Hey guys,

Well, I've read a bunch so far and downloaded/read through a bunch of the items in the "files" section, but I have a pretty big misunderstanding of something that's probably pretty basic. I couldn't find the answer right away using the search function here though, so figured I'd ask. 
I have read so far that the radial curve is best for saxophone. I also understand the basics behind picking a facing length that's right for you. I would probably gravitate more towards Keith's approach - I like the idea of medium-long to long facing curves for low note response. I am also mainly interested in the classic designs for alto and tenor - the Meyer and Link. Those are the two pieces I want to concentrate on the most for the alto and tenor, as well as the rubber Link for soprano. 
The big thing that I don't understand is: For a given tip opening and a given facing length on a saxophone mouthpiece, how do you determine the radial facing curve for your refacing job? 
To clarify, say you have "X" tenor saxophone mouthpiece, and say you know that you want "X" tip opening and you want the facing length to be "X" long, how do you determine all the numbers for your radial curve so you can plot them out for your feeler gauges? 
I see that there are alto-Meyer and tenor-Link spread sheets in the files section, and I have also downloaded the "Facing Curve.xls" spread sheet file. However, the thing I don't understand about the "Facing Curve.xls" file is that it has a facing length variable but no tip opening variable like the "Tenor Link" spreadsheet does. I understand the "Tenor Link" spreadsheet, but not the "Facing Curve.xls" spreadsheet because it doesn't have the same kind of variable inputs that the "Tenor Link" spreadsheet does. 
Is there some important/vital piece of information, or some kind of spreadsheet that I'm missing that is needed to get started? Like, for instance, if I had a Vandoren V16 rubber alto mouthpiece, how would I go about calculating a radial curve for it? 
Thanks.

Matt

I have said that a well-implemented radial curve is tough to beat on sax.  But I think the slightly elliptical curves are a tad better unless the tip is real open.  If you are doing classical sax mouthpieces with closed tips, more elliptical curves are better for the resistance they give when using longer facing lengths.

For a given tip opening and radial facing curve length, there is only one radius that will work mathematically.  This assumes the radius is perpendicular to the table at the facing curve tangent point to table, and the radius sweeps through the facing length (at the .0015" feeler) and the tip opening point.  Make a sketch to set up the math.  Or, you can look at the clinic Powerpoint file on my site for some helpful slide illustrations. 

I think some of the spreadsheets are set up so you  need to manually guess at the radius and facing length to get different curves.  You can use the Excel built-in "Solver" function to automate the process, but this takes some proficiency with Excel and curve fitting.  Teaching Excel skills is beyond the scope of this forum.  But we may be willing to offer some tips.

I have not looked at the spreadsheets we have in the files section recently.  If you continue to have questions on them I will take a look.  


      

Hey Keith,

Thanks very much for taking the time to help me out with this. OK, that makes sense to me. I guess the problem lies in the fact that, as a complete beginner to this, after setting up a drawing/sketch of the numbers, I (sadly) don't know how to set up the math. I really really want to learn this art form, and this is the main thing that I don't understand at this point - how to plot the facing curves once you know the tip opening and the facing length. 
I think that after I know this, it will be a lot easier to get started. I think I understand a lot so far about things like how facing length affects playability, baffle height affects sound, and how chamber volume affects the airflow, but I just can't seem to find an easy way to understand how to plot points on a facing curve. Like even without the spreadsheet.
Mfry on SOTW gave me a formula for a radial curve, but it was extremely complicated to someone like me whose professional studies don't normally call for mathematical or engineering-type thinking.
I just wanted to find out if there is some sort of simple formula where you take a tip opening like .105", a facing length like 46.5, and then calculate where on the glass gauge that the .010" feeler gauge or the .063" feeler gauge should go, etc. 
Sorry, I certainly don't mean to be a bother and I know you guys are very busy, but I'd be really grateful if someone could explain this part of the process to me because I really do have a strong desire to learn this art form and I've got the time and resources during the next year and a half or so to learn about it. I'm really only wanting to learn about it for the joy and love of it to be able to make pieces play better for my own use, I'm not looking to start a business or anything! Maybe years from now I could do work for other others, but that's really not why I'm getting into this. I just want to learn it for fun. Thanks. 

