I do not mind some tangent sax discussions.  But lately they have been dominating the group.  So please steer the conversation back to mouthpieces.  

Certainly.  Understanding the acoustical difference between a vintage and a modern saxophone it becomes clearly evident why most modern mouthpieces are designed as they are and why there are so many different varieties to choose from.  The majority are not not targeting players of vintage saxophones.




________________________________
From: MojoBari <kwbradbury@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, January 2, 2010 5:17:29 PM
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Mouthpiece Work

  
I do not mind some tangent sax discussions.  But lately they have been dominating the group.  So please steer the conversation back to mouthpieces. 


 


      

I think we have it all when it comes to design variety.  There are several tenor Link and alto Meyer varieties that one could argue are going after the vintage market since they are based on classic designs that have proven themselves on vintage (and modern) saxes.  There are also many designs that are trying to bring something different to the market.  But I think each one is mostly based on what they think they can market and sell.  I doubt much thought is given to whether it works best on a vintage or modern sax.  They want all players to buy their mouthpiece.  Their target is everyone.   




________________________________
From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@yahoo.com>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, January 2, 2010 5:39:59 PM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Mouthpiece Work

  
Certainly.  Understanding the acoustical difference between a vintage and a modern saxophone it becomes clearly evident why most modern mouthpieces are designed as they are and why there are so many different varieties to choose from.  The majority are not not targeting players of vintage saxophones.




________________________________
From: MojoBari <kwbradbury@yahoo. com>
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Sat, January 2, 2010 5:17:29 PM
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Mouthpiece Work

  
I do not mind some tangent sax discussions. But lately they have been dominating the group. So please steer the conversation back to mouthpieces. 






      

Maybe so.  I think a lot of modern horn owners are looking to the mouthpiece to give them back the sonic "thing" that they lost with the easy intonation design.  What do you think?




________________________________
From: Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, January 2, 2010 6:08:53 PM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Mouthpiece Work

  
I think we have it all when it comes to design variety.  There are several tenor Link and alto Meyer varieties that one could argue are going after the vintage market since they are based on classic designs that have proven themselves on vintage (and modern) saxes.  There are also many designs that are trying to bring something different to the market.  But I think each one is mostly based on what they think they can market and sell.  I doubt much thought is given to whether it works best on a vintage or modern sax.  They want all players to buy their mouthpiece.  Their target is everyone.   




________________________________
 From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Sat, January 2, 2010 5:39:59 PM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Mouthpiece Work

  
Certainly.  Understanding the acoustical difference between a vintage and a modern saxophone it becomes clearly evident why most modern mouthpieces are designed as they are and why there are so many different varieties to choose from.  The majority are not not targeting players of vintage saxophones.




________________________________
 From: MojoBari <kwbradbury@yahoo. com>
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Sat, January 2, 2010 5:17:29 PM
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Mouthpiece Work

  
I do not mind some tangent sax discussions. But lately they have been dominating the group. So please steer the conversation back to mouthpieces. 




 


      

Keith:

Putting on my hat as a mouthpiece manufacturer (my company makes 14 different models), you are right about giving no consideration as to making a mouthpiece specifically aimed at the vintage horn market. Nobody does so, because there is simply no need to do so. Most modern mouthpieces (not all, but most) work equally well on modern and older horns because the math used in saxophones has not changed significantly since day one. Another significant factor is the miniscule size of the vintage horn market vs. the modern horn market. You just couldn’t justify the tooling costs to make a vintage specific piece. The market just isn’t there.

 

There are plenty of variations available to today’s saxophonist who desires a vintage type sound. Most companies, including my own, manufacture at least one big chamber/low baffle variety which should suit just about anybody desiring this type sound.

 

You are right about companies making what they can sell. If nobody buys what you make, you don’t stay in business. The design process is, to a degree, market driven. You can’t force consumers to play mouthpieces they don’t like or want.

