes of two waves that are a half step apart one need only subtract the shorter from the longer.  There is no need to divide by 3.

The following link illustrates the spacial relationships of the anti node locations are in an alto sax neck for the notes F#, G, G#   Neck Node Study   

As you can see, there is no way that the neck of an alto could have the antinodes of 3 octaves, and the tenor 3 1/2 octaves as Ferron's illustrations show. Of course if someone can MATHEMATICALLY show that I am wrong,  I will eat crow for these remarks.

John








--- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, "John" <jtalcott47@. ..> wrote:
>
> Here is a novice acoustics question.  Ferron and others state that for each standing wave there is a (displacement) node at the tip of the mouthpiece and a (displacement) antinode at the first open tonehole. A completed wave in a saxophone travels to the open tonehole and back.  It can be shown mathematically that the actual wavelength of the note is longer than the physical distance from the tip of the mouthpiece to the open tonehole (plus the end correction) times two due to the mouthpiece volume acting as the missing cone.  This seems to confuse the issue, since ideally the antinode would be located at 1/2 the distance between the nodes.
> 
> How then can one go about finding exact location in the bore of the instrument of the nodes and antinodes of the harmonics contained in each given note given that the nodes and antinode of the fundamental do not correspond to the physical distance between the tip of the mouthpiece and the first open tonehole?  Also, does this relate in any way to the image of the "sensitive harmonic sites in an alto neck" found on page 19 of Ferron's book. Can anyone tell me how he arrived at those locations for those notes? Thanks.
> 
> John
>

 


      

"Is a function" of is a bit vague.  In physics the wavelength = speed of sound/frequency.  I am not sure what you are getting at.  The increase of the volume of the cone as the sound wave progresses towards the bell accounts for a reduction in amplitude.  It does not as far as I know affect the pitch or the wavelength.

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
>
> John,
> 
> The length of the wavelength of G  (or any other note) is a function of the volume of the conical air column, the formula for which is on page 102. v = (distance x base radius squared x pi)/3.
> 
> Lance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: John <jtalcott47@...>
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sun, January 3, 2010 10:53:40 PM
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes
> 
>   
> After a great deal of computations, discussions, and analysis I have come to the determination that the diagrams of the "Sensitive Harmonic Positions" in Ferron's book are in error.  To be specific the part where he divides the difference in length of the distance between the anti nodes of two notes a half step apart by 3 to find the distance between them.
> 
> Here is an example from page 104 of The Saxophone Is My Voice
> 
> The distance from the point of the cone to a hole he has drilled that is supposed to represent 1/4 the wavelength of G  is 362.81.
> 
> He then divides that length by 1.05946 (the 12th root of 2) to find the 1/4 wavelength of G# which is 342.448
> 
> He subtracts the shorter wavelength from the longer wavelength to get the difference of 20.362.
> 
> At this point he divides the difference in length by 3 in order to get the space between the antinodes of the waves of the two adjacent notes.  
> There is no plausible reason I can see for difference between the two lengths to be divided by 3.  
> 
> The following is true:
> 
> Any given pitch when multiplied by 1.05946 gives the pitch of the next higher semitone.
> Any given pitch when divided by 1.05946 gives the pitch of the next lower semitone.  The converse is true for wavelengths.
> 
> Any given wavelength when divided by 1.05946 gives the wavelength of the next higher semitone.
> Any given wavelength when multiplied by 1.05946 gives the wavelength of the next lower semitone.
> 
> The same is true for both fractions and multiples of a wavelength.   Therefore to find the spacing between the nodes or antinodes of two waves that are a half step apart one need only subtract the shorter from the longer.  There is no need to divide by 3.
> 
> The following link illustrates the spacial relationships of the anti node locations are in an alto sax neck for the notes F#, G, G#   Neck Node Study   
> 
> As you can see, there is no way that the neck of an alto could have the antinodes of 3 octaves, and the tenor 3 1/2 octaves as Ferron's illustrations show. Of course if someone can MATHEMATICALLY show that I am wrong,  I will eat crow for these remarks.
> 
> John
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, "John" <jtalcott47@ ..> wrote:
> >
> > Here is a novice acoustics question.  Ferron and others state that for each standing wave there is a (displacement) node at the tip of the mouthpiece and a (displacement) antinode at the first open tonehole. A completed wave in a saxophone travels to the open tonehole and back.  It can be shown mathematically that the actual wavelength of the note is longer than the physical distance from the tip of the mouthpiece to the open tonehole (plus the end correction) times two due to the mouthpiece volume acting as the missing cone.  This seems to confuse the issue, since ideally the antinode would be located at 1/2 the distance between the nodes.
> > 
> > How then can one go about finding exact location in the bore of the instrument of the nodes and antinodes of the harmonics contained in each given note given that the nodes and antinode of the fundamental do not correspond to the physical distance between the tip of the mouthpiece and the first open tonehole?  Also, does this relate in any way to the image of the "sensitive harmonic sites in an alto neck" found on page 19 of Ferron's book. Can anyone tell me how he arrived at those locations for those notes? Thanks.
> > 
> > John
> >
>

The volume of the cone from the apex  is dependent upon it's length and it's taper.  You are trying to find the location of the node so that you can change the taper (volume) in order to move the node (change the pitch) to where you would like it to be.  The volume at the node has everything to do with pitch, right?  For a conical air column of a given length, the narrower the taper, the lower the pitch, the wider the taper, the higher the pitch.




________________________________
From: John <jtalcott47@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, January 4, 2010 12:26:04 AM
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes

  
"Is a function" of is a bit vague.  In physics the wavelength = speed of sound/frequency.  I am not sure what you are getting at.  The increase of the volume of the cone as the sound wave progresses towards the bell accounts for a reduction in amplitude.  It does not as far as I know affect the pitch or the wavelength.

--- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ ...> wrote:
>
> John,
> 
> The length of the wavelength of G  (or any other note) is a function of the volume of the conical air column, the formula for which is on page 102. v = (distance x base radius squared x pi)/3.
> 
> Lance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________ _________ _________ __
> From: John <jtalcott47@ ...>
> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Sun, January 3, 2010 10:53:40 PM
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes
> 
> 
> After a great deal of computations, discussions, and analysis I have come to the determination that the diagrams of the "Sensitive Harmonic Positions" in Ferron's book are in error.  To be specific the part where he divides the difference in length of the distance between the anti nodes of two notes a half step apart by 3 to find the distance between them.
> 
> Here is an example from page 104 of The Saxophone Is My Voice
> 
> The distance from the point of the cone to a hole he has drilled that is supposed to represent 1/4 the wavelength of G  is 362.81.
> 
> He then divides that length by 1.05946 (the 12th root of 2) to find the 1/4 wavelength of G# which is 342.448
> 
> He subtracts the shorter wavelength from the longer wavelength to get the difference of 20.362.
> 
> At this point he divides the difference in length by 3 in order to get the space between the antinodes of the waves of the two adjacent notes. 
> There is no plausible reason I can see for difference between the two lengths to be divided by 3. 
> 
> The following is true:
> 
> Any given pitch when multiplied by 1.05946 gives the pitch of the next higher semitone.
> Any given pitch when divided by 1.05946 gives the pitch of the next lower semitone.  The converse is true for wavelengths.
> 
> Any given wavelength when divided by 1.05946 gives the wavelength of the next higher semitone.
> Any given wavelength when multiplied by 1.05946 gives the wavelength of the next lower semitone.
> 
> The same is true for both fractions and multiples of a wavelength.   Therefore to find the spacing between the nodes or antinodes of two waves that are a half step apart one need only subtract the shorter from the longer.  There is no need to divide by 3.
> 
> The following link illustrates the spacial relationships of the anti node locations are in an alto sax neck for the notes F#, G, G#   Neck Node Study 
> 
> As you can see, there is no way that the neck of an alto could have the antinodes of 3 octaves, and the tenor 3 1/2 octaves as Ferron's illustrations show. Of course if someone can MATHEMATICALLY show that I am wrong,  I will eat crow for these remarks.
> 
> John
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, "John" <jtalcott47@ ..> wrote:
> >
> > Here is a novice acoustics question.  Ferron and others state that for each standing wave there is a (displacement) node at the tip of the mouthpiece and a (displacement) antinode at the first open tonehole. A completed wave in a saxophone travels to the open tonehole and back.  It can be shown mathematically that the actual wavelength of the note is longer than the physical distance from the tip of the mouthpiece to the open tonehole (plus the end correction) times two due to the mouthpiece volume acting as the missing cone.  This seems to confuse the issue, since ideally the antinode would be located at 1/2 the distance between the nodes.
> > 
> > How then can one go about finding exact location in the bore of the instrument of the nodes and antinodes of the harmonics contained in each given note given that the nodes and antinode of the fundamental do not correspond to the physical distance between the tip of the mouthpiece and the first open tonehole?  Also, does this relate in any way to the image of the "sensitive harmonic sites in an alto neck" found on page 19 of Ferron's book. Can anyone tell me how he arrived at those locations for those notes? Thanks.
> > 
> > John
> >
>


 


      

Read pp. 14-15 in Ferron.




________________________________
From: John <jtalcott47@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, January 4, 2010 12:26:04 AM
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes

  
"Is a function" of is a bit vague.  In physics the wavelength = speed of sound/frequency.  I am not sure what you are getting at.  The increase of the volume of the cone as the sound wave progresses towards the bell accounts for a reduction in amplitude.  It does not as far as I know affect the pitch or the wavelength.

--- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ ...> wrote:
>
> John,
> 
> The length of the wavelength of G  (or any other note) is a function of the volume of the conical air column, the formula for which is on page 102. v = (distance x base radius squared x pi)/3.
> 
> Lance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________ _________ _________ __
> From: John <jtalcott47@ ...>
> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Sun, January 3, 2010 10:53:40 PM
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes
> 
> 
> After a great deal of computations, discussions, and analysis I have come to the determination that the diagrams of the "Sensitive Harmonic Positions" in Ferron's book are in error.  To be specific the part where he divides the difference in length of the distance between the anti nodes of two notes a half step apart by 3 to find the distance between them.
> 
> Here is an example from page 104 of The Saxophone Is My Voice
> 
> The distance from the point of the cone to a hole he has drilled that is supposed to represent 1/4 the wavelength of G  is 362.81.
> 
> He then divides that length by 1.05946 (the 12th root of 2) to find the 1/4 wavelength of G# which is 342.448
> 
> He subtracts the shorter wavelength from the longer wavelength to get the difference of 20.362.
> 
> At this point he divides the difference in length by 3 in order to get the space between the antinodes of the waves of the two adjacent notes. 
> There is no plausible reason I can see for difference between the two lengths to be divided by 3. 
> 
> The following is true:
> 
> Any given pitch when multiplied by 1.05946 gives the pitch of the next higher semitone.
> Any given pitch when divided by 1.05946 gives the pitch of the next lower semitone.  The converse is true for wavelengths.
> 
> Any given wavelength when divided by 1.05946 gives the wavelength of the next higher semitone.
> Any given wavelength when multiplied by 1.05946 gives the wavelength of the next lower semitone.
> 
> The same is true for both fractions and multiples of a wavelength.   Therefore to find the spacing between the nodes or antinodes of two waves that are a half step apart one need only subtract the shorter from the longer.  There is no need to divide by 3.
> 
> The following link illustrates the spacial relationships of the anti node locations are in an alto sax neck for the notes F#, G, G#   Neck Node Study 
> 
> As you can see, there is no way that the neck of an alto could have the antinodes of 3 octaves, and the tenor 3 1/2 octaves as Ferron's illustrations show. Of course if someone can MATHEMATICALLY show that I am wrong,  I will eat crow for these remarks.
> 
> John
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, "John" <jtalcott47@ ..> wrote:
> >
> > Here is a novice acoustics question.  Ferron and others state that for each standing wave there is a (displacement) node at the tip of the mouthpiece and a (displacement) antinode at the first open tonehole. A completed wave in a saxophone travels to the open tonehole and back.  It can be shown mathematically that the actual wavelength of the note is longer than the physical distance from the tip of the mouthpiece to the open tonehole (plus the end correction) times two due to the mouthpiece volume acting as the missing cone.  This seems to confuse the issue, since ideally the antinode would be located at 1/2 the distance between the nodes.
> > 
> > How then can one go about finding exact location in the bore of the instrument of the nodes and antinodes of the harmonics contained in each given note given that the nodes and antinode of the fundamental do not correspond to the physical distance between the tip of the mouthpiece and the first open tonehole?  Also, does this relate in any way to the image of the "sensitive harmonic sites in an alto neck" found on page 19 of Ferron's book. Can anyone tell me how he arrived at those locations for those notes? Thanks.
> > 
> > John
> >
>


 


      

Lance, do you have a reference for this statement? AFAIK this is incorrect. I went through this specifically with Joe Wolfe. The taper determines the harmonic content, as a narrower tube reflects back more of the high harmonics to the top. A complete cone of any taper (within certain aerodynamic
 limits) will give a full set of correct harmonics. Only when the cone is truncated does the trouble begin, with the harmonics being thrown out of integral relationships with the fundamental. The narrower the cone angle, the more the modes are stretched. When the cone angle is 0 and thus the tube
 is cylindrical, the second mode is stretched until it becomes the third mode, overblowing the 12th. Further narrowing of the cone angle into reverse conical further widens the modes.

That being said, if the harmonics are true (which can be done with the correct substitution at the truncation) the pitch should only be dependent on the length.

If I am wrong about this I would like to know it.

Toby

MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:                                           
The volume of the cone from the apex  is dependent upon it's length and it's taper.  You are trying to find the location of the node so that you can change the taper (volume) in order to move the node (change the pitch) to where you would like it to be.  The volume at the node has everything to do
 with pitch, right?  For a conical air column of a given length, the narrower the taper, the lower the pitch, the wider the taper, the higher the pitch.



---------------------------------
From: John <jtalcott47@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, January 4, 2010 12:26:04 AM
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes

                                      "Is a function" of is a bit vague.  In physics the wavelength = speed of sound/frequency.  I am not sure what you are getting at.  The increase of the volume of the cone as the sound wave progresses towards the bell accounts for a reduction in amplitude.  It
 does not as far as I know affect the pitch or the wavelength.
 
 --- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ ...> wrote:
 >
 > John,
 > 
 > The length of the wavelength of G  (or any other note) is a function of the volume of the conical air column, the formula for which is on page 102. v = (distance x base radius squared x pi)/3.
 > 
 > Lance
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > ____________ _________ _________ __
 > From: John <jtalcott47@ ...>
 > To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
 > Sent: Sun, January 3, 2010 10:53:40 PM
 > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes
 > 
 >   
 > After a great deal of computations, discussions, and analysis I have come to the determination that the diagrams of the "Sensitive Harmonic Positions" in Ferron's book are in error.  To be specific the part where he divides the difference in length of the distance between the anti nodes of two
 notes a half step apart by 3 to find the distance between them.
 > 
 > Here is an example from page 104 of The Saxophone Is My Voice
 > 
 > The distance from the point of the cone to a hole he has drilled that is supposed to represent 1/4 the wavelength of G  is 362.81.
 > 
 > He then divides that length by 1.05946 (the 12th root of 2) to find the 1/4 wavelength of G# which is 342.448
 > 
 > He subtracts the shorter wavelength from the longer wavelength to get the difference of 20.362.
 > 
 > At this point he divides the difference in length by 3 in order to get the space between the antinodes of the waves of the two adjacent notes.  
 > There is no plausible reason I can see for difference between the two lengths to be divided by 3.  
 > 
 > The following is true:
 > 
 > Any given pitch when multiplied by 1.05946 gives the pitch of the next higher semitone.
 > Any given pitch when divided by 1.05946 gives the pitch of the next lower semitone.  The converse is true for wavelengths.
 > 
 > Any given wavelength when divided by 1.05946 gives the wavelength of the next higher semitone.
 > Any given wavelength when multiplied by 1.05946 gives the wavelength of the next lower semitone.
 > 
 > The same is true for both fractions and multiples of a wavelength.   Therefore to find the spacing between the nodes or antinodes of two waves that are a half step apart one need only subtract the shorter from the longer.  There is no need to divide by 3.
 > 
 > The following link illustrates the spacial relationships of the anti node locations are in an alto sax neck for the notes F#, G, G#   Neck Node Study   
 > 
 > As you can see, there is no way that the neck of an alto could have the antinodes of 3 octaves, and the tenor 3 1/2 octaves as Ferron's illustrations show. Of course if someone can MATHEMATICALLY show that I am wrong,  I will eat crow for these remarks.
 > 
 > John
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > --- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, "John" <jtalcott47@ ..> wrote:
 > >
 > > Here is a novice acoustics question.  Ferron and others state that for each standing wave there is a (displacement) node at the tip of the mouthpiece and a (displacement) antinode at the first open tonehole. A completed wave in a saxophone travels to the open tonehole and back.  It can be
 shown mathematically that the actual wavelength of the note is longer than the physical distance from the tip of the mouthpiece to the open tonehole (plus the end correction) times two due to the mouthpiece volume acting as the missing cone.  This seems to confuse the issue, since ideally the
 antinode would be located at 1/2 the distance between the nodes.
 > > 
 > > How then can one go about finding exact location in the bore of the instrument of the nodes and antinodes of the harmonics contained in each given note given that the nodes and antinode of the fundamental do not correspond to the physical distance between the tip of the mouthpiece and the
 first open tonehole?  Also, does this relate in any way to the image of the "sensitive harmonic sites in an alto neck" found on page 19 of Ferron's book. Can anyone tell me how he arrived at those locations for those notes? Thanks.
 > > 
 > > John
 > >
 >
 
 
      
           

  

        
      
                 
                 
 

Toby,

Replies on acoustics sent to private email.  Mouthpieces, mouthpieces, mouthpieces..........

Lance




________________________________
From: "kymarto123@..." <kymarto123@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, January 4, 2010 2:16:00 AM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes

  
Lance, do you have a reference for this statement? AFAIK this is incorrect. I went through this specifically with Joe Wolfe. The taper determines the harmonic content, as a narrower tube reflects back more of the high harmonics to the top. A complete cone of any taper (within certain aerodynamic limits) will give a full set of correct harmonics. Only when the cone is truncated does the trouble begin, with the harmonics being thrown out of integral relationships with the fundamental. The narrower the cone angle, the more the modes are stretched. When the cone angle is 0 and thus the tube is cylindrical, the second mode is stretched until it becomes the third mode, overblowing the 12th. Further narrowing of the cone angle into reverse conical further widens the modes.