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:
>
> I have said that a well-implemented radial curve is tough to beat on sax.  But I think the slightly elliptical curves are a tad better unless the tip is real open.  If you are doing classical sax mouthpieces with closed tips, more elliptical curves are better for the resistance they give when using longer facing lengths.
> 
> For a given tip opening and radial facing curve length, there is only one radius that will work mathematically.  This assumes the radius is perpendicular to the table at the facing curve tangent point to table, and the radius sweeps through the facing length (at the .0015" feeler) and the tip opening point.  Make a sketch to set up the math.  Or, you can look at the clinic Powerpoint file on my site for some helpful slide illustrations. 
> 
> I think some of the spreadsheets are set up so you  need to manually guess at the radius and facing length to get different curves.  You can use the Excel built-in "Solver" function to automate the process, but this takes some proficiency with Excel and curve fitting.  Teaching Excel skills is beyond the scope of this forum.  But we may be willing to offer some tips.
> 
> I have not looked at the spreadsheets we have in the files section recently.  If you continue to have questions on them I will take a look.  
>

From Jimmitch>>>>I remember when I first started the best thing I read was to not get all caught with the numbers.Refacing is a art you need a good feel for it.Start out with mouthpieces you don't care much about and measure everything you can get your hands on.As time went on I kept good records of everything I refaced so now I have numbers that work for me.

I think the hardest skill to develop is learning to use the feelers to
measure accurately...just like learning to play, you have to practice and
practice some more...the files section of the group home page has a number
of different facings that have been charted and posted...this is great
practice material if you will endeavor to learn to duplicate them...it's a
physical skill, and honestly it didn't come easily for me...it took YEARS
before I was completely confident in my measuring ability.

 

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of jamesm
Sent: Saturday, January 09, 2010 3:51 PM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Facing Curve Novice Question

 

  



From Jimmitch>>>>I remember when I first started the best thing I read was
to not get all caught with the numbers.Refacing is a art you need a good
feel for it.Start out with mouthpieces you don't care much about and measure
everything you can get your hands on.As time went on I kept good records of
everything I refaced so now I have numbers that work for me.

If the math and spreadsheets are too much for you, use the old-school approach.  Measure the facing curves you like and copy them to mouthpieces you do not like.  


      

This approach is the best for beginners because it makes you learn to
measure an existing curve as well as check your own work.

 

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Keith Bradbury
Sent: Saturday, January 09, 2010 4:06 PM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Facing Curve Novice Question

 

  


If the math and spreadsheets are too much for you, use the old-school
approach.  Measure the facing curves you like and copy them to mouthpieces
you do not like.  

 

Thanks very much for the help guys. OK, cool, well that all sounds great. Between this info you guys have kindly shared and some email correspondence I've had today with some other refacers, it looks like all the resources needed to get going are right here on this site and right at home with some mouthpieces that I own and like. I've ordered the feeler and glass gauge set from Mojo and will look forward to getting started with some measuring pretty soon! Actually, I believe that I have access to a bunch of free plastic student model mouthpieces, so hopefully I'll have a bunch of blanks to practice putting facings on. I really am only interested in Link and Meyer type pieces anyway, and it looks like there are a bunch of facing charts for those on this site, so I'll probably just use those and see how they do. 
I'm sure it'll be a long and interesting road of learning. Thanks for the help with getting started guys. 

Matt

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "STEVE GOODSON" <saxgourmet@...> wrote:
>
> This approach is the best for beginners because it makes you learn to
> measure an existing curve as well as check your own work.
> 
>  
> 
> From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of Keith Bradbury
> Sent: Saturday, January 09, 2010 4:06 PM
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Facing Curve Novice Question
> 
>  
> 
>   
> 
> 
> If the math and spreadsheets are too much for you, use the old-school
> approach.  Measure the facing curves you like and copy them to mouthpieces
> you do not like.
>

"Teaching Excel skills is beyond the scope of this forum.  But we may be willing to offer some tips."