 

 

 

sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc

STEVE GOODSON

SAXOPHONE DESIGNER TO THE STARS         

 

our products are ALL rated 

 

cid:339191121@25022009-09F4

 

Steve is a member of

hd_logo NAMMbelieve2nasaconf_GIF

 

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

IF I HAVE TO LISTEN TO A CONCERT 

LONGER THAN FIVE MINUTES WHEN

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Keith Bradbury
Sent: Saturday, January 02, 2010 5:09 PM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Mouthpiece Work

 

  

I think we have it all when it comes to design variety.  There are several tenor Link and alto Meyer varieties that one could argue are going after the vintage market since they are based on classic designs that have proven themselves on vintage (and modern) saxes.  There are also many designs that are trying to bring something different to the market.  But I think each one is mostly based on what they think they can market and sell.  I doubt much thought is given to whether it works best on a vintage or modern sax.  They want all players to buy their mouthpiece.  Their target is everyone.   

 

  _____  

From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, January 2, 2010 5:39:59 PM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Mouthpiece Work

  

Certainly.  Understanding the acoustical difference between a vintage and a modern saxophone it becomes clearly evident why most modern mouthpieces are designed as they are and why there are so many different varieties to choose from.  The majority are not not targeting players of vintage saxophones.



  _____  

From: MojoBari <kwbradbury@yahoo. com>
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Sat, January 2, 2010 5:17:29 PM
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Mouthpiece Work

  

I do not mind some tangent sax discussions. But lately they have been dominating the group. So please steer the conversation back to mouthpieces. 

 

 

----------
Sent from AT&T Wireless using Yahoo! Mail

------Original Message------
From: STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...>
To: <MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Sat, Jan 2, 5:40 PM
Subject: RE: [MouthpieceWork] Mouthpiece Work

Keith:

Putting on my hat as a mouthpiece manufacturer (my company makes 14 different models), you are right about giving no consideration as to making a mouthpiece specifically aimed at the vintage horn market. Nobody does so, because there is simply no need to do so. Most modern mouthpieces (not all, but most) work equally well on modern and older horns because the math used in saxophones has not changed significantly since day one. Another significant factor is the miniscule size of the vintage horn market vs. the modern horn market. You just couldn’t justify the tooling costs to make a vintage specific piece. The market just isn’t there.

 

There are plenty of variations available to today’s saxophonist who desires a vintage type sound. Most companies, including my own, manufacture at least one big chamber/low baffle variety which should suit just about anybody desiring this type sound.

 

You are right about companies making what they can sell. If nobody buys what you make, you don’t stay in business. The design process is, to a degree, market driven. You can’t force consumers to play mouthpieces they don’t like or want.

 

 

 

sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc

STEVE GOODSON

SAXOPHONE DESIGNER TO THE STARS         

 

our products are ALL rated 

 

cid:339191121@25022009-09F4

 

Steve is a member of

hd_logo NAMMbelieve2nasaconf_GIF

 

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

IF I HAVE TO LISTEN TO A CONCERT 

LONGER THAN FIVE MINUTES WHEN

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Keith Bradbury
Sent: Saturday, January 02, 2010 5:09 PM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Mouthpiece Work

 

  

I think we have it all when it comes to design variety.  There are several tenor Link and alto Meyer varieties that one could argue are going after the vintage market since they are based on classic designs that have proven themselves on vintage (and modern) saxes.  There are also many designs that are trying to bring something different to the market.  But I think each one is mostly based on what they think they can market and sell.  I doubt much thought is given to whether it works best on a vintage or modern sax.  They want all players to buy their mouthpiece.  Their target is everyone.   

 

  _____  

From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, January 2, 2010 5:39:59 PM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Mouthpiece Work

  

Certainly.  Understanding the acoustical difference between a vintage and a modern saxophone it becomes clearly evident why most modern mouthpieces are designed as they are and why there are so many different varieties to choose from.  The majority are not not targeting players of vintage saxophones.



  _____  

From: MojoBari <kwbradbury@yahoo. com>
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Sat, January 2, 2010 5:17:29 PM
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Mouthpiece Work

  

I do not mind some tangent sax discussions. But lately they have been dominating the group. So please steer the conversation back to mouthpieces. 

 

 

Hi Lori,

Interesting stuff "right from the horse's mouth" so to speak. I think it is basically true that the math has not changed past what moving the mpc on the cork compensates for (somewhat). But what is interesting is the fact that the internal volume of many--if not most--modern mpcs is way off from what would tune the modes correctly. This requires a large, somewhat bulbous chamber like on classic mpcs.

Modern designs force the player to relax the embouchure to get the upper notes in tune. Of course the progressive sharpening as you go up is gradual, and the embouchure adjustments become automatic, even part of the idiom, but this is still far different from having the registers in tune. 