That being said, if the harmonics are true (which can be done with the correct substitution at the truncation) the pitch should only be dependent on the length.

If I am wrong about this I would like to know it.

Toby

MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:
  
>The volume of the cone from the apex  is dependent upon it's length and
> it's taper.  You are trying to find the location of the node so that you can change the taper (volume) in order to move the node (change the pitch) to where you would like it to be.  The volume at the node has everything to do with pitch, right?  For a conical air column of a given
> length, the narrower the taper, the lower the pitch, the wider the taper, the higher the pitch.
>
>
>
>
________________________________
From: John <jtalcott47@msn. com>
>To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
>Sent: Mon, January 4, 2010 12:26:04 AM
>Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes
>
>  
>"Is a function" of is a bit vague.  In physics the wavelength = speed of sound/frequency.  I am not sure what you are getting at.  The increase of the volume of the cone as the sound wave progresses towards the bell
> accounts for a reduction in amplitude.  It does not as far as I know affect the pitch or the wavelength.
>
>> --- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ ...> wrote:
>> >
>> > John,
>> > 
>> > The length of the wavelength of G  (or any other note) is a function of the volume of the conical air column, the formula for which is on page 102. v = (distance x base radius squared x pi)/3.
>> > 
>> > Lance
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > ____________ _________ _________ __
>> > From: John <jtalcott47@ ...>
>> > To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
>> > Sent: Sun, January 3, 2010 10:53:40 PM
>> > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes
>> > 
>> > 
>> > After a great deal of computations, discussions, and analysis I have come to the determination that the diagrams of the "Sensitive Harmonic Positions" in Ferron's book are in error.  To be specific the part where he divides the difference in length of the distance between the anti nodes of
> two notes a half step apart by 3 to find the distance between them.
>> > 
>> > Here is an example from page 104 of The Saxophone Is My Voice
>> > 
>> > The distance from the point of the cone to a hole he has drilled that is supposed to represent 1/4 the wavelength of G  is 362.81.
>> > 
>> > He then divides that length by 1.05946 (the 12th root of 2) to find the 1/4 wavelength of G# which is 342.448
>> > 
>> > He subtracts the shorter wavelength from the longer wavelength to get the difference of 20.362.
>> > 
>> > At this point he divides the difference in length by 3 in order to get the space between the antinodes of the waves of the two adjacent notes. 
>> > There is no plausible reason I can see for difference between the two lengths to be divided by 3. 
>> > 
>> > The following is true:
>> > 
>> > Any given pitch when multiplied by 1.05946 gives the pitch of the next higher semitone.
>> > Any given pitch when divided by 1.05946 gives the pitch of the next lower semitone.  The converse is true for wavelengths.
>> > 
>> > Any given wavelength when divided by 1.05946 gives the wavelength of the next higher semitone.
>> > Any given wavelength when multiplied by 1.05946 gives the wavelength of the next lower semitone.
>> > 
>> > The same is true for both fractions and multiples of a wavelength.   Therefore to find the spacing between the nodes or antinodes of two waves that are a half step apart one need only subtract the shorter from the longer.  There is no need to divide by 3.
>> > 
>> > The following link illustrates the spacial relationships of the anti node locations are in an alto sax neck for the notes F#, G, G#   Neck Node Study 
>> > 
>> > As you can see, there is no way that the neck of an alto could have the antinodes of 3 octaves, and the tenor 3 1/2 octaves as Ferron's illustrations show. Of course if someone can MATHEMATICALLY show that I am wrong,  I will eat crow for these remarks.
>> > 
>> > John
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > --- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, "John" <jtalcott47@ ..> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Here is a novice acoustics question.  Ferron and others state that for each standing wave there is a (displacement) node at the tip of the mouthpiece and a (displacement) antinode at the first open tonehole. A completed wave in a saxophone travels to the open tonehole and back.  It can
> be shown mathematically that the actual wavelength of the note is longer than the physical distance from the tip of the mouthpiece to the open tonehole (plus the end correction) times two due to the mouthpiece volume acting as the missing cone.  This seems to confuse the issue, since ideally the
> antinode would be located at 1/2 the distance between the nodes.
>> > > 
>> > > How then can one go about finding exact location in the bore of the instrument of the nodes and antinodes of the harmonics contained in each given note given that the nodes and antinode of the fundamental do not correspond to the physical distance between the tip of the mouthpiece and
> the first open tonehole?  Also, does this relate in any way to the image of the "sensitive harmonic sites in an alto neck" found on page 19 of Ferron's book. Can anyone tell me how he arrived at those locations for those notes? Thanks.
>> > > 
>> > > John
>> > >
>> >
>
>
>

 
 


      

Hi John,

I think the point of contention here would be the meaning of "Sensitive Harmonic Positions" "Harmonic" implies partials of the fundamental as well as the fundamental itself. These would include (in generally decreasing order of importance) half wavelengths, one third wavelengths, one quarter
 wavelengths, on up the harmonic series. Since these wavelengths are integral fractions of the fundamental wavelength, the node positions for these harmonics would move as the same fractions of the distance of the fundamental node. Therefore if the wavelength were increased by 20mm (just to make
 it easy), the wavelength of the first partial would be increased 10mm, the second partial ~7mm, the third 5mm, etc. This might be what Ferron's diagram is indicating. Could that be it?

As far as the division by 3 goes: I'm not sure I have the whole story, as my copy of Ferron has not yet arrived and you only scanned and sent one page and the diagram. Is there anything pertinent on the page before Ferron gives that calculation? If so please scan it and I will send this on to Joe
 Wolfe for his comment.

As far as compression in the nodes of the neck (from our private discussion): If the mpc adequately mimics the conditions of the truncated conic apex, the nodes in the neck should be exactly as they are in a complete cone, but since this can never be the case perfectly, expect those nodes to be
 shifted to some degree. And changing reed and changing the embouchure will change the virtual volume under the reed and shift the nodes with each change, as reflected in the fact that the pitch changes when you lip a note and that a softer reed plays flatter than a harder one.

Toby

John <jtalcott47@...> wrote:                                              After a great deal of computations, discussions, and analysis I have come to the determination that the diagrams of the "Sensitive Harmonic Positions" in Ferron's book are in error.  To be specific the part where he
 divides the difference in length of the distance between the anti nodes of two notes a half step apart by 3 to find the distance between them.

Here is an example from page 104 of The Saxophone Is My Voice

The distance from the point of the cone to a hole he has drilled that is supposed to represent 1/4 the wavelength of G  is 362.81.

He then divides that length by 1.05946 (the 12th root of 2) to find the 1/4 wavelength of G# which is 342.448

He subtracts the shorter wavelength from the longer wavelength to get the difference of 20.362.

At this point he divides the difference in length by 3 in order to get the space between the antinodes of the waves of the two adjacent notes.   
There is no plausible reason I can see for difference between the two lengths to be divided by 3.  

The following is true:

Any given pitch when multiplied by 1.05946 gives the pitch of the next higher semitone.
Any given pitch when divided by 1.05946 gives the pitch of the next lower semitone.  The converse is true for wavelengths.

Any given wavelength when divided by 1.05946 gives the wavelength of the next higher semitone.
Any given wavelength when multiplied by 1.05946 gives the wavelength of the next lower semitone.

The same is true for both fractions and multiples of a wavelength.   Therefore to find the spacing between the nodes or antinodes of two waves that are a half step apart one need only subtract the shorter from the longer.  There is no need to divide by 3.

The following link illustrates the spacial relationships of the anti node locations are in an alto sax neck for the notes F#, G, G#   Neck Node Study   

As you can see, there is no way that the neck of an alto could have the antinodes of 3 octaves, and the tenor 3 1/2 octaves as Ferron's illustrations show. Of course if someone can MATHEMATICALLY show that I am wrong,  I will eat crow for these remarks.

John








--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "John" <jtalcott47@...> wrote:
>
> Here is a novice acoustics question.  Ferron and others state that for each standing wave there is a (displacement) node at the tip of the mouthpiece and a (displacement) antinode at the first open tonehole. A completed wave in a saxophone travels to the open tonehole and back.  It can be shown
 mathematically that the actual wavelength of the note is longer than the physical distance from the tip of the mouthpiece to the open tonehole (plus the end correction) times two due to the mouthpiece volume acting as the missing cone.  This seems to confuse the issue, since ideally the antinode
 would be located at 1/2 the distance between the nodes.
> 
> How then can one go about finding exact location in the bore of the instrument of the nodes and antinodes of the harmonics contained in each given note given that the nodes and antinode of the fundamental do not correspond to the physical distance between the tip of the mouthpiece and the first
 open tonehole?  Also, does this relate in any way to the image of the "sensitive harmonic sites in an alto neck" found on page 19 of Ferron's book. Can anyone tell me how he arrived at those locations for those notes? Thanks.
> 
> John
>
 
      
                 
                 
 

I sent the scan of pg 104 to Joe Wolfe. Hopefully he will have time to comment.

Toby
 

That is correct.  But one must remember that in the(tapered)neck the
inside volume decreases in conjunction with the wave going a shorter
distance at higher frequencies.

The taper is fixed in my computations, therefore the frequency is based
upon the wavelength and the speed of sound.  Conversely the wavelength
is based upon the frequency of the note being played and the speed of
sound.

Changing the volume of the cone at the position of a displacement
antinode will change the pitch, however its pitch at that point in the
unaltered cone is relative to the wavelength which just happens to have
its antinode at that volume area inside the cone.

One cannot say that the pitches at the very top end of the saxophone are
higher because the cone is narrower and contains less volume.  The
pitches at the top end of the saxophone are higher because the
wavelengths are shorter, and in a conical instrument these shorter
wavelengths take place in a narrower portion of the cone that contains
less volume.

John


--- In MouthpieceWork@...m, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
wrote:
>
> The volume of the cone from the apex  is dependent upon it's length
and it's taper.  You are trying to find the location of the node so that
you can change the taper (volume) in order to move the node (change the
pitch) to where you would like it to be.  The volume at the node has
everything to do with pitch, right?  For a conical air column of a given
length, the narrower the taper, the lower the pitch, the wider the
taper, the higher the pitch.
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: John jtalcott47@...
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Mon, January 4, 2010 12:26:04 AM
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes
>
>
> "Is a function" of is a bit vague.  In physics the wavelength = speed
of sound/frequency.  I am not sure what you are getting at.  The
increase of the volume of the cone as the sound wave progresses towards
the bell accounts for a reduction in amplitude.  It does not as far as I
know affect the pitch or the wavelength.
>
> --- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@
...> wrote:
> >
> > John,
> >
> > The length of the wavelength of G  (or any other note) is a function
of the volume of the conical air column, the formula for which is on
page 102. v = (distance x base radius squared x pi)/3.
> >
> > Lance
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ____________ _________ _________ __
> > From: John <jtalcott47@ ...>
> > To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> > Sent: Sun, January 3, 2010 10:53:40 PM
> > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes
> >
> >
> > After a great deal of computations, discussions, and analysis I have
come to the determination that the diagrams of the "Sensitive Harmonic
Positions" in Ferron's book are in error.  To be specific the part where
he divides the difference in length of the distance between the anti
nodes of two notes a half step apart by 3 to find the distance between
them.
> >
> > Here is an example from page 104 of The Saxophone Is My Voice
> >
> > The distance from the point of the cone to a hole he has drilled
that is supposed to represent 1/4 the wavelength of G  is 362.81.
> >
> > He then divides that length by 1.05946 (the 12th root of 2) to find
the 1/4 wavelength of G# which is 342.448
> >
> > He subtracts the shorter wavelength from the longer wavelength to
get the difference of 20.362.
> >
> > At this point he divides the difference in length by 3 in order to
get the space between the antinodes of the waves of the two adjacent
notes.
> > There is no plausible reason I can see for difference between the
two lengths to be divided by 3.
> >
> > The following is true:
> >
> > Any given pitch when multiplied by 1.05946 gives the pitch of the
next higher semitone.
> > Any given pitch when divided by 1.05946 gives the pitch of the next
lower semitone.  The converse is true for wavelengths.
> >
> > Any given wavelength when divided by 1.05946 gives the wavelength of
the next higher semitone.
> > Any given wavelength when multiplied by 1.05946 gives the wavelength
of the next lower semitone.
> >
> > The same is true for both fractions and multiples of a wavelength.  
Therefore to find the spacing between the nodes or antinodes of two
waves that are a half step apart one need only subtract the shorter from
the longer.  There is no need to divide by 3.
> >
> > The following link illustrates the spacial relationships of the anti
node locations are in an alto sax neck for the notes F#, G, G#   Neck
Node Study
> >
> > As you can see, there is no way that the neck of an alto could have
the antinodes of 3 octaves, and the tenor 3 1/2 octaves as Ferron's
illustrations show. Of course if someone can MATHEMATICALLY show that I
am wrong,  I will eat crow for these remarks.
> >
> > John
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, "John" <jtalcott47@ ..>
wrote:
> > >
> > > Here is a novice acoustics question.  Ferron and others state that
for each standing wave there is a (displacement) node at the tip of the
mouthpiece and a (displacement) antinode at the first open tonehole. A
completed wave in a saxophone travels to the open tonehole and back.  It
can be shown mathematically that the actual wavelength of the note is
longer than the physical distance from the tip of the mouthpiece to the
open tonehole (plus the end correction) times two due to the mouthpiece
volume acting as the missing cone.  This seems to confuse the issue,
since ideally the antinode would be located at 1/2 the distance between
the nodes.
> > >
> > > How then can one go about finding exact location in the bore of
the instrument of the nodes and antinodes of the harmonics contained in
each given note given that the nodes and antinode of the fundamental do
not correspond to the physical distance between the tip of the
mouthpiece and the first open tonehole?  Also, does this relate in any
way to the image of the "sensitive harmonic sites in an alto neck" found
on page 19 of Ferron's book. Can anyone tell me how he arrived at those
locations for those notes? Thanks.
> > >
> > > John
> > >
> >
>

Hi Toby,

I have taken that all into consideration.  See the diagram at this link:

Harmonics of C Concert <http://jbtsaxmusic.homestead.com/Acoustics.html>

Even including the antinode locations of the higher (and much weaker)
harmonics, there is still no close correlation to Ferron's illustration.
Absent a mathematical justification for dividing the difference in
wavelengths by 3, the Ferron illustration has no mathematical basis IMO.

John



--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
>
> Hi John,
>
> I think the point of contention here would be the meaning of
"Sensitive Harmonic Positions" "Harmonic" implies partials of the
fundamental as well as the fundamental itself. These would include (in
generally decreasing order of importance) half wavelengths, one third
wavelengths, one quarter
>  wavelengths, on up the harmonic series. Since these wavelengths are
integral fractions of the fundamental wavelength, the node positions for
these harmonics would move as the same fractions of the distance of the
fundamental node. Therefore if the wavelength were increased by 20mm
(just to make
>  it easy), the wavelength of the first partial would be increased
10mm, the second partial ~7mm, the third 5mm, etc. This might be what
Ferron's diagram is indicating. Could that be it?
>
> As far as the division by 3 goes: I'm not sure I have the whole story,
as my copy of Ferron has not yet arrived and you only scanned and sent
one page and the diagram. Is there anything pertinent on the page before
Ferron gives that calculation? If so please scan it and I will send this
on to Joe
>  Wolfe for his comment.
>
> As far as compression in the nodes of the neck (from our private
discussion): If the mpc adequately mimics the conditions of the
truncated conic apex, the nodes in the neck should be exactly as they
are in a complete cone, but since this can never be the case perfectly,
expect those nodes to be
>  shifted to some degree. And changing reed and changing the embouchure
will change the virtual volume under the reed and shift the nodes with
each change, as reflected in the fact that the pitch changes when you
lip a note and that a softer reed plays flatter than a harder one.
>
> Toby
>
> John jtalcott47@... wrote:
After a great deal of computations, discussions, and analysis I have
come to the determination that the diagrams of the "Sensitive Harmonic
Positions" in Ferron's book are in error.  To be specific the part where
he
>  divides the difference in length of the distance between the anti
nodes of two notes a half step apart by 3 to find the distance between
them.
>
> Here is an example from page 104 of The Saxophone Is My Voice
>
> The distance from the point of the cone to a hole he has drilled that
is supposed to represent 1/4 the wavelength of G  is 362.81.
>
> He then divides that length by 1.05946 (the 12th root of 2) to find
the 1/4 wavelength of G# which is 342.448
>
> He subtracts the shorter wavelength from the longer wavelength to get
the difference of 20.362.
>
> At this point he divides the difference in length by 3 in order to get
the space between the antinodes of the waves of the two adjacent notes.
> There is no plausible reason I can see for difference between the two
lengths to be divided by 3.
>
> The following is true:
>
> Any given pitch when multiplied by 1.05946 gives the pitch of the next
higher semitone.
> Any given pitch when divided by 1.05946 gives the pitch of the next
lower semitone.  The converse is true for wavelengths.
>
> Any given wavelength when divided by 1.05946 gives the wavelength of
the next higher semitone.
> Any given wavelength when multiplied by 1.05946 gives the wavelength
of the next lower semitone.
>
> The same is true for both fractions and multiples of a wavelength.  
Therefore to find the spacing between the nodes or antinodes of two
waves that are a half step apart one need only subtract the shorter from
the longer.  There is no need to divide by 3.
>
> The following link illustrates the spacial relationships of the anti
node locations are in an alto sax neck for the notes F#, G, G#   Neck
Node Study
>
> As you can see, there is no way that the neck of an alto could have
the antinodes of 3 octaves, and the tenor 3 1/2 octaves as Ferron's
illustrations show. Of course if someone can MATHEMATICALLY show that I
am wrong,  I will eat crow for these remarks.
>
> John
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "John" jtalcott47@ wrote:
> >
> > Here is a novice acoustics question.  Ferron and others state that
for each standing wave there is a (displacement) node at the tip of the
mouthpiece and a (displacement) antinode at the first open tonehole. A
completed wave in a saxophone travels to the open tonehole and back.  It
can be shown
>  mathematically that the actual wavelength of the note is longer than
the physical distance from the tip of the mouthpiece to the open
tonehole (plus the end correction) times two due to the mouthpiece
volume acting as the missing cone.  This seems to confuse the issue,
since ideally the antinode
>  would be located at 1/2 the distance between the nodes.
> >
> > How then can one go about finding exact location in the bore of the
instrument of the nodes and antinodes of the harmonics contained in each
given note given that the nodes and antinode of the fundamental do not
correspond to the physical distance between the tip of the mouthpiece
and the first
>  open tonehole?  Also, does this relate in any way to the image of the
"sensitive harmonic sites in an alto neck" found on page 19 of Ferron's
book. Can anyone tell me how he arrived at those locations for those
notes? Thanks.
> >
> > John
> >
>

Read pp 14-15 in Ferron.