Dear Mr. Mojo,
Why is helping figure out how to use this worksheet beyond the scope of the forum? I know you are the boss of the forum and what you say goes. That said, it seems to me the spreadsheets are a GREAT tool for mouthpiece work. A tutorial on how the sheets are set up and where to put what measurement in would be QUITE useful. It would be much more relevant to the new mouthpiece facers than where the neck nodes are and if Ferron is right about saxophone acoustics. Sure, we can copy good designs, but what about when there is no good alto or bass clarinet mouthpiece available (is one even made??:-)) to copy or we want to change a design it a little?

I am a long time user of Excel, Lotus 123, MS Works and Open Office. But I use spreadsheets differently and did not design this worksheet. (Financial, inventory and database like functions don't need these kind of equations.)  Reverse engineering it blindly is difficult!. How about a step by step instruction sheet of where to put in your tip opening, the facing length and where to find and exactly what to do with the solver to make something that will work?

I'm not asking for your exact trade secret formulas, and even if I did figure them out, your work will still be better than any newcomers.

Who else would like to get a good direction sheet posted?

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

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:

> I think some of the spreadsheets are set up so you  need to manually guess at the radius and facing length to get different curves.  You can use the Excel built-in "Solver" function to automate the process, but this takes some proficiency with Excel and curve fitting.  Teaching Excel skills is beyond the scope of this forum.  But we may be willing to offer some tips.
> 
> I have not looked at the spreadsheets we have in the files section recently.  If you continue to have questions on them I will take a look.  
>

I would also find it a useful topic. 



Tom De Winter 


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "fidlershorns" <grassinospam@...> 
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2010 2:00:09 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central 
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Facing Curve Novice Question 

  




"Teaching Excel skills is beyond the scope of this forum. But we may be willing to offer some tips." 

Dear Mr. Mojo, 
Why is helping figure out how to use this worksheet beyond the scope of the forum? I know you are the boss of the forum and what you say goes. That said, it seems to me the spreadsheets are a GREAT tool for mouthpiece work. A tutorial on how the sheets are set up and where to put what measurement in would be QUITE useful. It would be much more relevant to the new mouthpiece facers than where the neck nodes are and if Ferron is right about saxophone acoustics. Sure, we can copy good designs, but what about when there is no good alto or bass clarinet mouthpiece available (is one even made??:-)) to copy or we want to change a design it a little? 

I am a long time user of Excel, Lotus 123, MS Works and Open Office. But I use spreadsheets differently and did not design this worksheet. (Financial, inventory and database like functions don't need these kind of equations.) Reverse engineering it blindly is difficult!. How about a step by step instruction sheet of where to put in your tip opening, the facing length and where to find and exactly what to do with the solver to make something that will work? 

I'm not asking for your exact trade secret formulas, and even if I did figure them out, your work will still be better than any newcomers. 

Who else would like to get a good direction sheet posted? 

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

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com , Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote: 

> I think some of the spreadsheets are set up so you  need to manually guess at the radius and facing length to get different curves.  You can use the Excel built-in "Solver" function to automate the process, but this takes some proficiency with Excel and curve fitting.  Teaching Excel skills is beyond the scope of this forum.  But we may be willing to offer some tips. 
> 
> I have not looked at the spreadsheets we have in the files section recently.  If you continue to have questions on them I will take a look.   
> 

Count me in!

 

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of tdewinter@...
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2010 3:09 PM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Facing Curve Novice Question

 

  

I would also find it a useful topic.

 

Tom De Winter


----- Original Message -----
From: "fidlershorns" <grassinospam@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2010 2:00:09 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Facing Curve Novice Question

  

"Teaching Excel skills is beyond the scope of this forum. But we may be willing to offer some tips."

Dear Mr. Mojo,
Why is helping figure out how to use this worksheet beyond the scope of the forum? I know you are the boss of the forum and what you say goes. That said, it seems to me the spreadsheets are a GREAT tool for mouthpiece work. A tutorial on how the sheets are set up and where to put what measurement in would be QUITE useful. It would be much more relevant to the new mouthpiece facers than where the neck nodes are and if Ferron is right about saxophone acoustics. Sure, we can copy good designs, but what about when there is no good alto or bass clarinet mouthpiece available (is one even made??:-)) to copy or we want to change a design it a little?