Given that the math is well understood, at least insofar as the need for the mpc/reed combo to mimic the volume and Helmholtz resonance of the missing conic apex, I'm wondering if this is ever considered by mpc makers, or is it just a matter of empirical tweaking until some players like the way the thing plays?

It should be possible to design an open facing, high baffle piece with a large chamber that would play and sound much like a modern piece but would preserve the mode relationships of the tube.

Have you guys every played with such a design?

Of course it is possible that players used to contemporary designs might find it strange...

Another point for you to consider: it has been found that cutting a thin but deep ridge just behind the tip rail changes the Bernoulli forces acting on the reed in a way that materially improves response.

I have always wondered why makers have not incorporated such things in their designs. Or have they been tried and found wanting?

Toby

--- Lori Thomas <lthom172@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> ----------
> Sent from AT&T Wireless using Yahoo! Mail
> 
> ------Original Message------
> From: STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@cox.net>
> To: <MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Sat, Jan 2, 5:40 PM
> Subject: RE: [MouthpieceWork] Mouthpiece Work
> 
> Keith:
> 
> Putting on my hat as a mouthpiece manufacturer (my company makes 14 different models), you are right about giving no consideration as to making a mouthpiece specifically aimed at the vintage horn market. Nobody does so, because there is simply no need to do so. Most modern mouthpieces (not all, but most) work equally well on modern and older horns because the math used in saxophones has not changed significantly since day one. Another significant factor is the miniscule size of the vintage horn market vs. the modern horn market. You just couldn’t justify the tooling costs to make a vintage specific piece. The market just isn’t there.
> 
>  
> 
> There are plenty of variations available to today’s saxophonist who desires a vintage type sound. Most companies, including my own, manufacture at least one big chamber/low baffle variety which should suit just about anybody desiring this type sound.
> 
>  
> 
> You are right about companies making what they can sell. If nobody buys what you make, you don’t stay in business. The design process is, to a degree, market driven. You can’t force consumers to play mouthpieces they don’t like or want.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
> 
> STEVE GOODSON
> 
> SAXOPHONE DESIGNER TO THE STARS         
> 
>  
> 
> our products are ALL rated 
> 
>  
> 
> cid:339191121@25022009-09F4
> 
>  
> 
> Steve is a member of
> 
> hd_logo NAMMbelieve2nasaconf_GIF
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> PLEASE VISIT MY WEBSITES
>  <http://www.nationofmusic.com/> http://www.nationofmusic.com/ (retail sales and discussion forum)
>  <http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/SaxophoneRepair/> http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/SaxophoneRepair/  (discussion group)
>  <http://www.saxgourmet.com/> http://www.saxgourmet.com/  (saxophone history and information)
>  <http://saxophonethoughts.blogspot.com/> http://saxophonethoughts.blogspotcom/  (my personal saxophone blog)
> 
>  
> 
> READ MY ARTICLES ON SAXOPHONE DESIGN IN EACH ISSUE OF THE SAXOPHONE JOURNAL
> The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves
> 
> BASIC SHOP RATE................$100/HR
> 
> IF YOU WATCH.....................$125/HR
> 
> IF YOU ASK QUESTIONS......$150/HR
> 
> IF I HAVE TO LISTEN TO A CONCERT 
> 
> LONGER THAN FIVE MINUTES WHEN
> 
> YOU PICK UP YOUR HORN....$250/HR
> 
>  
> 
> The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side." Hunter S. Thompson
> 
>  
> 
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information or otherwise protected by law. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Keith Bradbury
> Sent: Saturday, January 02, 2010 5:09 PM
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Mouthpiece Work
> 
>  
> 
>   
> 
> I think we have it all when it comes to design variety.  There are several tenor Link and alto Meyer varieties that one could argue are going after the vintage market since they are based on classic designs that have proven themselves on vintage (and modern) saxes.  There are also many designs that are trying to bring something different to the market.  But I think each one is mostly based on what they think they can market and sell.  I doubt much thought is given to whether it works best on a vintage or modern sax.  They want all players to buy their mouthpiece.  Their target is everyone.   
> 
>  
> 
>   _____  
> 
> From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sat, January 2, 2010 5:39:59 PM
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Mouthpiece Work
> 
>   
> 
> Certainly.  Understanding the acoustical difference between a vintage and a modern saxophone it becomes clearly evident why most modern mouthpieces are designed as they are and why there are so many different varieties to choose from.  The majority are not not targeting players of vintage saxophones.
> 
> 
> 
>   _____  
> 
> From: MojoBari <kwbradbury@yahoo. com>
> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Sat, January 2, 2010 5:17:29 PM
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Mouthpiece Work
> 
>   
> 
> I do not mind some tangent sax discussions. But lately they have been dominating the group. So please steer the conversation back to mouthpieces. 
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Maybe so. ;)  But most modern horn owners probably have not owned a vintage horn. So they may not know what they may be missing.  
 