________________________________
From: John <jtalcott47@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, January 4, 2010 9:56:01 AM
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes

  
That is correct.  But one must remember that in the(tapered) neck the inside volume decreases in conjunction with the wave going a shorter distance at higher frequencies. 

The taper is fixed in my computations, therefore the frequency is based upon the wavelength and the speed of sound.  Conversely the wavelength is based upon the frequency of the note being played and the speed of sound.

Changing the volume of the cone at the position of a displacement antinode will change the pitch, however its pitch at that point in the unaltered cone is relative to the wavelength which just happens to have its antinode at that volume area inside the cone.  

One cannot say that the pitches at the very top end of the saxophone are higher because the cone is narrower and contains less volume.  The pitches at the top end of the saxophone are higher because the wavelengths are shorter, and in a conical instrument these shorter wavelengths take place in a narrower portion of the cone that contains less volume.

John


--- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ ...> wrote:
>
> The volume of the cone from the apex  is dependent upon it's length and it's taper.  You are trying to find the location of the node so that you can change the taper (volume) in order to move the node (change the pitch) to where you would like it to be.  The volume at the node has everything to do with pitch, right?  For a conical air column of a given length, the narrower the taper, the lower the pitch, the wider the taper, the higher the pitch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________ _________ _________ __
> From: John jtalcott47@. ..
> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Mon, January 4, 2010 12:26:04 AM
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes
> 
> 
> "Is a function" of is a bit vague.  In physics the wavelength = speed of sound/frequency.  I am not sure what you are getting at.  The increase of the volume of the cone as the sound wave progresses towards the bell accounts for a reduction in amplitude.  It does not as far as I know affect the pitch or the wavelength.
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ ...> wrote:
> >
> > John,
> > 
> > The length of the wavelength of G  (or any other note) is a function of the volume of the conical air column, the formula for which is on page 102. v = (distance x base radius squared x pi)/3.
> > 
> > Lance
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ____________ _________ _________ __
> > From: John <jtalcott47@ ...>
> > To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> > Sent: Sun, January 3, 2010 10:53:40 PM
> > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes
> > 
> > 
> > After a great deal of computations, discussions, and analysis I have come to the determination that the diagrams of the "Sensitive Harmonic Positions" in Ferron's book are in error.  To be specific the part where he divides the difference in length of the distance between the anti nodes of two notes a half step apart by 3 to find the distance between them.
> > 
> > Here is an example from page 104 of The Saxophone Is My Voice
> > 
> > The distance from the point of the cone to a hole he has drilled that is supposed to represent 1/4 the wavelength of G  is 362.81.
> > 
> > He then divides that length by 1.05946 (the 12th root of 2) to find the 1/4 wavelength of G# which is 342.448
> > 
> > He subtracts the shorter wavelength from the longer wavelength to get the difference of 20.362.
> > 
> > At this point he divides the difference in length by 3 in order to get the space between the antinodes of the waves of the two adjacent notes. 
> > There is no plausible reason I can see for difference between the two lengths to be divided by 3. 
> > 
> > The following is true:
> > 
> > Any given pitch when multiplied by 1.05946 gives the pitch of the next higher semitone.
> > Any given pitch when divided by 1.05946 gives the pitch of the next lower semitone.  The converse is true for wavelengths.
> > 
> > Any given wavelength when divided by 1.05946 gives the wavelength of the next higher semitone.
> > Any given wavelength when multiplied by 1.05946 gives the wavelength of the next lower semitone.
> > 
> > The same is true for both fractions and multiples of a wavelength.   Therefore to find the spacing between the nodes or antinodes of two waves that are a half step apart one need only subtract the shorter from the longer.  There is no need to divide by 3.
> > 
> > The following link illustrates the spacial relationships of the anti node locations are in an alto sax neck for the notes F#, G, G#   Neck Node Study 
> > 
> > As you can see, there is no way that the neck of an alto could have the antinodes of 3 octaves, and the tenor 3 1/2 octaves as Ferron's illustrations show. Of course if someone can MATHEMATICALLY show that I am wrong,  I will eat crow for these remarks.
> > 
> > John
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, "John" <jtalcott47@ ..> wrote:
> > >
> > > Here is a novice acoustics question.  Ferron and others state that for each standing wave there is a (displacement) node at the tip of the mouthpiece and a (displacement) antinode at the first open tonehole. A completed wave in a saxophone travels to the open tonehole and back.  It can be shown mathematically that the actual wavelength of the note is longer than the physical distance from the tip of the mouthpiece to the open tonehole (plus the end correction) times two due to the mouthpiece volume acting as the missing cone.  This seems to confuse the issue, since ideally the antinode would be located at 1/2 the distance between the nodes.
> > > 
> > > How then can one go about finding exact location in the bore of the instrument of the nodes and antinodes of the harmonics contained in each given note given that the nodes and antinode of the fundamental do not correspond to the physical distance between the tip of the mouthpiece and the first open tonehole?  Also, does this relate in any way to the image of the "sensitive harmonic sites in an alto neck" found on page 19 of Ferron's book. Can anyone tell me how he arrived at those locations for those notes? Thanks.
> > > 
> > > John
> > >
> >
>

 


      

Estimateds guys: Happy new year!!
Please, someone know how i can obtain in free version, a copy of The saxophone is my voice in Spanish? From here is impossible for me buy it. Thank you.
Silverio    
From Argentine Patagonian




________________________________
De: John <jtalcott47@msn.com>
Para: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Enviado: lunes, 4 de enero, 2010 11:56:01
Asunto: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes

  
That is correct.  But one must remember that in the(tapered) neck the inside volume decreases in conjunction with the wave going a shorter distance at higher frequencies. 

The taper is fixed in my computations, therefore the frequency is based upon the wavelength and the speed of sound.  Conversely the wavelength is based upon the frequency of the note being played and the speed of sound.

Changing the volume of the cone at the position of a displacement antinode will change the pitch, however its pitch at that point in the unaltered cone is relative to the wavelength which just happens to have its antinode at that volume area inside the cone.  

One cannot say that the pitches at the very top end of the saxophone are higher because the cone is narrower and contains less volume.  The pitches at the top end of the saxophone are higher because the wavelengths are shorter, and in a conical instrument these shorter wavelengths take place in a narrower portion of the cone that contains less volume.

John


--- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ ...> wrote:
>
> The volume of the cone from the apex is dependent upon it's length and it's taper. You are trying to find the location of the node so that you can change the taper (volume) in order to move the node (change the pitch) to where you would like it to be. The volume at the node has everything to do with pitch, right? For a conical air column of a given length, the narrower the taper, the lower the pitch, the wider the taper, the higher the pitch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________ _________ _________ __
> From: John jtalcott47@. ..
> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Mon, January 4, 2010 12:26:04 AM
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes
> 
> 
> "Is a function" of is a bit vague. In physics the wavelength = speed of sound/frequency. I am not sure what you are getting at. The increase of the volume of the cone as the sound wave progresses towards the bell accounts for a reduction in amplitude. It does not as far as I know affect the pitch or the wavelength.
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ ...> wrote:
> >
> > John,
> > 
> > The length of the wavelength of G (or any other note) is a function of the volume of the conical air column, the formula for which is on page 102. v = (distance x base radius squared x pi)/3.
> > 
> > Lance
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ____________ _________ _________ __
> > From: John <jtalcott47@ ...>
> > To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> > Sent: Sun, January 3, 2010 10:53:40 PM
> > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes
> > 
> > 
> > After a great deal of computations, discussions, and analysis I have come to the determination that the diagrams of the "Sensitive Harmonic Positions" in Ferron's book are in error. To be specific the part where he divides the difference in length of the distance between the anti nodes of two notes a half step apart by 3 to find the distance between them.
> > 
> > Here is an example from page 104 of The Saxophone Is My Voice
> > 
> > The distance from the point of the cone to a hole he has drilled that is supposed to represent 1/4 the wavelength of G is 362.81.
> > 
> > He then divides that length by 1.05946 (the 12th root of 2) to find the 1/4 wavelength of G# which is 342.448
> > 
> > He subtracts the shorter wavelength from the longer wavelength to get the difference of 20.362.
> > 
> > At this point he divides the difference in length by 3 in order to get the space between the antinodes of the waves of the two adjacent notes. 
> > There is no plausible reason I can see for difference between the two lengths to be divided by 3. 
> > 
> > The following is true:
> > 
> > Any given pitch when multiplied by 1.05946 gives the pitch of the next higher semitone.
> > Any given pitch when divided by 1.05946 gives the pitch of the next lower semitone. The converse is true for wavelengths.
> > 
> > Any given wavelength when divided by 1.05946 gives the wavelength of the next higher semitone.
> > Any given wavelength when multiplied by 1.05946 gives the wavelength of the next lower semitone.
> > 
> > The same is true for both fractions and multiples of a wavelength. Therefore to find the spacing between the nodes or antinodes of two waves that are a half step apart one need only subtract the shorter from the longer. There is no need to divide by 3.
> > 
> > The following link illustrates the spacial relationships of the anti node locations are in an alto sax neck for the notes F#, G, G# Neck Node Study 
> > 
> > As you can see, there is no way that the neck of an alto could have the antinodes of 3 octaves, and the tenor 3 1/2 octaves as Ferron's illustrations show.. Of course if someone can MATHEMATICALLY show that I am wrong, I will eat crow for these remarks.
> > 
> > John
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, "John" <jtalcott47@ ..> wrote:
> > >
> > > Here is a novice acoustics question. Ferron and others state that for each standing wave there is a (displacement) node at the tip of the mouthpiece and a (displacement) antinode at the first open tonehole. A completed wave in a saxophone travels to the open tonehole and back. It can be shown mathematically that the actual wavelength of the note is longer than the physical distance from the tip of the mouthpiece to the open tonehole (plus the end correction) times two due to the mouthpiece volume acting as the missing cone. This seems to confuse the issue, since ideally the antinode would be located at 1/2 the distance between the nodes.
> > > 
> > > How then can one go about finding exact location in the bore of the instrument of the nodes and antinodes of the harmonics contained in each given note given that the nodes and antinode of the fundamental do not correspond to the physical distance between the tip of the mouthpiece and the first open tonehole? Also, does this relate in any way to the image of the "sensitive harmonic sites in an alto neck" found on page 19 of Ferron's book. Can anyone tell me how he arrived at those locations for those notes? Thanks.
> > > 
> > > John
> > >
> >
>




      Yahoo! Cocina

Encontra las mejores recetas con Yahoo! Cocina.


http://ar.mujer.yahoo.com/cocina/

John,

Refer to Ferron, p.11, middle diagram.  Stare at it without blinking until you see where the x/3 comes from.  Then go have a drink somewhere.

Lance




________________________________
From: John <jtalcott47@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, January 4, 2010 10:55:04 AM
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes

  
Hi Toby,

I have taken that all into consideration.  See the diagram at this link:

Harmonics of C Concert 

Even including the antinode locations of the higher (and much weaker) harmonics, there is still no close correlation to Ferron's illustration.  Absent a mathematical justification for dividing the difference in wavelengths by 3, the Ferron illustration has no mathematical basis IMO.

John



--- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, <kymarto123@. ..> wrote:
>
> Hi John,
> 
> I think the point of contention here would be the meaning of "Sensitive Harmonic Positions" "Harmonic" implies partials of the fundamental as well as the fundamental itself. These would include (in generally decreasing order of importance) half wavelengths, one third wavelengths, one quarter
>  wavelengths, on up the harmonic series. Since these wavelengths are integral fractions of the fundamental wavelength, the node positions for these harmonics would move as the same fractions of the distance of the fundamental node. Therefore if the wavelength were increased by 20mm (just to make
>  it easy), the wavelength of the first partial would be increased 10mm, the second partial ~7mm, the third 5mm, etc. This might be what Ferron's diagram is indicating. Could that be it?
> 
> As far as the division by 3 goes: I'm not sure I have the whole story, as my copy of Ferron has not yet arrived and you only scanned and sent one page and the diagram. Is there anything pertinent on the page before Ferron gives that calculation? If so please scan it and I will send this on to Joe
>  Wolfe for his comment.
> 
> As far as compression in the nodes of the neck (from our private discussion): If the mpc adequately mimics the conditions of the truncated conic apex, the nodes in the neck should be exactly as they are in a complete cone, but since this can never be the case perfectly, expect those nodes to be
>  shifted to some degree. And changing reed and changing the embouchure will change the virtual volume under the reed and shift the nodes with each change, as reflected in the fact that the pitch changes when you lip a note and that a softer reed plays flatter than a harder one.
> 
> Toby
> 
> John jtalcott47@. .. wrote:                                              After a great deal of computations, discussions, and analysis I have come to the determination that the diagrams of the "Sensitive Harmonic Positions" in Ferron's book are in error.  To be specific the part where he
>  divides the difference in length of the distance between the anti nodes of two notes a half step apart by 3 to find the distance between them.
> 
> Here is an example from page 104 of The Saxophone Is My Voice
> 
> The distance from the point of the cone to a hole he has drilled that is supposed to represent 1/4 the wavelength of G  is 362.81.
> 
> He then divides that length by 1.05946 (the 12th root of 2) to find the 1/4 wavelength of G# which is 342.448
> 
> He subtracts the shorter wavelength from the longer wavelength to get the difference of 20.362.
> 
> At this point he divides the difference in length by 3 in order to get the space between the antinodes of the waves of the two adjacent notes. 
> There is no plausible reason I can see for difference between the two lengths to be divided by 3. 
> 
> The following is true:
> 
> Any given pitch when multiplied by 1.05946 gives the pitch of the next higher semitone.
> Any given pitch when divided by 1.05946 gives the pitch of the next lower semitone.  The converse is true for wavelengths.
> 
> Any given wavelength when divided by 1.05946 gives the wavelength of the next higher semitone.
> Any given wavelength when multiplied by 1.05946 gives the wavelength of the next lower semitone.
> 
> The same is true for both fractions and multiples of a wavelength.   Therefore to find the spacing between the nodes or antinodes of two waves that are a half step apart one need only subtract the shorter from the longer.  There is no need to divide by 3.
> 
> The following link illustrates the spacial relationships of the anti node locations are in an alto sax neck for the notes F#, G, G#   Neck Node Study 
> 
> As you can see, there is no way that the neck of an alto could have the antinodes of 3 octaves, and the tenor 3 1/2 octaves as Ferron's illustrations show. Of course if someone can MATHEMATICALLY show that I am wrong,  I will eat crow for these remarks.
> 
> John
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, "John" jtalcott47@ wrote:
> >
> > Here is a novice acoustics question.  Ferron and others state that for each standing wave there is a (displacement) node at the tip of the mouthpiece and a (displacement) antinode at the first open tonehole. A completed wave in a saxophone travels to the open tonehole and back.  It can be shown
>  mathematically that the actual wavelength of the note is longer than the physical distance from the tip of the mouthpiece to the open tonehole (plus the end correction) times two due to the mouthpiece volume acting as the missing cone.  This seems to confuse the issue, since ideally the antinode
>  would be located at 1/2 the distance between the nodes.
> > 
> > How then can one go about finding exact location in the bore of the instrument of the nodes and antinodes of the harmonics contained in each given note given that the nodes and antinode of the fundamental do not correspond to the physical distance between the tip of the mouthpiece and the first
>  open tonehole?  Also, does this relate in any way to the image of the "sensitive harmonic sites in an alto neck" found on page 19 of Ferron's book. Can anyone tell me how he arrived at those locations for those notes? Thanks.
> > 
> > John
> >
>

 


      

Nice try Lance.    [:)]

That diagram is the standing wave inside a stopped cylindrical pipe. 
The middle diagram shows the first odd numbered harmonic above the
fundamental whose frequency is 3 times greater.  The illustration even
shows the placement of the clarinet register hole.

You didn't really think it would be that easy, did you?  I went so far
as to create a spreadsheet showing the wavelengths of the first 8
overtones of the all of the chromatic pitches of an alto sax from low Bb
to high F to look for the 1:3  or 3:1 relationships.  Other than the
relationship between the fundamental and its 3rd harmonic they simply do
not exist between the wavelengths of adjacent chromatic notes.

I made a similar spreadsheet for the frequencies of the overtones as
well.  If you would like a copy, send me an email.