I am a long time user of Excel, Lotus 123, MS Works and Open Office. But I use spreadsheets differently and did not design this worksheet. (Financial, inventory and database like functions don't need these kind of equations.) Reverse engineering it blindly is difficult!. How about a step by step instruction sheet of where to put in your tip opening, the facing length and where to find and exactly what to do with the solver to make something that will work?

I'm not asking for your exact trade secret formulas, and even if I did figure them out, your work will still be better than any newcomers.

Who else would like to get a good direction sheet posted?

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

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> , Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:

> I think some of the spreadsheets are set up so you  need to manually guess at the radius and facing length to get different curves.  You can use the Excel built-in "Solver" function to automate the process, but this takes some proficiency with Excel and curve fitting.  Teaching Excel skills is beyond the scope of this forum.  But we may be willing to offer some tips.
> 
> I have not looked at the spreadsheets we have in the files section recently.  If you continue to have questions on them I will take a look.  
>

I do not mind if others want to chime in and teach how to use the spreadsheets posted here.  But it is beyond my patience level to try and teach  Excel skills from afar.   One should not expect the forum to provide all that is needed here.   That sounds more snotty than I am trying to be.  I do agree it will be more helpful to the general membership than most of the recent discussions.  

I would recommend starting with the AD Elliptical spreadsheet in the Files - Methods section.  It has a place for actual measurements and also a radial and elliptical curve to overlay.  But the glass scale direction is in mm, not mm*2.  You either need to deal with that, or modify the spreadsheet.  Someone proficient can easily post an modified version of the spreadsheet for the mm*2 glass gage scale. 




________________________________
From: fidlershorns <grassinospam@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, January 11, 2010 3:00:09 PM
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Facing Curve Novice Question

  
"Teaching Excel skills is beyond the scope of this forum. But we may be willing to offer some tips."

Dear Mr. Mojo,
Why is helping figure out how to use this worksheet beyond the scope of the forum? ...


      

Just in case anyone's interested, I found something very useful last night when studying the Excel sheets. I do plan to do lots of measuring of real mouthpieces to begin the learning process pretty soon, but the spreadsheet idea seemed so helpful and well-thought-out that I also want to learn to use them a bit too - Found a bit of useful information that I thought would be worth sharing. 
For some reason, when downloading a bunch of the files here to look at, I originally skipped over the one called "facing schedules". Then I downloaded it last night and it has a nice instruction sheet included. That spreadsheet looks to me like a very good tool for generating a curve, and it comes with an instruction sheet to tell you how to use it. 
When you download the "facing schedules" file, it will put a folder on your desktop with two items - the Excel spreadsheet and a .txt file or something similar which is an instruction sheet for how to use the spreadhseet. 
It's actually pretty simple once you get the hang of it. 
The funny thing about it is that when I plugged in a bunch of numbers to the AD spread sheet and the "Facing Schedule" spread sheet, it seems like the "radial arc" numbers on the "AD" spreadsheet are slightly different than the "circular arc" numbers that come up on the "facing schedules" spreadsheet. As a novice, I don't know exactly what the difference is, I mean they're pretty close in some spots and in other spots it looks to me like they're almost an entire number different... Also the numbers seem different from what's included on the tenor Link spreadsheet file even when you plug similar numbers into it, unless of course I'm doing it wrong which is also highly probable... 
However, the spreadsheets are really useful looking tools and I really like being able to see how the curves match up with each other as you change the numbers around. 
For the most part, I'm going to try and measure each piece I can find, especially ones that play well, and then try and learn from that. Also, when I get ready to actually start trying the refacing process on some cheap blanks, I may try applying facings from other mpc measurements *and* also try applying facing curves that are determined by some of these computerized spreadsheets to see how they play when the facings have been applied to the mouthpieces. I'm sure it'll be interesting. 
The AD's spreadsheet and the "facing schedule" spreadsheets are some of the most useful looking ones, and then of course there are the Meyer and Link tenor/alto spreadsheets but those look like they're just numbers that have been determined already for those mouthpieces - I am assuming those are standard numbers that Keith or someone else has found on Meyers and Links while studying them, or maybe they're curves that Keith or someone else has found that work well on those mouthpieces. 

