For the sake of clarification, where is the dividing line when we are talking vintage vs. modern saxes?  Where does the Selmer Mark VI fall, for example?  I just purchased a Cannonball Vintage Series tenor that plays very much like a Mark VI.  In fact, I snagged it because it routinely beat Mark VI's in head to head competition in our shop, and smoked a Super Balanced the other day, too.  I just couldn't afford NOT to buy it at employeee price!  It does sound DIFFERENT from my 10M and Chu and Martin Committee, but it seems every bit as rich, in fact more so, and KILLS the others for intonation and eveness of scale.  So why should I beat my head against a wall?

Bill Hausmann

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


      

In MHO, and Sax designed over 25 years ago would be vintage.  

 
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: Bill Hausmann <zoot51@...>
To: mouthpiecework@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, December 26, 2009 5:18:14 PM
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Vintage vs. Modern Saxes

  
For the sake of clarification, where is the dividing line when we are talking vintage vs. modern saxes?  Where does the Selmer Mark VI fall, for example?  I just purchased a Cannonball Vintage Series tenor that plays very much like a Mark VI.  In fact, I snagged it because it routinely beat Mark VI's in head to head competition in our shop, and smoked a Super Balanced the other day, too.  I just couldn't afford NOT to buy it at employeee price!  It does sound DIFFERENT from my 10M and Chu and Martin Committee, but it seems every bit as rich, in fact more so, and KILLS the others for intonation and eveness of scale.  So why should I beat my head against a wall?

Bill Hausmann

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


 

My two cents: I think that there is definitely some aura of myth around vintage saxes. And there is no obvious divide between vintage and modern saxes, as bore design has been a continuous evolution. It is clearly all about what a player feels comfortable with. In the flute world, old Louis Lot
 flutes still fetch premium prices, especially for chamber work. Modern flutes like Powell, Haynes and others put them in the ground in terms of power and clarity of sound, but the old Lots had a delicacy and sweetness of tone which no modern horn can (read: has tried to) match.

Same can be said of old houses: why buy an old Craftsman or Victorian when you can have a modern home complete with all the modern fittings? Why buy a creaky, drafty old thing and spend a huge amount of time and money bringing it even half up to the standard of a modern home? This is basically the
 same argument, is it not? 

Toby

Bill Hausmann <zoot51@...> wrote:                                           For the sake of clarification, where is the dividing line when we are talking vintage vs. modern saxes?  Where does the Selmer Mark VI fall, for example?  I just purchased a Cannonball Vintage Series tenor that plays
 very much like a Mark VI.  In fact, I snagged it because it routinely beat Mark VI's in head to head competition in our shop, and smoked a Super Balanced the other day, too.  I just couldn't afford NOT to buy it at employeee price!  It does sound DIFFERENT from my 10M and Chu and Martin
 Committee, but it seems every bit as rich, in fact more so, and KILLS the others for intonation and eveness of scale.  So why should I beat my head against a wall?
 
 Bill Hausmann
 
 If you have to mic a saxophone, the rest of the band is TOO LOUD!
 
 
      
                 
                 
 

A Mk VI is pretty modern keywork with an old bore design.....they are
notorious for intonation issues on the extreme ranges of the horn

 

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Bill Hausmann
Sent: Saturday, December 26, 2009 6:18 PM
To: mouthpiecework@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Vintage vs. Modern Saxes

 

  

For the sake of clarification, where is the dividing line when we are
talking vintage vs. modern saxes? Where does the Selmer Mark VI fall, for
example? I just purchased a Cannonball Vintage Series tenor that plays very
much like a Mark VI. In fact, I snagged it because it routinely beat Mark
VI's in head to head competition in our shop, and smoked a Super Balanced
the other day, too. I just couldn't afford NOT to buy it at employeee price!
It does sound DIFFERENT from my 10M and Chu and Martin Committee, but it
seems every bit as rich, in fact more so, and KILLS the others for
intonation and eveness of scale. So why should I beat my head against a
wall?

Bill Hausmann

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

It doesn't stop folks, many pro players, from spending crazy amounts of money on them.
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: "STEVE GOODSON" 
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2009 18:21:46 
To: 
Subject: RE: [MouthpieceWork] Vintage vs. Modern Saxes

A Mk VI is pretty modern keywork with an old bore design.....they are
notorious for intonation issues on the extreme ranges of the horn

 

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Bill Hausmann
Sent: Saturday, December 26, 2009 6:18 PM
To: mouthpiecework@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Vintage vs. Modern Saxes

 

  

For the sake of clarification, where is the dividing line when we are
talking vintage vs. modern saxes? Where does the Selmer Mark VI fall, for
example? I just purchased a Cannonball Vintage Series tenor that plays very
much like a Mark VI. In fact, I snagged it because it routinely beat Mark
VI's in head to head competition in our shop, and smoked a Super Balanced
the other day, too. I just couldn't afford NOT to buy it at employeee price!
It does sound DIFFERENT from my 10M and Chu and Martin Committee, but it
seems every bit as rich, in fact more so, and KILLS the others for
intonation and eveness of scale. So why should I beat my head against a
wall?

Bill Hausmann

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

--- zoot51@... wrote:
> It doesn't stop folks, many pro players, from spending crazy amounts of money on them.
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "STEVE GOODSON" <saxgourmet@...>
> Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2009 18:21:46 
> To: <MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: RE: [MouthpieceWork] Vintage vs. Modern Saxes
> 
> A Mk VI is pretty modern keywork with an old bore design.....they are
> notorious for intonation issues on the extreme ranges of the horn
> 
>  
> 
> From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of Bill Hausmann
> Sent: Saturday, December 26, 2009 6:18 PM
> To: mouthpiecework@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Vintage vs. Modern Saxes
> 
>  
> 
>   
> 
> For the sake of clarification, where is the dividing line when we are
> talking vintage vs. modern saxes? Where does the Selmer Mark VI fall, for
> example? I just purchased a Cannonball Vintage Series tenor that plays very
> much like a Mark VI. In fact, I snagged it because it routinely beat Mark
> VI's in head to head competition in our shop, and smoked a Super Balanced
> the other day, too. I just couldn't afford NOT to buy it at employeee price!
> It does sound DIFFERENT from my 10M and Chu and Martin Committee, but it
> seems every bit as rich, in fact more so, and KILLS the others for
> intonation and eveness of scale. So why should I beat my head against a
> wall?
> 
> Bill Hausmann
> 
> If you have to mic a saxophone, the rest of the band is TOO LOUD!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

--- On Sat, 12/26/09, Bill Hausmann <zoot51@...> wrote:


From: Bill Hausmann <zoot51@...>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Vintage vs. Modern Saxes
To: mouthpiecework@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, December 26, 2009, 4:18 PM


  



For the sake of clarification, where is the dividing line when we are talking vintage vs. modern saxes? Where does the Selmer Mark VI fall, for example? I just purchased a Cannonball Vintage Series tenor that plays very much like a Mark VI. In fact, I snagged it because it routinely beat Mark VI's in head to head competition in our shop, and smoked a Super Balanced the other day, too. I just couldn't afford NOT to buy it at employeee price! It does sound DIFFERENT from my 10M and Chu and Martin Committee, but it seems every bit as rich, in fact more so, and KILLS the others for intonation and eveness of scale. So why should I beat my head against a wall?

Because Mark VI will go up in price almost every day and other saxes do not. There must be a good reason for it!!!!

Bill Hausmann

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









      

I really meant "Why should I fight the inherent deficiencies of a vintage horn when I can avoid the problems with a modern one that sounds just as good?"  But you bring up a good point.  WHY do people pay those prices?  I admit that SOME Mark VI's are exceptional, and SOME players are capable of taking advantage of their qualities, but lesser players with money in their pockets drive up the market because they feel they must have THE horn, rather than a cheaper, modern horn that will suit them better.  The crazy price bubble on vintage horns may already have burst, though, and those who bought their horns as "investments" could be in trouble now.

Bill Hausmann

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

--- On Thu, 12/31/09, Joseph Johnny <joex_us@...> wrote:


From: Joseph Johnny <joex_us@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Vintage vs. Modern Saxes
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, December 31, 2009, 8:51 AM


















--- On Sat, 12/26/09, Bill Hausmann <zoot51@...> wrote:


From: Bill Hausmann <zoot51@...>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Vintage vs. Modern Saxes
To: mouthpiecework@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, December 26, 2009, 4:18 PM


  

For the sake of clarification, where is the dividing line when we are talking vintage vs. modern saxes? Where does the Selmer Mark VI fall, for example? I just purchased a Cannonball Vintage Series tenor that plays very much like a Mark VI. In fact, I snagged it because it routinely beat Mark VI's in head to head competition in our shop, and smoked a Super Balanced the other day, too. I just couldn't afford NOT to buy it at employeee price! It does sound DIFFERENT from my 10M and Chu and Martin Committee, but it seems every bit as rich, in fact more so, and KILLS the others for intonation and eveness of scale. So why should I beat my head against a wall?

Because Mark VI will go up in price almost every day and other saxes do not. There must be a good reason for it!!!!

Bill Hausmann

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








      

"Why should I fight the inherent deficiencies of a vintage horn when I
can avoid the problems with a modern one that sounds just as good?   I
admit that SOME Mark VI's are exceptional, and SOME players are capable
of taking advantage of their qualities...."

You got to go with what works for you, regardless of what works for the other guy.






________________________________
From: Bill Hausmann <zoot51@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, December 31, 2009 11:35:47 PM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Vintage vs. Modern Saxes

  
I really meant "Why should I fight the inherent deficiencies of a vintage horn when I can avoid the problems with a modern one that sounds just as good?"  But you bring up a good point.  WHY do people pay those prices?  I admit that SOME Mark VI's are exceptional, and SOME players are capable of taking advantage of their qualities, but lesser players with money in their pockets drive up the market because they feel they must have THE horn, rather than a cheaper, modern horn that will suit them better.  The crazy price bubble on vintage horns may already have burst, though, and those who bought their horns as "investments" could be in trouble now.

Bill Hausmann

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

--- On Thu, 12/31/09, Joseph Johnny <joex_us@yahoo. com> wrote:


>From: Joseph Johnny <joex_us@yahoo. com>
>Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Vintage vs. Modern Saxes
>To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
>Date: Thursday, December 31, 2009, 8:51 AM
>
>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>--- On Sat, 12/26/09, Bill Hausmann <zoot51@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
>
>>From: Bill Hausmann <zoot51@yahoo. com>
>>Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Vintage vs. Modern Saxes
>>To: mouthpiecework@ yahoogroups. com
>>Date: Saturday, December 26, 2009, 4:18 PM
>>
>>
>>  
>>For the sake of clarification, where is the dividing line when we are talking vintage vs. modern saxes? Where does the Selmer Mark VI fall, for example? I just purchased a Cannonball Vintage Series tenor that plays very much like a Mark VI. In fact, I snagged it because it routinely beat Mark VI's in head to head competition in our shop, and smoked a Super Balanced the other day, too. I just couldn't afford NOT to buy it at employeee price! It does sound DIFFERENT from my 10M and Chu and Martin Committee, but it seems every bit as rich, in fact more so, and KILLS the others for intonation and eveness of scale. So why should I beat my head against a wall?
>>
>>Because Mark VI will go up in price almost every day and other saxes do not. There must be a good reason for it!!!!
>>
>>Bill Hausmann
>>
>>If you have to mic a saxophone, the rest of the band is TOO LOUD!
>>
>> 
>
>
> 

 


      

There is another aspect to consider when comparing new and vintage saxophones.  That is the fact that each vintage sax from the 30's, 40's, 50's, early 60's has a "charm" and "character" all its own.

These are the saxophones that the legends of jazz played on and made their classic recordings.

If anyone has played a Conn 6M, a Buescher 400, or a Selmer Super Balanced they know that each has a unique sound and feel.  The player who loves that particular sound with their set-up doesn't "fight" the saxophone, he adjusts to it and becomes comfortable with how it plays and feels.

Those of us who like to "tinker" with the vintage instruments do so out of a love for learning and discovering how and why they play the way they do.  It is not for the "commercial" value of selling improvements to customers, at least in my case.

There is a great satisfaction in restoring a great saxophone from the past so that once again it can be played and enjoyed---especially if it has not been cared for or abused.  Since they are no longer made, each one restored adds one more to the pool for posterity.  It is not always about money, in my view.  It is about preserving a heritage that is uniquely American (and a little bit French).

John

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
>
> "Why should I fight the inherent deficiencies of a vintage horn when I
> can avoid the problems with a modern one that sounds just as good?   I
> admit that SOME Mark VI's are exceptional, and SOME players are capable
> of taking advantage of their qualities...."
> 
> You got to go with what works for you, regardless of what works for the other guy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: Bill Hausmann <zoot51@...>
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thu, December 31, 2009 11:35:47 PM
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Vintage vs. Modern Saxes
> 
>   
> I really meant "Why should I fight the inherent deficiencies of a vintage horn when I can avoid the problems with a modern one that sounds just as good?"  But you bring up a good point.  WHY do people pay those prices?  I admit that SOME Mark VI's are exceptional, and SOME players are capable of taking advantage of their qualities, but lesser players with money in their pockets drive up the market because they feel they must have THE horn, rather than a cheaper, modern horn that will suit them better.  The crazy price bubble on vintage horns may already have burst, though, and those who bought their horns as "investments" could be in trouble now.
> 
> Bill Hausmann
> 
> If you have to mic a saxophone, the rest of the band is TOO LOUD!
> 
> --- On Thu, 12/31/09, Joseph Johnny <joex_us@yahoo. com> wrote:
> 
> 
> >From: Joseph Johnny <joex_us@yahoo. com>
> >Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Vintage vs. Modern Saxes
> >To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> >Date: Thursday, December 31, 2009, 8:51 AM
> >
> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >--- On Sat, 12/26/09, Bill Hausmann <zoot51@yahoo. com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>From: Bill Hausmann <zoot51@yahoo. com>
> >>Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Vintage vs. Modern Saxes
> >>To: mouthpiecework@ yahoogroups. com
> >>Date: Saturday, December 26, 2009, 4:18 PM
> >>
> >>
> >>  
> >>For the sake of clarification, where is the dividing line when we are talking vintage vs. modern saxes? Where does the Selmer Mark VI fall, for example? I just purchased a Cannonball Vintage Series tenor that plays very much like a Mark VI. In fact, I snagged it because it routinely beat Mark VI's in head to head competition in our shop, and smoked a Super Balanced the other day, too. I just couldn't afford NOT to buy it at employeee price! It does sound DIFFERENT from my 10M and Chu and Martin Committee, but it seems every bit as rich, in fact more so, and KILLS the others for intonation and eveness of scale. So why should I beat my head against a wall?
> >>
> >>Because Mark VI will go up in price almost every day and other saxes do not. There must be a good reason for it!!!!
> >>
> >>Bill Hausmann
> >>
> >>If you have to mic a saxophone, the rest of the band is TOO LOUD!
> >>
> >> 
> >
> >
> >
>

I couldn’t agree with you more……..too often horn and mouthpiece selections are made based on what somebody else is currently using or what a great player of the past used…….you should try what’s available and base your decision strictly on your personal results…….I think this is particularly true for mouthpieces, as different mouthpieces give  significantly different results on different horns and for different personal physiology…….

 

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of MartinMods
Sent: Friday, January 01, 2010 12:26 AM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Vintage vs. Modern Saxes

 

  

"Why should I fight the inherent deficiencies of a vintage horn when I can avoid the problems with a modern one that sounds just as good?   I admit that SOME Mark VI's are exceptional, and SOME players are capable of taking advantage of their qualities...."

You got to go with what works for you, regardless of what works for the other guy.





  _____  

From: Bill Hausmann <zoot51@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, December 31, 2009 11:35:47 PM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Vintage vs. Modern Saxes

  


I really meant "Why should I fight the inherent deficiencies of a vintage horn when I can avoid the problems with a modern one that sounds just as good?"  But you bring up a good point.  WHY do people pay those prices?  I admit that SOME Mark VI's are exceptional, and SOME players are capable of taking advantage of their qualities, but lesser players with money in their pockets drive up the market because they feel they must have THE horn, rather than a cheaper, modern horn that will suit them better.  The crazy price bubble on vintage horns may already have burst, though, and those who bought their horns as "investments" could be in trouble now.

Bill Hausmann

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

--- On Thu, 12/31/09, Joseph Johnny <joex_us@yahoo. com> wrote:


From: Joseph Johnny <joex_us@yahoo. com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Vintage vs. Modern Saxes
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Thursday, December 31, 2009, 8:51 AM

 




--- On Sat, 12/26/09, Bill Hausmann <zoot51@yahoo. com> wrote:


From: Bill Hausmann <zoot51@yahoo. com>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Vintage vs. Modern Saxes
To: mouthpiecework@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Saturday, December 26, 2009, 4:18 PM

  

For the sake of clarification, where is the dividing line when we are talking vintage vs. modern saxes? Where does the Selmer Mark VI fall, for example? I just purchased a Cannonball Vintage Series tenor that plays very much like a Mark VI. In fact, I snagged it because it routinely beat Mark VI's in head to head competition in our shop, and smoked a Super Balanced the other day, too. I just couldn't afford NOT to buy it at employeee price! It does sound DIFFERENT from my 10M and Chu and Martin Committee, but it seems every bit as rich, in fact more so, and KILLS the others for intonation and eveness of scale. So why should I beat my head against a wall?


Because Mark VI will go up in price almost every day and other saxes do not. There must be a good reason for it!!!!


Bill Hausmann

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





 

 

Why are the fonts on this individual's posts always so messed up?  It makes the messages hard to read and understand?  No one else's posts seem to do this as far as I can tell.

John
--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "STEVE GOODSON" <saxgourmet@...> wrote:
>
> I couldn’t agree with you more……..too often horn and mouthpiece selections are made based on what somebody else is currently using or what a great player of the past used…….you should try what’s available and base your decision strictly on your personal results…….I think this is particularly true for mouthpieces, as different mouthpieces give  significantly different results on different horns and for different personal physiology…….
> 
>  
> 
> From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of MartinMods
> Sent: Friday, January 01, 2010 12:26 AM
> To: MouthpieceWork@...m
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Vintage vs. Modern Saxes
> 
>  
> 
>   
> 
> "Why should I fight the inherent deficiencies of a vintage horn when I can avoid the problems with a modern one that sounds just as good?   I admit that SOME Mark VI's are exceptional, and SOME players are capable of taking advantage of their qualities...."
> 
> You got to go with what works for you, regardless of what works for the other guy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   _____  
> 
> From: Bill Hausmann <zoot51@...>
> To: MouthpieceWork@...m
> Sent: Thu, December 31, 2009 11:35:47 PM
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Vintage vs. Modern Saxes
> 
>   
> 
> 
> I really meant "Why should I fight the inherent deficiencies of a vintage horn when I can avoid the problems with a modern one that sounds just as good?"  But you bring up a good point.  WHY do people pay those prices?  I admit that SOME Mark VI's are exceptional, and SOME players are capable of taking advantage of their qualities, but lesser players with money in their pockets drive up the market because they feel they must have THE horn, rather than a cheaper, modern horn that will suit them better.  The crazy price bubble on vintage horns may already have burst, though, and those who bought their horns as "investments" could be in trouble now.
> 
> Bill Hausmann
> 
> If you have to mic a saxophone, the rest of the band is TOO LOUD!
> 
> --- On Thu, 12/31/09, Joseph Johnny <joex_us@yahoo. com> wrote:
> 
> 
> From: Joseph Johnny <joex_us@yahoo. com>
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Vintage vs. Modern Saxes
> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> Date: Thursday, December 31, 2009, 8:51 AM
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- On Sat, 12/26/09, Bill Hausmann <zoot51@yahoo. com> wrote:
> 
> 
> From: Bill Hausmann <zoot51@yahoo. com>
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Vintage vs. Modern Saxes
> To: mouthpiecework@ yahoogroups. com
> Date: Saturday, December 26, 2009, 4:18 PM
> 
>   
> 
> For the sake of clarification, where is the dividing line when we are talking vintage vs. modern saxes? Where does the Selmer Mark VI fall, for example? I just purchased a Cannonball Vintage Series tenor that plays very much like a Mark VI. In fact, I snagged it because it routinely beat Mark VI's in head to head competition in our shop, and smoked a Super Balanced the other day, too. I just couldn't afford NOT to buy it at employeee price! It does sound DIFFERENT from my 10M and Chu and Martin Committee, but it seems every bit as rich, in fact more so, and KILLS the others for intonation and eveness of scale. So why should I beat my head against a wall?
> 
> 
> Because Mark VI will go up in price almost every day and other saxes do not. There must be a good reason for it!!!!
> 
> 
> Bill Hausmann
> 
> If you have to mic a saxophone, the rest of the band is TOO LOUD!
>

I get a message on these posts asking if I wish to install a Japanese Language package in order to read them. It may be either the senders font or the language selected on their computer causing this.
Tony F.