John


--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
wrote:
>
> John,
>
> Refer to Ferron, p.11, middle diagram.  Stare at it without blinking
until you see where the x/3 comes from.  Then go have a drink somewhere.
>
> Lance
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: John jtalcott47@...
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Mon, January 4, 2010 10:55:04 AM
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes
>
>
> Hi Toby,
>
> I have taken that all into consideration.  See the diagram at this
link:
>
> Harmonics of C Concert
>
> Even including the antinode locations of the higher (and much weaker)
harmonics, there is still no close correlation to Ferron's illustration.
Absent a mathematical justification for dividing the difference in
wavelengths by 3, the Ferron illustration has no mathematical basis IMO.
>
> John
>
>
>
> --- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, kymarto123@ ..> wrote:
> >
> > Hi John,
> >
> > I think the point of contention here would be the meaning of
"Sensitive Harmonic Positions" "Harmonic" implies partials of the
fundamental as well as the fundamental itself. These would include (in
generally decreasing order of importance) half wavelengths, one third
wavelengths, one quarter
> >  wavelengths, on up the harmonic series. Since these wavelengths are
integral fractions of the fundamental wavelength, the node positions for
these harmonics would move as the same fractions of the distance of the
fundamental node. Therefore if the wavelength were increased by 20mm
(just to make
> >  it easy), the wavelength of the first partial would be increased
10mm, the second partial ~7mm, the third 5mm, etc. This might be what
Ferron's diagram is indicating. Could that be it?
> >
> > As far as the division by 3 goes: I'm not sure I have the whole
story, as my copy of Ferron has not yet arrived and you only scanned and
sent one page and the diagram. Is there anything pertinent on the page
before Ferron gives that calculation? If so please scan it and I will
send this on to Joe
> >  Wolfe for his comment.
> >
> > As far as compression in the nodes of the neck (from our private
discussion): If the mpc adequately mimics the conditions of the
truncated conic apex, the nodes in the neck should be exactly as they
are in a complete cone, but since this can never be the case perfectly,
expect those nodes to be
> >  shifted to some degree. And changing reed and changing the
embouchure will change the virtual volume under the reed and shift the
nodes with each change, as reflected in the fact that the pitch changes
when you lip a note and that a softer reed plays flatter than a harder
one.
> >
> > Toby
> >
> > John jtalcott47@ .. wrote:
After a great deal of computations, discussions, and analysis I have
come to the determination that the diagrams of the "Sensitive Harmonic
Positions" in Ferron's book are in error.  To be specific the part where
he
> >  divides the difference in length of the distance between the anti
nodes of two notes a half step apart by 3 to find the distance between
them.
> >
> > Here is an example from page 104 of The Saxophone Is My Voice
> >
> > The distance from the point of the cone to a hole he has drilled
that is supposed to represent 1/4 the wavelength of G  is 362.81.
> >
> > He then divides that length by 1.05946 (the 12th root of 2) to find
the 1/4 wavelength of G# which is 342.448
> >
> > He subtracts the shorter wavelength from the longer wavelength to
get the difference of 20.362.
> >
> > At this point he divides the difference in length by 3 in order to
get the space between the antinodes of the waves of the two adjacent
notes.
> > There is no plausible reason I can see for difference between the
two lengths to be divided by 3.
> >
> > The following is true:
> >
> > Any given pitch when multiplied by 1.05946 gives the pitch of the
next higher semitone.
> > Any given pitch when divided by 1.05946 gives the pitch of the next
lower semitone.  The converse is true for wavelengths.
> >
> > Any given wavelength when divided by 1.05946 gives the wavelength of
the next higher semitone.
> > Any given wavelength when multiplied by 1.05946 gives the wavelength
of the next lower semitone.
> >
> > The same is true for both fractions and multiples of a wavelength.  
Therefore to find the spacing between the nodes or antinodes of two
waves that are a half step apart one need only subtract the shorter from
the longer.  There is no need to divide by 3.
> >
> > The following link illustrates the spacial relationships of the anti
node locations are in an alto sax neck for the notes F#, G, G#   Neck
Node Study
> >
> > As you can see, there is no way that the neck of an alto could have
the antinodes of 3 octaves, and the tenor 3 1/2 octaves as Ferron's
illustrations show. Of course if someone can MATHEMATICALLY show that I
am wrong,  I will eat crow for these remarks.
> >
> > John
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, "John" jtalcott47@ wrote:
> > >
> > > Here is a novice acoustics question.  Ferron and others state that
for each standing wave there is a (displacement) node at the tip of the
mouthpiece and a (displacement) antinode at the first open tonehole. A
completed wave in a saxophone travels to the open tonehole and back.  It
can be shown
> >  mathematically that the actual wavelength of the note is longer
than the physical distance from the tip of the mouthpiece to the open
tonehole (plus the end correction) times two due to the mouthpiece
volume acting as the missing cone.  This seems to confuse the issue,
since ideally the antinode
> >  would be located at 1/2 the distance between the nodes.
> > >
> > > How then can one go about finding exact location in the bore of
the instrument of the nodes and antinodes of the harmonics contained in
each given note given that the nodes and antinode of the fundamental do
not correspond to the physical distance between the tip of the
mouthpiece and the first
> >  open tonehole?  Also, does this relate in any way to the image of
the "sensitive harmonic sites in an alto neck" found on page 19 of
Ferron's book. Can anyone tell me how he arrived at those locations for
those notes? Thanks.
> > >
> > > John
> > >
> >
>

Although not directly mpc related, I want to post the reply I got from Joe Wolfe on the question of Ferron's method of finding the position of nodes in the neck.

John and I hashed this out privately. I came up with a couple of lamebrain explanations for the division by 3, but none held water.

Below is the answer I received from Dr. Wolfe, preceded  by my question:



 On 04/01/2010, at 7:34 PM, Marshall.T@... wrote:
 
 >
 > Gday Joe,
 >
 > Hope this finds you well. A friend and I are going crazy trying to 
 > figure out something in Ferron's book "The Saxophone is my Voice". 
 > He is talking about finding displacement antinodes in the neck. I'm 
 > attaching a scan of the page. The question is this: if we are 
 > dealing with a quarter wave, why, after finding the wavelength of 
 > an adjacent semitone using 2 root 12, are we dividing by three and 
 > not by four to map the position of the antinode of the new semitone 
 > in the neck?
 >
 > Any light you can shed on this little piece of nerd sniping would 
 > be greatly appreciated.
 >
 > All the best,
 >
 > Toby from Tokyo<Ferron p 104.pdf>
 
Gday Toby
 
 
 I think that, in the third par, he means 'on a particular note's 
 displacement node' rather than 'antinode'.
 
 I put some highly idealised diagrams for purely conical pipes on
 http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/jw/pipes.html
 and they don't suggest anything special about 1/3 of the length for a 
 displacement node, though the pressure node falls near there.
 
 On the other hand, for a cylinder, a node and an antinode divide the 
 length into thirds (same page).
 
 So I wouldn't worry to much if you don't understand the rest: it's 
 not clear to me either, and perhaps not to the author.
 
 Best
 Joe
 
 Lance suggests that perhaps this was meant as an explanation for finding the nodes in a clarinet. In any case, after this I would be very careful before taking anything in that book as Gospel.

Kudos to John for sniffing this out. He is apparently the first person in the history of that book to have found the error.

Toby
 

Not according to this diagram on UNSW:

http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/jw/woodwind.html#harmonic

The second conical diagram (f2) clearly shows the displacement anti-node (highest point of the blue-green motion line) at the x co-ordinate .33333.  That is 1/3 of the wave exactly.  Funny though, the wave form is proportionally identical to the f3 waveform of the clarinet next to it.  Perhaps Ferron is not the only one who made a mistake.



________________________________
From: "kymarto123@..." <kymarto123@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, January 5, 2010 12:08:55 PM
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] John is right. Ferron is wrong.

  
Although not directly mpc related, I want to post the reply I got from Joe Wolfe on the question of Ferron's method of finding the position of nodes in the neck.

John and I hashed this out privately. I came up with a couple of lamebrain explanations for the division by 3, but none held water.

Below is the answer I received from Dr. Wolfe, preceded  by my question:



On 04/01/2010, at 7:34 PM, Marshall.T@zdf. de wrote:

>
> Gday Joe,
>
> Hope this finds you well. A friend and I are going crazy trying to 
> figure out something in Ferron's book "The Saxophone is my Voice". 
> He is talking about finding displacement antinodes in the neck. I'm 
> attaching a scan of the page. The question is this: if we are 
> dealing with a quarter wave, why, after finding the wavelength of 
> an adjacent semitone using 2 root 12, are we dividing by three and 
> not by four to map the position of the antinode of the new semitone 
> in the neck?
>
> Any light you can shed on this little piece of nerd sniping would 
> be greatly appreciated.
>
> All the best,
>
> Toby from Tokyo<Ferron p 104.pdf>

Gday Toby


I think that, in the third par, he means 'on a particular note's 
displacement node' rather than 'antinode'.

I put some highly idealised diagrams for purely conical pipes on
http://www.phys. unsw.edu. au/jw/pipes. html
and they don't suggest anything special about 1/3 of the length for a 
displacement node, though the pressure node falls near there.

On the other hand, for a cylinder, a node and an antinode divide the 
length into thirds (same page).

So I wouldn't worry to much if you don't understand the rest: it's 
not clear to me either, and perhaps not to the author.

Best
Joe

Lance suggests that perhaps this was meant as an explanation for finding the nodes in a clarinet. In any case, after this I would be very careful before taking anything in that book as Gospel.

Kudos to John for sniffing this out. He is apparently the first person in the history of that book to have found the error.

Toby

 
 


      

So, after all of this, if we accurately located the nodes and antinodes, somehow figured out the math, all of the correction factors, the whole thing, and calculated the perfect mouthpiece, and we actually made one... 

Would we find ourselves giving it to the player and he says, "Well, it's OK, but I just don't like it... it just isn't the sound I'm looking for."

Just wondering.

Paul C.

Generally, for techs, it' a matter of the player giving you the horn first, saying, "It's what I'm looking for, but there is this, this, and this.  Can you make it better."  If you know all of that, then you usually can, without loosing that "thing" that the guy liked in the first place.




________________________________
From: tenorman1952 <tenorman1952@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, January 5, 2010 12:36:56 PM
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes

  

So, after all of this, if we accurately located the nodes and antinodes, somehow figured out the math, all of the correction factors, the whole thing, and calculated the perfect mouthpiece, and we actually made one... 

Would we find ourselves giving it to the player and he says, "Well, it's OK, but I just don't like it... it just isn't the sound I'm looking for."

Just wondering.

Paul C.


 


      

But for horn manufacturers and possibly mouthpiece designers, since everything is a compromise, too much perfection in any one design aspect might be undesirable.   As in analog vs. digital audio recording/processing, a little signal distortion can be a really good thing.




________________________________
From: tenorman1952 <tenorman1952@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, January 5, 2010 12:36:56 PM
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes

  

So, after all of this, if we accurately located the nodes and antinodes, somehow figured out the math, all of the correction factors, the whole thing, and calculated the perfect mouthpiece, and we actually made one... 

Would we find ourselves giving it to the player and he says, "Well, it's OK, but I just don't like it... it just isn't the sound I'm looking for."

Just wondering.

Paul C.


 


      

I'll write to Joe Wolfe again for a clarification.

Toby

MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:                                           

Not according to this diagram on UNSW:

http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/jw/woodwind.html#harmonic

The second conical diagram (f2) clearly shows the displacement anti-node (highest point of the blue-green motion line) at the x co-ordinate .33333.  That is 1/3 of the wave exactly.  Funny though, the wave form is proportionally identical to the f3 waveform of the clarinet next to it.  Perhaps
 Ferron is not the only one who made a mistake.


---------------------------------
From: "kymarto123@..." <kymarto123@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, January 5, 2010 12:08:55 PM
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] John is right. Ferron is wrong.

                                      Although not directly mpc related, I want to post the reply I got from Joe Wolfe on the question of Ferron's method of finding the position of nodes in the neck.
 
 John and I hashed this out privately. I came up with a couple of lamebrain explanations for the division by 3, but none held water.
 
 Below is the answer I received from Dr. Wolfe, preceded  by my question:
 
 
 
  On 04/01/2010, at 7:34 PM, Marshall.T@zdf. de wrote:
  
  >
  > Gday Joe,
  >
  > Hope this finds you well. A friend and I are going crazy trying to 
  > figure out something in Ferron's book "The Saxophone is my Voice". 
  > He is talking about finding displacement antinodes in the neck. I'm 
  > attaching a scan of the page. The question is this: if we are 
  > dealing with a quarter wave, why, after finding the wavelength of 
  > an adjacent semitone using 2 root 12, are we dividing by three and 
  > not by four to map the position of the antinode of the new semitone 
  > in the neck?
  >
  > Any light you can shed on this little piece of nerd sniping would 
  > be greatly appreciated.
  >
  > All the best,
  >
  > Toby from Tokyo<Ferron p 104.pdf>
  
 Gday Toby
  
  
  I think that, in the third par, he means 'on a particular note's 
  displacement node' rather than 'antinode'.
  
  I put some highly idealised diagrams for purely conical pipes on
  http://www.phys. unsw.edu. au/jw/pipes. html
  and they don't suggest anything special about 1/3 of the length for a 
  displacement node, though the pressure node falls near there.
  
  On the other hand, for a cylinder, a node and an antinode divide the 
  length into thirds (same page).
  
  So I wouldn't worry to much if you don't understand the rest: it's 
  not clear to me either, and perhaps not to the author.
  
  Best
  Joe
  
  Lance suggests that perhaps this was meant as an explanation for finding the nodes in a clarinet. In any case, after this I would be very careful before taking anything in that book as Gospel.
 
 Kudos to John for sniffing this out. He is apparently the first person in the history of that book to have found the error.
 
 Toby
  
 
       
           

  

        
      
                 
                 
 

Lance,

I think that you  inadvertently gave me the piece of the puzzle that I
was missing to see the mistake Ferron made.

I believe that he forgot that he was dealing with 1/4 wavelengths and
divided the difference by 3 as you would do to the difference of the
fundamental's wavelengths in order to find the distance between the 3rd
harmonics nodes.

The irony is that the footnote at the bottom of the page says:

(*)  It is in fact a quarter of a wave length (see page 9) since we are
actually always working with a quarters of the total wave length.

The following links show the proof that the distance between nodes
between chromatic notes could not be as small as Ferron indicates in his
illustrations.

Wavelengths
<http://jbtsaxmusic.homestead.com/new_neck_node_study_comparing_F_F__G_G\
_.pdf>

Node locations
<http://jbtsaxmusic.homestead.com/Neck_Node_Study_-_Nodes_F__G_G__finish\
ed_copy.pdf>

John











--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
wrote:
>
>
>
> Not according to this diagram on UNSW:
>
> http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/jw/woodwind.html#harmonic
>
> The second conical diagram (f2) clearly shows the displacement
anti-node (highest point of the blue-green motion line) at the x
co-ordinate .33333.  That is 1/3 of the wave exactly.  Funny though, the
wave form is proportionally identical to the f3 waveform of the clarinet
next to it.  Perhaps Ferron is not the only one who made a mistake.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: "kymarto123@..." kymarto123@...
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tue, January 5, 2010 12:08:55 PM
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] John is right. Ferron is wrong.
>
>
> Although not directly mpc related, I want to post the reply I got from
Joe Wolfe on the question of Ferron's method of finding the position of
nodes in the neck.
>
> John and I hashed this out privately. I came up with a couple of
lamebrain explanations for the division by 3, but none held water.
>
> Below is the answer I received from Dr. Wolfe, preceded  by my
question:
>
>
>
> On 04/01/2010, at 7:34 PM, Marshall.T@zdf. de wrote:
>
> >
> > Gday Joe,
> >
> > Hope this finds you well. A friend and I are going crazy trying to
> > figure out something in Ferron's book "The Saxophone is my Voice".
> > He is talking about finding displacement antinodes in the neck. I'm
> > attaching a scan of the page. The question is this: if we are
> > dealing with a quarter wave, why, after finding the wavelength of
> > an adjacent semitone using 2 root 12, are we dividing by three and
> > not by four to map the position of the antinode of the new semitone
> > in the neck?
> >
> > Any light you can shed on this little piece of nerd sniping would
> > be greatly appreciated.
> >
> > All the best,
> >
> > Toby from Tokyo<Ferron p 104.pdf>
>
> Gday Toby
>
>
> I think that, in the third par, he means 'on a particular note's
> displacement node' rather than 'antinode'.
>
> I put some highly idealised diagrams for purely conical pipes on
> http://www.phys. unsw.edu. au/jw/pipes. html
> and they don't suggest anything special about 1/3 of the length for a
> displacement node, though the pressure node falls near there.
>
> On the other hand, for a cylinder, a node and an antinode divide the
> length into thirds (same page).
>
> So I wouldn't worry to much if you don't understand the rest: it's
> not clear to me either, and perhaps not to the author.
>
> Best
> Joe
>
> Lance suggests that perhaps this was meant as an explanation for
finding the nodes in a clarinet. In any case, after this I would be very
careful before taking anything in that book as Gospel.
>
> Kudos to John for sniffing this out. He is apparently the first person
in the history of that book to have found the error.
>
> Toby
>

However it does have to be remembered that nodes and their opposite antinodes are not always exactly in between each other. The phase can be shifted somewhat depending on a number of factors.

Toby

John <jtalcott47@...> wrote:                                            Lance,

I think that you  inadvertently gave me the piece of the puzzle that I was missing to see the mistake Ferron made.

I believe that he forgot that he was dealing with 1/4 wavelengths and divided the difference by 3 as you would do to the difference of the fundamental's wavelengths in order to find the distance between the 3rd harmonics nodes.

The irony is that the footnote at the bottom of the page says:

(*)  It is in fact a quarter of a wave length (see page 9) since we are actually always working with a quarters of the total wave length. 

The following links show the proof that the distance between nodes between chromatic notes could not be as small as Ferron indicates in his illustrations.