I have a lot of clients looking for a sonic "thing".  Many have a sound concept that seems to move around.  So they switch mouthpieces a lot.  I think what they really need is to develop a more flexible embouchure so they can sound like a bunch of different guys on one mouthpiece.



________________________________
From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, January 2, 2010 7:38:26 PM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Mouthpiece Work

  
Maybe so.  I think a lot of modern horn owners are looking to the mouthpiece to give them back the sonic "thing" that they lost with the easy intonation design.  What do you think?


      

From: "kymarto123@..." kymarto123@...

... I think it is basically true that the math has not changed past what moving the mpc on the cork compensates for (somewhat). But what is interesting is the fact that the internal volume of many--if not most--modern mpcs is way off from what would tune the modes correctly. This requires a large, somewhat bulbous chamber like on classic mpcs.

Mojo> Have you measured this and/or do you have data?  I have measured and calculated chamber volumes and I do not think they are way off.  But they are not "right on" either.  

Modern designs force the player to relax the embouchure to get the upper notes in tune. Of course the progressive sharpening as you go up is gradual, and the embouchure adjustments become automatic, even part of the idiom, but this is still far different from having the registers in tune. 

Mojo> Sharp palm keys is just an indication that a smaller chamber mouthpiece is needed so it can be pulled out more.

Given that the math is well understood, at least insofar as the need for the mpc/reed combo to mimic the volume and Helmholtz resonance of the missing conic apex, I'm wondering if this is ever considered by mpc makers, or is it just a matter of empirical tweaking until some players like the way the thing plays?

Mojo> With my checks, I concluded measuring chamber volumes and comparing them to the missing cone volumes was not close enough to be useful.  I only do it now for a client who has problems with intonation on vintage bari and sop saxes.  If we have a mouthpiece that works better than the others, I'll measure its volume (with H2O and a graduated cylinder) and use it as a target for other mouthpieces for them.  

It should be possible to design an open facing, high baffle piece with a large chamber that would play and sound much like a modern piece but would preserve the mode relationships of the tube.

Have you guys every played with such a design?

Of course it is possible that players used to contemporary designs might find it strange...

Another point for you to consider: it has been found that cutting a thin but deep ridge just behind the tip rail changes the Bernoulli forces acting on the reed in a way that materially improves response.

I have always wondered why makers have not incorporated such things in their designs. Or have they been tried and found wanting?

Toby


      

Something I have learned from Benade [FMA 466-67] is that the
"equivalent" volume of the mouthpiece under playing conditions is not
the same as its measured physical volume.  He says:

"(1) The measured eqivalent volume for a single reed mouthpiece under
constant playing conditions is quite constant over a considerable over a
considerable fraction of an instrument's playing range (as long as we
remain well below the natural frequency of the reed itself).

(2) The equivalent volume measured under playing conditions is
considerably larger than the geometrical volume of the hard-walled
mouthpiece cavity itself."

On p. 466 is an illustration of the "equivalent" volume vs the measured
"geometrical" volume.  Believing the geometrical volume to be the same
as the "equivalent" volume is one of the errors Ferron makes in his
book.

Benade continues on p.467:

". . .we can in fact think of the cavity within an active reed as being
equivalent to a fixed volume whose size is controllable to some extent
by the player as he makes changes in blowing pressure and embouchure
tension".