Matt

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:
>
> I do not mind if others want to chime in and teach how to use the spreadsheets posted here.  But it is beyond my patience level to try and teach  Excel skills from afar.   One should not expect the forum to provide all that is needed here.   That sounds more snotty than I am trying to be.  I do agree it will be more helpful to the general membership than most of the recent discussions.  
> 
> I would recommend starting with the AD Elliptical spreadsheet in the Files - Methods section.  It has a place for actual measurements and also a radial and elliptical curve to overlay.  But the glass scale direction is in mm, not mm*2.  You either need to deal with that, or modify the spreadsheet.  Someone proficient can easily post an modified version of the spreadsheet for the mm*2 glass gage scale. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: fidlershorns <grassinospam@...>
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Mon, January 11, 2010 3:00:09 PM
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Facing Curve Novice Question
> 
>   
> "Teaching Excel skills is beyond the scope of this forum. But we may be willing to offer some tips."
> 
> Dear Mr. Mojo,
> Why is helping figure out how to use this worksheet beyond the scope of the forum? ...
>

I just checked these two spreadsheets.  I get exactly the same radial curve in each.  You need to be careful to duplicate the inputs exactly in both.  The feeler sets are different in spots.  Also the tip opening input is metric in the AD sheet.  The biggest difference is in how Facing Length is handled.  In the facing Schedule sheet, you plug in the facing length you want at the .0015" feeler.  In the AD sheet, you plug in the tangent point where the facing curve meets the flat table.  So you need to guess at a few longer values to get the facing length you want at the .0015" feeler.  

So to get the AD sheet to match the Facing Schedule sheet, put in 2.438 mm as the tip opening and 27.34 mm as the facing length (at the non-existent zero feeler).  Change the feelers to match and the numbers should be the same.

GIGO



________________________________
From: mattmarantz86 mattmarantz86@...

...The funny thing about it is that when I plugged in a bunch of numbers to the AD spread sheet and the "Facing Schedule" spread sheet, it seems like the "radial arc" numbers on the "AD" spreadsheet are slightly different than the "circular arc" numbers that come up on the "facing schedules" spreadsheet. As a novice, I don't know exactly what the difference is, I mean they're pretty close in some spots and in other spots it looks to me like they're almost an entire number different... 


      

Thanks for allowing questions about this tool (the spreadsheets) for those who have been unable to attend one of your seminars!

Today's Question -. This question may be more about measuring than just the worksheet. On AD's Elliptical spreadsheet, cells D8-F8 are marked for user input of "Feeler (inch/1000)" for 0.0000.  That one is so thin I can not see it and keep loosing it in my toolbox. (AKA - it does not exist. :-)) If facing length is measured with the 0.0015 gauge, how do determine the input length for those cells at 0.000?


Matt, I'll look for that .txt file again to see if it helps.

E v e r e t t
 


--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:
>
> I do not mind if others want to chime in and teach how to use the spreadsheets posted here.  But it is beyond my patience level to try and teach  Excel skills from afar.   One should not expect the forum to provide all that is needed here.   That sounds more snotty than I am trying to be.  I do agree it will be more helpful to the general membership than most of the recent discussions.  
> 
> I would recommend starting with the AD Elliptical spreadsheet in the Files - Methods section.  It has a place for actual measurements and also a radial and elliptical curve to overlay.  But the glass scale direction is in mm, not mm*2.  You either need to deal with that, or modify the spreadsheet.  Someone proficient can easily post an modified version of the spreadsheet for the mm*2 glass gage scale. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: fidlershorns <grassinospam@...>
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Mon, January 11, 2010 3:00:09 PM
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Facing Curve Novice Question
> 
>   
> "Teaching Excel skills is beyond the scope of this forum. But we may be willing to offer some tips."
> 
> Dear Mr. Mojo,
> Why is helping figure out how to use this worksheet beyond the scope of the forum? ...
>

Keith - thanks for the info, that's great to know. I'll take another look at it. Glad to know they are both accurate. That'll be great to use.