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: John 
  To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Saturday, January 02, 2010 6:49 AM
  Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Vintage vs. Modern Saxes


    

  Why are the fonts on this individual's posts always so messed up? It makes the messages hard to read and understand? No one else's posts seem to do this as far as I can tell.

  John
  --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "STEVE GOODSON" <saxgourmet@...> wrote:
  >
  > I couldnâ?Tt agree with you moreâ?¦â?¦..too often horn and mouthpiece selections are made based on what somebody else is currently using or what a great player of the past usedâ?¦â?¦.you should try whatâ?Ts available and base your decision strictly on your personal resultsâ?¦â?¦.I think this is particularly true for mouthpieces, as different mouthpieces give significantly different results on different horns and for different personal physiologyâ?¦â?¦.
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of MartinMods
  > Sent: Friday, January 01, 2010 12:26 AM
  > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
  > Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Vintage vs. Modern Saxes
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > "Why should I fight the inherent deficiencies of a vintage horn when I can avoid the problems with a modern one that sounds just as good? I admit that SOME Mark VI's are exceptional, and SOME players are capable of taking advantage of their qualities...."
  > 
  > You got to go with what works for you, regardless of what works for the other guy.
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > _____ 
  > 
  > From: Bill Hausmann <zoot51@...>
  > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
  > Sent: Thu, December 31, 2009 11:35:47 PM
  > Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Vintage vs. Modern Saxes
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > I really meant "Why should I fight the inherent deficiencies of a vintage horn when I can avoid the problems with a modern one that sounds just as good?" But you bring up a good point. WHY do people pay those prices? I admit that SOME Mark VI's are exceptional, and SOME players are capable of taking advantage of their qualities, but lesser players with money in their pockets drive up the market because they feel they must have THE horn, rather than a cheaper, modern horn that will suit them better. The crazy price bubble on vintage horns may already have burst, though, and those who bought their horns as "investments" could be in trouble now.
  > 
  > Bill Hausmann
  > 
  > If you have to mic a saxophone, the rest of the band is TOO LOUD!
  > 
  > --- On Thu, 12/31/09, Joseph Johnny <joex_us@yahoo. com> wrote:
  > 
  > 
  > From: Joseph Johnny <joex_us@yahoo. com>
  > Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Vintage vs. Modern Saxes
  > To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
  > Date: Thursday, December 31, 2009, 8:51 AM
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > --- On Sat, 12/26/09, Bill Hausmann <zoot51@yahoo. com> wrote:
  > 
  > 
  > From: Bill Hausmann <zoot51@yahoo. com>
  > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Vintage vs. Modern Saxes
  > To: mouthpiecework@ yahoogroups. com
  > Date: Saturday, December 26, 2009, 4:18 PM
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > For the sake of clarification, where is the dividing line when we are talking vintage vs. modern saxes? Where does the Selmer Mark VI fall, for example? I just purchased a Cannonball Vintage Series tenor that plays very much like a Mark VI. In fact, I snagged it because it routinely beat Mark VI's in head to head competition in our shop, and smoked a Super Balanced the other day, too. I just couldn't afford NOT to buy it at employeee price! It does sound DIFFERENT from my 10M and Chu and Martin Committee, but it seems every bit as rich, in fact more so, and KILLS the others for intonation and eveness of scale. So why should I beat my head against a wall?
  > 
  > 
  > Because Mark VI will go up in price almost every day and other saxes do not. There must be a good reason for it!!!!
  > 
  > 
  > Bill Hausmann
  > 
  > If you have to mic a saxophone, the rest of the band is TOO LOUD!
  >



  

".too often horn and mouthpiece
selections are made based on what somebody else is currently using or what a
great player of the past used…….you should try what’s available and base your
decision strictly on your personal results..."

This may be true, but to elaborate...It is important to realize that one's ability to accurately evaluate the potential of any instrument or mouthpiece, for oneself, is directly dependent upon one's degree of playing proficiency.   

The accomplished artist, who has technically mastered the instrument, or the seriously aspiring student, practicing hours every day with those same ideals, is going to have an entirely different set of criteria for choosing an instrument or mouthpiece to call their own, than say, the hobbyist, who enjoys playing but who's idea of practicing is putting on a new reed.

With mastery, the ability to play anything in tune at a professional level is 2nd nature, and one will gladly forgo the mindlessly easy, programmed scale , and likewise programmed tonal qualities of a modern instrument in favor of the expressive flexibility, tonal complexity and responsiveness, of a great vintage horn.  

The difference between vintage and modern saxes is a simple matter of acoustics.  The quality of any tone is entirely determined by the amplitude AND PITCH RELATIONSHIPS (intonation) of the resonances generating the fundamental and it's first few overtones, to each other.  The amount that these amplitudes and pitch relationships can be altered by the player determines the tonal complexity, tonal variety, tonal responsiveness, and pitch flexibility of the instrument.  With certain limitations (the instrument must be controllable to a certain degree), more is better, and this was the goal of vintage horn design - the sound.  

In order to provide the player with an even scale and easy intonation, the modern saxophone design must absolutely set the pitch relationships and limit the amount of pitch flexibility of the harmonic resonances for every note, and this directly and most noticeably affects the tonal aspects of the instrument.  As the pitches are set, so too is the tone quality.  It may have a nice tonal center, but as the resonances are not flexible in pitch, the tone will lack depth, complexity, and responsiveness, compared to a great vintage instrument.  For the accomplished player and the discriminating listener, it will quickly become monotonous. 

In order to reclaim the lost tonal quality, the player resorts to the Holy Grail mouthpiece search, but that's for another thread.....





________________________________
From: STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, January 1, 2010 11:55:14 AM
Subject: RE: [MouthpieceWork] Vintage vs. Modern Saxes

  
I couldn’t agree with you more……..too often horn and mouthpiece
selections are made based on what somebody else is currently using or what a
great player of the past used…….you should try what’s available and base your
decision strictly on your personal results…….I think this is particularly true
for mouthpieces, as different mouthpieces give  significantly different results
on different horns and for different personal physiology…….
 
From:MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
[mailto:MouthpieceW ork@yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of MartinMods
Sent: Friday, January 01, 2010 12:26 AM
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Vintage vs. Modern Saxes
 
  
"Why
should I fight the inherent deficiencies of a vintage horn when I can
avoid the problems with a modern one that sounds just as good?   I admit
that SOME Mark VI's are exceptional, and SOME players are capable of taking
advantage of their qualities... ."

You got to go with what works for you, regardless of what works for the other
guy.





________________________________
 
From:Bill Hausmann
<zoot51@yahoo. com>
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Thu, December 31, 2009 11:35:47 PM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Vintage vs. Modern Saxes

  
I really meant "Why should I fight the inherent deficiencies of a vintage horn when I can avoid the problems with a modern one that sounds just as good?"  But you bring up a good point.  WHY do people pay those prices?  I admit that SOME Mark VI's are exceptional, and SOME players are capable of taking advantage of their qualities, but lesser players with money in their pockets drive up the market because they feel they must have THE horn, rather than a cheaper, modern horn that will suit them better.  The crazy price bubble on vintage horns may already have burst, though, and those who bought their horns as "investments" could be in trouble now.

Bill Hausmann

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

--- On Thu, 12/31/09, Joseph Johnny <joex_us@yahoo. com> wrote:

From: Joseph Johnny <joex_us@yahoo. com>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Vintage vs. Modern Saxes
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Thursday, December 31, 2009, 8:51 AM
 


--- On Sat, 12/26/09, Bill Hausmann <zoot51@yahoo. com> wrote:

From: Bill Hausmann <zoot51@yahoo. com>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Vintage vs. Modern Saxes
To: mouthpiecework@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Saturday, December 26, 2009, 4:18 PM
  
For the sake of clarification, where is the dividing line when we are talking vintage vs. modern saxes? Where does the Selmer Mark VI fall, for example? I just purchased a Cannonball Vintage Series tenor that plays very much like a Mark VI. In fact, I snagged it because it routinely beat Mark VI's in head to head competition in our shop, and smoked a Super Balanced the other day, too. I just couldn't afford NOT to buy it at employeee price! It does sound DIFFERENT from my 10M and Chu and Martin Committee, but it seems every bit as rich, in fact more so, and KILLS the others for intonation and eveness of scale. So why should I beat my head against a wall?

Because Mark VI will go up in price almost every day and other saxes do not. There must be a good reason for it!!!!

Bill Hausmann

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

 
 
 
 


      

“As the pitches are set, so too is the tone quality”

 

I gotta ask: what is your source for this statement? This has most definitely NOT been my experience……….I’d like to see “chapter and verse” on this if you don’t mind……..

  <http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=6282900/grpspId=1705032198/msgId=7994/stime=1262445872/nc1=4025373/nc2=5922730/nc3=4836037> 

Keep in mind now, I am referring to the peak pitches of the harmonic resonances which form the h. regime for any note.  I am not referring to the fundamental pitches of the tempered scale of the horn.  Need we go further?




________________________________
From: STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, January 2, 2010 10:35:49 AM
Subject: RE: [MouthpieceWork] Vintage vs. Modern Saxes

  
“As the pitches are set, so too is the tone quality”
 
I gotta ask: what is your source for this statement? This has most
definitely NOT been my experience……….I’d like to see “chapter and verse” on
this if you don’t mind……..
 


      

Hal> I think the sounds of today are less bright than the sounds from a 
few decades ago.  More players are moving to the dark side ; )

MartinMods wrote:
> Keep in mind now, I am referring to the peak pitches of the harmonic 
> resonances which form the h. regime for any note.  I am not referring 
> to the fundamental pitches of the tempered scale of the horn.  Need we 
> go further?
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...>
> *To:* MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> *Sent:* Sat, January 2, 2010 10:35:49 AM
> *Subject:* RE: [MouthpieceWork] Vintage vs. Modern Saxes
>
> “As the pitches are set, so too is the tone quality”
>
> I gotta ask: what is your source for this statement? This has most 
> definitely NOT been my experience……….I’d like to see “chapter and 
> verse” on this if you don’t mind……..*//*
>
>

For the most part, the relative brightness or darkness of a horn is
determined by the cut-off frequency of the open tone holes.  The initial quality of the tone however, it's complexity, flexibility, and response characteristics, are determined by the relationships of the harmonic resonances which generate it, with themselves.

To make a synthesizer analogy - The harmonic regime is the oscillator, who's waveform is determined by the harmonic resonance amplitude and peak pitch relationships.  The open tone holes are the filter and the cut-off frequency of the filter determines the relative brightness or darkness of the sound.   


________________________________
From: Hal Cooper <halcooper79@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Cc: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
Sent: Sat, January 2, 2010 4:33:11 PM
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Peak pitches ...

  
Hal> I think the sounds of today are less bright than the sounds from a 
few decades ago.  More players are moving to the dark side ; )

MartinMods wrote:
> Keep in mind now, I am referring to the peak pitches of the harmonic 
> resonances which form the h. regime for any note.  I am not referring 
> to the fundamental pitches of the tempered scale of the horn.  Need we 
> go further?
>
> ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -
> *From:* STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@cox. net>
> *To:* MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> *Sent:* Sat, January 2, 2010 10:35:49 AM
> *Subject:* RE: [MouthpieceWork] Vintage vs. Modern Saxes
>
> “As the pitches are set, so too is the tone quality”
>
> I gotta ask: what is your source for this statement? This has most 
> definitely NOT been my experience……….I’d like to see “chapter and 
> verse” on this if you don’t mind……..*//*
>
>

 


      

It would be very interesting to measure the bore profiles of various instruments both vintage and modern and get some real numbers. One could then also see if there were any consistent differences. I know from Sax's writings that he highly valued a certain delicacy of tonal quality (he was, after all, designing an orchestral instrument, which had to blend in ensemble). This is why he went to so much trouble with his "parabolic" bore.

Later bore designs placed more value on edge and volume to help the sax hold its own in very different venues. 

There is an analogous situation with flutes: old French instruments like the Louis Lot and Bonneville are today highly prized for their delicacy of sound and command high prices. 

Of course, keywork has not changed much on the flute, and so there is very little difference in feel or need to adjust when going from one instrument to another. I know that many players have a modern Haynes or Powell or Sankyo or Miramatsu for orchestral or solo work, and a Lot or other vintage flute for chamber music and some recordings.

Toby

--- MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
> Keep in mind now, I am referring to the peak pitches of the harmonic resonances which form the h. regime for any note.  I am not referring to the fundamental pitches of the tempered scale of the horn.  Need we go further?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...>
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sat, January 2, 2010 10:35:49 AM
> Subject: RE: [MouthpieceWork] Vintage vs. Modern Saxes
> 
>   
> “As the pitches are set, so too is the tone quality”
>  
> I gotta ask: what is your source for this statement? This has most
> definitely NOT been my experience……….I’d like to see “chapter and verse” on
> this if you don’t mind……..
>  
> 
> 
>       

I have not seen a parabolic bore that actually exists.....only  anecdotal
references, but no patent documents or actual instruments.......could
someone provide some specific documentation? No hearsay, but real patent
applications or other specific documents. I've heard for years that Buescher
had a parabolic bore, but not one of the hundreds of Buescher's I've seen
had one, nor have I ever seen a reference to a parabolic bore in their
advertising. Surely if they went to the trouble and expense of making such a
bore they would have promoted it. I've only seen a handful of original Sax
horns, and none of them had a parabolic bore. I don't recall seeing
references to such a bore in the original patent documents of Sax. Don't get
me wrong, such a bore may be a good idea, but I'm not convinced anyone has
actually produced one. Any help on solving this mystery with documentation
would be MUCH appreciated.




-----Original Message-----
From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of kymarto123@...
Sent: Saturday, January 02, 2010 7:38 PM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Vintage vs. Modern Saxes

It would be very interesting to measure the bore profiles of various
instruments both vintage and modern and get some real numbers. One could
then also see if there were any consistent differences. I know from Sax's
writings that he highly valued a certain delicacy of tonal quality (he was,
after all, designing an orchestral instrument, which had to blend in
ensemble). This is why he went to so much trouble with his "parabolic" bore.

Later bore designs placed more value on edge and volume to help the sax hold
its own in very different venues. 

There is an analogous situation with flutes: old French instruments like the
Louis Lot and Bonneville are today highly prized for their delicacy of sound
and command high prices. 

Of course, keywork has not changed much on the flute, and so there is very
little difference in feel or need to adjust when going from one instrument
to another. I know that many players have a modern Haynes or Powell or
Sankyo or Miramatsu for orchestral or solo work, and a Lot or other vintage
flute for chamber music and some recordings.

Toby

--- MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
> Keep in mind now, I am referring to the peak pitches of the harmonic
resonances which form the h. regime for any note.  I am not referring to the
fundamental pitches of the tempered scale of the horn.  Need we go further?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...>
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sat, January 2, 2010 10:35:49 AM
> Subject: RE: [MouthpieceWork] Vintage vs. Modern Saxes
> 
>   
> "As the pitches are set, so too is the tone quality"
>  
> I gotta ask: what is your source for this statement? This has most
> definitely NOT been my experience....I'd like to see "chapter and verse"
on
> this if you don't mind....
>  
> 
> 
>       


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

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

Steve,

Gary Scavone has a couple of excellent pages devoted to the parabolic bore in his thesis (google "scavone thesis") starting on pg. 67, including Sax's own explanation of the bore, some descriptions by a historian (Jap Kool) who apparently saw one or more, and a detailed acoustic analysis, showing
 how such a bore would change the sound (not much, and not the way Sax says it does).

Definitely worth a read.

Toby

STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...> wrote:                                           I have not seen a parabolic bore that actually exists.....only  anecdotal
 references, but no patent documents or actual instruments.......could
 someone provide some specific documentation? No hearsay, but real patent
 applications or other specific documents. I've heard for years that Buescher
 had a parabolic bore, but not one of the hundreds of Buescher's I've seen
 had one, nor have I ever seen a reference to a parabolic bore in their
 advertising. Surely if they went to the trouble and expense of making such a
 bore they would have promoted it. I've only seen a handful of original Sax
 horns, and none of them had a parabolic bore. I don't recall seeing
 references to such a bore in the original patent documents of Sax. Don't get
 me wrong, such a bore may be a good idea, but I'm not convinced anyone has
 actually produced one. Any help on solving this mystery with documentation
 would be MUCH appreciated.
 
 -----Original Message-----
 From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
 On Behalf Of kymarto123@...
 Sent: Saturday, January 02, 2010 7:38 PM
 To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
 Subject: Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Vintage vs. Modern Saxes
 
 It would be very interesting to measure the bore profiles of various
 instruments both vintage and modern and get some real numbers. One could
 then also see if there were any consistent differences. I know from Sax's
 writings that he highly valued a certain delicacy of tonal quality (he was,
 after all, designing an orchestral instrument, which had to blend in
 ensemble). This is why he went to so much trouble with his "parabolic" bore.
 
 Later bore designs placed more value on edge and volume to help the sax hold
 its own in very different venues. 
 
 There is an analogous situation with flutes: old French instruments like the
 Louis Lot and Bonneville are today highly prized for their delicacy of sound
 and command high prices. 
 
 Of course, keywork has not changed much on the flute, and so there is very
 little difference in feel or need to adjust when going from one instrument
 to another. I know that many players have a modern Haynes or Powell or
 Sankyo or Miramatsu for orchestral or solo work, and a Lot or other vintage
 flute for chamber music and some recordings.
 
 Toby
 
 --- MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
 > Keep in mind now, I am referring to the peak pitches of the harmonic
 resonances which form the h. regime for any note.  I am not referring to the
 fundamental pitches of the tempered scale of the horn.  Need we go further?
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > ________________________________
 > From: STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...>
 > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
 > Sent: Sat, January 2, 2010 10:35:49 AM
 > Subject: RE: [MouthpieceWork] Vintage vs. Modern Saxes
 > 
 >   
 > "As the pitches are set, so too is the tone quality"
 >  
 > I gotta ask: what is your source for this statement? This has most
 > definitely NOT been my experience....I'd like to see "chapter and verse"
 on
 > this if you don't mind....
 >  
 > 
 > 
 >       
 
 ------------------------------------
 
 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
 
 
      
                 
                 
 

I've got Scarvone's thesis, and will read it again when I get back to the
office (I'm in Las Vegas on vacation currently)...the Jap Kool book, IMHO,
is almost totally bogus...

 

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of kymarto123@...
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 10:21 PM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Vintage vs. Modern Saxes

 

  

Steve,

Gary Scavone has a couple of excellent pages devoted to the parabolic bore
in his thesis (google "scavone thesis") starting on pg. 67, including Sax's
own explanation of the bore, some descriptions by a historian (Jap Kool) who
apparently saw one or more, and a detailed acoustic analysis, showing how
such a bore would change the sound (not much, and not the way Sax says it
does).

Definitely worth a read.

Toby

STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...> wrote:

  

I have not seen a parabolic bore that actually exists.....only anecdotal
references, but no patent documents or actual instruments.......could
someone provide some specific documentation? No hearsay, but real patent
applications or other specific documents. I've heard for years that Buescher
had a parabolic bore, but not one of the hundreds of Buescher's I've seen
had one, nor have I ever seen a reference to a parabolic bore in their
advertising. Surely if they went to the trouble and expense of making such a
bore they would have promoted it. I've only seen a handful of original Sax
horns, and none of them had a parabolic bore. I don't recall seeing
references to such a bore in the original patent documents of Sax. Don't get
me wrong, such a bore may be a good idea, but I'm not convinced anyone has
actually produced one. Any help on solving this mystery with documentation
would be MUCH appreciated.