Wavelengths 

Node locations 

John


                                                                                                                                                               








--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
>
> 
> 
> Not according to this diagram on UNSW:
> 
> http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/jw/woodwind.html#harmonic
> 
> The second conical diagram (f2) clearly shows the displacement anti-node (highest point of the blue-green motion line) at the x co-ordinate .33333.  That is 1/3 of the wave exactly.  Funny though, the wave form is proportionally identical to the f3 waveform of the clarinet next to it.  Perhaps
 Ferron is not the only one who made a mistake.
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: "kymarto123@..." kymarto123@...
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tue, January 5, 2010 12:08:55 PM
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] John is right. Ferron is wrong.
> 
>   
> Although not directly mpc related, I want to post the reply I got from Joe Wolfe on the question of Ferron's method of finding the position of nodes in the neck.
> 
> John and I hashed this out privately. I came up with a couple of lamebrain explanations for the division by 3, but none held water.
> 
> Below is the answer I received from Dr. Wolfe, preceded  by my question:
> 
> 
> 
> On 04/01/2010, at 7:34 PM, Marshall.T@zdf. de wrote:
> 
> >
> > Gday Joe,
> >
> > Hope this finds you well. A friend and I are going crazy trying to 
> > figure out something in Ferron's book "The Saxophone is my Voice". 
> > He is talking about finding displacement antinodes in the neck. I'm 
> > attaching a scan of the page. The question is this: if we are 
> > dealing with a quarter wave, why, after finding the wavelength of 
> > an adjacent semitone using 2 root 12, are we dividing by three and 
> > not by four to map the position of the antinode of the new semitone 
> > in the neck?
> >
> > Any light you can shed on this little piece of nerd sniping would 
> > be greatly appreciated.
> >
> > All the best,
> >
> > Toby from Tokyo<Ferron p 104.pdf>
> 
> Gday Toby
> 
> 
> I think that, in the third par, he means 'on a particular note's 
> displacement node' rather than 'antinode'.
> 
> I put some highly idealised diagrams for purely conical pipes on
> http://www.phys. unsw.edu. au/jw/pipes. html
> and they don't suggest anything special about 1/3 of the length for a 
> displacement node, though the pressure node falls near there.
> 
> On the other hand, for a cylinder, a node and an antinode divide the 
> length into thirds (same page).
> 
> So I wouldn't worry to much if you don't understand the rest: it's 
> not clear to me either, and perhaps not to the author.
> 
> Best
> Joe
> 
> Lance suggests that perhaps this was meant as an explanation for finding the nodes in a clarinet. In any case, after this I would be very careful before taking anything in that book as Gospel.
> 
> Kudos to John for sniffing this out. He is apparently the first person in the history of that book to have found the error.
> 
> Toby
>
  
      
                 
                 
 

I know of a case where a guy lost that "thing" when he only had a neck cork replaced!  Nothing could be done to restore the "mojo" to the horn (a prime Mark VI tenor) for him and more than one tech tried, and agreed that his sound had indeed changed.  Ultimately, he had to sell and replace the sax with another of similar vintage (at significant personal expense) in order to be at least SOMEWHAT happy with his sound.
 
Frankly, I am glad I am not that sensitive myself!

Bill Hausmann

If you have to mic a saxophone, the rest of the band is TOO LOUD!

--- On Tue, 1/5/10, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:


From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, January 5, 2010, 1:31 PM












Generally, for techs, it' a matter of the player giving you the horn first, saying, "It's what I'm looking for, but there is this, this, and this.  Can you make it better."  If you know all of that, then you usually can, without loosing that "thing" that the guy liked in the first place.





From: tenorman1952 <tenorman1952@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, January 5, 2010 12:36:56 PM
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Locating Nodes and Antinodes

  


So, after all of this, if we accurately located the nodes and antinodes, somehow figured out the math, all of the correction factors, the whole thing, and calculated the perfect mouthpiece, and we actually made one... 

Would we find ourselves giving it to the player and he says, "Well, it's OK, but I just don't like it... it just isn't the sound I'm looking for."

Just wondering.

Paul C.








      

Hi to whoever remains standing at this point.
   
  It turns out that Ferron is correct. The short answer is that pressure and displacement are not simple period functions of wavelength.
   
  Joe Wolfe, as it turns out, misunderstood the point. He thought that Ferron was looking for a displacement node, not a displacement antinode. My apologies to Ferron.
   
  Have a look here:
   
  http://www.mozart.co.uk/information/articles/woodwindacoustics.htm
   
  If you can sort the math, more power to you. Otherwise have a look at the sketches of waveforms near the bottom--look at the first harmonic in purple. The periodic function is two wavelengths, but there cannot be another pressure node at the bell, so look what happens to the pressure and
 displacement antinodes. There is one displacement antinode at the bell (or near the bell) which stretches the whole thing out.
   
  Here is the explanation on the page just before the discussion of boundary conditions:
   
  "Important: none of the potential, the pressure, or the velocity, are actually periodic in distance along a conical pipe.  The 1/(kr) factors spoil this periodicity.   The combinations (kr).F and (kr).P  are periodic, but the velocity U cannot be made periodic even with such a multiplying
 factor.   However, the wave is in every case (co)sinusoidal in time with frequency v and so each of these solutions does correspond to a simple pure note.   When we talk about "wavelength" it must be understood, in the case of a conical pipe, that we are referring to the wavelength of the
 periodic function (kr).P."
   
  In any case, the f2 displacement antinode is 1/3 the distance down the length of the bore...
   
  Joe Wolfe also has this information (albeit is much less obvious form) on his 'pipes and harmonics' page:
   
  "For the conical tubes (oboe et al) we also want a zero at the bell and a maximum at the reed, but we have to fit spherical waves, which have terms involving (1/r) and (1/r2) times the sine and cos functions. For example, the standing wave in pressure has an envelope which is (1/r) times a sine
 wave with a wavelength which is 2L/n, where L is the length of the instrument and n is an integer. The sine goes to zero at r = L, and(1/r) sin r has a maximum at the reed, as required. Note that it has the same harmonics and the same bottom note as an open cylinder of the same length." 
   
  Toby


 

I care, we care.  It is OK to discuss acoustics here as they pertain to the mouthpiece and even the sax neck and body.  I would rather go a little off-topic than to short-change a discussion from which we may learn something about mouthpieces.  

I spoke up when a discussion was heading into "vintage vs modern" saxes.  This can be a can of worms that is better discussed somewhere else like Steve's forum and on Sax On The Web.  




________________________________
From: "kymarto123@....jp" <kymarto123@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, January 6, 2010 3:36:26 AM
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] No, actually Ferron is right: here is the answer (if anybody cares)

  
Hi to whoever remains standing at this point.

It turns out that Ferron is correct. The short answer is that pressure and displacement are not simple period functions of wavelength.

Joe Wolfe, as it turns out, misunderstood the point. He thought that Ferron was looking for a displacement node, not a displacement antinode. My apologies to Ferron.

Have a look here:

http://www.mozart. co.uk/informatio n/articles/ woodwindacoustic s.htm
 
If you can sort the math, more power to you. Otherwise have a look at the sketches of waveforms near the bottom--look at the first harmonic in purple. The periodic function is two wavelengths, but there cannot be another pressure node at the bell, so look what happens to the pressure and displacement antinodes. There is one displacement antinode at the bell (or near the bell) which stretches the whole thing out.

Here is the explanation on the page just before the discussion of boundary conditions:

"Important: none of the potential, the pressure, or the velocity, are actually periodic in distance along a conical pipe.  The 1/(kr) factors spoil this periodicity.   The combinations (kr).F and (kr).P  are periodic, but the velocity U cannot be made periodic even with such a multiplying factor.   However, the wave is in every case (co)sinusoidal in time with frequency v and so each of these solutions does correspond to a simple pure note.   When we talk about "wavelength" it must be understood, in the case of a conical pipe, that we are referring to the wavelength of the periodic function (kr).P."

In any case, the f2 displacement antinode is 1/3 the distance down the length of the bore...

Joe Wolfe also has this information (albeit is much less obvious form) on his 'pipes and harmonics' page:

"For the conical tubes (oboe et al) we also want a zero at the bell and a maximum at the reed, but we have to fit spherical waves, which have terms involving (1/r) and (1/r2) times the sine and cos functions. For example, the standing wave in pressure has an envelope which is (1/r) times a sine wave with a wavelength which is 2L/n, where L is the length of the instrument and n is an integer. The sine goes to zero at r = L, and(1/r) sin r has a maximum at the reed, as required. Note that it has the same harmonics and the same bottom note as an open cylinder of the same length." 

Toby






      

Thanks Keith.  I also think is important to look at the "system" as a whole in order to better understand its parts and their relationships with one another.  Another area I am most interested in is the "effective volume" of the mouthpiece as it applies to the missing cone.  That may be the topic of another thread.

John

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:
>
> I care, we care.  It is OK to discuss acoustics here as they pertain to the mouthpiece and even the sax neck and body.  I would rather go a little off-topic than to short-change a discussion from which we may learn something about mouthpieces.  
> 
> I spoke up when a discussion was heading into "vintage vs modern" saxes.  This can be a can of worms that is better discussed somewhere else like Steve's forum and on Sax On The Web.  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: "kymarto123@..." <kymarto123@...>
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wed, January 6, 2010 3:36:26 AM
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] No, actually Ferron is right: here is the answer (if anybody cares)
> 
>   
> Hi to whoever remains standing at this point.
> 
> It turns out that Ferron is correct. The short answer is that pressure and displacement are not simple period functions of wavelength.
> 
> Joe Wolfe, as it turns out, misunderstood the point. He thought that Ferron was looking for a displacement node, not a displacement antinode. My apologies to Ferron.
> 
> Have a look here:
> 
> http://www.mozart. co.uk/informatio n/articles/ woodwindacoustic s.htm
>  
> If you can sort the math, more power to you. Otherwise have a look at the sketches of waveforms near the bottom--look at the first harmonic in purple. The periodic function is two wavelengths, but there cannot be another pressure node at the bell, so look what happens to the pressure and displacement antinodes. There is one displacement antinode at the bell (or near the bell) which stretches the whole thing out.
> 
> Here is the explanation on the page just before the discussion of boundary conditions:
> 
> "Important: none of the potential, the pressure, or the velocity, are actually periodic in distance along a conical pipe.  The 1/(kr) factors spoil this periodicity.   The combinations (kr).F and (kr).P  are periodic, but the velocity U cannot be made periodic even with such a multiplying factor.   However, the wave is in every case (co)sinusoidal in time with frequency v and so each of these solutions does correspond to a simple pure note.   When we talk about "wavelength" it must be understood, in the case of a conical pipe, that we are referring to the wavelength of the periodic function (kr).P."
> 
> In any case, the f2 displacement antinode is 1/3 the distance down the length of the bore...
> 
> Joe Wolfe also has this information (albeit is much less obvious form) on his 'pipes and harmonics' page:
> 
> "For the conical tubes (oboe et al) we also want a zero at the bell and a maximum at the reed, but we have to fit spherical waves, which have terms involving (1/r) and (1/r2) times the sine and cos functions. For example, the standing wave in pressure has an envelope which is (1/r) times a sine wave with a wavelength which is 2L/n, where L is the length of the instrument and n is an integer. The sine goes to zero at r = L, and(1/r) sin r has a maximum at the reed, as required. Note that it has the same harmonics and the same bottom note as an open cylinder of the same length." 
> 
> Toby
>

And the question all America want to have answered is: What do you do with
this information?

 

Seriously, I'm pretty conversant with all of this esoteric acoustic theory,
and admit that there is some truth to most of it. That being said, what is
the specific application in the design of mouthpieces, necks, horns etc.? I
think you have to be VERY careful in trying to reduce instrument design to a
set of numbers. This is spoken in my capacity as someone who has
successfully made a living designing and manufacturing instruments for many
years. There's FAR more to it than just the numbers.....

 

 

 

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of John
Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2010 6:22 PM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: No, actually Ferron is right: here is the
answer (if anybody cares)

 

  


Toby gets an A+ for effort to try to find something that has a 3 in it to
justify Ferron's math.  This just doesn't answer the question.  Here's why
in the simplest terms.

Wherever the location of the Displacement Antinode (Pressure node) for the
note "G" happens to be---the distance of this Antinode from the apex divided
by 1.05946 (12th root of 2) will give the distance from the tip to the
anitnode of G#.

Doing the arithmetic of the actual wavelengths (speed of air 47 m/s)we get
the following:

Location of G antinode from tip (1/4 wavelength) 372.2 mm (Ferron 362.8)
This distance divided by 1.05946 = 351.3 mm, the difference is 20.9 mm.  The
location of the G# antinode is 351.3 mm from the tip or 20.9 mm higher than
the location of G's antinode.
 
<http://jbtsaxmusic.homestead.com/Neck_Node_Study_-_Nodes_F__G_G__finished_c
opy_new.pdf> 
A picture is worth a thousand words 

To make it work using a division by 3 we must convert the quarter
wavelengths to full wavelengths by multiplying by 4.

372.2 x 4 = 1488.8  This is the wavelength of the fundamental of G
351.3 x 4 = 1405.2  This is the wavelength of the fundamental of G#
[1488.8 divided by 1.05946 also = 1405.2!]

The difference between these full wavelengths is 83.6

which divided by 4 = 20.9  The distance between the antinodes of G2 (2nd
harmonic)
which divided by 3 = 27.86 The distance between the antinodes of D3 (3rd
harmonic)

If we take the distance between the nodes of the quarter wavelength and
divide that distance by 3 as Ferron did we get the distance between the
nodes of G's 12th harmonic---altissimo D5 2 octaves above palm high D
frequency 2793.8 hz.  This can hardly be considered "a sensitive harmonic
area" since the cutoff frequency for the alto sax is around 850 hz.

I hope this clears up any confusion.

John




--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
>
> Hi to whoever remains standing at this point.
> 
> It turns out that Ferron is correct. The short answer is that pressure and
displacement are not simple period functions of wavelength.
> 
> Joe Wolfe, as it turns out, misunderstood the point. He thought that
Ferron was looking for a displacement node, not a displacement antinode. My
apologies to Ferron.
> 
> Have a look here:
> 
> http://www.mozart.co.uk/information/articles/woodwindacoustics.htm
> 
> If you can sort the math, more power to you. Otherwise have a look at the
sketches of waveforms near the bottom--look at the first harmonic in purple.
The periodic function is two wavelengths, but there cannot be another
pressure node at the bell, so look what happens to the pressure and
> displacement antinodes. There is one displacement antinode at the bell (or
near the bell) which stretches the whole thing out.
> 
> Here is the explanation on the page just before the discussion of boundary
conditions:
> 
> "Important: none of the potential, the pressure, or the velocity, are
actually periodic in distance along a conical pipe. The 1/(kr) factors spoil
this periodicity. The combinations (kr).F and (kr).P are periodic, but the
velocity U cannot be made periodic even with such a multiplying
> factor. However, the wave is in every case (co)sinusoidal in time with
frequency v and so each of these solutions does correspond to a simple pure
note. When we talk about "wavelength" it must be understood, in the case of
a conical pipe, that we are referring to the wavelength of the
> periodic function (kr).P."
> 
> In any case, the f2 displacement antinode is 1/3 the distance down the
length of the bore...
> 
> Joe Wolfe also has this information (albeit is much less obvious form) on
his 'pipes and harmonics' page:
> 
> "For the conical tubes (oboe et al) we also want a zero at the bell and a
maximum at the reed, but we have to fit spherical waves, which have terms
involving (1/r) and (1/r2) times the sine and cos functions. For example,
the standing wave in pressure has an envelope which is (1/r) times a sine
> wave with a wavelength which is 2L/n, where L is the length of the
instrument and n is an integer. The sine goes to zero at r = L, and(1/r) sin
r has a maximum at the reed, as required. Note that it has the same
harmonics and the same bottom note as an open cylinder of the same length." 
> 
> Toby
>

You use the information to get ideas on what to try to change to improve sax and mouthpiece designs.  Then you test them out.




________________________________
From: STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, January 7, 2010 7:53:40 PM
Subject: RE: [MouthpieceWork] Re: No, actually Ferron is right: here is the answer (if anybody cares)

  
And the question all America want to have answered is: What do you do with this information?


      

Not everyone is a mouthpiece or saxophone designer.  There are those of
us who have a thirst for knowledge in areas they are interested in. 
Getting a better understanding of how and why woodwind instruments work
is a reward in itself.  It is not always about making money.  Learning
for the sake of learning has an intrinsic value and a reward that
transcends monetary gain in my opinion.

That said,  I also  think it is important to correct false information
(like Ferron's neck harmonic positions) that has been widely distributed
by some folks in the music industry and passed off as accurate
acoustical scientific information.   It can no only be misleading, but
someone who tries to adjust the intonation by expanding or contracting
their neck using his positions can end up doing much more harm than
good.

As a repair technician, I am always looking for ways to improve an
existing instrument, by either clearing the tone on a stuffy sounding
note, or by improving the intonation.  Curt Alterac has done some
interesting work in this area using crescents and I know has also
experimented with finding nodal locations in the body of the sax using
BB's and magnets.  There is really a lot left to learn in this exciting
area and I am glad there is a forum where those of us who have a common
interest can share information.

John


--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...>
wrote:
>
> You use the information to get ideas on what to try to change to
improve sax and mouthpiece designs.  Then you test them out.
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: STEVE GOODSON saxgourmet@...
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thu, January 7, 2010 7:53:40 PM
> Subject: RE: [MouthpieceWork] Re: No, actually Ferron is right: here
is the answer (if anybody cares)
>
>
> And the question all America want to have answered is: What do you do
with this information?
>

Toby gets an A+ for effort to try to find something that has a 3 in it
to justify Ferron's math.  This just doesn't answer the question. 
Here's why in the simplest terms.

Wherever the location of the Displacement Antinode (Pressure node) for
the note "G" happens to be---the distance of this Antinode from the apex
divided by 1.05946 (12th root of 2) will give the distance from the tip
to the anitnode of G#.

Doing the arithmetic of the actual wavelengths (speed of air 47 m/s)we
get the following:

Location of G antinode from tip (1/4 wavelength) 372.2 mm (Ferron 362.8)
This distance divided by 1.05946 = 351.3 mm, the difference is 20.9 mm. 
The location of the G# antinode is 351.3 mm from the tip or 20.9 mm
higher than the location of G's antinode.

A picture is worth a thousand words
<http://jbtsaxmusic.homestead.com/Neck_Node_Study_-_Nodes_F__G_G__finish\
ed_copy_new2.pdf>

To make it work using a division by 3 we must convert the quarter
wavelengths to full wavelengths by multiplying by 4.

372.2 x 4 = 1488.8  This is the wavelength of the fundamental of G
351.3 x 4 = 1405.2  This is the wavelength of the fundamental of G#
[1488.8 divided by 1.05946 also = 1405.2!]

The difference between these full wavelengths is 83.6

which divided by 4 = 20.9  The distance between the antinodes of G2 (2nd
harmonic)
which divided by 3 = 27.86 The distance between the antinodes of D3 (3rd
harmonic)

If we take the distance between the nodes of the quarter wavelength and
divide that distance by 3 as Ferron did we get the distance between the
nodes of G's 12th harmonic---altissimo D5 2 octaves above palm high D
frequency 2793.8 hz.  This can hardly be considered "a sensitive
harmonic area" since the cutoff frequency for the alto sax is around 850
hz.

I hope this clears up any confusion.