Everett - In regards to your question about the .0000 box on the AD Elliptical spreadsheet, you are right, there is no feeler gauge for that box. However, the facing length is still measured from the .0015 feeler gauge - you just toy with the yellow box at the .0000 feeler gauge mark with a few numbers until your .0015 feeler gauge mark on the spreadsheet reads how you want it to. To clarify - let's say you want to have your facing length be 49 (mm*2). When you open up the spreadsheet, the tip opening is set at .111" (or 2.82mm). For that tip opening we'll set the facing length to 49 just for kicks. So, go up to the radial arc yellow box where the facing length is entered at the .0000 feeler mark and enter the number 27.65 and press enter. Then, the number directly under that at the .0015 feeler mark will change to 24.5. 24.5mm*2 is a facing length of 49 on your gauge. 
If you change the tip opening, though, that number will change and then you can set the facing length again to whatever you want it to be. You just have to play around with the number at the .0000 feeler mark a little bit, trying a couple of different numbers, until you get what you want in the .0015 feeler mark box. Hope that makes sense and that it's correct (if I'm wrong someone please feel free to shed some light on that...) 

Matt

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "fidlershorns" <grassinospam@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks for allowing questions about this tool (the spreadsheets) for those who have been unable to attend one of your seminars!
> 
> Today's Question -. This question may be more about measuring than just the worksheet. On AD's Elliptical spreadsheet, cells D8-F8 are marked for user input of "Feeler (inch/1000)" for 0.0000.  That one is so thin I can not see it and keep loosing it in my toolbox. (AKA - it does not exist. :-)) If facing length is measured with the 0.0015 gauge, how do determine the input length for those cells at 0.000?
> 
> 
> Matt, I'll look for that .txt file again to see if it helps.
> 
> E v e r e t t
>  
> 
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@> wrote:
> >
> > I do not mind if others want to chime in and teach how to use the spreadsheets posted here.  But it is beyond my patience level to try and teach  Excel skills from afar.   One should not expect the forum to provide all that is needed here.   That sounds more snotty than I am trying to be.  I do agree it will be more helpful to the general membership than most of the recent discussions.  
> > 
> > I would recommend starting with the AD Elliptical spreadsheet in the Files - Methods section.  It has a place for actual measurements and also a radial and elliptical curve to overlay.  But the glass scale direction is in mm, not mm*2.  You either need to deal with that, or modify the spreadsheet.  Someone proficient can easily post an modified version of the spreadsheet for the mm*2 glass gage scale. 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ________________________________
> > From: fidlershorns <grassinospam@>
> > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Mon, January 11, 2010 3:00:09 PM
> > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Facing Curve Novice Question
> > 
> >   
> > "Teaching Excel skills is beyond the scope of this forum. But we may be willing to offer some tips."
> > 
> > Dear Mr. Mojo,
> > Why is helping figure out how to use this worksheet beyond the scope of the forum? ...
> >
>

Yes, that is correct.  In my version of the spreadsheet (AD Elliptical) you have to determine the absolute facing length (feeler gauge of 0) by trial and error.  Yes, my facing lengths are in mm not 1/2mm.  Probably easy to modify for those who want to use the 1/2mm scale.

Since my glass gauge consists of a piece of glass with a small steel ruler taped to the back, I've always used mm to measure length.

That's what you do when you live in the backwoods : )