-----Original Message-----
From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> ]
On Behalf Of kymarto123@... <mailto:kymarto123%40ybb.ne.jp> 
Sent: Saturday, January 02, 2010 7:38 PM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>

Subject: Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Vintage vs. Modern Saxes

It would be very interesting to measure the bore profiles of various
instruments both vintage and modern and get some real numbers. One could
then also see if there were any consistent differences. I know from Sax's
writings that he highly valued a certain delicacy of tonal quality (he was,
after all, designing an orchestral instrument, which had to blend in
ensemble). This is why he went to so much trouble with his "parabolic" bore.

Later bore designs placed more value on edge and volume to help the sax hold
its own in very different venues. 

There is an analogous situation with flutes: old French instruments like the
Louis Lot and Bonneville are today highly prized for their delicacy of sound
and command high prices. 

Of course, keywork has not changed much on the flute, and so there is very
little difference in feel or need to adjust when going from one instrument
to another. I know that many players have a modern Haynes or Powell or
Sankyo or Miramatsu for orchestral or solo work, and a Lot or other vintage
flute for chamber music and some recordings.

Toby

--- MartinMods <lancelotburt@... <mailto:lancelotburt%40yahoo.com> >
wrote:
> Keep in mind now, I am referring to the peak pitches of the harmonic
resonances which form the h. regime for any note. I am not referring to the
fundamental pitches of the tempered scale of the horn. Need we go further?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@... <mailto:saxgourmet%40cox.net> >
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> 
> Sent: Sat, January 2, 2010 10:35:49 AM
> Subject: RE: [MouthpieceWork] Vintage vs. Modern Saxes
> 
> 
> "As the pitches are set, so too is the tone quality"
> 
> I gotta ask: what is your source for this statement? This has most
> definitely NOT been my experience....I'd like to see "chapter and verse"
on
> this if you don't mind....
> 
> 
> 
> 

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

Got a Mouthpiece Work question? Send it to MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.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

 

 

What I'm looking for is real evidence that a parabolic bore exists or has
existed....documents, definitive photographs etc.    I just feel like I
would have encountered one by now, and so far I have not. Lots of talk, but
no parabolic bores. Of course, I don't claim to have seen it all! I'll check
out Scarvone when I get home this weekend.

 

A parabolic bore makes good sense, but is more expensive to produce. I would
think that any company who makes (or has made) one would have advertised the
fact. Believe me, I've looked for one, and just can't seem to find it!

 

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of STEVE GOODSON
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 11:41 PM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Vintage vs. Modern Saxes

 

  

I've got Scarvone's thesis, and will read it again when I get back to the
office (I'm in Las Vegas on vacation currently)...the Jap Kool book, IMHO,
is almost totally bogus...

 

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of kymarto123@...
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 10:21 PM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Vintage vs. Modern Saxes

 

  

Steve,

Gary Scavone has a couple of excellent pages devoted to the parabolic bore
in his thesis (google "scavone thesis") starting on pg. 67, including Sax's
own explanation of the bore, some descriptions by a historian (Jap Kool) who
apparently saw one or more, and a detailed acoustic analysis, showing how
such a bore would change the sound (not much, and not the way Sax says it
does).

Definitely worth a read.

Toby

STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...> wrote:

  

I have not seen a parabolic bore that actually exists.....only anecdotal
references, but no patent documents or actual instruments.......could
someone provide some specific documentation? No hearsay, but real patent
applications or other specific documents. I've heard for years that Buescher
had a parabolic bore, but not one of the hundreds of Buescher's I've seen
had one, nor have I ever seen a reference to a parabolic bore in their
advertising. Surely if they went to the trouble and expense of making such a
bore they would have promoted it. I've only seen a handful of original Sax
horns, and none of them had a parabolic bore. I don't recall seeing
references to such a bore in the original patent documents of Sax. Don't get
me wrong, such a bore may be a good idea, but I'm not convinced anyone has
actually produced one. Any help on solving this mystery with documentation
would be MUCH appreciated.

-----Original Message-----
From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> ]
On Behalf Of kymarto123@... <mailto:kymarto123%40ybb.ne.jp> 
Sent: Saturday, January 02, 2010 7:38 PM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>

Subject: Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Vintage vs. Modern Saxes

It would be very interesting to measure the bore profiles of various
instruments both vintage and modern and get some real numbers. One could
then also see if there were any consistent differences. I know from Sax's
writings that he highly valued a certain delicacy of tonal quality (he was,
after all, designing an orchestral instrument, which had to blend in
ensemble). This is why he went to so much trouble with his "parabolic" bore.

Later bore designs placed more value on edge and volume to help the sax hold
its own in very different venues. 

There is an analogous situation with flutes: old French instruments like the
Louis Lot and Bonneville are today highly prized for their delicacy of sound
and command high prices. 

Of course, keywork has not changed much on the flute, and so there is very
little difference in feel or need to adjust when going from one instrument
to another. I know that many players have a modern Haynes or Powell or
Sankyo or Miramatsu for orchestral or solo work, and a Lot or other vintage
flute for chamber music and some recordings.

Toby

--- MartinMods <lancelotburt@... <mailto:lancelotburt%40yahoo.com> >
wrote:
> Keep in mind now, I am referring to the peak pitches of the harmonic
resonances which form the h. regime for any note. I am not referring to the
fundamental pitches of the tempered scale of the horn. Need we go further?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@... <mailto:saxgourmet%40cox.net> >
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> 
> Sent: Sat, January 2, 2010 10:35:49 AM
> Subject: RE: [MouthpieceWork] Vintage vs. Modern Saxes
> 
> 
> "As the pitches are set, so too is the tone quality"
> 
> I gotta ask: what is your source for this statement? This has most
> definitely NOT been my experience....I'd like to see "chapter and verse"
on
> this if you don't mind....
> 
> 
> 
> 

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

Got a Mouthpiece Work question? Send it to MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.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

 

 

Why would a "parabolic bore" make good sense?  What acoustic purpose would it serve?  In what way would it be superior to a straight sided conical bore?

It seems to me that anyone who has actually taken the time to study Scavone's dissertation would conclude that this parabolic bore issue has been settled for quite a while.  It is akin to looking for "Big Foot" or the "Loch Ness Monster" in my opinion.

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "STEVE GOODSON" <saxgourmet@...> wrote:
>
> What I'm looking for is real evidence that a parabolic bore exists or has
> existed....documents, definitive photographs etc.    I just feel like I
> would have encountered one by now, and so far I have not. Lots of talk, but
> no parabolic bores. Of course, I don't claim to have seen it all! I'll check
> out Scarvone when I get home this weekend.
> 
>  
> 
> A parabolic bore makes good sense, but is more expensive to produce. I would
> think that any company who makes (or has made) one would have advertised the
> fact. Believe me, I've looked for one, and just can't seem to find it!
> 
>  
> 
> From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of STEVE GOODSON
> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 11:41 PM
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Vintage vs. Modern Saxes
> 
>  
> 
>   
> 
> I've got Scarvone's thesis, and will read it again when I get back to the
> office (I'm in Las Vegas on vacation currently)...the Jap Kool book, IMHO,
> is almost totally bogus...
> 
>  
> 
> From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of kymarto123@...
> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 10:21 PM
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Vintage vs. Modern Saxes
> 
>  
> 
>   
> 
> Steve,
> 
> Gary Scavone has a couple of excellent pages devoted to the parabolic bore
> in his thesis (google "scavone thesis") starting on pg. 67, including Sax's
> own explanation of the bore, some descriptions by a historian (Jap Kool) who
> apparently saw one or more, and a detailed acoustic analysis, showing how
> such a bore would change the sound (not much, and not the way Sax says it
> does).
> 
> Definitely worth a read.
> 
> Toby
> 
> STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...> wrote:
> 
>   
> 
> I have not seen a parabolic bore that actually exists.....only anecdotal
> references, but no patent documents or actual instruments.......could
> someone provide some specific documentation? No hearsay, but real patent
> applications or other specific documents. I've heard for years that Buescher
> had a parabolic bore, but not one of the hundreds of Buescher's I've seen
> had one, nor have I ever seen a reference to a parabolic bore in their
> advertising. Surely if they went to the trouble and expense of making such a
> bore they would have promoted it. I've only seen a handful of original Sax
> horns, and none of them had a parabolic bore. I don't recall seeing
> references to such a bore in the original patent documents of Sax. Don't get
> me wrong, such a bore may be a good idea, but I'm not convinced anyone has
> actually produced one. Any help on solving this mystery with documentation
> would be MUCH appreciated.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
> [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> ]
> On Behalf Of kymarto123@... <mailto:kymarto123%40ybb.ne.jp> 
> Sent: Saturday, January 02, 2010 7:38 PM
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
> 
> Subject: Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Vintage vs. Modern Saxes
> 
> It would be very interesting to measure the bore profiles of various
> instruments both vintage and modern and get some real numbers. One could
> then also see if there were any consistent differences. I know from Sax's
> writings that he highly valued a certain delicacy of tonal quality (he was,
> after all, designing an orchestral instrument, which had to blend in
> ensemble). This is why he went to so much trouble with his "parabolic" bore.
> 
> Later bore designs placed more value on edge and volume to help the sax hold
> its own in very different venues. 
> 
> There is an analogous situation with flutes: old French instruments like the
> Louis Lot and Bonneville are today highly prized for their delicacy of sound
> and command high prices. 
> 
> Of course, keywork has not changed much on the flute, and so there is very
> little difference in feel or need to adjust when going from one instrument
> to another. I know that many players have a modern Haynes or Powell or
> Sankyo or Miramatsu for orchestral or solo work, and a Lot or other vintage
> flute for chamber music and some recordings.
> 
> Toby
> 
> --- MartinMods <lancelotburt@... <mailto:lancelotburt%40yahoo.com> >
> wrote:
> > Keep in mind now, I am referring to the peak pitches of the harmonic
> resonances which form the h. regime for any note. I am not referring to the
> fundamental pitches of the tempered scale of the horn. Need we go further?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ________________________________
> > From: STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@... <mailto:saxgourmet%40cox.net> >
> > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> 
> > Sent: Sat, January 2, 2010 10:35:49 AM
> > Subject: RE: [MouthpieceWork] Vintage vs. Modern Saxes
> > 
> > 
> > "As the pitches are set, so too is the tone quality"
> > 
> > I gotta ask: what is your source for this statement? This has most
> > definitely NOT been my experience....I'd like to see "chapter and verse"
> on
> > this if you don't mind....
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> ------------------------------------
> 
> Got a Mouthpiece Work question? Send it to MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.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
>

Because it could be used for marketing purposes even though of no acoustic value.
----- Original Message -----
From: John <jtalcott47@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 15:53:35 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Vintage vs. Modern Saxes

Why would a "parabolic bore" make good sense?  What acoustic purpose would it serve?  In what way would it be superior to a straight sided conical bore?

It seems to me that anyone who has actually taken the time to study Scavone's dissertation would conclude that this parabolic bore issue has been settled for quite a while.  It is akin to looking for "Big Foot" or the "Loch Ness Monster" in my opinion.

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "STEVE GOODSON" <saxgourmet@...> wrote:
>
> What I'm looking for is real evidence that a parabolic bore exists or has
> existed....documents, definitive photographs etc.    I just feel like I
> would have encountered one by now, and so far I have not. Lots of talk, but
> no parabolic bores. Of course, I don't claim to have seen it all! I'll check
> out Scarvone when I get home this weekend.
> 
>  
> 
> A parabolic bore makes good sense, but is more expensive to produce. I would
> think that any company who makes (or has made) one would have advertised the
> fact. Believe me, I've looked for one, and just can't seem to find it!
> 
>  
> 
> From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of STEVE GOODSON
> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 11:41 PM
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Vintage vs. Modern Saxes
> 
>  
> 
>   
> 
> I've got Scarvone's thesis, and will read it again when I get back to the
> office (I'm in Las Vegas on vacation currently)...the Jap Kool book, IMHO,
> is almost totally bogus...
> 
>  
> 
> From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of kymarto123@...
> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 10:21 PM
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Vintage vs. Modern Saxes
> 
>  
> 
>   
> 
> Steve,
> 
> Gary Scavone has a couple of excellent pages devoted to the parabolic bore
> in his thesis (google "scavone thesis") starting on pg. 67, including Sax's
> own explanation of the bore, some descriptions by a historian (Jap Kool) who
> apparently saw one or more, and a detailed acoustic analysis, showing how
> such a bore would change the sound (not much, and not the way Sax says it
> does).
> 
> Definitely worth a read.
> 
> Toby
> 
> STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...> wrote:
> 
>   
> 
> I have not seen a parabolic bore that actually exists.....only anecdotal
> references, but no patent documents or actual instruments.......could
> someone provide some specific documentation? No hearsay, but real patent
> applications or other specific documents. I've heard for years that Buescher
> had a parabolic bore, but not one of the hundreds of Buescher's I've seen
> had one, nor have I ever seen a reference to a parabolic bore in their
> advertising. Surely if they went to the trouble and expense of making such a
> bore they would have promoted it. I've only seen a handful of original Sax
> horns, and none of them had a parabolic bore. I don't recall seeing
> references to such a bore in the original patent documents of Sax. Don't get
> me wrong, such a bore may be a good idea, but I'm not convinced anyone has
> actually produced one. Any help on solving this mystery with documentation
> would be MUCH appreciated.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
> [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> ]
> On Behalf Of kymarto123@... <mailto:kymarto123%40ybb.ne.jp> 
> Sent: Saturday, January 02, 2010 7:38 PM
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
> 
> Subject: Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Vintage vs. Modern Saxes
> 
> It would be very interesting to measure the bore profiles of various
> instruments both vintage and modern and get some real numbers. One could
> then also see if there were any consistent differences. I know from Sax's
> writings that he highly valued a certain delicacy of tonal quality (he was,
> after all, designing an orchestral instrument, which had to blend in
> ensemble). This is why he went to so much trouble with his "parabolic" bore.
> 
> Later bore designs placed more value on edge and volume to help the sax hold
> its own in very different venues. 
> 
> There is an analogous situation with flutes: old French instruments like the
> Louis Lot and Bonneville are today highly prized for their delicacy of sound
> and command high prices. 
> 
> Of course, keywork has not changed much on the flute, and so there is very
> little difference in feel or need to adjust when going from one instrument
> to another. I know that many players have a modern Haynes or Powell or
> Sankyo or Miramatsu for orchestral or solo work, and a Lot or other vintage
> flute for chamber music and some recordings.
> 
> Toby
> 
> --- MartinMods <lancelotburt@... <mailto:lancelotburt%40yahoo.com> >
> wrote:
> > Keep in mind now, I am referring to the peak pitches of the harmonic
> resonances which form the h. regime for any note. I am not referring to the
> fundamental pitches of the tempered scale of the horn. Need we go further?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ________________________________
> > From: STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@... <mailto:saxgourmet%40cox.net> >
> > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> 
> > Sent: Sat, January 2, 2010 10:35:49 AM
> > Subject: RE: [MouthpieceWork] Vintage vs. Modern Saxes
> > 
> > 
> > "As the pitches are set, so too is the tone quality"
> > 
> > I gotta ask: what is your source for this statement? This has most
> > definitely NOT been my experience....I'd like to see "chapter and verse"
> on
> > this if you don't mind....
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> ------------------------------------
> 
> Got a Mouthpiece Work question? Send it to MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.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
>

Of course.  What was I thinking?  :)

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, peteleoni@... wrote:
>
> Because it could be used for marketing purposes even though of no acoustic value.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: John <jtalcott47@...>
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 15:53:35 -0600 (CST)
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Vintage vs. Modern Saxes
> 
> Why would a "parabolic bore" make good sense?  What acoustic purpose would it serve?  In what way would it be superior to a straight sided conical bore?
> 
> It seems to me that anyone who has actually taken the time to study Scavone's dissertation would conclude that this parabolic bore issue has been settled for quite a while.  It is akin to looking for "Big Foot" or the "Loch Ness Monster" in my opinion.

I thought some makers called their dual taper conical bores "parabolic".  The neck has a slightly different taper than the rest of the sax.  The sax is not a true cone, but not a true parabola of rotation (a paraboloid) either.  Ferron discusses this on pg 18.  My straight Conn has the general shape he describes.  The taper changes from the high b on up.    


      

Parabolic.  I though that meant you needed to use more diaphragm support on long tones.




________________________________
From: Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, January 22, 2010 7:34:42 PM
Subject: Re: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Vintage vs. Modern Saxes

  
I thought some makers called their dual taper conical bores "parabolic".  The neck has a slightly different taper than the rest of the sax.  The sax is not a true cone, but not a true parabola of rotation (a paraboloid) either.  Ferron discusses this on pg 18.  My straight Conn has the general shape he describes.  The taper changes from the high b on up.    

 


      

Actually, Keith, most modern saxophones are a series of FOUR cones: neck,
body tube, bow, and bell. All have different tapers. This system is almost
universally used on professional grade instruments by all the major
manufacturers.

 

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Keith Bradbury
Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 6:35 PM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Vintage vs. Modern Saxes

 

  

I thought some makers called their dual taper conical bores "parabolic".
The neck has a slightly different taper than the rest of the sax.  The sax
is not a true cone, but not a true parabola of rotation (a paraboloid)
either.  Ferron discusses this on pg 18.  My straight Conn has the general
shape he describes.  The taper changes from the high b on up.    

 

Actually, John, it makes pretty good sense to me..it might be a very good
way to solve the "octave matching" problem. As anyone who has actually built
some saxophones knows, the octaves are not perfect, and tend to get sharper
as pitch increases. The natural overtone series is NOT a perfect doubling of
the number of cycles per second. A parabolic bore might be quite useful in
reducing the effects of the natural laws of physics.

 

As a matter of full disclosure, my company does NOT build a parabolic bore
horn, and at this time we have no intention of doing so, so there is
absolutely no commercial motive in this discussion on my part. I have
experimented with increasing the bore diameter at specific points with good
results, but we deal with the octave matching problems through the use of
"compensator keys", which we believe to be far more efficient.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

rom: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of John
Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 3:54 PM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Vintage vs. Modern Saxes

 

  

Why would a "parabolic bore" make good sense? What acoustic purpose would it
serve? In what way would it be superior to a straight sided conical bore?

It seems to me that anyone who has actually taken the time to study
Scavone's dissertation would conclude that this parabolic bore issue has
been settled for quite a while. It is akin to looking for "Big Foot" or the
"Loch Ness Monster" in my opinion.