John





--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
>
> Hi to whoever remains standing at this point.
>
>   It turns out that Ferron is correct. The short answer is that
pressure and displacement are not simple period functions of wavelength.
>
>   Joe Wolfe, as it turns out, misunderstood the point. He thought that
Ferron was looking for a displacement node, not a displacement antinode.
My apologies to Ferron.
>
>   Have a look here:
>
>   http://www.mozart.co.uk/information/articles/woodwindacoustics.htm
>
>   If you can sort the math, more power to you. Otherwise have a look
at the sketches of waveforms near the bottom--look at the first harmonic
in purple. The periodic function is two wavelengths, but there cannot be
another pressure node at the bell, so look what happens to the pressure
and
>  displacement antinodes. There is one displacement antinode at the
bell (or near the bell) which stretches the whole thing out.
>
>   Here is the explanation on the page just before the discussion of
boundary conditions:
>
>   "Important: none of the potential, the pressure, or the velocity,
are actually periodic in distance along a conical pipe.  The 1/(kr)
factors spoil this periodicity.   The combinations (kr).F and (kr).P 
are periodic, but the velocity U cannot be made periodic even with such
a multiplying
>  factor.   However, the wave is in every case (co)sinusoidal in time
with frequency v and so each of these solutions does correspond to a
simple pure note.   When we talk about "wavelength" it must be
understood, in the case of a conical pipe, that we are referring to the
wavelength of the
>  periodic function (kr).P."
>
>   In any case, the f2 displacement antinode is 1/3 the distance down
the length of the bore...
>
>   Joe Wolfe also has this information (albeit is much less obvious
form) on his 'pipes and harmonics' page:
>
>   "For the conical tubes (oboe et al) we also want a zero at the bell
and a maximum at the reed, but we have to fit spherical waves, which
have terms involving (1/r) and (1/r2) times the sine and cos functions.
For example, the standing wave in pressure has an envelope which is
(1/r) times a sine
>  wave with a wavelength which is 2L/n, where L is the length of the
instrument and n is an integer. The sine goes to zero at r = L, and(1/r)
sin r has a maximum at the reed, as required. Note that it has the same
harmonics and the same bottom note as an open cylinder of the same
length."
>
>   Toby
>

As anyone who has actually worked with different neck configurations (as
opposed to only talking about them) knows, the Ferron charts give no
physical measurements and were not intended to show the absolute location of
specific points in a specific neck. They are intended show on the general
distribution of points. These points will, of course, vary within necks of
different lengths and tapers. I have not seen any usage of these diagrams by
anyone who actually works with necks in which the chart was labeled “for
Selmer Super 80 II tenor” or anything like that. I know that I have
certainly never done so, nor have any of the other neck makers I know. I
would have thought this point was quite obvious, but maybe not.

 

Insofar as monetary gain driving the design process, that is absolutely
correct and it is quite naïve to assert that it is any other way. If
monetary gain is not involved, then new designs will not be developed and
brought to market. If the designs are not brought to market, then the
saxophone community must suffer. Developing an improved design is pointless
unless it is distributed and made generally available to the community. This
distribution comes at an economic cost. I am not aware of anyone who seeks
design improvements in saxophones merely for the sake of their personal
health.

 

 

 

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of John
Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2010 10:06 PM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron's neck harmonic areas are not accurate.

 

  

Not everyone is a mouthpiece or saxophone designer. There are those of
us who have a thirst for knowledge in areas they are interested in. 
Getting a better understanding of how and why woodwind instruments work
is a reward in itself. It is not always about making money. Learning
for the sake of learning has an intrinsic value and a reward that
transcends monetary gain in my opinion.

That said, I also think it is important to correct false information
(like Ferron's neck harmonic positions) that has been widely distributed
by some folks in the music industry and passed off as accurate
acoustical scientific information. It can no only be misleading, but
someone who tries to adjust the intonation by expanding or contracting
their neck using his positions can end up doing much more harm than
good.

As a repair technician, I am always looking for ways to improve an
existing instrument, by either clearing the tone on a stuffy sounding
note, or by improving the intonation. Curt Alterac has done some
interesting work in this area using crescents and I know has also
experimented with finding nodal locations in the body of the sax using
BB's and magnets. There is really a lot left to learn in this exciting
area and I am glad there is a forum where those of us who have a common
interest can share information.

John

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> , Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...>
wrote:
>
> You use the information to get ideas on what to try to change to
improve sax and mouthpiece designs. Then you test them out.
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: STEVE GOODSON saxgourmet@...
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> 
> Sent: Thu, January 7, 2010 7:53:40 PM
> Subject: RE: [MouthpieceWork] Re: No, actually Ferron is right: here
is the answer (if anybody cares)
>
>
> And the question all America want to have answered is: What do you do
with this information?
>

I have some theories on what Ferron might be on about, but I am working with woefully incomplete information, having only a scan of pg 104 and the diagram of harmonic positions in the neck.

I expect that the Ferron book will arrive within the next week, and when I have a chance to read it a bit I will come back and respond to John's last post.

Toby
 

If anyone is still believes that Ferron's math might be accurate and
that his illustrations depict even in a general way the distribution of
nodal points in the neck, I have included a link to the wavelength
spreadsheet that helped me come to my conclusion that Ferron's work in
this area was bogus.

Wavelength Spreadsheet pdf.
<http://jbtsaxmusic.homestead.com/new_neck_node_study_wavelengths_of_har\
monics.pdf>

Wavelength Spreadsheet xls.
<http://jbtsaxmusic.homestead.com/new_neck_node_study_wavelengths_of_har\
monics.xls>


The much discussed G and G# of the alto sax are highlighted.  Ferron
took the difference in wavelengths of these two notes, in this case
372.2 - 351.3 = 20.9 mm.  He then divided by 3 20.9/3 = 6.97.  His
conclusion was that the next closest node (sensitive harmonic area)was
6.97 mm closer to the apex than G's node.  Subtract 6.97 from 372.2 and
we get 365.23.

Look for any note that has a half wavelength (location of node)of 365.23
and you will see how I came to my conclusion.

A review of the other sources of my information can be found at this
site:

Acoustics <http://jbtsaxmusic.homestead.com/Acoustics.html>



John


--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
>
> I have some theories on what Ferron might be on about, but I am
working with woefully incomplete information, having only a scan of pg
104 and the diagram of harmonic positions in the neck.
>
> I expect that the Ferron book will arrive within the next week, and
when I have a chance to read it a bit I will come back and respond to
John's last post.
>
> Toby
>

That's pretty convincing. I was thinking that Ferron was possibly talking about a higher harmonic, but if that chart is correct, there is nothing like his figures. In any case even if I were right, that would have raised some other problems with what was on that page.

I'll be interested to read his entire book. There have been other discussions here about things in the book, such as a diagram showing waves reflecting off the baffle, that also seem pretty bogus from what I know about how  such things work.

And in any case, anyone who suggests drilling a 5-6 mm hole in the neck of your sax to find an antinode, which can "easily be filled in later", is missing a few nodes of his own, IMO.

Thanks for that,
Toby

John <jtalcott47@...> wrote:                                              If anyone is still believes that Ferron's math might be accurate and that his illustrations depict even in a general way the distribution of nodal points in the neck, I have included a link to the wavelength spreadsheet
 that helped me come to my conclusion that Ferron's work in this area was bogus.

Wavelength Spreadsheet pdf. 

Wavelength Spreadsheet xls. 


The much discussed G and G# of the alto sax are highlighted.  Ferron took the difference in wavelengths of these two notes, in this case 372.2 - 351.3 = 20.9 mm.  He then divided by 3 20.9/3 = 6.97.  His conclusion was that the next closest node (sensitive harmonic area)was 6.97 mm closer to the
 apex than G's node.  Subtract 6.97 from 372.2 and we get 365.23.  

Look for any note that has a half wavelength (location of node)of 365.23 and you will see how I came to my conclusion.

A review of the other sources of my information can be found at this site:

Acoustics 



John


--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
>
> I have some theories on what Ferron might be on about, but I am working with woefully incomplete information, having only a scan of pg 104 and the diagram of harmonic positions in the neck.
> 
> I expect that the Ferron book will arrive within the next week, and when I have a chance to read it a bit I will come back and respond to John's last post.
> 
> Toby
>
 
      
                 
                 
 

Um, John...

Where does that spreadsheet come from?

Toby

John <jtalcott47@...> wrote:                                              If anyone is still believes that Ferron's math might be accurate and that his illustrations depict even in a general way the distribution of nodal points in the neck, I have included a link to the wavelength spreadsheet
 that helped me come to my conclusion that Ferron's work in this area was bogus.

Wavelength Spreadsheet pdf. 

Wavelength Spreadsheet xls. 


The much discussed G and G# of the alto sax are highlighted.  Ferron took the difference in wavelengths of these two notes, in this case 372.2 - 351.3 = 20.9 mm.  He then divided by 3 20.9/3 = 6.97.  His conclusion was that the next closest node (sensitive harmonic area)was 6.97 mm closer to the
 apex than G's node.  Subtract 6.97 from 372.2 and we get 365.23.  

Look for any note that has a half wavelength (location of node)of 365.23 and you will see how I came to my conclusion.

A review of the other sources of my information can be found at this site:

Acoustics 



John


--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
>
> I have some theories on what Ferron might be on about, but I am working with woefully incomplete information, having only a scan of pg 104 and the diagram of harmonic positions in the neck.
> 
> I expect that the Ferron book will arrive within the next week, and when I have a chance to read it a bit I will come back and respond to John's last post.
> 
> Toby
>
 
      
                 
                 
 

I generated the spreadsheet using the frequencies for the tempered
scale. <http://www.phy.mtu.edu/%7Esuits/notefreqs.html>   From there it
is an easy step to plug in the equation to generate the wavelengths of
the fundamentals.  From there it is even easier to generate the whole
number multiples that give the frequencies, or the whole number
divisions that give the wavelengths of the harmonics.

You could create the frequencies yourself by starting at AD0 and
multiplying each frequency by 1.05946 to find the next higher half step,
and dividing by 1.05946 to find the next lower.   I have Ferron to thank
for that "magic" number.  It works for both frequencies and wavelengths.

John


--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
>
> Um, John...
>
> Where does that spreadsheet come from?
>
> Toby
>
> John jtalcott47@... wrote:
If anyone is still believes that Ferron's math might be accurate and
that his illustrations depict even in a general way the distribution of
nodal points in the neck, I have included a link to the wavelength
spreadsheet
>  that helped me come to my conclusion that Ferron's work in this area
was bogus.
>
> Wavelength Spreadsheet pdf.
>
> Wavelength Spreadsheet xls.
>
>
> The much discussed G and G# of the alto sax are highlighted.  Ferron
took the difference in wavelengths of these two notes, in this case
372.2 - 351.3 = 20.9 mm.  He then divided by 3 20.9/3 = 6.97.  His
conclusion was that the next closest node (sensitive harmonic area)was
6.97 mm closer to the
>  apex than G's node.  Subtract 6.97 from 372.2 and we get 365.23.
>
> Look for any note that has a half wavelength (location of node)of
365.23 and you will see how I came to my conclusion.
>
> A review of the other sources of my information can be found at this
site:
>
> Acoustics
>
>
>
> John
>
>
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, kymarto123@ wrote:
> >
> > I have some theories on what Ferron might be on about, but I am
working with woefully incomplete information, having only a scan of pg
104 and the diagram of harmonic positions in the neck.
> >
> > I expect that the Ferron book will arrive within the next week, and
when I have a chance to read it a bit I will come back and respond to
John's last post.
> >
> > Toby
> >
>

Yes, that's what I was afraid of. 

Aaaaaarrrghhhhh........!

You still don't seem to get that the nodes and antinodes associated with certain wavelengths do not necessarily sit on exact fractions of the length. This is ESPECIALLY true in cones. 

Please have a very good look at the UNSW page that Lance pointed out to you. Look first at the open cylinder, with its nice, even half humps, and exact superposition of nodes/antinodes. 

Now have a look at the chart for cones. Note particularly that the pressure antinodes and velocity antinodes are not perfectly aligned, and that the length of their half humps is not regular and symmetrical.

Now go to Benade's FMA and look at pg. 433. Measure the length of the three half humps in the mode 2 chart. What do you find? Did you notice that the first half hump is the same length as the next two half humps together?

The point is this: you can't just blindly divide a given wavelength into equal parts and pretend that those are the positions of the nodes in the air column. 

Even in an ideal cone, we are dealing with spherical waves instead of plane waves, as in a cylinder. There are corrections based on the local radius of the tube and the square of the local radius, because the waves spread perpendicularly to the wavefront as it progresses down the tube. Add to that
 the fact that a stopped cylinder can never have a symmetrical wave, because the two ends are different kinds of nodes. A flute is a different case, because both ends are displacement antinodes. An open cone follows this pattern but any stopped pipe must have diverse nodes at the two ends, and
 therefore an odd number of half humps in the wave.

Add to this other factors (of which Ferron mentions some) which compromise the theoretical, and you come up with a giant mess.

This is exactly why Ferron presents an real-world method of finding the exact point of the antinode, using a characteristic of acoustics, namely that an interruption of the air column with a hole will prevent the sounding of all the notes except the second harmonic of the note which has a
 displacement antinode exactly at the point of the hole.

As I said, I find this a rather extreme method of locating antinodes, but perhaps when you are working as an acoustic scientist for an instrument manufacturing company you can afford such excess.

I believe that the main problem with Ferron is that he does not adequately explain the reasons for his calculation, which is why we are here now playing guessing games. 

This is based, I guess, on three factors. First, he feels he is not talking to a very acoustically sophisticated audience, and does not want to take the time and effort to lay it all out, as Joe Wolfe tries to do on his site. Second, am I correct that the book was written in French and then
 translated into English? Third, the editing and proofreading of the book, from what I have seen so far, is worse than atrocious. The publisher should be shot.

However, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Don't you have a junker horn that is going to be best off as a lamp anyway? Is there anyone out there who can donate an old neck to science? 

It would be painful, but simple, to drill the holes as Ferron suggests, and see if things work as he claims. He was not a stupid man, and probably forgot more about acoustics than all of us know together (although I still question some of what is in his book).

But this point could easily be proved or disproved empirically, at the cost of some holes in a neck.

 Certainly dividing the wavlength by simple fractions as if the sax were a theoretically-ideal flute is not going to provide any useful information on this point.

Toby













John <jtalcott47@...> wrote:                                            I generated the spreadsheet using the frequencies for the tempered scale.  From there it is an easy step to plug in the equation to generate the wavelengths of the fundamentals.  From there it is even easier to generate
 the whole number multiples that give the frequencies, or the whole number divisions that give the wavelengths of the harmonics.

You could create the frequencies yourself by starting at AD0 and multiplying each frequency by 1.05946 to find the next higher half step, and dividing by 1.05946 to find the next lower.   I have Ferron to thank for that "magic" number.  It works for both frequencies and wavelengths.

John
 

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
>
> Um, John...
> 
> Where does that spreadsheet come from?
> 
> Toby
> 
> John jtalcott47@... wrote:                                              If anyone is still believes that Ferron's math might be accurate and that his illustrations depict even in a general way the distribution of nodal points in the neck, I have included a link to the wavelength spreadsheet
>  that helped me come to my conclusion that Ferron's work in this area was bogus.
> 
> Wavelength Spreadsheet pdf. 
> 
> Wavelength Spreadsheet xls. 
> 
> 
> The much discussed G and G# of the alto sax are highlighted.  Ferron took the difference in wavelengths of these two notes, in this case 372.2 - 351.3 = 20.9 mm.  He then divided by 3 20.9/3 = 6.97.  His conclusion was that the next closest node (sensitive harmonic area)was 6.97 mm closer to the
>  apex than G's node.  Subtract 6.97 from 372.2 and we get 365.23.  
> 
> Look for any note that has a half wavelength (location of node)of 365.23 and you will see how I came to my conclusion.
> 
> A review of the other sources of my information can be found at this site:
> 
> Acoustics 
> 
> 
> 
> John
> 
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, kymarto123@ wrote:
> >
> > I have some theories on what Ferron might be on about, but I am working with woefully incomplete information, having only a scan of pg 104 and the diagram of harmonic positions in the neck.
> > 
> > I expect that the Ferron book will arrive within the next week, and when I have a chance to read it a bit I will come back and respond to John's last post.
> > 
> > Toby
> >
>
  
      
                 
                 
 

Look at the pressure nodes in all of your sources.