Regards,
Andrew

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "mattmarantz86" <mattmarantz86@...> wrote:
>
> Keith - thanks for the info, that's great to know. I'll take another look at it. Glad to know they are both accurate. That'll be great to use.
> 
> Everett - In regards to your question about the .0000 box on the AD Elliptical spreadsheet, you are right, there is no feeler gauge for that box. However, the facing length is still measured from the .0015 feeler gauge - you just toy with the yellow box at the .0000 feeler gauge mark with a few numbers until your .0015 feeler gauge mark on the spreadsheet reads how you want it to. To clarify - let's say you want to have your facing length be 49 (mm*2). When you open up the spreadsheet, the tip opening is set at .111" (or 2.82mm). For that tip opening we'll set the facing length to 49 just for kicks. So, go up to the radial arc yellow box where the facing length is entered at the .0000 feeler mark and enter the number 27.65 and press enter. Then, the number directly under that at the .0015 feeler mark will change to 24.5. 24.5mm*2 is a facing length of 49 on your gauge. 
> If you change the tip opening, though, that number will change and then you can set the facing length again to whatever you want it to be. You just have to play around with the number at the .0000 feeler mark a little bit, trying a couple of different numbers, until you get what you want in the .0015 feeler mark box. Hope that makes sense and that it's correct (if I'm wrong someone please feel free to shed some light on that...) 
> 
> Matt
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "fidlershorns" <grassinospam@> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for allowing questions about this tool (the spreadsheets) for those who have been unable to attend one of your seminars!
> > 
> > Today's Question -. This question may be more about measuring than just the worksheet. On AD's Elliptical spreadsheet, cells D8-F8 are marked for user input of "Feeler (inch/1000)" for 0.0000.  That one is so thin I can not see it and keep loosing it in my toolbox. (AKA - it does not exist. :-)) If facing length is measured with the 0.0015 gauge, how do determine the input length for those cells at 0.000?
> > 
> > 
> > Matt, I'll look for that .txt file again to see if it helps.
> > 
> > E v e r e t t
> >  
> > 
> > 
> > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I do not mind if others want to chime in and teach how to use the spreadsheets posted here.  But it is beyond my patience level to try and teach  Excel skills from afar.   One should not expect the forum to provide all that is needed here.   That sounds more snotty than I am trying to be.  I do agree it will be more helpful to the general membership than most of the recent discussions.  
> > > 
> > > I would recommend starting with the AD Elliptical spreadsheet in the Files - Methods section.  It has a place for actual measurements and also a radial and elliptical curve to overlay.  But the glass scale direction is in mm, not mm*2.  You either need to deal with that, or modify the spreadsheet.  Someone proficient can easily post an modified version of the spreadsheet for the mm*2 glass gage scale. 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: fidlershorns <grassinospam@>
> > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Mon, January 11, 2010 3:00:09 PM
> > > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Facing Curve Novice Question
> > > 
> > >   
> > > "Teaching Excel skills is beyond the scope of this forum. But we may be willing to offer some tips."
> > > 
> > > Dear Mr. Mojo,
> > > Why is helping figure out how to use this worksheet beyond the scope of the forum? ...
> > >
> >
>

HI all, so i've been looking at the AD elliptical chart and trying to configure it to something i'm more comfortable with.  I'm trying to convert it to the 1/2mm gauge scale and to use inches rather than mm for the tip opening and tip rail measurements.  The formulas are a little over my head to make any kind of logical changes to them.  Can anyone shed some light on that?  Thanks

Marc




________________________________
From: crunchie_nuts <andrewhdonaldson@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, January 11, 2010 9:41:56 PM
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Facing Curve Novice Question

   
Yes, that is correct.  In my version of the spreadsheet (AD Elliptical) you have to determine the absolute facing length (feeler gauge of 0) by trial and error.  Yes, my facing lengths are in mm not 1/2mm.  Probably easy to modify for those who want to use the 1/2mm scale.

Since my glass gauge consists of a piece of glass with a small steel ruler taped to the back, I've always used mm to measure length.

That's what you do when you live in the backwoods : )