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> , "STEVE GOODSON" <saxgourmet@...>
wrote:
>
> What I'm looking for is real evidence that a parabolic bore exists or has
> existed....documents, definitive photographs etc. I just feel like I
> would have encountered one by now, and so far I have not. Lots of talk,
but
> no parabolic bores. Of course, I don't claim to have seen it all! I'll
check
> out Scarvone when I get home this weekend.
> 
> 
> 
> A parabolic bore makes good sense, but is more expensive to produce. I
would
> think that any company who makes (or has made) one would have advertised
the
> fact. Believe me, I've looked for one, and just can't seem to find it!
> 
> 
> 
> From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> ]
> On Behalf Of STEVE GOODSON
> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 11:41 PM
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> 
> Subject: RE: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Vintage vs. Modern Saxes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've got Scarvone's thesis, and will read it again when I get back to the
> office (I'm in Las Vegas on vacation currently)...the Jap Kool book, IMHO,
> is almost totally bogus...
> 
> 
> 
> From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> ]
> On Behalf Of kymarto123@...
> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 10:21 PM
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> 
> Subject: RE: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Vintage vs. Modern Saxes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steve,
> 
> Gary Scavone has a couple of excellent pages devoted to the parabolic bore
> in his thesis (google "scavone thesis") starting on pg. 67, including
Sax's
> own explanation of the bore, some descriptions by a historian (Jap Kool)
who
> apparently saw one or more, and a detailed acoustic analysis, showing how
> such a bore would change the sound (not much, and not the way Sax says it
> does).
> 
> Definitely worth a read.
> 
> Toby
> 
> STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> I have not seen a parabolic bore that actually exists.....only anecdotal
> references, but no patent documents or actual instruments.......could
> someone provide some specific documentation? No hearsay, but real patent
> applications or other specific documents. I've heard for years that
Buescher
> had a parabolic bore, but not one of the hundreds of Buescher's I've seen
> had one, nor have I ever seen a reference to a parabolic bore in their
> advertising. Surely if they went to the trouble and expense of making such
a
> bore they would have promoted it. I've only seen a handful of original Sax
> horns, and none of them had a parabolic bore. I don't recall seeing
> references to such a bore in the original patent documents of Sax. Don't
get
> me wrong, such a bore may be a good idea, but I'm not convinced anyone has
> actually produced one. Any help on solving this mystery with documentation
> would be MUCH appreciated.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> 
> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
> [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> 
> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> ]
> On Behalf Of kymarto123@... <mailto:kymarto123%40ybb.ne.jp> 
> Sent: Saturday, January 02, 2010 7:38 PM
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
> 
> Subject: Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Vintage vs. Modern Saxes
> 
> It would be very interesting to measure the bore profiles of various
> instruments both vintage and modern and get some real numbers. One could
> then also see if there were any consistent differences. I know from Sax's
> writings that he highly valued a certain delicacy of tonal quality (he
was,
> after all, designing an orchestral instrument, which had to blend in
> ensemble). This is why he went to so much trouble with his "parabolic"
bore.
> 
> Later bore designs placed more value on edge and volume to help the sax
hold
> its own in very different venues. 
> 
> There is an analogous situation with flutes: old French instruments like
the
> Louis Lot and Bonneville are today highly prized for their delicacy of
sound
> and command high prices. 
> 
> Of course, keywork has not changed much on the flute, and so there is very
> little difference in feel or need to adjust when going from one instrument
> to another. I know that many players have a modern Haynes or Powell or
> Sankyo or Miramatsu for orchestral or solo work, and a Lot or other
vintage
> flute for chamber music and some recordings.
> 
> Toby
> 
> --- MartinMods <lancelotburt@... <mailto:lancelotburt%40yahoo.com> >
> wrote:
> > Keep in mind now, I am referring to the peak pitches of the harmonic
> resonances which form the h. regime for any note. I am not referring to
the
> fundamental pitches of the tempered scale of the horn. Need we go further?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ________________________________
> > From: STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@... <mailto:saxgourmet%40cox.net> >
> > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> 
> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> 
> > Sent: Sat, January 2, 2010 10:35:49 AM
> > Subject: RE: [MouthpieceWork] Vintage vs. Modern Saxes
> > 
> > 
> > "As the pitches are set, so too is the tone quality"
> > 
> > I gotta ask: what is your source for this statement? This has most
> > definitely NOT been my experience....I'd like to see "chapter and verse"
> on
> > this if you don't mind....
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> ------------------------------------
> 
> Got a Mouthpiece Work question? Send it to MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> 
> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.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
>

Steve, please read Scavone and get back to us on this "theory" of yours.
One does not actually need to build saxophones to know the behavior of
octaves on the instrument.  A reasonable level of playing skill and
study of acoustics is more than sufficient. By the way, how does an
"octave" get sharper?  An octave is an interval.  Doesn't it get wider
or narrower than the perfect 1:2 ratio of the frequencies?

The natural overtone series is indeed a perfect whole number multiple
relationship between the fundamental and the higher harmonics.  That's
why it is called the natural harmonic or overtone series as discovered
by Pythagorus around 500 BC.  In a saxophone---especially one of poor
design and therefore poor harmonicity the modes indeed stray from the
perfect whole number ratios.  That does not mean that the natural
overtone series is imperfect---only the bore of that saxophone at that
frequency.

Increasing or decreasing the bore diameter at specific points in a
saxophone bears no relationship whatever to making one or more sides of
a straight sided cone slightly curved to create the misnamed "parabolic
bore".  Neither does producing a saxophone with 4 different tapers in
the neck the, the body tube, the bell bow, and the bell.  Except for the
last section of the bell which has a short bell flare these are 4
straight sided cones which behave as such even though there are toroidal
bends in two of them.  There are really no octave intonation problems
that would be solved by making the straight sided walls curved the
length of the cone of the saxophone body.  If anything it would create
more intonation challenges to deal with along with those that already
exist.




--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "STEVE GOODSON" <saxgourmet@...>
wrote:
>
> Actually, John, it makes pretty good sense to me..it might be a very
good
> way to solve the "octave matching" problem. As anyone who has actually
built
> some saxophones knows, the octaves are not perfect, and tend to get
sharper
> as pitch increases. The natural overtone series is NOT a perfect
doubling of
> the number of cycles per second. A parabolic bore might be quite
useful in
> reducing the effects of the natural laws of physics.
>
>
>
> As a matter of full disclosure, my company does NOT build a parabolic
bore
> horn, and at this time we have no intention of doing so, so there is
> absolutely no commercial motive in this discussion on my part. I have
> experimented with increasing the bore diameter at specific points with
good
> results, but we deal with the octave matching problems through the use
of
> "compensator keys", which we believe to be far more efficient.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> rom: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of John
> Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 3:54 PM
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Vintage vs. Modern Saxes
>
>
>
>
>
> Why would a "parabolic bore" make good sense? What acoustic purpose
would it
> serve? In what way would it be superior to a straight sided conical
bore?
>
> It seems to me that anyone who has actually taken the time to study
> Scavone's dissertation would conclude that this parabolic bore issue
has
> been settled for quite a while. It is akin to looking for "Big Foot"
or the
> "Loch Ness Monster" in my opinion.
>
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> , "STEVE GOODSON"
saxgourmet@
> wrote:
> >
> > What I'm looking for is real evidence that a parabolic bore exists
or has
> > existed....documents, definitive photographs etc. I just feel like I
> > would have encountered one by now, and so far I have not. Lots of
talk,
> but
> > no parabolic bores. Of course, I don't claim to have seen it all!
I'll
> check
> > out Scarvone when I get home this weekend.
> >
> >
> >
> > A parabolic bore makes good sense, but is more expensive to produce.
I
> would
> > think that any company who makes (or has made) one would have
advertised
> the
> > fact. Believe me, I've looked for one, and just can't seem to find
it!
> >
> >
> >
> > From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
> [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> ]
> > On Behalf Of STEVE GOODSON
> > Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 11:41 PM
> > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: RE: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Vintage vs. Modern Saxes
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I've got Scarvone's thesis, and will read it again when I get back
to the
> > office (I'm in Las Vegas on vacation currently)...the Jap Kool book,
IMHO,
> > is almost totally bogus...
> >
> >
> >
> > From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
> [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> ]
> > On Behalf Of kymarto123@
> > Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 10:21 PM
> > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: RE: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Vintage vs. Modern Saxes
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Steve,
> >
> > Gary Scavone has a couple of excellent pages devoted to the
parabolic bore
> > in his thesis (google "scavone thesis") starting on pg. 67,
including
> Sax's
> > own explanation of the bore, some descriptions by a historian (Jap
Kool)
> who
> > apparently saw one or more, and a detailed acoustic analysis,
showing how
> > such a bore would change the sound (not much, and not the way Sax
says it
> > does).
> >
> > Definitely worth a read.
> >
> > Toby
> >
> > STEVE GOODSON saxgourmet@ wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > I have not seen a parabolic bore that actually exists.....only
anecdotal
> > references, but no patent documents or actual
instruments.......could
> > someone provide some specific documentation? No hearsay, but real
patent
> > applications or other specific documents. I've heard for years that
> Buescher
> > had a parabolic bore, but not one of the hundreds of Buescher's I've
seen
> > had one, nor have I ever seen a reference to a parabolic bore in
their
> > advertising. Surely if they went to the trouble and expense of
making such
> a
> > bore they would have promoted it. I've only seen a handful of
original Sax
> > horns, and none of them had a parabolic bore. I don't recall seeing
> > references to such a bore in the original patent documents of Sax.
Don't
> get
> > me wrong, such a bore may be a good idea, but I'm not convinced
anyone has
> > actually produced one. Any help on solving this mystery with
documentation
> > would be MUCH appreciated.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
> > [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> ]
> > On Behalf Of kymarto123@ <mailto:kymarto123%40ybb.ne.jp>
> > Sent: Saturday, January 02, 2010 7:38 PM
> > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
> >
> > Subject: Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Vintage vs. Modern Saxes
> >
> > It would be very interesting to measure the bore profiles of various
> > instruments both vintage and modern and get some real numbers. One
could
> > then also see if there were any consistent differences. I know from
Sax's
> > writings that he highly valued a certain delicacy of tonal quality
(he
> was,
> > after all, designing an orchestral instrument, which had to blend in
> > ensemble). This is why he went to so much trouble with his
"parabolic"
> bore.
> >
> > Later bore designs placed more value on edge and volume to help the
sax
> hold
> > its own in very different venues.
> >
> > There is an analogous situation with flutes: old French instruments
like
> the
> > Louis Lot and Bonneville are today highly prized for their delicacy
of
> sound
> > and command high prices.
> >
> > Of course, keywork has not changed much on the flute, and so there
is very
> > little difference in feel or need to adjust when going from one
instrument
> > to another. I know that many players have a modern Haynes or Powell
or
> > Sankyo or Miramatsu for orchestral or solo work, and a Lot or other
> vintage
> > flute for chamber music and some recordings.
> >
> > Toby
> >
> > --- MartinMods lancelotburt@ <mailto:lancelotburt%40yahoo.com> >
> > wrote:
> > > Keep in mind now, I am referring to the peak pitches of the
harmonic
> > resonances which form the h. regime for any note. I am not referring
to
> the
> > fundamental pitches of the tempered scale of the horn. Need we go
further?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: STEVE GOODSON saxgourmet@ <mailto:saxgourmet%40cox.net> >
> > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Sat, January 2, 2010 10:35:49 AM
> > > Subject: RE: [MouthpieceWork] Vintage vs. Modern Saxes
> > >
> > >
> > > "As the pitches are set, so too is the tone quality"
> > >
> > > I gotta ask: what is your source for this statement? This has most
> > > definitely NOT been my experience....I'd like to see "chapter and
verse"
> > on
> > > this if you don't mind....
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Got a Mouthpiece Work question? Send it to
MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.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
> >
>

Apparently what Sax was talking about is taking a straight-sided cone and making the front part (where the toneholes are) curve inward. There is a drawing in the Scavone thesis. 

From that thesis:

It appears that the parabolic conical bore prescribed by Adophe Sax produces negligible differences in resonance frequency placement versus a pure conical bore. The acoustic behavior of a woodwind instrument air column is greatly complicated by the presence of toneholes and a mouthpiece. Thus, it
 is likely that the unique qualities associated with saxophones of this shape (and era) are most attributable to other factors, as well as further possible bore deformities .In general, saxophones which have the parabolic conical shape als ohave a "darker" tone quality. Such behavior
might be attributed to a misalignment of higher partials, preventing these harmonics from fully cooperating in the regime of oscillation and thus creating a sound which has less high spectral energy.It is difficult to determine the reasons an instrument might be considered to "focus" better,
 though this quality could be associated with proper alignment of the lowest and strongest resonances of an
air column .In this case, an instrument design might sacrifice high harmonic alignment to achieve better alignment of the lowest resonances. Beyond such speculation, it is clear that the shape of the
saxophone has evolved since its invention around 1840.

"A check by the writer of various modern saxophones indicates these instruments follow a well defined conical shape and the parabolic forms observed by Kool in the early Sax saxophone have virtually been discarded. This modi cation of the bore resulted in a change in the saxophone's timbre, but
 the principle of its mode of vibration remained the same ,i.e. it operated as an open tube (Hemke,1975,p.67)."

Toby

Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:                                           
I thought some makers called their dual taper conical bores "parabolic".  The neck has a slightly different taper than the rest of the sax.  The sax is not a true cone, but not a true parabola of rotation (a paraboloid) either.  Ferron discusses this on pg 18.  My straight Conn has the general
 shape he describes.  The taper changes from the high b on up.    


        
      
                 
                 
 

Even when the we follow whatever theory, in the real world, for reasons we don't understand, or things we did not properly account for, we find we have a bit of error.

I will use this comparison... I am an amateur radio operator and know a little about antennas, enough to have a few articles written.  The comparison to woodwinds is close enough, standing waves -- only radio waves in a wire rather than sound waves in a tube.  And the math is all the same, but the constants are a little different.

So we know that the third register is sharp.  Same thing happens in antennas, when operated at 3 x fundamental, the resonant frequency is a little on the high side of the simple 3 x F.

And there are "end corrections" applied.  We are probably not applying good fudge factors for that, either.  It happens in other fields, not just woodwinds.  When you calculate antenna dimensions they always tell you, "Calculate by the formula, then add a few feet.  Once you have it up, trim the ends until you have it resonant."

We have to tune our instruments at the mouthpiece, barrel, or tuning slide, too.

And the same instrument with different players, we know they will have to tune up a little differently.  No one has mentioned the player yet.  Benade discusses the effect of the player, to a small extent.  I think it was one paper with hand drawings.

But this is all a big "so what"?  You and I as a mouthpiece refacer or repairer or whatever else we do with mouthpieces just work on the mouthpiece.  We are not rebuilding our customers' saxophones to some theoretical specification that he may or may not like.

The theory only gets you in the ballpark.  After that you have to adjust this, adjust that to get it right.

My Dad (deceased) played a monstrosity known as "steel guitar".  Yes, a Showbud doubleneck 10.  Each neck had a different tuning.  And even if you adjusted each string to be perfectly in tune in reference to A = 440 hz, it would sound out of tune.  Bad out of tune.  You had to fudge certain pitches  up or down a bit.  This note tuned to an A = 438 hz reference, that note tuned to A = 441 hz, etc.  There were discussions over who had the best tuning method to tune the E9.  

And then toss on top, footpedals that would raise or lower certain strings, so that without moving the bar the chord played would change from tonic to subdominant, or to dominant, or to minor.  And adjustments for each of those.

So much for theory.

Anyway, my point, you can calculate all you want, and a lot of it is "so what" or "and how does that help us"?  

My point, how does all this help us improve the mouthpiece?  

I remember a movie where some nerds were trying to figure out what the "perfect woman" would look like.  That's fine, but even if you really could figure that out, then you have the guy that says, "Yeah, but I like redheads with freckles, long legs and big bazookas."

And if calculations would produce the perfect saxophone, or clarinet, the University of South Podunk would have run them through the computer and come up with a set of specifications long ago.

They haven't.  

We don't know the answers.

Heck, we don't even know all the questions.

Paul C.

Well said!

Sonus Instrument Repair

Tom Tapscott

802 Glendale Dr

Clarksville, TN 37043

931-551-9411

sonusrepair@...

--- On Fri, 1/22/10, tenorman1952 <tenorman1952@...> wrote:

From: tenorman1952 <tenorman1952@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Vintage vs. Modern Saxes
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, January 22, 2010, 10:26 PM







 



  


    
      
      
      Even when the we follow whatever theory, in the real world, for reasons we don't understand, or things we did not properly account for, we find we have a bit of error.



I will use this comparison.. . I am an amateur radio operator and know a little about antennas, enough to have a few articles written.  The comparison to woodwinds is close enough, standing waves -- only radio waves in a wire rather than sound waves in a tube.  And the math is all the same, but the constants are a little different.



So we know that the third register is sharp.  Same thing happens in antennas, when operated at 3 x fundamental, the resonant frequency is a little on the high side of the simple 3 x F.



And there are "end corrections" applied.  We are probably not applying good fudge factors for that, either.  It happens in other fields, not just woodwinds.  When you calculate antenna dimensions they always tell you, "Calculate by the formula, then add a few feet.  Once you have it up, trim the ends until you have it resonant."



We have to tune our instruments at the mouthpiece, barrel, or tuning slide, too.



And the same instrument with different players, we know they will have to tune up a little differently.  No one has mentioned the player yet.  Benade discusses the effect of the player, to a small extent.  I think it was one paper with hand drawings.



But this is all a big "so what"?  You and I as a mouthpiece refacer or repairer or whatever else we do with mouthpieces just work on the mouthpiece.  We are not rebuilding our customers' saxophones to some theoretical specification that he may or may not like.



The theory only gets you in the ballpark.  After that you have to adjust this, adjust that to get it right.



My Dad (deceased) played a monstrosity known as "steel guitar".  Yes, a Showbud doubleneck 10.  Each neck had a different tuning.  And even if you adjusted each string to be perfectly in tune in reference to A = 440 hz, it would sound out of tune.  Bad out of tune.  You had to fudge certain pitches  up or down a bit.  This note tuned to an A = 438 hz reference, that note tuned to A = 441 hz, etc.  There were discussions over who had the best tuning method to tune the E9.  



And then toss on top, footpedals that would raise or lower certain strings, so that without moving the bar the chord played would change from tonic to subdominant, or to dominant, or to minor.  And adjustments for each of those.



So much for theory.



Anyway, my point, you can calculate all you want, and a lot of it is "so what" or "and how does that help us"?  



My point, how does all this help us improve the mouthpiece?  



I remember a movie where some nerds were trying to figure out what the "perfect woman" would look like.  That's fine, but even if you really could figure that out, then you have the guy that says, "Yeah, but I like redheads with freckles, long legs and big bazookas."



And if calculations would produce the perfect saxophone, or clarinet, the University of South Podunk would have run them through the computer and come up with a set of specifications long ago.



They haven't.  



We don't know the answers.



Heck, we don't even know all the questions.



Paul C.





    
     

    
    


 



  






      

Gotta agree with John, the ideal harmonic series is ALWAYS perfect integer multiples of the fundamental, but no instrument achieves that in practice for a number of real-world reasons. This is, in fact, why the tube of the sax is not a single pure cone--tweaking the bore is a way of trying to fool
 mother nature and compensate for all the factors that skew the resonances of the tube.

That being said, the "parabolic bore" is not an answer. Scavone indicates, as per my last quote, that an acoustic analysis shows that insofar as it would have any effect, it would be to make the sound darker by misaligning the upper resonances. Getting the modes straight involves matching the mpc
 volume with that of the missing conic apex, and getting the resonance frequency of that substitution right. Also, the presence of the reed lowers all mode frequencies, in differing amounts according to the reed. 

And the tube itself is not a cone anyway, having all those holes with space underneath them punched in the metal, not to mention that as soon as you start opening keys you end up with a tonehole lattice which does not act like the end of the tube. Oh, and of course there are wall effects, and
 differential losses according to frequency. And differential end corrections according to frequency, which cannot be helped as long as we are trying to play different modes with the same tube length (and an octave vent).

So practically speaking, everything needs to be a compromise. The mpc needs to move since temperature changes, the band tunes to different permutations of A, and the players have differing embouchures. Different reeds have different strengths, and this changes the modes, not to mention that
 adjusting the embouchure while playing changes the virtual volume under the reed and this changes mode relationships on the go.

In reality the designer can only design a sax for one mpc at one temperature with one player playing one reed with one static embouchure position. Change any of these factors and everything goes out the window. 

Toby

STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...> wrote:                                                 
  Actually, John, it makes pretty good sense to me$B!D!D(Bit might be a very good way to solve the $B!H(Boctave matching$B!I(B problem. As anyone who has actually built some saxophones knows, the octaves are not perfect, and tend to get sharper as pitch increases. The natural overtone series is NOT a perfect
 doubling of the number of cycles per second. A parabolic bore might be quite useful in reducing the effects of the natural laws of physics.
   
  As a matter of full disclosure, my company does NOT build a parabolic bore horn, and at this time we have no intention of doing so, so there is absolutely no commercial motive in this discussion on my part. I have experimented with increasing the bore diameter at specific points with good
 results, but we deal with the octave matching problems through the use of $B!H(Bcompensator keys$B!I(B, which we believe to be far more efficient.
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
      rom: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John
 Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 3:54 PM
 To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
 Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Vintage vs. Modern Saxes
  
  
   
    
        Why would a "parabolic bore" make good sense? What acoustic purpose would it serve? In what way would it be superior to a straight sided conical bore?
 
 It seems to me that anyone who has actually taken the time to study Scavone's dissertation would conclude that this parabolic bore issue has been settled for quite a while. It is akin to looking for "Big Foot" or the "Loch Ness Monster" in my opinion.
 