I have done the math and found that the alto sax mouthpiece plus the
neck has the correct volume and wavelength to produce Ab concert which
is in line with the teaching of Rousseau.   Mouthpiece plus neck pitch.
<http://www.jbtsaxmusic.net/Mouthpiece%20plus%20neck%20pitch%20computati\
on.pdf>


John

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

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...>
wrote:
>
> From: "kymarto123@..." kymarto123@...
>
> ... I think it is basically true that the math has not changed past
what moving the mpc on the cork compensates for (somewhat). But what is
interesting is the fact that the internal volume of many--if not
most--modern mpcs is way off from what would tune the modes correctly.
This requires a large, somewhat bulbous chamber like on classic mpcs.
>
> Mojo> Have you measured this and/or do you have data?  I have measured
and calculated chamber volumes and I do not think they are way off.  But
they are not "right on" either.
>
> Modern designs force the player to relax the embouchure to get the
upper notes in tune. Of course the progressive sharpening as you go up
is gradual, and the embouchure adjustments become automatic, even part
of the idiom, but this is still far different from having the registers
in tune.
>
> Mojo> Sharp palm keys is just an indication that a smaller chamber
mouthpiece is needed so it can be pulled out more.
>
> Given that the math is well understood, at least insofar as the need
for the mpc/reed combo to mimic the volume and Helmholtz resonance of
the missing conic apex, I'm wondering if this is ever considered by mpc
makers, or is it just a matter of empirical tweaking until some players
like the way the thing plays?
>
> Mojo> With my checks, I concluded measuring chamber volumes and
comparing them to the missing cone volumes was not close enough to be
useful.  I only do it now for a client who has problems with intonation
on vintage bari and sop saxes.  If we have a mouthpiece that works
better than the others, I'll measure its volume (with H2O and a
graduated cylinder) and use it as a target for other mouthpieces for
them.
>
> It should be possible to design an open facing, high baffle piece with
a large chamber that would play and sound much like a modern piece but
would preserve the mode relationships of the tube.
>
> Have you guys every played with such a design?
>
> Of course it is possible that players used to contemporary designs
might find it strange...
>
> Another point for you to consider: it has been found that cutting a
thin but deep ridge just behind the tip rail changes the Bernoulli
forces acting on the reed in a way that materially improves response.
>
> I have always wondered why makers have not incorporated such things in
their designs. Or have they been tried and found wanting?
>
> Toby
>

Sounds like how an RPC (Ron Coelho) is designed.  Lots of my local 
colleagues play them, love them, and sound great on them.  They're guys 
that are after that older, "warmer" sound with a modern level of volume 
and projection.  My personal experience with them is that they require a 
little more air than I can muster up consistently (but I'm a pretty 
small guy).

Dan

kymarto123@... wrote:
> Hi Lori, 
>   
............
> It should be possible to design an open facing, high baffle piece with a large chamber that would play and sound much like a modern piece but would preserve the mode relationships of the tube.
>
> Have you guys every played with such a design?

I still don't understand why or believe that a horn that plays in tune is
somehow sonically deficient....the relationship between good intonation and
"bad" sound escapes me....this has not been my experience

 

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Keith Bradbury
Sent: Sunday, January 03, 2010 9:00 AM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Mouthpiece Work

 

  

Maybe so. ;)  But most modern horn owners probably have not owned a vintage
horn. So they may not know what they may be missing.  

 

I have a lot of clients looking for a sonic "thing".  Many have a sound
concept that seems to move around.  So they switch mouthpieces a lot.  I
think what they really need is to develop a more flexible embouchure so they
can sound like a bunch of different guys on one mouthpiece.

 

  _____  

From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, January 2, 2010 7:38:26 PM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Mouthpiece Work

  

Maybe so.  I think a lot of modern horn owners are looking to the mouthpiece
to give them back the sonic "thing" that they lost with the easy intonation
design.  What do you think?


 

 

Ron's designs are really nice.....I played them for a number of
years.......he used to offer several different variation, including a tenor
model specifically designed to use a bari reed! I haven't talked with Ron in
some time, and don't know what he's up to these days..........he did make
some very high quality mouthpieces

-----Original Message-----
From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Dan Torosian
Sent: Sunday, January 03, 2010 11:04 AM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Mouthpiece Work

Sounds like how an RPC (Ron Coelho) is designed.  Lots of my local 
colleagues play them, love them, and sound great on them.  They're guys 
that are after that older, "warmer" sound with a modern level of volume 
and projection.  My personal experience with them is that they require a 
little more air than I can muster up consistently (but I'm a pretty 
small guy).

Dan

kymarto123@... wrote:
> Hi Lori, 
>   
............
> It should be possible to design an open facing, high baffle piece with a
large chamber that would play and sound much like a modern piece but would
preserve the mode relationships of the tube.
>
> Have you guys every played with such a design?