--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, that's what I was afraid of.
>
> Aaaaaarrrghhhhh........!
>
> You still don't seem to get that the nodes and antinodes associated
with certain wavelengths do not necessarily sit on exact fractions of
the length. This is ESPECIALLY true in cones.
>
> Please have a very good look at the UNSW page that Lance pointed out
to you. Look first at the open cylinder, with its nice, even half humps,
and exact superposition of nodes/antinodes.
>
> Now have a look at the chart for cones. Note particularly that the
pressure antinodes and velocity antinodes are not perfectly aligned, and
that the length of their half humps is not regular and symmetrical.
>
> Now go to Benade's FMA and look at pg. 433. Measure the length of the
three half humps in the mode 2 chart. What do you find? Did you notice
that the first half hump is the same length as the next two half humps
together?
>
> The point is this: you can't just blindly divide a given wavelength
into equal parts and pretend that those are the positions of the nodes
in the air column.
>
> Even in an ideal cone, we are dealing with spherical waves instead of
plane waves, as in a cylinder. There are corrections based on the local
radius of the tube and the square of the local radius, because the waves
spread perpendicularly to the wavefront as it progresses down the tube.
Add to that
>  the fact that a stopped cylinder can never have a symmetrical wave,
because the two ends are different kinds of nodes. A flute is a
different case, because both ends are displacement antinodes. An open
cone follows this pattern but any stopped pipe must have diverse nodes
at the two ends, and
>  therefore an odd number of half humps in the wave.
>
> Add to this other factors (of which Ferron mentions some) which
compromise the theoretical, and you come up with a giant mess.
>
> This is exactly why Ferron presents an real-world method of finding
the exact point of the antinode, using a characteristic of acoustics,
namely that an interruption of the air column with a hole will prevent
the sounding of all the notes except the second harmonic of the note
which has a
>  displacement antinode exactly at the point of the hole.
>
> As I said, I find this a rather extreme method of locating antinodes,
but perhaps when you are working as an acoustic scientist for an
instrument manufacturing company you can afford such excess.
>
> I believe that the main problem with Ferron is that he does not
adequately explain the reasons for his calculation, which is why we are
here now playing guessing games.
>
> This is based, I guess, on three factors. First, he feels he is not
talking to a very acoustically sophisticated audience, and does not want
to take the time and effort to lay it all out, as Joe Wolfe tries to do
on his site. Second, am I correct that the book was written in French
and then
>  translated into English? Third, the editing and proofreading of the
book, from what I have seen so far, is worse than atrocious. The
publisher should be shot.
>
> However, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Don't you have a
junker horn that is going to be best off as a lamp anyway? Is there
anyone out there who can donate an old neck to science?
>
> It would be painful, but simple, to drill the holes as Ferron
suggests, and see if things work as he claims. He was not a stupid man,
and probably forgot more about acoustics than all of us know together
(although I still question some of what is in his book).
>
> But this point could easily be proved or disproved empirically, at the
cost of some holes in a neck.
>
>  Certainly dividing the wavlength by simple fractions as if the sax
were a theoretically-ideal flute is not going to provide any useful
information on this point.
>
> Toby
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> John jtalcott47@... wrote:                                           
I generated the spreadsheet using the frequencies for the tempered
scale.  From there it is an easy step to plug in the equation to
generate the wavelengths of the fundamentals.  From there it is even
easier to generate
>  the whole number multiples that give the frequencies, or the whole
number divisions that give the wavelengths of the harmonics.
>
> You could create the frequencies yourself by starting at AD0 and
multiplying each frequency by 1.05946 to find the next higher half step,
and dividing by 1.05946 to find the next lower.   I have Ferron to thank
for that "magic" number.  It works for both frequencies and wavelengths.
>
> John
>
>
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, kymarto123@ wrote:
> >
> > Um, John...
> >
> > Where does that spreadsheet come from?
> >
> > Toby
> >
> > John jtalcott47@ wrote:                                             
If anyone is still believes that Ferron's math might be accurate and
that his illustrations depict even in a general way the distribution of
nodal points in the neck, I have included a link to the wavelength
spreadsheet
> >  that helped me come to my conclusion that Ferron's work in this
area was bogus.
> >
> > Wavelength Spreadsheet pdf.
> >
> > Wavelength Spreadsheet xls.
> >
> >
> > The much discussed G and G# of the alto sax are highlighted.  Ferron
took the difference in wavelengths of these two notes, in this case
372.2 - 351.3 = 20.9 mm.  He then divided by 3 20.9/3 = 6.97.  His
conclusion was that the next closest node (sensitive harmonic area)was
6.97 mm closer to the
> >  apex than G's node.  Subtract 6.97 from 372.2 and we get 365.23.
> >
> > Look for any note that has a half wavelength (location of node)of
365.23 and you will see how I came to my conclusion.
> >
> > A review of the other sources of my information can be found at this
site:
> >
> > Acoustics
> >
> >
> >
> > John
> >
> >
> > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, kymarto123@ wrote:
> > >
> > > I have some theories on what Ferron might be on about, but I am
working with woefully incomplete information, having only a scan of pg
104 and the diagram of harmonic positions in the neck.
> > >
> > > I expect that the Ferron book will arrive within the next week,
and when I have a chance to read it a bit I will come back and respond
to John's last post.
> > >
> > > Toby
> > >
> >
>

No, what is important is to look at the displacement antinodes.
 
--- John <jtalcott47@...> wrote:
> Look at the pressure nodes in all of your sources.
> 
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, that's what I was afraid of.
> >
> > Aaaaaarrrghhhhh........!
> >
> > You still don't seem to get that the nodes and antinodes associated
> with certain wavelengths do not necessarily sit on exact fractions of
> the length. This is ESPECIALLY true in cones.
> >
> > Please have a very good look at the UNSW page that Lance pointed out
> to you. Look first at the open cylinder, with its nice, even half humps,
> and exact superposition of nodes/antinodes.
> >
> > Now have a look at the chart for cones. Note particularly that the
> pressure antinodes and velocity antinodes are not perfectly aligned, and
> that the length of their half humps is not regular and symmetrical.
> >
> > Now go to Benade's FMA and look at pg. 433. Measure the length of the
> three half humps in the mode 2 chart. What do you find? Did you notice
> that the first half hump is the same length as the next two half humps
> together?
> >
> > The point is this: you can't just blindly divide a given wavelength
> into equal parts and pretend that those are the positions of the nodes
> in the air column.
> >
> > Even in an ideal cone, we are dealing with spherical waves instead of
> plane waves, as in a cylinder. There are corrections based on the local
> radius of the tube and the square of the local radius, because the waves
> spread perpendicularly to the wavefront as it progresses down the tube.
> Add to that
> >  the fact that a stopped cylinder can never have a symmetrical wave,
> because the two ends are different kinds of nodes. A flute is a
> different case, because both ends are displacement antinodes. An open
> cone follows this pattern but any stopped pipe must have diverse nodes
> at the two ends, and
> >  therefore an odd number of half humps in the wave.
> >
> > Add to this other factors (of which Ferron mentions some) which
> compromise the theoretical, and you come up with a giant mess.
> >
> > This is exactly why Ferron presents an real-world method of finding
> the exact point of the antinode, using a characteristic of acoustics,
> namely that an interruption of the air column with a hole will prevent
> the sounding of all the notes except the second harmonic of the note
> which has a
> >  displacement antinode exactly at the point of the hole.
> >
> > As I said, I find this a rather extreme method of locating antinodes,
> but perhaps when you are working as an acoustic scientist for an
> instrument manufacturing company you can afford such excess.
> >
> > I believe that the main problem with Ferron is that he does not
> adequately explain the reasons for his calculation, which is why we are
> here now playing guessing games.
> >
> > This is based, I guess, on three factors. First, he feels he is not
> talking to a very acoustically sophisticated audience, and does not want
> to take the time and effort to lay it all out, as Joe Wolfe tries to do
> on his site. Second, am I correct that the book was written in French
> and then
> >  translated into English? Third, the editing and proofreading of the
> book, from what I have seen so far, is worse than atrocious. The
> publisher should be shot.
> >
> > However, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Don't you have a
> junker horn that is going to be best off as a lamp anyway? Is there
> anyone out there who can donate an old neck to science?
> >
> > It would be painful, but simple, to drill the holes as Ferron
> suggests, and see if things work as he claims. He was not a stupid man,
> and probably forgot more about acoustics than all of us know together
> (although I still question some of what is in his book).
> >
> > But this point could easily be proved or disproved empirically, at the
> cost of some holes in a neck.
> >
> >  Certainly dividing the wavlength by simple fractions as if the sax
> were a theoretically-ideal flute is not going to provide any useful
> information on this point.
> >
> > Toby
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > John jtalcott47@... wrote:                                           
> I generated the spreadsheet using the frequencies for the tempered
> scale.  From there it is an easy step to plug in the equation to
> generate the wavelengths of the fundamentals.  From there it is even
> easier to generate
> >  the whole number multiples that give the frequencies, or the whole
> number divisions that give the wavelengths of the harmonics.
> >
> > You could create the frequencies yourself by starting at AD0 and
> multiplying each frequency by 1.05946 to find the next higher half step,
> and dividing by 1.05946 to find the next lower.   I have Ferron to thank
> for that "magic" number.  It works for both frequencies and wavelengths.
> >
> > John
> >
> >
> > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, kymarto123@ wrote:
> > >
> > > Um, John...
> > >
> > > Where does that spreadsheet come from?
> > >
> > > Toby
> > >
> > > John jtalcott47@ wrote:                                             
> If anyone is still believes that Ferron's math might be accurate and
> that his illustrations depict even in a general way the distribution of
> nodal points in the neck, I have included a link to the wavelength
> spreadsheet
> > >  that helped me come to my conclusion that Ferron's work in this
> area was bogus.
> > >
> > > Wavelength Spreadsheet pdf.
> > >
> > > Wavelength Spreadsheet xls.
> > >
> > >
> > > The much discussed G and G# of the alto sax are highlighted.  Ferron
> took the difference in wavelengths of these two notes, in this case
> 372.2 - 351.3 = 20.9 mm.  He then divided by 3 20.9/3 = 6.97.  His
> conclusion was that the next closest node (sensitive harmonic area)was
> 6.97 mm closer to the
> > >  apex than G's node.  Subtract 6.97 from 372.2 and we get 365.23.
> > >
> > > Look for any note that has a half wavelength (location of node)of
> 365.23 and you will see how I came to my conclusion.
> > >
> > > A review of the other sources of my information can be found at this
> site:
> > >
> > > Acoustics
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > John
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, kymarto123@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I have some theories on what Ferron might be on about, but I am
> working with woefully incomplete information, having only a scan of pg
> 104 and the diagram of harmonic positions in the neck.
> > > >
> > > > I expect that the Ferron book will arrive within the next week,
> and when I have a chance to read it a bit I will come back and respond
> to John's last post.
> > > >
> > > > Toby
> > > >
> > >
> >
> 
> 

FYI, there are new tenor and alto necks on ebay for $50, for persons
inclined to experiment. In many colors!

Barry

> From: <kymarto123@...>
> Reply-To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2010 12:42:01 +0900 (JST)
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Talcott vs Ferron, round three
>    (snip)
> 
> However, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Don't you have a junker
> horn that is going to be best off as a lamp anyway? Is there anyone out there
> who can donate an old neck to science? 

Your point is well taken that the pressure (compression) nodes in a
conical tube do not always align exactly with the velocity
(displacement) antinodes.   An excellent description of that in layman's
terms can be found in this excerpt from:

Instruments History, Technology, and Performance of Instruments of
Western Music
by Murray Campbell, Clive Greated, & Arnold Myers

The positions of the internal nodes in the standing wave patterns of the
conical tube match exactly those in the corresponding patters of a
cylindrical tube open at both ends.  For example, in both cases the
pattern for mode 3 has a node one third of the way down the tube and
another node two thirds of the way down.

There are, however, some highly significant differences between the
pressure distributions . . . These differences can be understood by
recalling that the conical tube narrows towards the upper end, so that a
parcel of air moving up the tube is squeezed through a smaller and
smaller cross-sectional area.  This the pressure changes arising from
the oscillating air flows are magnified towards the top of the tube. 
The extreme case occurs right at the top, where in an ideal cone the
diameter is reduced to zero instead of the pressure node which we found
at the top of the open-ended cylindrical tube, we now find a pressure
antinode.  This is an important difference, since reed instruments like
the oboe and the bassoon require a pressure antinode at the playing end.

A more subtle difference concerns the positions of nodes and antinodes.
The nodes in the conical tube are at the same places as the nodes in the
equivalent open-ended cylinder, but the antinodes are shifted slightly
towards the upper end.  The distance from a node to the nearest antinode
cannot therefore be simply equal to a quarter wavelength.  However the
distance between two adjacent nodes remains a half a wavelength' the
distance from the upper end to the nearest node is also half a
wavelength. . .

Using these facts we can calculate the mode frequencies in the same way
that we did for the cylindrical tubes.  The result is that the
frequencies for the conical tube are identical with those for a
cylindrical tube of the same length open at both ends.

It is difficult to comprehend exactly what is taking place inside an
instrument with a vibrating column of air just by looking at curved
lines representing sound waves on a page.  This animated depiction
helped me to visualize and understand what is actually taking place at
the node and antinode positions.    Soundwave
<http://cnx.org/content/m12589/latest/PressureWaveNew.swf>

Although this somewhat related discussion of the different placement of
pressure nodes and velocity antinodes is both interesting and
enlightening, it is  not germane to the topic of this thread which is:

The difference in distance or spacing between the nodes (or antinodes)
of two different adjacent chromatic notes in the neck of a saxophone.

The juxtaposition of a single wave's pressure node and its relative
velocity antinode is irrelevant since that relationship would be the
same for any given frequency and its chromatic neighbors.

Until and unless someone can demonstrate a mathematical proof that the
difference in distance from the tip of the cone to the nodes/antinodes
in the neck of a saxophone of two adjacent chromatic tones is in fact
the difference in their quarter wavelengths divided by 3, this will be
my last post on this topic.

One last thought:  You can in fact just blindly divide a given
wavelength into equal parts and pretend that those are the positions of
the nodes in the air column.  The reason is that the nodes of the
pressure wave define its wavelength and whole number fractions thereof. 
If this were not the case we would have no harmonic series.   [:)]

John





--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, kymarto123@... wrote:
>
> No, what is important is to look at the displacement antinodes.
>
> --- John jtalcott47@... wrote:
> > Look at the pressure nodes in all of your sources.
> >
> >
> > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, kymarto123@ wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes, that's what I was afraid of.
> > >
> > > Aaaaaarrrghhhhh........!
> > >
> > > You still don't seem to get that the nodes and antinodes
associated
> > with certain wavelengths do not necessarily sit on exact fractions
of
> > the length. This is ESPECIALLY true in cones.
> > >
> > > Please have a very good look at the UNSW page that Lance pointed
out
> > to you. Look first at the open cylinder, with its nice, even half
humps,
> > and exact superposition of nodes/antinodes.
> > >
> > > Now have a look at the chart for cones. Note particularly that the
> > pressure antinodes and velocity antinodes are not perfectly aligned,
and
> > that the length of their half humps is not regular and symmetrical.
> > >
> > > Now go to Benade's FMA and look at pg. 433. Measure the length of
the
> > three half humps in the mode 2 chart. What do you find? Did you
notice
> > that the first half hump is the same length as the next two half
humps
> > together?
> > >
> > > The point is this: you can't just blindly divide a given
wavelength
> > into equal parts and pretend that those are the positions of the
nodes
> > in the air column.
> > >
> > > Even in an ideal cone, we are dealing with spherical waves instead
of
> > plane waves, as in a cylinder. There are corrections based on the
local
> > radius of the tube and the square of the local radius, because the
waves
> > spread perpendicularly to the wavefront as it progresses down the
tube.
> > Add to that
> > >  the fact that a stopped cylinder can never have a symmetrical
wave,
> > because the two ends are different kinds of nodes. A flute is a
> > different case, because both ends are displacement antinodes. An
open
> > cone follows this pattern but any stopped pipe must have diverse
nodes
> > at the two ends, and
> > >  therefore an odd number of half humps in the wave.
> > >
> > > Add to this other factors (of which Ferron mentions some) which
> > compromise the theoretical, and you come up with a giant mess.
> > >
> > > This is exactly why Ferron presents an real-world method of
finding
> > the exact point of the antinode, using a characteristic of
acoustics,
> > namely that an interruption of the air column with a hole will
prevent
> > the sounding of all the notes except the second harmonic of the note
> > which has a
> > >  displacement antinode exactly at the point of the hole.
> > >
> > > As I said, I find this a rather extreme method of locating
antinodes,
> > but perhaps when you are working as an acoustic scientist for an
> > instrument manufacturing company you can afford such excess.
> > >
> > > I believe that the main problem with Ferron is that he does not
> > adequately explain the reasons for his calculation, which is why we
are
> > here now playing guessing games.
> > >
> > > This is based, I guess, on three factors. First, he feels he is
not
> > talking to a very acoustically sophisticated audience, and does not
want
> > to take the time and effort to lay it all out, as Joe Wolfe tries to
do
> > on his site. Second, am I correct that the book was written in
French
> > and then
> > >  translated into English? Third, the editing and proofreading of
the
> > book, from what I have seen so far, is worse than atrocious. The
> > publisher should be shot.
> > >
> > > However, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Don't you have
a
> > junker horn that is going to be best off as a lamp anyway? Is there
> > anyone out there who can donate an old neck to science?
> > >
> > > It would be painful, but simple, to drill the holes as Ferron
> > suggests, and see if things work as he claims. He was not a stupid
man,
> > and probably forgot more about acoustics than all of us know
together
> > (although I still question some of what is in his book).
> > >
> > > But this point could easily be proved or disproved empirically, at
the
> > cost of some holes in a neck.
> > >
> > >  Certainly dividing the wavlength by simple fractions as if the
sax
> > were a theoretically-ideal flute is not going to provide any useful
> > information on this point.
> > >
> > > Toby
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > John jtalcott47@ wrote:
> > I generated the spreadsheet using the frequencies for the tempered
> > scale.  From there it is an easy step to plug in the equation to
> > generate the wavelengths of the fundamentals.  From there it is even
> > easier to generate
> > >  the whole number multiples that give the frequencies, or the
whole
> > number divisions that give the wavelengths of the harmonics.
> > >
> > > You could create the frequencies yourself by starting at AD0 and
> > multiplying each frequency by 1.05946 to find the next higher half
step,
> > and dividing by 1.05946 to find the next lower.   I have Ferron to
thank
> > for that "magic" number.  It works for both frequencies and
wavelengths.
> > >
> > > John
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, kymarto123@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Um, John...
> > > >
> > > > Where does that spreadsheet come from?
> > > >
> > > > Toby
> > > >
> > > > John jtalcott47@ wrote:
> > If anyone is still believes that Ferron's math might be accurate and
> > that his illustrations depict even in a general way the distribution
of
> > nodal points in the neck, I have included a link to the wavelength
> > spreadsheet
> > > >  that helped me come to my conclusion that Ferron's work in this
> > area was bogus.
> > > >
> > > > Wavelength Spreadsheet pdf.
> > > >
> > > > Wavelength Spreadsheet xls.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The much discussed G and G# of the alto sax are highlighted. 
Ferron
> > took the difference in wavelengths of these two notes, in this case
> > 372.2 - 351.3 = 20.9 mm.  He then divided by 3 20.9/3 = 6.97.  His
> > conclusion was that the next closest node (sensitive harmonic
area)was
> > 6.97 mm closer to the
> > > >  apex than G's node.  Subtract 6.97 from 372.2 and we get
365.23.
> > > >
> > > > Look for any note that has a half wavelength (location of
node)of
> > 365.23 and you will see how I came to my conclusion.
> > > >
> > > > A review of the other sources of my information can be found at
this
> > site:
> > > >
> > > > Acoustics
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > John
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, kymarto123@ wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I have some theories on what Ferron might be on about, but I
am
> > working with woefully incomplete information, having only a scan of
pg
> > 104 and the diagram of harmonic positions in the neck.
> > > > >
> > > > > I expect that the Ferron book will arrive within the next
week,
> > and when I have a chance to read it a bit I will come back and
respond
> > to John's last post.
> > > > >
> > > > > Toby
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>

I hate to point this out, but this is the sort of thing that tends to happen
when we get too wrapped up in the numbers and forget that we are simply
trying to build better playing instruments. The numbers, IMHO, are
impossible to make exact for every situation. True, they will get you close
to the solution, but in my experience they are far from an end unto
themselves. It has been my experience that you must build multiple
prototypes and see which one plays the best. I am unaware of any
manufacturer who does things any differently. Endless analysis of the
numbers won't make the horn play any better.