 --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "STEVE GOODSON" <saxgourmet@...> wrote:
 >
 > What I'm looking for is real evidence that a parabolic bore exists or has
 > existed....documents, definitive photographs etc. I just feel like I
 > would have encountered one by now, and so far I have not. Lots of talk, but
 > no parabolic bores. Of course, I don't claim to have seen it all! I'll check
 > out Scarvone when I get home this weekend.
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > A parabolic bore makes good sense, but is more expensive to produce. I would
 > think that any company who makes (or has made) one would have advertised the
 > fact. Believe me, I've looked for one, and just can't seem to find it!
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
 > On Behalf Of STEVE GOODSON
 > Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 11:41 PM
 > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
 > Subject: RE: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Vintage vs. Modern Saxes
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > I've got Scarvone's thesis, and will read it again when I get back to the
 > office (I'm in Las Vegas on vacation currently)...the Jap Kool book, IMHO,
 > is almost totally bogus...
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
 > On Behalf Of kymarto123@...
 > Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 10:21 PM
 > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
 > Subject: RE: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Vintage vs. Modern Saxes
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > Steve,
 > 
 > Gary Scavone has a couple of excellent pages devoted to the parabolic bore
 > in his thesis (google "scavone thesis") starting on pg. 67, including Sax's
 > own explanation of the bore, some descriptions by a historian (Jap Kool) who
 > apparently saw one or more, and a detailed acoustic analysis, showing how
 > such a bore would change the sound (not much, and not the way Sax says it
 > does).
 > 
 > Definitely worth a read.
 > 
 > Toby
 > 
 > STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...> wrote:
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > I have not seen a parabolic bore that actually exists.....only anecdotal
 > references, but no patent documents or actual instruments.......could
 > someone provide some specific documentation? No hearsay, but real patent
 > applications or other specific documents. I've heard for years that Buescher
 > had a parabolic bore, but not one of the hundreds of Buescher's I've seen
 > had one, nor have I ever seen a reference to a parabolic bore in their
 > advertising. Surely if they went to the trouble and expense of making such a
 > bore they would have promoted it. I've only seen a handful of original Sax
 > horns, and none of them had a parabolic bore. I don't recall seeing
 > references to such a bore in the original patent documents of Sax. Don't get
 > me wrong, such a bore may be a good idea, but I'm not convinced anyone has
 > actually produced one. Any help on solving this mystery with documentation
 > would be MUCH appreciated.
 > 
 > -----Original Message-----
 > From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
 > <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
 > [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
 > <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> ]
 > On Behalf Of kymarto123@... <mailto:kymarto123%40ybb.ne.jp> 
 > Sent: Saturday, January 02, 2010 7:38 PM
 > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
 > 
 > Subject: Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Vintage vs. Modern Saxes
 > 
 > It would be very interesting to measure the bore profiles of various
 > instruments both vintage and modern and get some real numbers. One could
 > then also see if there were any consistent differences. I know from Sax's
 > writings that he highly valued a certain delicacy of tonal quality (he was,
 > after all, designing an orchestral instrument, which had to blend in
 > ensemble). This is why he went to so much trouble with his "parabolic" bore.
 > 
 > Later bore designs placed more value on edge and volume to help the sax hold
 > its own in very different venues. 
 > 
 > There is an analogous situation with flutes: old French instruments like the
 > Louis Lot and Bonneville are today highly prized for their delicacy of sound
 > and command high prices. 
 > 
 > Of course, keywork has not changed much on the flute, and so there is very
 > little difference in feel or need to adjust when going from one instrument
 > to another. I know that many players have a modern Haynes or Powell or
 > Sankyo or Miramatsu for orchestral or solo work, and a Lot or other vintage
 > flute for chamber music and some recordings.
 > 
 > Toby
 > 
 > --- MartinMods <lancelotburt@... <mailto:lancelotburt%40yahoo.com> >
 > wrote:
 > > Keep in mind now, I am referring to the peak pitches of the harmonic
 > resonances which form the h. regime for any note. I am not referring to the
 > fundamental pitches of the tempered scale of the horn. Need we go further?
 > > 
 > > 
 > > 
 > > 
 > > ________________________________
 > > From: STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@... <mailto:saxgourmet%40cox.net> >
 > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
 > <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> 
 > > Sent: Sat, January 2, 2010 10:35:49 AM
 > > Subject: RE: [MouthpieceWork] Vintage vs. Modern Saxes
 > > 
 > > 
 > > "As the pitches are set, so too is the tone quality"
 > > 
 > > I gotta ask: what is your source for this statement? This has most
 > > definitely NOT been my experience....I'd like to see "chapter and verse"
 > on
 > > this if you don't mind....
 > > 
 > > 
 > > 
 > > 
 > 
 > ------------------------------------
 > 
 > Got a Mouthpiece Work question? Send it to MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
 > <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.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
 >
  
    
  
  
     


      
                 
                 
 

Paul C. wrote:  "The theory only gets you in the ballpark.  After that
you have to adjust this, adjust that to get it right."

I have never disagreed with this statement, nor have I heard anyone on
this forum disagree with this statement.  In fact here is a quote from
Jim Gebler in the August 1995 issue of the Woodwind Quarterly.

"Basically, there are two diagnostic approaches, trial and error and the
use of theory. To treat this as an either/or situation is like looking
at woodlands and seeing only a forest or only the trees. Failure to
notice the individual trees can result in a sore nose. If we make a
permanent bore change based strictly on theory without relating to the
idiosyncrasies of a particular instrument, we may end up with bruises
and band-aids. Similarly, trying to diagnose a woodwind without a basic
understanding of its internal wave shapes could make us wander around a
long time in the woods.
You have probably gathered that I am going to recommend switching back
and forth between these two diagnosing styles.
For me, it has generally been best to use theory to get in the ball park
and then do the fine-tuning with trial and error. Of course, remaining
open to either style when things get sticky is always an advantage.
Benade had great instincts this way, easily changing styles when it
became advantageous. His theoretical insight was always in use, but you
never knew when his pocket would produce a chunk of wax, a penknife or
something else for a little 'tinkering'. He knew his way around the
machine shop, too. Personally, I feel like a closet trial-and-error
type, having found out about this subject first in a theoretical way."

Jim Gebler's three part series on diagnosing woodwind bores can be found
in issue 10, 11, and 12 of the Woodwind Quarterly.

What I fail to understand is the complaining that goes on when those of
us who are interested enter into discussions to better understand the
theory we all agree is required to find the much esteemed ball park.

Sorry, John..I don't wish to be confrontational, but you should try actually
building some horns (as I do) rather than just talking about the "theory"
which you have not personally tried....Scarvone, Benade, Ferron, et al are
not in any way the absolute last word on this sort of thing...among those of
us who actually do this for a living (and we often talk among ourselves), we
know that the various theories put forth are FAR from absolutely correct. I
think there is a HUGE difference between "just talking about it" and
actually doing it and producing a product which actually works and is
accepted by the musical community. Horns that don't play properly don't
sell. Manufacturers who produce products that don't play in tune don't stay
in business. Designers who are not in touch with the realities of design and
acoustics are not hired by multiple manufacturers. The results speak for
themselves. There is no substitute for actually "doing it". I would also
submit that until such time as you have actually "done it" yourself, you are
WAY out of line to criticize those who HAVE produced successful products
which have been widely accepted by the playing community.

 

Instrument design is very much an art and not a science. Many aspects of
design theory are not fully understood, by me or anyone else that I know who
actually does design for a living. I would respectfully submit that until
you actually build some horns and carefully test them, all the theoretical
discussion in the world is absolutely meaningless.

 

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of John
Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 8:24 PM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Vintage vs. Modern Saxes

 

  

Steve, please read Scavone and get back to us on this "theory" of yours.
One does not actually need to build saxophones to know the behavior of
octaves on the instrument.  A reasonable level of playing skill and study of
acoustics is more than sufficient. By the way, how does an "octave" get
sharper?  An octave is an interval.  Doesn't it get wider or narrower than
the perfect 1:2 ratio of the frequencies? 

The natural overtone series is indeed a perfect whole number multiple
relationship between the fundamental and the higher harmonics.  That's why
it is called the natural harmonic or overtone series as discovered by
Pythagorus around 500 BC.  In a saxophone---especially one of poor design
and therefore poor harmonicity the modes indeed stray from the perfect whole
number ratios.  That does not mean that the natural overtone series is
imperfect---only the bore of that saxophone at that frequency.

Increasing or decreasing the bore diameter at specific points in a saxophone
bears no relationship whatever to making one or more sides of a straight
sided cone slightly curved to create the misnamed "parabolic bore".  Neither
does producing a saxophone with 4 different tapers in the neck the, the body
tube, the bell bow, and the bell.  Except for the last section of the bell
which has a short bell flare these are 4 straight sided cones which behave
as such even though there are toroidal bends in two of them.  There are
really no octave intonation problems that would be solved by making the
straight sided walls curved the length of the cone of the saxophone body.
If anything it would create more intonation challenges to deal with along
with those that already exist.




--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "STEVE GOODSON" <saxgourmet@...>
wrote:
>
> Actually, John, it makes pretty good sense to me..it might be a very good
> way to solve the "octave matching" problem. As anyone who has actually
built
> some saxophones knows, the octaves are not perfect, and tend to get
sharper
> as pitch increases. The natural overtone series is NOT a perfect doubling
of
> the number of cycles per second. A parabolic bore might be quite useful in
> reducing the effects of the natural laws of physics.
> 
> 
> 
> As a matter of full disclosure, my company does NOT build a parabolic bore
> horn, and at this time we have no intention of doing so, so there is
> absolutely no commercial motive in this discussion on my part. I have
> experimented with increasing the bore diameter at specific points with
good
> results, but we deal with the octave matching problems through the use of
> "compensator keys", which we believe to be far more efficient.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rom: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of John
> Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 3:54 PM
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Vintage vs. Modern Saxes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would a "parabolic bore" make good sense? What acoustic purpose would
it
> serve? In what way would it be superior to a straight sided conical bore?
> 
> It seems to me that anyone who has actually taken the time to study
> Scavone's dissertation would conclude that this parabolic bore issue has
> been settled for quite a while. It is akin to looking for "Big Foot" or
the
> "Loch Ness Monster" in my opinion.
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> , "STEVE GOODSON" saxgourmet@
> wrote:
> >
> > What I'm looking for is real evidence that a parabolic bore exists or
has
> > existed....documents, definitive photographs etc. I just feel like I
> > would have encountered one by now, and so far I have not. Lots of talk,
> but
> > no parabolic bores. Of course, I don't claim to have seen it all! I'll
> check
> > out Scarvone when I get home this weekend.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > A parabolic bore makes good sense, but is more expensive to produce. I
> would
> > think that any company who makes (or has made) one would have advertised
> the
> > fact. Believe me, I've looked for one, and just can't seem to find it!
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
> [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> ]
> > On Behalf Of STEVE GOODSON
> > Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 11:41 PM
> > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> 
> > Subject: RE: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Vintage vs. Modern Saxes
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > I've got Scarvone's thesis, and will read it again when I get back to
the
> > office (I'm in Las Vegas on vacation currently)...the Jap Kool book,
IMHO,
> > is almost totally bogus...
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
> [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> ]
> > On Behalf Of kymarto123@
> > Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 10:21 PM
> > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> 
> > Subject: RE: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Vintage vs. Modern Saxes
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Steve,
> > 
> > Gary Scavone has a couple of excellent pages devoted to the parabolic
bore
> > in his thesis (google "scavone thesis") starting on pg. 67, including
> Sax's
> > own explanation of the bore, some descriptions by a historian (Jap Kool)
> who
> > apparently saw one or more, and a detailed acoustic analysis, showing
how
> > such a bore would change the sound (not much, and not the way Sax says
it
> > does).
> > 
> > Definitely worth a read.
> > 
> > Toby
> > 
> > STEVE GOODSON saxgourmet@ wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > I have not seen a parabolic bore that actually exists.....only anecdotal
> > references, but no patent documents or actual instruments.......could
> > someone provide some specific documentation? No hearsay, but real patent
> > applications or other specific documents. I've heard for years that
> Buescher
> > had a parabolic bore, but not one of the hundreds of Buescher's I've
seen
> > had one, nor have I ever seen a reference to a parabolic bore in their
> > advertising. Surely if they went to the trouble and expense of making
such
> a
> > bore they would have promoted it. I've only seen a handful of original
Sax
> > horns, and none of them had a parabolic bore. I don't recall seeing
> > references to such a bore in the original patent documents of Sax. Don't
> get
> > me wrong, such a bore may be a good idea, but I'm not convinced anyone
has
> > actually produced one. Any help on solving this mystery with
documentation
> > would be MUCH appreciated.
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> 
> > <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
> > [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> 
> > <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> ]
> > On Behalf Of kymarto123@ <mailto:kymarto123%40ybb.ne.jp> 
> > Sent: Saturday, January 02, 2010 7:38 PM
> > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
> > 
> > Subject: Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Vintage vs. Modern Saxes
> > 
> > It would be very interesting to measure the bore profiles of various
> > instruments both vintage and modern and get some real numbers. One could
> > then also see if there were any consistent differences. I know from
Sax's
> > writings that he highly valued a certain delicacy of tonal quality (he
> was,
> > after all, designing an orchestral instrument, which had to blend in
> > ensemble). This is why he went to so much trouble with his "parabolic"
> bore.
> > 
> > Later bore designs placed more value on edge and volume to help the sax
> hold
> > its own in very different venues. 
> > 
> > There is an analogous situation with flutes: old French instruments like
> the
> > Louis Lot and Bonneville are today highly prized for their delicacy of
> sound
> > and command high prices. 
> > 
> > Of course, keywork has not changed much on the flute, and so there is
very
> > little difference in feel or need to adjust when going from one
instrument
> > to another. I know that many players have a modern Haynes or Powell or
> > Sankyo or Miramatsu for orchestral or solo work, and a Lot or other
> vintage
> > flute for chamber music and some recordings.
> > 
> > Toby
> > 
> > --- MartinMods lancelotburt@ <mailto:lancelotburt%40yahoo.com> >
> > wrote:
> > > Keep in mind now, I am referring to the peak pitches of the harmonic
> > resonances which form the h. regime for any note. I am not referring to
> the
> > fundamental pitches of the tempered scale of the horn. Need we go
further?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: STEVE GOODSON saxgourmet@ <mailto:saxgourmet%40cox.net> >
> > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> 
> > <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> 
> > > Sent: Sat, January 2, 2010 10:35:49 AM
> > > Subject: RE: [MouthpieceWork] Vintage vs. Modern Saxes
> > > 
> > > 
> > > "As the pitches are set, so too is the tone quality"
> > > 
> > > I gotta ask: what is your source for this statement? This has most
> > > definitely NOT been my experience....I'd like to see "chapter and
verse"
> > on
> > > this if you don't mind....
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > ------------------------------------
> > 
> > Got a Mouthpiece Work question? Send it to
MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> 
> > <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.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
> >
>

Thanks for sharing Steve.

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "STEVE GOODSON" <saxgourmet@...> wrote:
>
> Sorry, John..I don't wish to be confrontational, but you should try actually
> building some horns (as I do) rather than just talking about the "theory"
> which you have not personally tried....Scarvone, Benade, Ferron, et al are
> not in any way the absolute last word on this sort of thing...among those of
> us who actually do this for a living (and we often talk among ourselves), we
> know that the various theories put forth are FAR from absolutely correct. I
> think there is a HUGE difference between "just talking about it" and
> actually doing it and producing a product which actually works and is
> accepted by the musical community. Horns that don't play properly don't
> sell. Manufacturers who produce products that don't play in tune don't stay
> in business. Designers who are not in touch with the realities of design and
> acoustics are not hired by multiple manufacturers. The results speak for
> themselves. There is no substitute for actually "doing it". I would also
> submit that until such time as you have actually "done it" yourself, you are
> WAY out of line to criticize those who HAVE produced successful products
> which have been widely accepted by the playing community.
> 
>  
> 
> Instrument design is very much an art and not a science. Many aspects of
> design theory are not fully understood, by me or anyone else that I know who
> actually does design for a living. I would respectfully submit that until
> you actually build some horns and carefully test them, all the theoretical
> discussion in the world is absolutely meaningless.

You're more than welcome. I look forward to seeing and playing any
instruments you build which are of your original design.

 

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of John
Sent: Saturday, January 23, 2010 3:12 PM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Vintage vs. Modern Saxes

 

  

Thanks for sharing Steve.

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> , "STEVE GOODSON" <saxgourmet@...>
wrote:
>
> Sorry, John..I don't wish to be confrontational, but you should try
actually
> building some horns (as I do) rather than just talking about the "theory"
> which you have not personally tried....Scarvone, Benade, Ferron, et al are
> not in any way the absolute last word on this sort of thing...among those
of
> us who actually do this for a living (and we often talk among ourselves),
we
> know that the various theories put forth are FAR from absolutely correct.
I
> think there is a HUGE difference between "just talking about it" and
> actually doing it and producing a product which actually works and is
> accepted by the musical community. Horns that don't play properly don't
> sell. Manufacturers who produce products that don't play in tune don't
stay
> in business. Designers who are not in touch with the realities of design
and
> acoustics are not hired by multiple manufacturers. The results speak for
> themselves. There is no substitute for actually "doing it". I would also
> submit that until such time as you have actually "done it" yourself, you
are
> WAY out of line to criticize those who HAVE produced successful products
> which have been widely accepted by the playing community.
> 
> 
> 
> Instrument design is very much an art and not a science. Many aspects of
> design theory are not fully understood, by me or anyone else that I know
who
> actually does design for a living. I would respectfully submit that until
> you actually build some horns and carefully test them, all the theoretical
> discussion in the world is absolutely meaningless.

I don't wish to be involved in personal spats, but I want to interject a note here. I recently spent an evening with Dr. Joe Wolfe, the acoustic scientist who recently published a well-received paper on the physioacoustics of sax altissimos (as well as many other papers), and who maintains the
 UNSW acoustics site, as well as running the acoustics lab there. 

He and his people have created a virtual saxophone, which can instantaneously give a pretty good idea the effect of bore changes across the register of the instrument. He is presently in negotiation with Yamaha, which abandoned their formal program some years ago, to contract with their lab for
 R&D. 

This is the interface between theory and practice. This is where Nederveen's suggestion that instrument makers could materially improve their products if they took the science into account is becoming (or at least could become) a reality.

I applaud Steve, and always have, for the fact that he is actually building and designing saxes, and further that he is striving to improve the instruments with which he is associated. But that does not mean that even those instruments could not be improved further. Benade designed the NX
 clarinet, and Coltman revised the Boehm flute scale so that both were much improved in important ways based on theory. That these instruments have not found wider acceptance is due more to marketing than acoustic reasons. In their heyday, Conn employed a number of acoustic scientists and
 contracted with more (including Benade). It is not without reason that their vintage horns are so respected and treasured by so many players.

Neither John nor Lance nor I are acoustic scientists, but we all believe that knowledge is power, and the free flow of information is a source of strength. No one is being forced to read our messages who does not wish to do so. I do not believe that hitting the 'delete' key is such a burden for
 those not interested, balanced against that. 

I am neither a builder nor a repairer, but both John and Lance are, and therefore can actually incorporate this knowledge into their work, to the betterment of the art of the sax. Given that fact, what is the rationale behind the continuing criticism of discussions of theory and acoustics here?

Toby

STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...> wrote:                                                 
  You$B!G(Bre more than welcome. I look forward to seeing and playing any instruments you build which are of your original design.
   
      From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John
 Sent: Saturday, January 23, 2010 3:12 PM
 To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
 Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Vintage vs. Modern Saxes
  
  
   
    
        Thanks for sharing Steve.
 
 --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "STEVE GOODSON" <saxgourmet@...> wrote:
 >
 > Sorry, John..I don't wish to be confrontational, but you should try actually
 > building some horns (as I do) rather than just talking about the "theory"
 > which you have not personally tried....Scarvone, Benade, Ferron, et al are
 > not in any way the absolute last word on this sort of thing...among those of
 > us who actually do this for a living (and we often talk among ourselves), we
 > know that the various theories put forth are FAR from absolutely correct. I
 > think there is a HUGE difference between "just talking about it" and
 > actually doing it and producing a product which actually works and is
 > accepted by the musical community. Horns that don't play properly don't
 > sell. Manufacturers who produce products that don't play in tune don't stay
 > in business. Designers who are not in touch with the realities of design and
 > acoustics are not hired by multiple manufacturers. The results speak for
 > themselves. There is no substitute for actually "doing it". I would also
 > submit that until such time as you have actually "done it" yourself, you are
 > WAY out of line to criticize those who HAVE produced successful products
 > which have been widely accepted by the playing community.
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > Instrument design is very much an art and not a science. Many aspects of
 > design theory are not fully understood, by me or anyone else that I know who
 > actually does design for a living. I would respectfully submit that until
 > you actually build some horns and carefully test them, all the theoretical
 > discussion in the world is absolutely meaningless.
  