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

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,

I rejoined your Sax Repair Group, so we can continue this discussion.

Lance
MM




________________________________
From: STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, January 3, 2010 11:07:00 AM
Subject: RE: [MouthpieceWork] Mouthpiece Work

  
I still don’t understand why or believe that a horn that plays
in tune is somehow sonically deficient……….the relationship between good
intonation and “bad” sound escapes me……..this has not been my experience
 
From:MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:MouthpieceW ork@yahoogroups. com] On
Behalf Of Keith Bradbury
Sent: Sunday, January 03, 2010 9:00 AM
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Mouthpiece Work
 
  
Maybe so. ;)  But most
modern horn owners probably have not owned a vintage horn. So
they may not know what they may be missing.  
 
I have a lot of clients looking
for a sonic "thing".  Many have a sound concept that seems
to move around.  So they switch mouthpieces a lot.  I think what they
really need is to develop a more flexible embouchure so they can sound like a
bunch of different guys on one mouthpiece.
 

________________________________
 
From:MartinMods
<lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Sat, January 2, 2010 7:38:26 PM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Mouthpiece Work

  
Maybe
so.  I think a lot of modern horn owners are looking to the mouthpiece to
give them back the sonic "thing" that they lost with the easy
intonation design.  What do you think?

 
 
 


      

"It should be possible to design an open facing, high baffle piece with a
large chamber that would play and sound much like a modern piece but would
preserve the mode relationships of the tube.  Have you guys every played with such a design?"


I'm looking for a mouthpiece/horn combination, made from intelligent liquid metal, that will solidify at any density, and with any desired material characteristics, at room temperature to any shape, specified by a high resolution computer generated digital grid.  The intelligent liquid metal senses air column impedance, turbulence, standing wave structure, etc. for a comprehensive and detailed acoustical analysis of the air column, coupled resonating chambers, and instrument mouthpiece walls/body, and computer aided programming of design of the same.



      

Hi Keith,

To answer a few of your questions. I've interleaved the answers:

Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:                                           From: "kymarto123@..." kymarto123@...
 
 ... I think it is basically true that the math has not changed past what moving the mpc on the cork compensates for (somewhat). But what is interesting is the fact that the internal volume of many--if not most--modern mpcs is way off from what would tune the modes correctly. This requires a
 large, somewhat bulbous chamber like on classic mpcs.
 
 Mojo> Have you measured this and/or do you have data?  I have measured and calculated chamber volumes and I do not think they are way off.  But they are not "right on" either.  
Toby: As far as volumes go: it is of course possible to change the volume by moving the mpc on the cork, but this is not all there is to it. There is also a matter of resonance frequency of the mpc/constriction combination. This is from Fletcher and Rossing, "The Physics of Musical Instruments",
 pg 496-7:
"At low frequencies, the matching is achieved if the internal volume of the mouthpiece is equal to that of the missing conical apex, which requires that the mouthpiece have a slightly bulbous internal shape, so that it actually constitutes a sort of Helmholtz resonator. The high-frequency match
 can then be achieved by arranging the shape of the constriction where it joins the main part of instrument so that the Helmholtz resonance frequency of the mouthpiece is the same as the first resonance of the missing conical apex, at which it is half a wavelength long."
"This mouthpiece cavity has an important effect on the spectrum of the saxophone (Benade and Lutgen, 1988)....The cavity acts rather like the mouthcup of a brass instrument...and imparts an extra rise of 6 dB/octave below its resonance and a fall of -6 dB/octave above...."
This is from Gary Scavone's thesis on single-reed woodwinds:

Of practical consequence to the saxophone performer, the constraints imposed on saxophone mouthpiece designs imply proper proportioning between the mouthpiece and the neck pipe of the instrument. Musicians typically adjust their mouthpiece position on the neck pipe for correct pitch, but this
 adjustment also affects the  overall partial alignment of the instrument. Thus, as Benade
points out,"Saxophone players would lead much easier lives if the mouthpiece cavities used on their instruments were  fitted as meticulously to their instruments as are the double reeds used by their colleagues".
I measured the volume of my two favorite tenor mpcs, an old MC Gregory and a Berg Larsen. The Gregory has a 25% larger volume when fitted to the same point on the neck (and I have already taken a fair amount of material off the back end of the baffle on the Berg). The facings are much different of
 course, but the Gregory requires none of the labial acrobatics I need to employ to keep the Berg in tune.