It's not at all like we are trying to invent a new instrument here. Where
things should be is pretty well known by now. This is not to say that
improvement is not possible, of course. I am contending that actual hands on
experimentation will yield considerably more useable results than abstract
mathematical analysis. I believe that there are many factors involved in the
design and construction of instruments which are not fully understood, and I
do find that much of the published research is sometimes contradictory. 

I have serious doubts that any useful discoveries will be made through
mathematical analysis which will result in significantly improved
saxophones, mouthpieces, or necks. I believe that building something that is
different and then examining the results from play testing in the real world
is the only way to make significant progress in design.

I am in no way opposed to the advancement of science. That being said, I
think it is important to acknowledge that instrument design is an art and
not a science.



-----Original Message-----
From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of kymarto123@...
Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2010 12:38 AM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re:[MouthpieceWork] Re: Talcott vs Ferron, round three

No, what is important is to look at the displacement antinodes.
 
--- John <jtalcott47@...> wrote:
> Look at the pressure nodes in all of your sources.
> 
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, that's what I was afraid of.
> >
> > Aaaaaarrrghhhhh........!
> >
> > You still don't seem to get that the nodes and antinodes associated
> with certain wavelengths do not necessarily sit on exact fractions of
> the length. This is ESPECIALLY true in cones.
> >
> > Please have a very good look at the UNSW page that Lance pointed out
> to you. Look first at the open cylinder, with its nice, even half humps,
> and exact superposition of nodes/antinodes.
> >
> > Now have a look at the chart for cones. Note particularly that the
> pressure antinodes and velocity antinodes are not perfectly aligned, and
> that the length of their half humps is not regular and symmetrical.
> >
> > Now go to Benade's FMA and look at pg. 433. Measure the length of the
> three half humps in the mode 2 chart. What do you find? Did you notice
> that the first half hump is the same length as the next two half humps
> together?
> >
> > The point is this: you can't just blindly divide a given wavelength
> into equal parts and pretend that those are the positions of the nodes
> in the air column.
> >
> > Even in an ideal cone, we are dealing with spherical waves instead of
> plane waves, as in a cylinder. There are corrections based on the local
> radius of the tube and the square of the local radius, because the waves
> spread perpendicularly to the wavefront as it progresses down the tube.
> Add to that
> >  the fact that a stopped cylinder can never have a symmetrical wave,
> because the two ends are different kinds of nodes. A flute is a
> different case, because both ends are displacement antinodes. An open
> cone follows this pattern but any stopped pipe must have diverse nodes
> at the two ends, and
> >  therefore an odd number of half humps in the wave.
> >
> > Add to this other factors (of which Ferron mentions some) which
> compromise the theoretical, and you come up with a giant mess.
> >
> > This is exactly why Ferron presents an real-world method of finding
> the exact point of the antinode, using a characteristic of acoustics,
> namely that an interruption of the air column with a hole will prevent
> the sounding of all the notes except the second harmonic of the note
> which has a
> >  displacement antinode exactly at the point of the hole.
> >
> > As I said, I find this a rather extreme method of locating antinodes,
> but perhaps when you are working as an acoustic scientist for an
> instrument manufacturing company you can afford such excess.
> >
> > I believe that the main problem with Ferron is that he does not
> adequately explain the reasons for his calculation, which is why we are
> here now playing guessing games.
> >
> > This is based, I guess, on three factors. First, he feels he is not
> talking to a very acoustically sophisticated audience, and does not want
> to take the time and effort to lay it all out, as Joe Wolfe tries to do
> on his site. Second, am I correct that the book was written in French
> and then
> >  translated into English? Third, the editing and proofreading of the
> book, from what I have seen so far, is worse than atrocious. The
> publisher should be shot.
> >
> > However, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Don't you have a
> junker horn that is going to be best off as a lamp anyway? Is there
> anyone out there who can donate an old neck to science?
> >
> > It would be painful, but simple, to drill the holes as Ferron
> suggests, and see if things work as he claims. He was not a stupid man,
> and probably forgot more about acoustics than all of us know together
> (although I still question some of what is in his book).
> >
> > But this point could easily be proved or disproved empirically, at the
> cost of some holes in a neck.
> >
> >  Certainly dividing the wavlength by simple fractions as if the sax
> were a theoretically-ideal flute is not going to provide any useful
> information on this point.
> >
> > Toby
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > John jtalcott47@... wrote:                                           
> I generated the spreadsheet using the frequencies for the tempered
> scale.  From there it is an easy step to plug in the equation to
> generate the wavelengths of the fundamentals.  From there it is even
> easier to generate
> >  the whole number multiples that give the frequencies, or the whole
> number divisions that give the wavelengths of the harmonics.
> >
> > You could create the frequencies yourself by starting at AD0 and
> multiplying each frequency by 1.05946 to find the next higher half step,
> and dividing by 1.05946 to find the next lower.   I have Ferron to thank
> for that "magic" number.  It works for both frequencies and wavelengths.
> >
> > John
> >
> >
> > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, kymarto123@ wrote:
> > >
> > > Um, John...
> > >
> > > Where does that spreadsheet come from?
> > >
> > > Toby
> > >
> > > John jtalcott47@ wrote:                                             
> If anyone is still believes that Ferron's math might be accurate and
> that his illustrations depict even in a general way the distribution of
> nodal points in the neck, I have included a link to the wavelength
> spreadsheet
> > >  that helped me come to my conclusion that Ferron's work in this
> area was bogus.
> > >
> > > Wavelength Spreadsheet pdf.
> > >
> > > Wavelength Spreadsheet xls.
> > >
> > >
> > > The much discussed G and G# of the alto sax are highlighted.  Ferron
> took the difference in wavelengths of these two notes, in this case
> 372.2 - 351.3 = 20.9 mm.  He then divided by 3 20.9/3 = 6.97.  His
> conclusion was that the next closest node (sensitive harmonic area)was
> 6.97 mm closer to the
> > >  apex than G's node.  Subtract 6.97 from 372.2 and we get 365.23.
> > >
> > > Look for any note that has a half wavelength (location of node)of
> 365.23 and you will see how I came to my conclusion.
> > >
> > > A review of the other sources of my information can be found at this
> site:
> > >
> > > Acoustics
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > John
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, kymarto123@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I have some theories on what Ferron might be on about, but I am
> working with woefully incomplete information, having only a scan of pg
> 104 and the diagram of harmonic positions in the neck.
> > > >
> > > > I expect that the Ferron book will arrive within the next week,
> and when I have a chance to read it a bit I will come back and respond
> to John's last post.
> > > >
> > > > Toby
> > > >
> > >
> >
> 
> 


------------------------------------

Got a Mouthpiece Work question?  Send it to MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com

Visit the site at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MouthpieceWork to see the
Files, Photos and Bookmarks relating to Mouthpiece Work.

To see and modify your groups, go to http://groups.yahoo.com/mygroupsYahoo!
Groups Links

As far as "the donation of necks to science" goes, our company recently
donated a number of necks to Curt Altarac for exactly the sort of research
that has been discussed here. Curt will present his findings at the
Saxophone Smackdown clinic to be held on February 6 of this year. The clinic
is open to the public.

 

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Barry Levine
Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2010 10:29 AM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Talcott vs Ferron, round three

 

  

FYI, there are new tenor and alto necks on ebay for $50, for persons
inclined to experiment. In many colors!

Barry


From: <kymarto123@...>
Reply-To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2010 12:42:01 +0900 (JST)
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Talcott vs Ferron, round three
   (snip)

However, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Don't you have a junker
horn that is going to be best off as a lamp anyway? Is there anyone out
there who can donate an old neck to science? 

John wrote: ...Until and unless someone can demonstrate a mathematical proof that the difference in distance from the tip of the cone to the nodes/antinodes in the neck of a saxophone of two adjacent chromatic tones is in fact the difference in their quarter wavelengths divided by 3, this will be my last post on this topic...

I agree that the discussion has not led to a resolution yet.  But what I think is needed is an empirical check, not a mathematical one.  We need someone to drill a few holes in a test neck to determine what the node spacing is.  Then we will have the answer to the way it really is.   Theory to explain it can follow later.





      

I agree. It is not clear what Ferron's reasoning might be. It may even be possible that he himself does not have a mathematical answer, but found the division by three empirically.

I think it is useless to assume Ferron is wrong because we cannot find the reasoning behind his statement, but his statement is rather unequivocal and the 'division by 3' is laid out in bold type. This is clearly not an unintended error.

If Ferron is indeed wrong, it will only take two holes in a neck ('which can easily be filled in later')  to prove it so.

Toby

Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:                                           

 
John wrote: ...Until and unless someone can demonstrate a mathematical proof that the difference in distance from the tip of the cone to the nodes/antinodes in the neck of a saxophone of two adjacent chromatic tones is in fact the difference in their quarter wavelengths divided by 3, this will be
 my last post on this topic...
  
 I agree that the discussion has not led to a resolution yet.  But what I think is needed is an empirical check, not a mathematical one.  We need someone to drill a few holes in a test neck to determine what the node spacing is.  Then we will have the answer to the way it really is.   Theory to
 explain it can follow later.


  



        
      
                 
                 
 

My taking leave of the discussion of the mathematics involved is based on the fact that I have presented my case as clearly and succinctly as I am able to do at this time. There is really no more I can say. I find it interesting that there was not more participation in the "division by 3" discussion by others in the forum who are conversant with the mathematics involved.

I could easily do the empirical trials by drilling holes, but at this point I think it would be better if someone else were to do this experiment due to the fact that my reported results may appear biased.

Besides, I would prefer to use my time in trying to recreate Benade's and Gebler's methodology in determining the "effective volume" of a mouthpiece as opposed to its geometric volume---another topic I find most interesting.

John 

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:
>
> 
> John wrote: ...Until and unless someone can demonstrate a mathematical proof that the difference in distance from the tip of the cone to the nodes/antinodes in the neck of a saxophone of two adjacent chromatic tones is in fact the difference in their quarter wavelengths divided by 3, this will be my last post on this topic...
> 
> I agree that the discussion has not led to a resolution yet.  But what I think is needed is an empirical check, not a mathematical one.  We need someone to drill a few holes in a test neck to determine what the node spacing is.  Then we will have the answer to the way it really is.   Theory to explain it can follow later.
>

I doubt that your experiments could appear biased. You drill the holes in the places specified by the formula and you see if the notes play or not. 

If they do then we all scratch our heads and try to figure out why, given that there doesn't seem to be any logical reason why one would divide by three. If they don't, then Ferron obviously is as mistaken as you think he is.. I would certainly trust you not to lie if Ferron proves to be right. I
 don't think anyone in this discussion is in it to be "right", only to solve this puzzle.

That being said, I can certainly understand your not wanting or needing to take this any further. 

I did mean, however, to clarify one point. Even if nodes/antinodes exist in the neck that are for harmonics above the cutoff frequency, perturbations at that point can have an effect on the tone quality of the radiated sound, since that contains harmonic content way above cutoff. 

Toby

John <jtalcott47@...> wrote:                                           My taking leave of the discussion of the mathematics involved is based on the fact that I have presented my case as clearly and succinctly as I am able to do at this time. There is really no more I can say. I find it
 interesting that there was not more participation in the "division by 3" discussion by others in the forum who are conversant with the mathematics involved.
 
 I could easily do the empirical trials by drilling holes, but at this point I think it would be better if someone else were to do this experiment due to the fact that my reported results may appear biased.
 
 Besides, I would prefer to use my time in trying to recreate Benade's and Gebler's methodology in determining the "effective volume" of a mouthpiece as opposed to its geometric volume---another topic I find most interesting.
 
 John 
 
 --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:
 >
 > 
 > John wrote: ...Until and unless someone can demonstrate a mathematical proof that the difference in distance from the tip of the cone to the nodes/antinodes in the neck of a saxophone of two adjacent chromatic tones is in fact the difference in their quarter wavelengths divided by 3, this will
 be my last post on this topic...
 > 
 > I agree that the discussion has not led to a resolution yet.  But what I think is needed is an empirical check, not a mathematical one.  We need someone to drill a few holes in a test neck to determine what the node spacing is.  Then we will have the answer to the way it really is.   Theory to
 explain it can follow later.
 >
 
 
      
                 
                 
 

I will probably see Curt this weekend at the Navy Sax Symposium near Washinton DC.  I'll ask him wassup.




________________________________
From: John <jtalcott47@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, January 11, 2010 8:58:16 AM
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Talcott vs Ferron, round three plus

  
My taking leave of the discussion of the mathematics involved is based on the fact that I have presented my case as clearly and succinctly as I am able to do at this time. There is really no more I can say. I find it interesting that there was not more participation in the "division by 3" discussion by others in the forum who are conversant with the mathematics involved.

I could easily do the empirical trials by drilling holes, but at this point I think it would be better if someone else were to do this experiment due to the fact that my reported results may appear biased.

Besides, I would prefer to use my time in trying to recreate Benade's and Gebler's methodology in determining the "effective volume" of a mouthpiece as opposed to its geometric volume---another topic I find most interesting.

John 

--- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@ ...> wrote:
>
> 
> John wrote: ...Until and unless someone can demonstrate a mathematical proof that the difference in distance from the tip of the cone to the nodes/antinodes in the neck of a saxophone of two adjacent chromatic tones is in fact the difference in their quarter wavelengths divided by 3, this will be my last post on this topic...
> 
> I agree that the discussion has not led to a resolution yet.  But what I think is needed is an empirical check, not a mathematical one.  We need someone to drill a few holes in a test neck to determine what the node spacing is.  Then we will have the answer to the way it really is.   Theory to explain it can follow later.
>





      

Curt won’t be at that show………he’ll be at NAMM……….these two events have conflicting dates this year

 

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Keith Bradbury
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2010 9:23 AM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Neck holes

 

  

I will probably see Curt this weekend at the Navy Sax Symposium near Washinton DC.  I'll ask him wassup.

 

  _____  

From: John <jtalcott47@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, January 11, 2010 8:58:16 AM
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Talcott vs Ferron, round three plus

  

My taking leave of the discussion of the mathematics involved is based on the fact that I have presented my case as clearly and succinctly as I am able to do at this time. There is really no more I can say. I find it interesting that there was not more participation in the "division by 3" discussion by others in the forum who are conversant with the mathematics involved.

I could easily do the empirical trials by drilling holes, but at this point I think it would be better if someone else were to do this experiment due to the fact that my reported results may appear biased.

Besides, I would prefer to use my time in trying to recreate Benade's and Gebler's methodology in determining the "effective volume" of a mouthpiece as opposed to its geometric volume---another topic I find most interesting.

John 

--- In MouthpieceWork@ <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>  yahoogroups. com, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@ ...> wrote:
>
> 
> John wrote: ...Until and unless someone can demonstrate a mathematical proof that the difference in distance from the tip of the cone to the nodes/antinodes in the neck of a saxophone of two adjacent chromatic tones is in fact the difference in their quarter wavelengths divided by 3, this will be my last post on this topic...
> 
> I agree that the discussion has not led to a resolution yet.  But what I think is needed is an empirical check, not a mathematical one.  We need someone to drill a few holes in a test neck to determine what the node spacing is.  Then we will have the answer to the way it really is.   Theory to explain it can follow later.
>

 

Won't a hole affect more than the one note and it's harmonics? Brass players will tell you a missing spit cork affects more than one note. It seems a large hole should affect the effective leght of the air column and a small enouigh one could work like another register key hole. 

I'm stil not sure what this has to do with facing a mouthpiece, but I'd still read it if it was moved to Steve's new acoustics group.


--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
>
> I doubt that your experiments could appear biased. You drill the holes in the places specified by the formula and you see if the notes play or not. 
> 
> If they do then we all scratch our heads and try to figure out why, given that there doesn't seem to be any logical reason why one would divide by three. If they don't, then Ferron obviously is as mistaken as you think he is.. I would certainly trust you not to lie if Ferron proves to be right. I
>  don't think anyone in this discussion is in it to be "right", only to solve this puzzle.
> 
> That being said, I can certainly understand your not wanting or needing to take this any further. 
> 
> I did mean, however, to clarify one point. Even if nodes/antinodes exist in the neck that are for harmonics above the cutoff frequency, perturbations at that point can have an effect on the tone quality of the radiated sound, since that contains harmonic content way above cutoff. 
> 

I have two drawers full of alto and tenor New York/Hamburg hard rubber blanks for sale. Anybody interested? email me here: theobark@...

 



  






      

A big hole in the neck will only allow only the note to sound whose displacement antinode sits there. Any other point has pressure variations, and the hole inhibits them, making the note impossible to sound.

Of course much depends on the size of the hole. Ferron specifices 5-6 mm, which is much bigger than any spit valve.

fidlershorns <grassinospam@...> wrote:                                           Won't a hole affect more than the one note and it's harmonics? Brass players will tell you a missing spit cork affects more than one note. It seems a large hole should affect the effective leght of the air
 column and a small enouigh one could work like another register key hole. 
 
 I'm stil not sure what this has to do with facing a mouthpiece, but I'd still read it if it was moved to Steve's new acoustics group.
 
 --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
 >
 > I doubt that your experiments could appear biased. You drill the holes in the places specified by the formula and you see if the notes play or not. 
 > 
 > If they do then we all scratch our heads and try to figure out why, given that there doesn't seem to be any logical reason why one would divide by three. If they don't, then Ferron obviously is as mistaken as you think he is.. I would certainly trust you not to lie if Ferron proves to be right.
 I
 >  don't think anyone in this discussion is in it to be "right", only to solve this puzzle.
 > 
 > That being said, I can certainly understand your not wanting or needing to take this any further. 
 > 
 > I did mean, however, to clarify one point. Even if nodes/antinodes exist in the neck that are for harmonics above the cutoff frequency, perturbations at that point can have an effect on the tone quality of the radiated sound, since that contains harmonic content way above cutoff. 
 >