    
  
  
     


      
                 
                 
 

I have a bit of time today, so I thought it was perhaps time to raise acoustic discussion on the subject most near and dear to our hearts: mps and reeds. 

I know that some people here are believers in Ferron's take on things in TSIMV (we all know the book).  I recently ordered my copy and in many ways wish I hadn't. It is a strange mix of fact and fiction, all presented in a vigorous and dogmatic way which does not seem to brook questioning.

However on careful reading, and based on my prior knowledge and reading of other peer-reviewed sources, I have found a number of points that bear discussion, as I find them either unsubstantiated, fishy, or just plain wrong. 

Before I begin I feel it only fair to give Ferron credit for many things. He does present many things pretty accurately and in simple terms. However this makes it all the more important to separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak.

1) Ferron states that a metal mpc gives "greater inertia" to the pressure inside the mpc, "which explains why some jazz musicians prefer it." 

--WTF? It sounds like Ferron is saying that a metal mpc is more resistant than an ebonite one. This is totally false, as this depends mostly on the internal geometry, and secondly on the smoothness of the bore. The material does not enter in, beyond its impact on the above two factors.

2) Ferron says that since metal mpcs tend to be cold when playing begins, and this makes the instrument flat and produces abundant condensation, which explains why pads wear out more quickly if a metal mpc is used.

--While the thermal conductivity of metal is certainly higher than that of ebonite, it does not follow that the instrument plays flat because of a cold mpc. The instrument plays flat because of the temperature of the air in the entire air column, of which the mpc represents only a fraction (about
 10%). Further, a metal and an ebonite mpc in a cold room will be at the same temperature, and the the metal mpc will actually warm faster when the player's breath enters it. I wonder if any of you repairers have noted any difference in pad life between a sax played with metal and ebonite mpcs.

3) Ferron goes on at length about the effects of different lays and table lengths on the shape of the wave. He claims first that a larger tip opening will produce a more colorful sound (more harmonics) since "the reed acts as a spring, and with a large opening, the beating of the reed will be
 greater and the returning phase more rapid...With a closed mpc the spring mechanism is less active, making the return phase slower..."

This is an egregious oversimplification, and not even accurate. The harmonic differences are produced mostly in the final phase of the closing of the reed, when Bernoulli forces are active. If you think about it, a smaller opening means that the reed tip has to travel less distance, so it cannot
 be the case that with a closed tip the return phase will be slower. 

It must also be remembered that the reed behavior is based on its compliance (hard or soft) and the pressure differential between the oral cavity and the mpc. 

A closed mpc requires a stiffer reed and an open mpc a softer one to produce a sound with identical pressure differentiation across the tip. This means that a harder reed will have a stronger "spring action" and a softer one on a more open mpc a weaker one. There may be some difference depending
 on the way the reed is made and how much of it is in play, but this is not what Ferron is saying.

4) Ferron claims that a longer table (I guess he means lay) "favors a pause at the end of each phase", making the wave shape more like a square wave, and thus giving an emphasis to the odd harmonics.

--It is not at all clear to me why a longer lay would favor a pause at the end of each phase. Again, it might have a small impact on reed behavior because more of the reed scrape is in play, but not in any way making the reed pause when open and closed. Any change in the way the reed beats could
 be compensated for by changing the scrape of the reed. 

Beyond this, Ferron's description of the production of a square wave is rather inaccurate. He says it is caused by a pause at both ends of the cycle. Rather, it is caused by instantaneous transitions between the two phases. This would mean that the reed would have to move faster when it does move,
 and there is no reason for it to do so if the lay is longer so far as I can see. A stiffer reed, perhaps, but not a longer one.

4) Ferron says: "The part of the mouthpiece just after the tip rail (called the baffle) is of capital importance because it orients the waves produced by the beating reed..."

--We need to get one thing straight concerning this and those drawings of little lines bouncing around inside a mpc. The reed is a flow regulator. It is not without reason that Benade refers to "puffs" of air. In a quite detailed paper called "Musical aero-acoustics of the clarinet" available
 here: 

hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/25/27/.../ajp-jp4199404C5120.pdf

we find that actually the air entering past the reed forms a free jet which attaches itself to the walls of the reed channel, eventually separating and breaking down in a series of turbulence vortexes. 

Nederveen states clearly that the entire area under the reed can be considered to be in phase. There is no little straight wave which bounces back and forth between the reed and the baffle. Benade is quite clear on this: the effect of the baffle is to modulate the Bernoulli force which acts on the
 tip of the reed near the end of the closing cycle. It is the behavior of the reed tip when the slit is very small which changes the production of harmonics to a great extent, although the internal geometry around the baffle probably has some effect here as well, by interfering constructively or
 destructively with the production of certain partials. 

Therefore this whole section, including his ideas on "judicious wave transmission" and "wave incidence"  and "wave beams"should be taken with an extremely large grain of salt. Actually better to discard it wholesale.

5) Ferron states that a hard reed will try to impose its vibrations on the air column.

--A reed is a nonlinear generator with a resonant frequency higher than any playing frequency. The reed simply allows itself to beat at whatever frequency the air column is working at. A hard reed actually has a higher natural resonant frequency higher than that of a softer reed. The reed cannot
 impose its resonant frequency on the air column, unless it disconnects itself from that air column, as happens when there is a squeak (which is close to the natural resonance frequency of the reed). 

The reed can either beat, if the equation of hardness versus pressure differential is in the right range, or not beat. When playing softly, actually the reed does not beat (which means formally that the tip hits the tip rail), but only closes the reed slit partway. 

The way the reed modulates the airflow as it moves (based on the the geometry of the mpc and the material properties of the reed) can change much about the sound and response, but it cannot impose a frequency that is well out of range of that of the air column.

I leave it at that, although there is much more in other sections that also bears discussion.

Toby




 

I have not the slightest problem with any search for knowledge, it can only be good. My objection is based only on the fact that this discussion moves away from the stated objectives of the site, which is mouthpiece work. I have a real interest in learning more about the intricacies of the clarinet and sax mouthpiece, but am not greatly interested in the finer points of saxophone theory and design. I would prefer not to have to take a chance that, when deleting that which does not interest me, I also delete a nugget of useful information concerning that which does interest me. As there is now at least one site catering exclusively for those who are interested in the art and theory of the saxophone, why not take this discussion there? This site can then return to its stated purpose and you will not be bothered by such as me. A win-win situation.
With Respect,
Tony F.



  I am neither a builder nor a repairer, but both John and Lance are, and therefore can actually incorporate this knowledge into their work, to the betterment of the art of the sax. Given that fact, what is the rationale behind the continuing criticism of discussions of theory and acoustics here?

  Toby

I understand your situation. Unfortunately, at the moment not a single site exists where all the interested parties here are able to participate. I have two suggestions. One, if the mods here allow the acoustic discussion to continue, I suggest that we preface posts related to acoustics and NOT
 containing any mpc-related discussion or mpc-related acoustics discussion with something like '<acoustics>' in the header. This would allow people like you to safely delete such messages.

If that is unwieldy or unacceptable, I would be willing to try to set up a Yahoo group on woodwind acoustics open to all who wish to participate. I have never done this, and there are periods when I am out of internet range for days or occasionally weeks at a time, so this might be problematical.
 Would John or Lance or another here like to co-moderate such a group, with the condition that ALL interested parties are invited to participate if they more or less behave themselves?

Toby

"Tony F." <tfairbri@...> wrote:                                              
I have not the slightest problem with any search for  knowledge, it can only be good. My objection is based only on the fact that this  discussion moves away from the stated objectives of the site, which is  mouthpiece work. I have a real interest in learning more about the intricacies  of the
 clarinet and sax mouthpiece, but am not greatly interested in the finer  points of saxophone theory and design. I would prefer not to have to take a  chance that, when deleting that which does not interest me, I also delete a  nugget of useful information concerning that which does interest me.
 As there is  now at least one site catering exclusively for those who are interested in the  art and theory of the saxophone, why not take this discussion there? This site  can then return to its stated purpose and you will not be bothered by such as  me. A win-win situation.
 With Respect,
 Tony F.
    

            
I am neither a builder nor a repairer,    but both John and Lance are, and therefore can actually incorporate this    knowledge into their work, to the betterment of the art of the sax. Given that    fact, what is the rationale behind the continuing criticism of discussions of    theory and
 acoustics  here?

Toby





 
      
                 
                 
 

This would appear to be an eminently workable solution, and I would be quite happy with it.
Thanks,
Tony F.

    
  I understand your situation. Unfortunately, at the moment not a single site exists where all the interested parties here are able to participate. I have two suggestions. One, if the mods here allow the acoustic discussion to continue, I suggest that we preface posts related to acoustics and NOT containing any mpc-related discussion or mpc-related acoustics discussion with something like '<acoustics>' in the header. This would allow people like you to safely delete such messages.

To answer #2, No, I have not. How much someone plays, if they ride the sax hard and put it away wet, and food and drink during play time makes a difference, but I have not noticed a metal mouthpiece as being a factor in pad wear.

Initial tuning on a COLD, outdoor gig is another story. Keeping the mouthpiece warmlike the brass players is very helpful for the first strain or two.   

E v e r e t t  F i d l e r 

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
>
> I have a bit of time today, so I thought it was perhaps time to raise acoustic discussion on the subject most near and dear to our hearts: mps and reeds. 
> 
> I know that some people here are believers in Ferron's take on things in TSIMV (we all know the book).  I recently ordered my copy and in many ways wish I hadn't. It is a strange mix of fact and fiction, all presented in a vigorous and dogmatic way which does not seem to brook questioning.
> 
> However on careful reading, and based on my prior knowledge and reading of other peer-reviewed sources, I have found a number of points that bear discussion, as I find them either unsubstantiated, fishy, or just plain wrong. 

> 
> 2) Ferron says that since metal mpcs tend to be cold when playing begins, and this makes the instrument flat and produces abundant condensation, which explains why pads wear out more quickly if a metal mpc is used.
> 
> --While the thermal conductivity of metal is certainly higher than that of ebonite, it does not follow that the instrument plays flat because of a cold mpc. The instrument plays flat because of the temperature of the air in the entire air column, of which the mpc represents only a fraction (about
>  10%). Further, a metal and an ebonite mpc in a cold room will be at the same temperature, and the the metal mpc will actually warm faster when the player's breath enters it. I wonder if any of you repairers have noted any difference in pad life between a sax played with metal and ebonite mpcs.
> 

I have less problem with much of this than you do, Toby.  That said, I'm all in favor of separating the wheat from the chaff.  If I may:


> 
> 1) Ferron states that a metal mpc gives "greater inertia" to the pressure inside the mpc, "which explains why some jazz musicians prefer it." 
> 
> --WTF? It sounds like Ferron is saying that a metal mpc is more resistant than an ebonite one. This is totally false, as this depends mostly on the internal geometry, and secondly on the smoothness of the bore. The material does not enter in, beyond its impact on the above two factors.
> 

That the metal has greater inertia means it dampens the vibrations of the air column less.

> 2) Ferron says that since metal mpcs tend to be cold when playing begins, and this makes the instrument flat and produces abundant condensation, which explains why pads wear out more quickly if a metal mpc is used.
> 
> --While the thermal conductivity of metal is certainly higher than that of ebonite, it does not follow that the instrument plays flat because of a cold mpc. ...
>

I'm with you there.


> 3) Ferron goes on at length about the effects of different lays and table lengths on the shape of the wave. He claims first that a larger tip opening will produce a more colorful sound (more harmonics) since "the reed acts as a spring, and with a large opening, the beating of the reed will be
>  greater and the returning phase more rapid...With a closed mpc the spring mechanism is less active, making the return phase slower..."
> 
> This is an egregious oversimplification, and not even accurate. 

Oversimplification it may be, but this HAS to be true.  Travelling a greater distance in the same pereiod of time is the very definition of moving faster.  Conclusions drawn from this fact aside, same frequency + greater period = greater angular speed.

> 
> 4) Ferron claims that a longer table (I guess he means lay) "favors a pause at the end of each phase", making the wave shape more like a square wave, and thus giving an emphasis to the odd harmonics.
> 
> --It is not at all clear to me why a longer lay would favor a pause at the end of each phase. 
> 

Nor to me.

> 4) Ferron says: "The part of the mouthpiece just after the tip rail (called the baffle) is of capital importance because it orients the waves produced by the beating reed..."
> 
> --We need to get one thing straight concerning this and those drawings of little lines bouncing around inside a mpc. The reed is a flow regulator.
>

Yes.  But doesn't the whole of the chamber act as a waveguide as well?

> 
> we find that actually the air entering past the reed forms a free jet which attaches itself to the walls of the reed channel, eventually separating and breaking down in a series of turbulence vortexes. 
> 
These vortices don't have much to do with the standing wave, though, do they?  I mean except to interfere with it some.  The movement of the fluid != the movement of the pressure wave in that fluid.

> Nederveen states clearly that the entire area under the reed can be considered to be in phase. 

He must mean under the facing curve, yes?  

>...although the internal geometry around the baffle probably has some effect here as well, by interfering constructively or
>  destructively with the production of certain partials. 

I don't know how you say this in a paragraph criticizing Ferron for saying this.  

> 
> 5) Ferron states that a hard reed will try to impose its vibrations on the air column.
> 

This doesn't sound quite right to me either, TBH.  The reed's "own frequency" is a squeak.

Morgan <frymorgan@...> wrote:                                           I have less problem with much of this than you do, Toby.  That said, I'm all in favor of separating the wheat from the chaff.  If I may:
 
 > 
 > 1) Ferron states that a metal mpc gives "greater inertia" to the pressure inside the mpc, "which explains why some jazz musicians prefer it." 
 > 
 > --WTF? It sounds like Ferron is saying that a metal mpc is more resistant than an ebonite one. This is totally false, as this depends mostly on the internal geometry, and secondly on the smoothness of the bore. The material does not enter in, beyond its impact on the above two factors.
 > 
 
 That the metal has greater inertia means it dampens the vibrations of the air column less.
Toby: Meaning that the metal vibrates less with pressure fluctuations in the mpc, absorbing less energy? Actually this is rather absurd, if one considers the thickness of the mpc as compared to the tube walls. At that thickness even rather soft plastic would not vibrate appreciably with the kind
 of pressure variations present in the mpc. It all comes down to wall smoothness at that point. That and nothing else.
 
 > 2) Ferron says that since metal mpcs tend to be cold when playing begins, and this makes the instrument flat and produces abundant condensation, which explains why pads wear out more quickly if a metal mpc is used.
 > 
 > --While the thermal conductivity of metal is certainly higher than that of ebonite, it does not follow that the instrument plays flat because of a cold mpc. ...
 >
 
 I'm with you there.
 
 > 3) Ferron goes on at length about the effects of different lays and table lengths on the shape of the wave. He claims first that a larger tip opening will produce a more colorful sound (more harmonics) since "the reed acts as a spring, and with a large opening, the beating of the reed will be
 >  greater and the returning phase more rapid...With a closed mpc the spring mechanism is less active, making the return phase slower..."
 > 
 > This is an egregious oversimplification, and not even accurate. 
 
 Oversimplification it may be, but this HAS to be true.  Travelling a greater distance in the same pereiod of time is the very definition of moving faster.  Conclusions drawn from this fact aside, same frequency + greater period = greater angular speed.
Toby: I agree, but this is not what Ferron is saying. He is saying that the asymmetry between the closing and opening phases creates a wave that is more sawtooth than sine. This too doesn't make sense to me. But the point is that a reed that travels less distance with a slower return can have
 exactly the same period as one that travels a longer distance faster. It is the timing of the phases, not the speed of the reed movement, that Ferron claims makes the difference.
According to Benade, the critical determinant has to do with the final phase of the closing cycle, when Bernoulli forces come into play to close the reed tip after the reed itself is mostly closed, and this is based on the baffle design, not on the lay. 
 > 
 > 4) Ferron claims that a longer table (I guess he means lay) "favors a pause at the end of each phase", making the wave shape more like a square wave, and thus giving an emphasis to the odd harmonics.
 > 
 > --It is not at all clear to me why a longer lay would favor a pause at the end of each phase. 
 > 
 
 Nor to me.
 
 > 4) Ferron says: "The part of the mouthpiece just after the tip rail (called the baffle) is of capital importance because it orients the waves produced by the beating reed..."
 > 
 > --We need to get one thing straight concerning this and those drawings of little lines bouncing around inside a mpc. The reed is a flow regulator.
 >
 
 Yes.  But doesn't the whole of the chamber act as a waveguide as well? 

Toby: Yes, in a manner of speaking, but not critically. It has been shown that the shape of the chamber has very little effect on anything at longer wavelengths. The volume needs to be correct for the wave timing, but the actual spherical wavefront really begins at the neck. For the shorter
 wavelengths to be timed correctly, the resonance frequency of the mpc should be the same as that of the missing conic apex, independent of the volume requirement, and here chamber shape does have something to say. But this is very different than what Ferron is showing. He draws little transverse
 waves bouncing up and down, and says specifically that the wave should only bounce off the reed once. This is nonsense.
 > 
 > we find that actually the air entering past the reed forms a free jet which attaches itself to the walls of the reed channel, eventually separating and breaking down in a series of turbulence vortexes. 
 > 
 These vortices don't have much to do with the standing wave, though, do they?  I mean except to interfere with it some.  The movement of the fluid != the movement of the pressure wave in that fluid.
Toby: Well it is important that the free jet disappear so that it doesn't interfere with the standing wave and coupling. But the point is that this impulse actually attaches itself to and travels along the walls of the reed channel. It doesn't go bouncing up and down. I can agree with Ferron that
 we don't want an obstacle in the way in the form of a big fat hunk of material at the end of the window, but it is not a matter of a little transverse wave hitting it and bouncing back: it has to do with the creation of turbulence at that point, and a restriction of flow.
 
 > Nederveen states clearly that the entire area under the reed can be considered to be in phase. 
 
 He must mean under the facing curve, yes? 

Toby: His words are: "Note that the pressures over the whole length of the reed are practically constant because there is a node here. Therefore the reed may be assumed to move entirely in the same phase."


 
 >...although the internal geometry around the baffle probably has some effect here as well, by interfering constructively or
 >  destructively with the production of certain partials. 
 
 I don't know how you say this in a paragraph criticizing Ferron for saying this. 
Toby: AFAIK the mechanism by which this interference occurs is totally different from what Ferron describes. 
 
 ...
 
      
                 
                 
 

 (snip)

> 5) Ferron states that a hard reed will try to impose its vibrations on the
> air column.
>
> --A reed is a nonlinear generator with a resonant frequency higher than
> any playing frequency. The reed simply allows itself to beat at whatever
> frequency the air column is working at. A hard reed actually has a higher
> natural resonant frequency higher than that of a softer reed. The reed
> cannot
>  impose its resonant frequency on the air column, unless it disconnects
> itself from that air column, as happens when there is a squeak (which is
> close to the natural resonance frequency of the reed).
>
> The reed can either beat, if the equation of hardness versus pressure
> differential is in the right range, or not beat. When playing softly,
> actually the reed does not beat (which means formally that the tip hits
> the tip rail), but only closes the reed slit partway.
>
> The way the reed modulates the airflow as it moves (based on the the
> geometry of the mpc and the material properties of the reed) can change
> much about the sound and response, but it cannot impose a frequency that
> is well out of range of that of the air column.

Variations of timbre from reed to reed indicates that more is going on
than simply beating or not beating.  What accounts for these differences?

"1) Ferron ......a metal mpc gives "greater inertia" to the
pressure inside the mpc,...." 

--WTF? It sounds like Ferron is saying that a metal mpc is more
resistant than an ebonite one."

You are disagreeing with your interpretation.  I interpret his statement as saying the opposite - "greater inertia to the pressure", not "against" it, in his lay terminology.  The pressure is moving.  He is saying that metal provides less resistance, which I think is accurate as material density plays a roll in sound absortion.






________________________________
From: "kymarto123@..." <kymarto123@ybb.ne.jp>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, January 23, 2010 11:54:57 PM
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] <warning! acoustic discussion> Ferron on mpcs and reeds

  
I have a bit of time today, so I thought it was perhaps time to raise acoustic discussion on the subject most near and dear to our hearts: mps and reeds. 