 
 Modern designs force the player to relax the embouchure to get the upper notes in tune. Of course the progressive sharpening as you go up is gradual, and the embouchure adjustments become automatic, even part of the idiom, but this is still far different from having the registers in tune. 
 
 Mojo> Sharp palm keys is just an indication that a smaller chamber mouthpiece is needed so it can be pulled out more.
Toby: Not exactly. See the quotes above
 
 Given that the math is well understood, at least insofar as the need for the mpc/reed combo to mimic the volume and Helmholtz resonance of the missing conic apex, I'm wondering if this is ever considered by mpc makers, or is it just a matter of empirical tweaking until some players like the way
 the thing plays?
 
 Mojo> With my checks, I concluded measuring chamber volumes and comparing them to the missing cone volumes was not close enough to be useful.  I only do it now for a client who has problems with intonation on vintage bari and sop saxes.  If we have a mouthpiece that works better than the others,
 I'll measure its volume (with H2O and a graduated cylinder) and use it as a target for other mouthpieces for them.  
Toby: If that works, great, but volume is not the only consideration. There is a large amount of compensating that the experienced player does automatically, and the searching for pitch that we all know so well can even be considered beautiful if the player does it well and expressively. It is
 only when the parameters are so far out that it becomes a chore, or the player cannot achieve consistently good intonation (or fast enough compensation) within the normal process of lipping the notes that it is considered a problem. I studied oboe very seriously for a long time, and I can state
 from experience that if the reed is well adjusted the pitches are correct without the need to do a lot of compensation, while still leaving room for adjustment. If not, well, it becomes a full-time job trying to keep in tune across the modes. Possible, but tedious and tiring. The modern sax idiom
 does not demand, however, the same precision of intonation as generally required from an oboe, except classical: and they tend to use a very different mpc design than jazz players. My point is that it should be possible to get good edge and projection without sacrificing intonation. The Gregory
 is much fuller than the Berg, but it still has very good projection and a clear edge compared to many of the classic designs. 

Toby




 

I looked at the graph on p466 in Benade.  His geometric volume for sop sax mouthpiece is about 4.2 cm^3.  His avg equivalent volume is about 5.5 cm^3, which is 31% higher.  That is a pretty big diff IMO!  How are we mere mortals supposed to deal with that?

I did several spot check measurements and calculations on my mouthpieces several years ago (maybe 10 years!).  The missing cone volume of my Bb straight Conn was 2.2 ml (=cm^3).  The  volume of my Runyon Custom mouthpiece was 3.8 ml where I liked it tuned on my neck.  That is 72% larger than my calculated missing cone volume.  My volume numbers do not compare well to Benade's graph.  Benade was using a test rig with various cylindrical tube lengths attached to the mouthpiece.  I was using a real sax.  I may have some small errors and my embouchure and mouthpiece today may tune differently if I repeated my exercise.  But I'm a figgin' engineer!  I'm pretty good with taking measurements and doing calculations.

I got closer results on my larger saxes when comparing my calculated missing cone volumes to my mouthpiece volumes.  They ranged from +22% to -12% off (yes, negative).  But if Benade's sop sax graph is typical of all saxes, I should have observed discrepancies of around +30%.  An interesting observation is that my 60' 10M comparisons were off +14% and +22% (2 different mouthpieces) and my modern Yamaha alto and bari were off by -12% to -3% (6 mouthpiece checks).  As I have previously said, not way off but not close enough to be real useful to the guy in the trenches doing mouthpiece work.  

I'm not sure how we are to "lead much easier lives" as Benade suggests by fitting mouthpieces meticulously to our instruments.  Lance (MartinMods) has done some fine work in this area.  But I, and my clients, are not willing to abandon the mouthpiece designs we use and like.  If the results were more impressive, we would all be gravitating to superior acoustic designs via our many mouthpiece trials.




________________________________
From: John <jtalcott47@msn.com>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, January 3, 2010 11:08:43 AM
Subject: Re: RE: [MouthpieceWork] Mouthpiece Work

  
Something I have learned from Benade [FMA 466-67] is that the "equivalent" volume of the mouthpiece under playing conditions is not the same as its measured physical volume.  He says:

"(1) The measured eqivalent volume for a single reed mouthpiece under constant playing conditions is quite constant  over a considerable fraction of an instrument's playing range (as long as we remain well below the natural frequency of the reed itself).