I know that some people here are believers in Ferron's take on things in TSIMV (we all know the book).  I recently ordered my copy and in many ways wish I hadn't. It is a strange mix of fact and fiction, all presented in a vigorous and dogmatic way which does not seem to brook questioning.

However on careful reading, and based on my prior knowledge and reading of other peer-reviewed sources, I have found a number of points that bear discussion, as I find them either unsubstantiated, fishy, or just plain wrong. 

Before I begin I feel it only fair to give Ferron credit for many things. He does present many things pretty accurately and in simple terms. However this makes it all the more important to separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak.

1) Ferron states that a metal mpc gives "greater inertia" to the pressure inside the mpc, "which explains why some jazz musicians prefer it." 

--WTF? It sounds like Ferron is saying that a metal mpc is more resistant than an ebonite one. This is totally false, as this depends mostly on the internal geometry, and secondly on the smoothness of the bore. The material does not enter in, beyond its impact on the above two factors.

2) Ferron says that since metal mpcs tend to be cold when playing begins, and this makes the instrument flat and produces abundant condensation, which explains why pads wear out more quickly if a metal mpc is used.

--While the thermal conductivity of metal is certainly higher than that of ebonite, it does not follow that the instrument plays flat because of a cold mpc. The instrument plays flat because of the temperature of the air in the entire air column, of which the mpc represents only a fraction (about 10%). Further, a metal and an ebonite mpc in a cold room will be at the same temperature, and the the metal mpc will actually warm faster when the player's breath enters it. I wonder if any of you repairers have noted any difference in pad life between a sax played with metal and ebonite mpcs.

3) Ferron goes on at length about the effects of different lays and table lengths on the shape of the wave. He claims first that a larger tip opening will produce a more colorful sound (more harmonics) since "the reed acts as a spring, and with a large opening, the beating of the reed will be greater and the returning phase more rapid...With a closed mpc the spring mechanism is less active, making the return phase slower..."

This is an egregious oversimplification, and not even accurate. The harmonic differences are produced mostly in the final phase of the closing of the reed, when Bernoulli forces are active. If you think about it, a smaller opening means that the reed tip has to travel less distance, so it cannot be the case that with a closed tip the return phase will be slower. 

It must also be remembered that the reed behavior is based on its compliance (hard or soft) and the pressure differential between the oral cavity and the mpc. 

A closed mpc requires a stiffer reed and an open mpc a softer one to produce a sound with identical pressure differentiation across the tip. This means that a harder reed will have a stronger "spring action" and a softer one on a more open mpc a weaker one. There may be some difference depending on the way the reed is made and how much of it is in play, but this is not what Ferron is saying.

4) Ferron claims that a longer table (I guess he means lay) "favors a pause at the end of each phase", making the wave shape more like a square wave, and thus giving an emphasis to the odd harmonics.

--It is not at all clear to me why a longer lay would favor a pause at the end of each phase. Again, it might have a small impact on reed behavior because more of the reed scrape is in play, but not in any way making the reed pause when open and closed. Any change in the way the reed beats could be compensated for by changing the scrape of the reed. 

Beyond this, Ferron's description of the production of a square wave is rather inaccurate. He says it is caused by a pause at both ends of the cycle. Rather, it is caused by instantaneous transitions between the two phases. This would mean that the reed would have to move faster when it does move, and there is no reason for it to do so if the lay is longer so far as I can see. A stiffer reed, perhaps, but not a longer one.

4) Ferron says: "The part of the mouthpiece just after the tip rail (called the baffle) is of capital importance because it orients the waves produced by the beating reed..."

--We need to get one thing straight concerning this and those drawings of little lines bouncing around inside a mpc. The reed is a flow regulator. It is not without reason that Benade refers to "puffs" of air. In a quite detailed paper called "Musical aero-acoustics of the clarinet" available here: 

hal.archives- ouvertes. fr/docs/00/ 25/27/... /ajp-jp4199404C5 120.pdf

we find that actually the air entering past the reed forms a free jet which attaches itself to the walls of the reed channel, eventually separating and breaking down in a series of turbulence vortexes. 

Nederveen states clearly that the entire area under the reed can be considered to be in phase. There is no little straight wave which bounces back and forth between the reed and the baffle. Benade is quite clear on this: the effect of the baffle is to modulate the Bernoulli force which acts on the tip of the reed near the end of the closing cycle. It is the behavior of the reed tip when the slit is very small which changes the production of harmonics to a great extent, although the internal geometry around the baffle probably has some effect here as well, by interfering constructively or destructively with the production of certain partials. 

Therefore this whole section, including his ideas on "judicious wave transmission" and "wave incidence"  and "wave beams"should be taken with an extremely large grain of salt. Actually better to discard it wholesale.

5) Ferron states that a hard reed will try to impose its vibrations on the air column.

--A reed is a nonlinear generator with a resonant frequency higher than any playing frequency. The reed simply allows itself to beat at whatever frequency the air column is working at. A hard reed actually has a higher natural resonant frequency higher than that of a softer reed. The reed cannot impose its resonant frequency on the air column, unless it disconnects itself from that air column, as happens when there is a squeak (which is close to the natural resonance frequency of the reed). 

The reed can either beat, if the equation of hardness versus pressure differential is in the right range, or not beat. When playing softly, actually the reed does not beat (which means formally that the tip hits the tip rail), but only closes the reed slit partway. 

The way the reed modulates the airflow as it moves (based on the the geometry of the mpc and the material properties of the reed) can change much about the sound and response, but it cannot impose a frequency that is well out of range of that of the air column.

I leave it at that, although there is much more in other sections that also bears discussion.

Toby





 
 


      

"2) Ferron says that since metal mpcs tend to be cold when playing
begins, and this makes the instrument flat and produces abundant
condensation, which explains why pads wear out more quickly if a metal
mpc is used." 

I would agree regarding outside or tent performances, which is quite common in Europe. While they warm up faster, they also cool off faster - in just a few bars rest.  The mouthpiece appear to always be cold, compared to a hard rubber mouthpiece that retained some heat.  There would be more condensation.




________________________________
From: "kymarto123@..." <kymarto123@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, January 23, 2010 11:54:57 PM
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] <warning! acoustic discussion> Ferron on mpcs and reeds

  
I have a bit of time today, so I thought it was perhaps time to raise acoustic discussion on the subject most near and dear to our hearts: mps and reeds. 

I know that some people here are believers in Ferron's take on things in TSIMV (we all know the book).  I recently ordered my copy and in many ways wish I hadn't. It is a strange mix of fact and fiction, all presented in a vigorous and dogmatic way which does not seem to brook questioning.

However on careful reading, and based on my prior knowledge and reading of other peer-reviewed sources, I have found a number of points that bear discussion, as I find them either unsubstantiated, fishy, or just plain wrong. 

Before I begin I feel it only fair to give Ferron credit for many things. He does present many things pretty accurately and in simple terms. However this makes it all the more important to separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak.

1) Ferron states that a metal mpc gives "greater inertia" to the pressure inside the mpc, "which explains why some jazz musicians prefer it." 

--WTF? It sounds like Ferron is saying that a metal mpc is more resistant than an ebonite one. This is totally false, as this depends mostly on the internal geometry, and secondly on the smoothness of the bore. The material does not enter in, beyond its impact on the above two factors.

2) Ferron says that since metal mpcs tend to be cold when playing begins, and this makes the instrument flat and produces abundant condensation, which explains why pads wear out more quickly if a metal mpc is used.

--While the thermal conductivity of metal is certainly higher than that of ebonite, it does not follow that the instrument plays flat because of a cold mpc. The instrument plays flat because of the temperature of the air in the entire air column, of which the mpc represents only a fraction (about 10%). Further, a metal and an ebonite mpc in a cold room will be at the same temperature, and the the metal mpc will actually warm faster when the player's breath enters it. I wonder if any of you repairers have noted any difference in pad life between a sax played with metal and ebonite mpcs.

3) Ferron goes on at length about the effects of different lays and table lengths on the shape of the wave. He claims first that a larger tip opening will produce a more colorful sound (more harmonics) since "the reed acts as a spring, and with a large opening, the beating of the reed will be greater and the returning phase more rapid...With a closed mpc the spring mechanism is less active, making the return phase slower..."

This is an egregious oversimplification, and not even accurate. The harmonic differences are produced mostly in the final phase of the closing of the reed, when Bernoulli forces are active. If you think about it, a smaller opening means that the reed tip has to travel less distance, so it cannot be the case that with a closed tip the return phase will be slower. 

It must also be remembered that the reed behavior is based on its compliance (hard or soft) and the pressure differential between the oral cavity and the mpc. 

A closed mpc requires a stiffer reed and an open mpc a softer one to produce a sound with identical pressure differentiation across the tip. This means that a harder reed will have a stronger "spring action" and a softer one on a more open mpc a weaker one. There may be some difference depending on the way the reed is made and how much of it is in play, but this is not what Ferron is saying.

4) Ferron claims that a longer table (I guess he means lay) "favors a pause at the end of each phase", making the wave shape more like a square wave, and thus giving an emphasis to the odd harmonics.

--It is not at all clear to me why a longer lay would favor a pause at the end of each phase. Again, it might have a small impact on reed behavior because more of the reed scrape is in play, but not in any way making the reed pause when open and closed. Any change in the way the reed beats could be compensated for by changing the scrape of the reed. 

Beyond this, Ferron's description of the production of a square wave is rather inaccurate. He says it is caused by a pause at both ends of the cycle. Rather, it is caused by instantaneous transitions between the two phases. This would mean that the reed would have to move faster when it does move, and there is no reason for it to do so if the lay is longer so far as I can see. A stiffer reed, perhaps, but not a longer one.

4) Ferron says: "The part of the mouthpiece just after the tip rail (called the baffle) is of capital importance because it orients the waves produced by the beating reed..."

--We need to get one thing straight concerning this and those drawings of little lines bouncing around inside a mpc. The reed is a flow regulator. It is not without reason that Benade refers to "puffs" of air. In a quite detailed paper called "Musical aero-acoustics of the clarinet" available here: 

hal.archives- ouvertes. fr/docs/00/ 25/27/... /ajp-jp4199404C5 120.pdf

we find that actually the air entering past the reed forms a free jet which attaches itself to the walls of the reed channel, eventually separating and breaking down in a series of turbulence vortexes. 

Nederveen states clearly that the entire area under the reed can be considered to be in phase. There is no little straight wave which bounces back and forth between the reed and the baffle. Benade is quite clear on this: the effect of the baffle is to modulate the Bernoulli force which acts on the tip of the reed near the end of the closing cycle. It is the behavior of the reed tip when the slit is very small which changes the production of harmonics to a great extent, although the internal geometry around the baffle probably has some effect here as well, by interfering constructively or destructively with the production of certain partials. 

Therefore this whole section, including his ideas on "judicious wave transmission" and "wave incidence"  and "wave beams"should be taken with an extremely large grain of salt. Actually better to discard it wholesale.

5) Ferron states that a hard reed will try to impose its vibrations on the air column.

--A reed is a nonlinear generator with a resonant frequency higher than any playing frequency. The reed simply allows itself to beat at whatever frequency the air column is working at. A hard reed actually has a higher natural resonant frequency higher than that of a softer reed. The reed cannot impose its resonant frequency on the air column, unless it disconnects itself from that air column, as happens when there is a squeak (which is close to the natural resonance frequency of the reed). 

The reed can either beat, if the equation of hardness versus pressure differential is in the right range, or not beat. When playing softly, actually the reed does not beat (which means formally that the tip hits the tip rail), but only closes the reed slit partway. 

The way the reed modulates the airflow as it moves (based on the the geometry of the mpc and the material properties of the reed) can change much about the sound and response, but it cannot impose a frequency that is well out of range of that of the air column.

I leave it at that, although there is much more in other sections that also bears discussion.

Toby





 
 


      

Both ebonite and metal have a thermal capacity so much
higher than air that practically speaking there is no
difference between them. OTOH generally speaking the bore
of a metal mpc is much smoother than that of an ebonite
one, and that is significant. Maybe that is what Ferron is
on about.



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

> "1) Ferron ......a metal mpc gives "greater inertia"
> to the
> pressure inside the mpc,...." 
> 
> --WTF? It sounds like Ferron is saying that a metal
> mpc is more
> resistant than an ebonite one."
> 
> You are disagreeing with your interpretation.  I
> interpret his statement as saying the opposite -
> "greater inertia to the pressure", not "against" it,
> in his lay terminology.  The pressure is moving.  He
> is saying that metal provides less resistance, which
> I think is accurate as material density plays a roll
> in sound absortion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: "kymarto123@..." <kymarto123@...>
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sat, January 23, 2010 11:54:57 PM
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] <warning! acoustic
> discussion> Ferron on mpcs and reeds
> 
>   
> I have a bit of time today, so I thought it was
> perhaps time to raise acoustic discussion on the
> subject most near and dear to our hearts: mps and
> reeds. 
> 
> I know that some people here are believers in
> Ferron's take on things in TSIMV (we all know the
> book).  I recently ordered my copy and in many ways
> wish I hadn't. It is a strange mix of fact and
> fiction, all presented in a vigorous and dogmatic
> way which does not seem to brook questioning.
> 
> However on careful reading, and based on my prior
> knowledge and reading of other peer-reviewed
> sources, I have found a number of points that bear
> discussion, as I find them either unsubstantiated,
> fishy, or just plain wrong. 
> 
> Before I begin I feel it only fair to give Ferron
> credit for many things. He does present many things
> pretty accurately and in simple terms. However this
> makes it all the more important to separate the
> wheat from the chaff, so to speak.
> 
> 1) Ferron states that a metal mpc gives "greater
> inertia" to the pressure inside the mpc, "which
> explains why some jazz musicians prefer it." 
> 
> --WTF? It sounds like Ferron is saying that a metal
> mpc is more resistant than an ebonite one. This is
> totally false, as this depends mostly on the
> internal geometry, and secondly on the smoothness of
> the bore. The material does not enter in, beyond its
> impact on the above two factors.
> 
> 2) Ferron says that since metal mpcs tend to be cold
> when playing begins, and this makes the instrument
> flat and produces abundant condensation, which
> explains why pads wear out more quickly if a metal
> mpc is used.
> 
> --While the thermal conductivity of metal is
> certainly higher than that of ebonite, it does not
> follow that the instrument plays flat because of a
> cold mpc. The instrument plays flat because of the
> temperature of the air in the entire air column, of
> which the mpc represents only a fraction (about
> 10%). Further, a metal and an ebonite mpc in a cold
> room will be at the same temperature, and the the
> metal mpc will actually warm faster when the
> player's breath enters it. I wonder if any of you
> repairers have noted any difference in pad life
> between a sax played with metal and ebonite mpcs.
> 
> 3) Ferron goes on at length about the effects of
> different lays and table lengths on the shape of the
> wave. He claims first that a larger tip opening will
> produce a more colorful sound (more harmonics) since
> "the reed acts as a spring, and with a large
> opening, the beating of the reed will be greater and
> the returning phase more rapid...With a closed mpc
> the spring mechanism is less active, making the
> return phase slower..."
> 
> This is an egregious oversimplification, and not
> even accurate. The harmonic differences are produced
> mostly in the final phase of the closing of the
> reed, when Bernoulli forces are active. If you think
> about it, a smaller opening means that the reed tip
> has to travel less distance, so it cannot be the
> case that with a closed tip the return phase will be
> slower. 
> 
> It must also be remembered that the reed behavior is
> based on its compliance (hard or soft) and the
> pressure differential between the oral cavity and
> the mpc. 
> 
> A closed mpc requires a stiffer reed and an open mpc
> a softer one to produce a sound with identical
> pressure differentiation across the tip. This means
> that a harder reed will have a stronger "spring
> action" and a softer one on a more open mpc a weaker
> one. There may be some difference depending on the
> way the reed is made and how much of it is in play,
> but this is not what Ferron is saying.
> 
> 4) Ferron claims that a longer table (I guess he
> means lay) "favors a pause at the end of each
> phase", making the wave shape more like a square
> wave, and thus giving an emphasis to the odd
> harmonics.
> 
> --It is not at all clear to me why a longer lay
> would favor a pause at the end of each phase. Again,
> it might have a small impact on reed behavior
> because more of the reed scrape is in play, but not
> in any way making the reed pause when open and
> closed. Any change in the way the reed beats could
> be compensated for by changing the scrape of the
> reed. 
> 
> Beyond this, Ferron's description of the production
> of a square wave is rather inaccurate. He says it is
> caused by a pause at both ends of the cycle. Rather,
> it is caused by instantaneous transitions between
> the two phases. This would mean that the reed would
> have to move faster when it does move, and there is
> no reason for it to do so if the lay is longer so
> far as I can see. A stiffer reed, perhaps, but not a
> longer one.
> 
> 4) Ferron says: "The part of the mouthpiece just
> after the tip rail (called the baffle) is of capital
> importance because it orients the waves produced by
> the beating reed..."
> 
> --We need to get one thing straight concerning this
> and those drawings of little lines bouncing around
> inside a mpc. The reed is a flow regulator. It is
> not without reason that Benade refers to "puffs" of
> air. In a quite detailed paper called "Musical
> aero-acoustics of the clarinet" available here: 
> 
> hal.archives- ouvertes. fr/docs/00/ 25/27/...
> /ajp-jp4199404C5 120.pdf
> 
> we find that actually the air entering past the reed
> forms a free jet which attaches itself to the walls
> of the reed channel, eventually separating and
> breaking down in a series of turbulence vortexes. 
> 
> Nederveen states clearly that the entire area under
> the reed can be considered to be in phase. There is
> no little straight wave which bounces back and forth
> between the reed and the baffle. Benade is quite
> clear on this: the effect of the baffle is to
> modulate the Bernoulli force which acts on the tip
> of the reed near the end of the closing cycle. It is
> the behavior of the reed tip when the slit is very
> small which changes the production of harmonics to a
> great extent, although the internal geometry around
> the baffle probably has some effect here as well, by
> interfering constructively or destructively with the
> production of certain partials. 
> 
> Therefore this whole section, including his ideas on
> "judicious wave transmission" and "wave incidence" 
> and "wave beams"should be taken with an extremely
> large grain of salt. Actually better to discard it
> wholesale.
> 
> 5) Ferron states that a hard reed will try to impose
> its vibrations on the air column.
> 
> --A reed is a nonlinear generator with a resonant
> frequency higher than any playing frequency. The
> reed simply allows itself to beat at whatever
> frequency the air column is working at. A hard reed
> actually has a higher natural resonant frequency
> higher than that of a softer reed. The reed cannot
> impose its resonant frequency on the air column,
> unless it disconnects itself from that air column,
> as happens when there is a squeak (which is close to
> the natural resonance frequency of the reed). 
> 
> The reed can either beat, if the equation of
> hardness versus pressure differential is in the
> right range, or not beat. When playing softly,
> actually the reed does not beat (which means
> formally that the tip hits the tip rail), but only
> closes the reed slit partway. 
> 
== $B0J2<$N%a%C%;!<%8$O>JN,$5$l$^$7$?(B =

"3) Ferron ..the effects of different lays and
table lengths on the shape of the wave. ...a larger
tip opening will produce a more colorful sound (more harmonics) ..."

I agree.  Until the reed actually closes, the harmonics fn increase in amplitude at a rate of 2 to the nth power, compared to that of the fundamental.  After the reed begins to close, that rate changes to an even proportional 1/1.  The more open the mouthpiece, the more dynamic the harmonic amplitudes before the "change in feel" - the 1/1 ratio, happens at reed closure.



________________________________
From: "kymarto123@ybb.ne.jp" <kymarto123@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, January 23, 2010 11:54:57 PM
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] <warning! acoustic discussion> Ferron on mpcs and reeds

  
I have a bit of time today, so I thought it was perhaps time to raise acoustic discussion on the subject most near and dear to our hearts: mps and reeds. 

I know that some people here are believers in Ferron's take on things in TSIMV (we all know the book).  I recently ordered my copy and in many ways wish I hadn't. It is a strange mix of fact and fiction, all presented in a vigorous and dogmatic way which does not seem to brook questioning.

However on careful reading, and based on my prior knowledge and reading of other peer-reviewed sources, I have found a number of points that bear discussion, as I find them either unsubstantiated, fishy, or just plain wrong. 

Before I begin I feel it only fair to give Ferron credit for many things. He does present many things pretty accurately and in simple terms. However this makes it all the more important to separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak.

1) Ferron states that a metal mpc gives "greater inertia" to the pressure inside the mpc, "which explains why some jazz musicians prefer it." 

--WTF? It sounds like Ferron is saying that a metal mpc is more resistant than an ebonite one. This is totally false, as this depends mostly on the internal geometry, and secondly on the smoothness of the bore. The material does not enter in, beyond its impact on the above two factors.

2) Ferron says that since metal mpcs tend to be cold when playing begins, and this makes the instrument flat and produces abundant condensation, which explains why pads wear out more quickly if a metal mpc is used.

--While the thermal conductivity of metal is certainly higher than that of ebonite, it does not follow that the instrument plays flat because of a cold mpc. The instrument plays flat because of the temperature of the air in the entire air column, of which the mpc represents only a fraction (about 10%). Further, a metal and an ebonite mpc in a cold room will be at the same temperature, and the the metal mpc will actually warm faster when the player's breath enters it. I wonder if any of you repairers have noted any difference in pad life between a sax played with metal and ebonite mpcs.

3) Ferron goes on at length about the effects of different lays and table lengths on the shape of the wave. He claims first that a larger tip opening will produce a more colorful sound (more harmonics) since "the reed acts as a spring, and with a large opening, the beating of the reed will be greater and the returning phase more rapid...With a closed mpc the spring mechanism is less active, making the return phase slower..."

This is an egregious oversimplification, and not even accurate. The harmonic differences are produced mostly in the final phase of the closing of the reed, when Bernoulli forces are active. If you think about it, a smaller opening means that the reed tip has to travel less distance, so it cannot be the case that with a closed tip the return phase will be slower. 

It must also be remembered that the reed behavior is based on its compliance (hard or soft) and the pressure differential between the oral cavity and the mpc. 

A closed mpc requires a stiffer reed and an open mpc a softer one to produce a sound with identical pressure differentiation across the tip. This means that a harder reed will have a stronger "spring action" and a softer one on a more open mpc a weaker one. There may be some difference depending on the way the reed is made and how much of it is in play, but this is not what Ferron is saying.

4) Ferron claims that a longer table (I guess he means lay) "favors a pause at the end of each phase", making the wave shape more like a square wave, and thus giving an emphasis to the odd harmonics.

--It is not at all clear to me why a longer lay would favor a pause at the end of each phase. Again, it might have a small impact on reed behavior because more of the reed scrape is in play, but not in any way making the reed pause when open and closed. Any change in the way the reed beats could be compensated for by changing the scrape of the reed. 

Beyond this, Ferron's description of the production of a square wave is rather inaccurate. He says it is caused by a pause at both ends of the cycle. Rather, it is caused by instantaneous transitions between the two phases. This would mean that the reed would have to move faster when it does move, and there is no reason for it to do so if the lay is longer so far as I can see. A stiffer reed, perhaps, but not a longer one.

4) Ferron says: "The part of the mouthpiece just after the tip rail (called the baffle) is of capital importance because it orients the waves produced by the beating reed..."

--We need to get one thing straight concerning this and those drawings of little lines bouncing around inside a mpc. The reed is a flow regulator. It is not without reason that Benade refers to "puffs" of air. In a quite detailed paper called "Musical aero-acoustics of the clarinet" available here: 

hal.archives- ouvertes. fr/docs/00/ 25/27/... /ajp-jp4199404C5 120.pdf

we find that actually the air entering past the reed forms a free jet which attaches itself to the walls of the reed channel, eventually separating and breaking down in a series of turbulence vortexes. 

Nederveen states clearly that the entire area under the reed can be considered to be in phase. There is no little straight wave which bounces back and forth between the reed and the baffle. Benade is quite clear on this: the effect of the baffle is to modulate the Bernoulli force which acts on the tip of the reed near the end of the closing cycle. It is the behavior of the reed tip when the slit is very small which changes the production of harmonics to a great extent, although the internal geometry around the baffle probably has some effect here as well, by interfering constructively or destructively with the production of certain partials. 

Therefore this whole section, including his ideas on "judicious wave transmission" and "wave incidence"  and "wave beams"should be taken with an extremely large grain of salt. Actually better to discard it wholesale.

5) Ferron states that a hard reed will try to impose its vibrations on the air column.

--A reed is a nonlinear generator with a resonant frequency higher than any playing frequency. The reed simply allows itself to beat at whatever frequency the air column is working at. A hard reed actually has a higher natural resonant frequency higher than that of a softer reed. The reed cannot impose its resonant frequency on the air column, unless it disconnects itself from that air column, as happens when there is a squeak (which is close to the natural resonance frequency of the reed). 

The reed can either beat, if the equation of hardness versus pressure differential is in the right range, or not beat. When playing softly, actually the reed does not beat (which means formally that the tip hits the tip rail), but only closes the reed slit partway. 

The way the reed modulates the airflow as it moves (based on the the geometry of the mpc and the material properties of the reed) can change much about the sound and response, but it cannot impose a frequency that is well out of range of that of the air column.

I leave it at that, although there is much more in other sections that also bears discussion.

Toby





 
 


      

"Both ebonite and metal have a thermal capacity so much
higher than air that practically speaking there is no
difference between them."

Benade doesn't give thermal coefficients for ebonite, but he does for various metals and wood.  The player can differentiate a 2% variation, which is why one can tell the difference (as a player) between metal and wood.  



      

This is a great question.  I have not studied the acoustics of reeds, but my personal experience suggests that each reed has two components.  The first is "response"---how quickly and easily it responds when blown especially during rapid articulation.  The second is the timbre or tone of the reed.  

Generally speaking harder reeds are less responsive and have a more "mellow" and controlled sound.  "Hard and hooty" is my description.  They tend to play better in the upper register than the lower.

Softer or thinner reeds on the other hand are more responsive and have what I call a more "buzzy" sound.  They tend to sound "flabby" or "honky" in the upper register, but respond well (and sound good) on the lowest notes.

My conclusion is that the more freely vibrating soft reed generates? more of the higher partials and the more resistant harder reed generates fewer of the higher partials.

The age old challenge of every reed woodwind player is to find the perfect reed in between the two extremes.  The odds of finding said reed diminish as your solo recital approaches.



--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "Barry Levine" <barrylevine@...> wrote:
 
> Variations of timbre from reed to reed indicates that more is going on
> than simply beating or not beating.  What accounts for these differences?

________________________________
From: Tony F. <tfairbri@....au>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, January 24, 2010 3:22:36 AM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Vintage vs. Modern Saxes

  
This would appear to be an eminently workable solution, and I would be quite happy with it.
Thanks,
Tony F.

  
>I understand your situation. Unfortunately, at the moment not a single site exists where all the interested parties here are able to participate. I have two suggestions. One, if the mods here allow the acoustic discussion to continue, I suggest that we preface posts related to acoustics and NOT containing any mpc-related discussion or mpc-related acoustics discussion with something like '<acoustics>' in the header. This would allow people like you to safely delete such messages.
>
>



      

It's my understanding that the difference is based on
microporosity and grain patterning, which are boundary
layer effects.

Ebonite doesn't these characteristics, but the inside of
ebonite mpcs tends to be rough. It would be interesting to
take a couple of ebonite mpcs and polish the inside of one
to see if it makes a difference. But the wall area of a
mpc is so small compared to the full bore that I'd guess
not.


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

> "Both ebonite and metal have a thermal capacity so
> much
> higher than air that practically speaking there is
> no
> difference between them."
> 
> Benade doesn't give thermal coefficients for
> ebonite, but he does for various metals and wood. 
> The player can differentiate a 2% variation, which
> is why one can tell the difference (as a player)
> between metal and wood.  
> 
> 
> 
>       

Toby:

I'm not aware of any manufacturers who maintain an acoustician on staff.
Many hire free lance consultants (including myself), and most have at least
one staff member who is charged with "improving the breed"...in my
experience, the consultants hired have all been players who have exhibited
some expertise in design rather than academic or scientific types..Peter
Ponzol comes to mind as a good example...A  couple of the Asian companies
that I work with have recently added some "westerners" to their staff to
broaden their perspective...Albest (who make Mauriat and other brands) has
recently employed a very able South African, Adriaan van Niekerk , and
Jinyin (the largest factory on the mainland) has added Rheuben Allen to
their staff. 

 

The factories seem to be seeking advice on improving not only playability
and intonation, but ergonomics and cosmetics as well. The Asian factories
are extremely receptive to ways to improve quality and manufacturing
efficiency, and I believe that their recent offerings indicate substantial
progress in those areas. I've been employed by over a dozen different
companies in the last five years, and quality is their #1 concern.

 

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of kymarto123@...
Sent: Saturday, January 23, 2010 7:40 PM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Vintage vs. Modern Saxes

 

  

I don't wish to be involved in personal spats, but I want to interject a
note here. I recently spent an evening with Dr. Joe Wolfe, the acoustic
scientist who recently published a well-received paper on the
physioacoustics of sax altissimos (as well as many other papers), and who
maintains the UNSW acoustics site, as well as running the acoustics lab
there. 

He and his people have created a virtual saxophone, which can
instantaneously give a pretty good idea the effect of bore changes across
the register of the instrument. He is presently in negotiation with Yamaha,
which abandoned their formal program some years ago, to contract with their
lab for R&D. 

This is the interface between theory and practice. This is where Nederveen's
suggestion that instrument makers could materially improve their products if
they took the science into account is becoming (or at least could become) a
reality.

I applaud Steve, and always have, for the fact that he is actually building
and designing saxes, and further that he is striving to improve the
instruments with which he is associated. But that does not mean that even
those instruments could not be improved further. Benade designed the NX
clarinet, and Coltman revised the Boehm flute scale so that both were much
improved in important ways based on theory. That these instruments have not
found wider acceptance is due more to marketing than acoustic reasons. In
their heyday, Conn employed a number of acoustic scientists and contracted
with more (including Benade). It is not without reason that their vintage
horns are so respected and treasured by so many players.

Neither John nor Lance nor I are acoustic scientists, but we all believe
that knowledge is power, and the free flow of information is a source of
strength. No one is being forced to read our messages who does not wish to
do so. I do not believe that hitting the 'delete' key is such a burden for
those not interested, balanced against that. 

I am neither a builder nor a repairer, but both John and Lance are, and
therefore can actually incorporate this knowledge into their work, to the
betterment of the art of the sax. Given that fact, what is the rationale
behind the continuing criticism of discussions of theory and acoustics here?

Toby

STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...> wrote:

  

You're more than welcome. I look forward to seeing and playing any
instruments you build which are of your original design.

 

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of John
Sent: Saturday, January 23, 2010 3:12 PM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Vintage vs. Modern Saxes

 

  

Thanks for sharing Steve.

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> , "STEVE GOODSON" <saxgourmet@...>
wrote:
>
> Sorry, John..I don't wish to be confrontational, but you should try
actually
> building some horns (as I do) rather than just talking about the "theory"
> which you have not personally tried....Scarvone, Benade, Ferron, et al are
> not in any way the absolute last word on this sort of thing...among those
of
> us who actually do this for a living (and we often talk among ourselves),
we
> know that the various theories put forth are FAR from absolutely correct.
I
> think there is a HUGE difference between "just talking about it" and
> actually doing it and producing a product which actually works and is
> accepted by the musical community. Horns that don't play properly don't
> sell. Manufacturers who produce products that don't play in tune don't
stay
> in business. Designers who are not in touch with the realities of design
and
> acoustics are not hired by multiple manufacturers. The results speak for
> themselves. There is no substitute for actually "doing it". I would also
> submit that until such time as you have actually "done it" yourself, you
are
> WAY out of line to criticize those who HAVE produced successful products
> which have been widely accepted by the playing community.
> 
> 
> 
> Instrument design is very much an art and not a science. Many aspects of
> design theory are not fully understood, by me or anyone else that I know
who
> actually does design for a living. I would respectfully submit that until
> you actually build some horns and carefully test them, all the theoretical
> discussion in the world is absolutely meaningless.

 

 

Let's think about this for a moment. A more closed mpc
doesn't necessarily beat sooner if a harder reed is used.
Beating would depend on a combination of the facing curve
and the scrape of the reed, modulated at the very end of
the closing phase by the action of Bernoulli forces The
point is that Ferron is saying that the production of
harmonics is dependent on asynchronocity of the phases,
and that a more open facing creates that. That dog don't
hunt in my book,


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

> "3) Ferron ..the effects of different lays and
> table lengths on the shape of the wave. ...a larger
> tip opening will produce a more colorful sound (more
> harmonics) ..."
> 
> I agree.  Until the reed actually closes, the
> harmonics fn increase in amplitude at a rate of 2 to
> the nth power, compared to that of the fundamental. 
> After the reed begins to close, that rate changes to
> an even proportional 1/1.  The more open the
> mouthpiece, the more dynamic the harmonic amplitudes
> before the "change in feel" - the 1/1 ratio, happens
> at reed closure.
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: "kymarto123@..." <kymarto123@...>
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sat, January 23, 2010 11:54:57 PM
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] <warning! acoustic
> discussion> Ferron on mpcs and reeds
> 
>   
> I have a bit of time today, so I thought it was
> perhaps time to raise acoustic discussion on the
> subject most near and dear to our hearts: mps and
> reeds. 
> 
> I know that some people here are believers in
> Ferron's take on things in TSIMV (we all know the
> book).  I recently ordered my copy and in many ways
> wish I hadn't. It is a strange mix of fact and
> fiction, all presented in a vigorous and dogmatic
> way which does not seem to brook questioning.
> 
> However on careful reading, and based on my prior
> knowledge and reading of other peer-reviewed
> sources, I have found a number of points that bear
> discussion, as I find them either unsubstantiated,
> fishy, or just plain wrong. 
> 
> Before I begin I feel it only fair to give Ferron
> credit for many things. He does present many things
> pretty accurately and in simple terms. However this
> makes it all the more important to separate the
> wheat from the chaff, so to speak.
> 
> 1) Ferron states that a metal mpc gives "greater
> inertia" to the pressure inside the mpc, "which
> explains why some jazz musicians prefer it." 
> 
> --WTF? It sounds like Ferron is saying that a metal
> mpc is more resistant than an ebonite one. This is
> totally false, as this depends mostly on the
> internal geometry, and secondly on the smoothness of
> the bore. The material does not enter in, beyond its
> impact on the above two factors.
> 
> 2) Ferron says that since metal mpcs tend to be cold
> when playing begins, and this makes the instrument
> flat and produces abundant condensation, which
> explains why pads wear out more quickly if a metal
> mpc is used.
> 
> --While the thermal conductivity of metal is
> certainly higher than that of ebonite, it does not
> follow that the instrument plays flat because of a
> cold mpc. The instrument plays flat because of the
> temperature of the air in the entire air column, of
> which the mpc represents only a fraction (about
> 10%). Further, a metal and an ebonite mpc in a cold
> room will be at the same temperature, and the the
> metal mpc will actually warm faster when the
> player's breath enters it. I wonder if any of you
> repairers have noted any difference in pad life
> between a sax played with metal and ebonite mpcs.
> 
> 3) Ferron goes on at length about the effects of
> different lays and table lengths on the shape of the
> wave. He claims first that a larger tip opening will
> produce a more colorful sound (more harmonics) since
> "the reed acts as a spring, and with a large
> opening, the beating of the reed will be greater and
> the returning phase more rapid...With a closed mpc
> the spring mechanism is less active, making the
> return phase slower..."
> 
> This is an egregious oversimplification, and not
> even accurate. The harmonic differences are produced
> mostly in the final phase of the closing of the
> reed, when Bernoulli forces are active. If you think
> about it, a smaller opening means that the reed tip
> has to travel less distance, so it cannot be the
> case that with a closed tip the return phase will be
> slower. 
> 
> It must also be remembered that the reed behavior is
> based on its compliance (hard or soft) and the
> pressure differential between the oral cavity and
> the mpc. 
> 
> A closed mpc requires a stiffer reed and an open mpc
> a softer one to produce a sound with identical
> pressure differentiation across the tip. This means
> that a harder reed will have a stronger "spring
> action" and a softer one on a more open mpc a weaker
> one. There may be some difference depending on the
> way the reed is made and how much of it is in play,
> but this is not what Ferron is saying.
> 
> 4) Ferron claims that a longer table (I guess he
> means lay) "favors a pause at the end of each
> phase", making the wave shape more like a square
> wave, and thus giving an emphasis to the odd
> harmonics.
> 
> --It is not at all clear to me why a longer lay
> would favor a pause at the end of each phase. Again,
> it might have a small impact on reed behavior
> because more of the reed scrape is in play, but not
> in any way making the reed pause when open and
> closed. Any change in the way the reed beats could
> be compensated for by changing the scrape of the
> reed. 
> 
> Beyond this, Ferron's description of the production
> of a square wave is rather inaccurate. He says it is
> caused by a pause at both ends of the cycle. Rather,
> it is caused by instantaneous transitions between
> the two phases. This would mean that the reed would
> have to move faster when it does move, and there is
> no reason for it to do so if the lay is longer so
> far as I can see. A stiffer reed, perhaps, but not a
> longer one.
> 
> 4) Ferron says: "The part of the mouthpiece just
> after the tip rail (called the baffle) is of capital
> importance because it orients the waves produced by
> the beating reed..."
> 
> --We need to get one thing straight concerning this
> and those drawings of little lines bouncing around
> inside a mpc. The reed is a flow regulator. It is
> not without reason that Benade refers to "puffs" of
> air. In a quite detailed paper called "Musical
> aero-acoustics of the clarinet" available here: 
> 
> hal.archives- ouvertes. fr/docs/00/ 25/27/...
> /ajp-jp4199404C5 120.pdf
> 
> we find that actually the air entering past the reed
> forms a free jet which attaches itself to the walls
> of the reed channel, eventually separating and
> breaking down in a series of turbulence vortexes. 
> 
> Nederveen states clearly that the entire area under
> the reed can be considered to be in phase. There is
> no little straight wave which bounces back and forth
> between the reed and the baffle. Benade is quite
> clear on this: the effect of the baffle is to
> modulate the Bernoulli force which acts on the tip
> of the reed near the end of the closing cycle. It is
> the behavior of the reed tip when the slit is very
> small which changes the production of harmonics to a
> great extent, although the internal geometry around
> the baffle probably has some effect here as well, by
> interfering constructively or destructively with the
> production of certain partials. 
> 
> Therefore this whole section, including his ideas on
> "judicious wave transmission" and "wave incidence" 
> and "wave beams"should be taken with an extremely
> large grain of salt. Actually better to discard it
> wholesale.
> 
> 5) Ferron states that a hard reed will try to impose
> its vibrations on the air column.
> 
> --A reed is a nonlinear generator with a resonant
> frequency higher than any playing frequency. The
> reed simply allows itself to beat at whatever
> frequency the air column is working at. A hard reed
> actually has a higher natural resonant frequency
> higher than that of a softer reed. The reed cannot
> impose its resonant frequency on the air column,
> unless it disconnects itself from that air column,
> as happens when there is a squeak (which is close to
> the natural resonance frequency of the reed). 
> 
> The reed can either beat, if the equation of
> hardness versus pressure differential is in the
> right range, or not beat. When playing softly,
> actually the reed does not beat (which means
> formally that the tip hits the tip rail), but only
> closes the reed slit partway. 
> 
> The way the reed modulates the airflow as it moves
> (based on the the geometry of the mpc and the
> material properties of the reed) can change much
> about the sound and response, but it cannot impose a
> frequency 
== $B0J2<$N%a%C%;!<%8$O>JN,$5$l$^$7$?(B =

Toby wrote: "...There is no little straight wave which bounces back and forth between the reed and the baffle...."

As with most of his book, I think Ferron is just trying to give a simple 2D illustration of what he thinks is going on between the reed and baffle.  The actual 3D version of his concept would be too complex to show.  I think it is just a theory he uses to explain the different frequency spectrums he shows for several mouthpieces.  The spectrums are his only hard data.  They can not be denied.

I find the theory of a (mostly 1D) puff of air through the slit a bit laking in its ability to explain the different frequency spectrum results for different mouthpieces.  No matter how clearly it is stated.  It is just too simple.

Yes there is a lot of junk theory in Ferron.  Some his ideas, some just bad translation.  But I think his physical tests are good and some of his insights will eventually be proved true by acadamia.