(2) The equivalent volume measured under playing conditions is considerably larger than the geometrical volume of the hard-walled mouthpiece cavity itself."

On p. 466 is an illustration of the "equivalent" volume vs the measured "geometrical" volume.  Believing the geometrical volume to be the same as the "equivalent" volume is one of the errors Ferron makes in his book.

Benade continues on p.467:

". . .we can in fact think of the cavity within an active reed as being equivalent to a fixed volume whose size is controllable to some extent by the player as he makes changes in blowing pressure and embouchure tension".

I have done the math and found that the alto sax mouthpiece plus the neck has the correct volume and wavelength to produce Ab concert which is in line with the teaching of Rousseau.   Mouthpiece plus neck pitch.


John


      

Toby wote:
...I measured the volume of my two favorite tenor mpcs, an old MC Gregory and a Berg Larsen. The Gregory has a 25% larger volume when fitted to the same point on the neck (and I have already taken a fair amount of material off the back end of the baffle on the Berg). The facings are much different of course, but the Gregory requires none of the labial acrobatics I need to employ to keep the Berg in tune.
...

Did you compare the missing cone volume calculations to your mouthpiece volume measurements?  Also, I think the "labial acrobatics" may be due to the facing curve and/or tip opening of the Berg.  Especially if it is the stock facing.  


      

I did not go so far as to try to figure out the missing cone volume. While I concede that the more open Berg is a very different beast than the Gregory, I think there is more to it than that.

The elephant in the room here is that the sax tunes both by mpc volume and length, and I think that this is what Benade is getting at in that quote about double reed players. There is a very detailed treatment of getting oboe reeds right both by internal volume and staple/reed length in the 1977
 paper on the evolution of wind instruments. It is tricky stuff. Length adjustments tend to move all modes equally, while volume adjustments move them and widen (or narrow) them simultaneously.

For example, my favorite alto mpc is a Runyon Jaguar that Paul very graciously got for me some years ago. On the plus side it has very civilized and even response to changing dynamics, a sound I like and for some reason I have yet to understand, excellent altissimos for me. On the minus side I
 found it a bit resistant and it would never tune correctly for me. If the lower octave was in tune the upper was always sharp--not dreadfully, but enough that I had to adjust for it. If I got the octaves to blow in tune the intonation was always flat. 

I resisted digging into it for years because I didn't want to lose all the pluses, but finally I got out my Dremel and got to work.  I had noted that the side walls ended in sharp corners at the throat, like a clarinet mpc. I removed them entirely, so that there was a smooth transition from the
 side walls into the chamber/throat. That helped but not enough, so I took down the back end of the baffle quite a bit, as well as taking a bit off the side walls.

With that I had to push the mpc on quite a bit farther--almost a centimeter--to get in tune, but the octaves are now true at that position, and the overall intonation is no longer flat.

As an added bonus, the mpc is now much more freeblowing, with only a minor change in the sound and no change to the ease of altissimos.

The only downside, so far as I can tell, is that the inside is not so pretty, as the Dremel is cruel and it would take hours with curved files to smooth everything down, but once the reed is on nobody knows but me ;-)

For me this is the test of a mpc: find the position in which the octaves blow true first. If the pitch is flat, you need to take out some material and push the piece further on to compensate for the added volume. Conversely,  if it is sharp then it is time to add something to the bore.

Don't do this test if it is cold or extremely hot!

I don't do a lot of mpcs like some of you guys, but this is what has worked for me in my limited experience.

Toby



Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:                                           

 
Toby wote:
 ...I measured the volume of my two favorite tenor mpcs, an old MC Gregory and a Berg Larsen. The Gregory has a 25% larger volume when fitted to the same point on the neck (and I have already taken a fair amount of material off the back end of the baffle on the Berg). The facings are much
 different of course, but the Gregory requires none of the labial acrobatics I need to employ to keep the Berg in tune.
...
  
 Did you compare the missing cone volume calculations to your mouthpiece volume measurements?  Also, I think the "labial acrobatics" may be due to the facing curve and/or tip opening of the Berg.  Especially if it is the stock facing.