Regards,
Andrew

--- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, "mattmarantz86" <mattmarantz86@ ...> wrote:
>
> Keith - thanks for the info, that's great to know. I'll take another look at it. Glad to know they are both accurate. That'll be great to use.
> 
> Everett - In regards to your question about the .0000 box on the AD Elliptical spreadsheet, you are right, there is no feeler gauge for that box. However, the facing length is still measured from the .0015 feeler gauge - you just toy with the yellow box at the .0000 feeler gauge mark with a few numbers until your .0015 feeler gauge mark on the spreadsheet reads how you want it to. To clarify - let's say you want to have your facing length be 49 (mm*2). When you open up the spreadsheet, the tip opening is set at .111" (or 2.82mm). For that tip opening we'll set the facing length to 49 just for kicks. So, go up to the radial arc yellow box where the facing length is entered at the .0000 feeler mark and enter the number 27.65 and press enter. Then, the number directly under that at the .0015 feeler mark will change to 24.5. 24.5mm*2 is a facing length of 49 on your gauge. 
> If you change the tip opening, though, that number will change and then you can set the facing length again to whatever you want it to be. You just have to play around with the number at the .0000 feeler mark a little bit, trying a couple of different numbers, until you get what you want in the .0015 feeler mark box. Hope that makes sense and that it's correct (if I'm wrong someone please feel free to shed some light on that...) 
> 
> Matt
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, "fidlershorns" <grassinospam@ > wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for allowing questions about this tool (the spreadsheets) for those who have been unable to attend one of your seminars!
> > 
> > Today's Question -. This question may be more about measuring than just the worksheet. On AD's Elliptical spreadsheet, cells D8-F8 are marked for user input of "Feeler (inch/1000)" for 0.0000.  That one is so thin I can not see it and keep loosing it in my toolbox. (AKA - it does not exist. :-)) If facing length is measured with the 0.0015 gauge, how do determine the input length for those cells at 0.000?
> > 
> > 
> > Matt, I'll look for that .txt file again to see if it helps.
> > 
> > E v e r e t t
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@ > wrote:
> > >
> > > I do not mind if others want to chime in and teach how to use the spreadsheets posted here.  But it is beyond my patience level to try and teach  Excel skills from afar.   One should not expect the forum to provide all that is needed here.   That sounds more snotty than I am trying to be.  I do agree it will be more helpful to the general membership than most of the recent discussions.  
> > > 
> > > I would recommend starting with the AD Elliptical spreadsheet in the Files - Methods section.  It has a place for actual measurements and also a radial and elliptical curve to overlay.  But the glass scale direction is in mm, not mm*2.  You either need to deal with that, or modify the spreadsheet.  Someone proficient can easily post an modified version of the spreadsheet for the mm*2 glass gage scale. 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > ____________ _________ _________ __
> > > From: fidlershorns <grassinospam@ >
> > > To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> > > Sent: Mon, January 11, 2010 3:00:09 PM
> > > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Facing Curve Novice Question
> > > 
> > >   
> > > "Teaching Excel skills is beyond the scope of this forum. But we may be willing to offer some tips."
> > > 
> > > Dear Mr. Mojo,
> > > Why is helping figure out how to use this worksheet beyond the scope of the forum? ...
> > >
> >
>


 


      

I just received my copy of Ferron's book. OMG. It is far worse than I imagined it could be. I strongly suggest that people who are interested in acoustics completely ignore it and read Nederveen or other credible books. While there are some parts that are reasonably accurate, there is so much
 misinformation in there that it is basically useless.

If people are interested I can list some of the stuff I have found that is not and cannot be true, as well as other things that sound extremely fishy to me.

Toby
 

I think that would be helpful.  At least it would provide some fodder for further discussion.  Perhaps a new thread with that topic would be appropriate.

John

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
>
> I just received my copy of Ferron's book. OMG. It is far worse than I imagined it could be. I strongly suggest that people who are interested in acoustics completely ignore it and read Nederveen or other credible books. While there are some parts that are reasonably accurate, there is so much
>  misinformation in there that it is basically useless.
> 
> If people are interested I can list some of the stuff I have found that is not and cannot be true, as well as other things that sound extremely fishy to me.
> 
> Toby
>

Toby, 

Yes.  Please list the things that you find questionable.



John,  

This became a new thread when it was given a new description in the subject  line.

L-MM




________________________________
From: John <jtalcott47@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, January 13, 2010 10:52:28 AM
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Ferron

  
I think that would be helpful.  At least it would provide some fodder for further discussion.  Perhaps a new thread with that topic would be appropriate.

John

--- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, <kymarto123@ ...> wrote:
>
> I just received my copy of Ferron's book. OMG. It is far worse than I imagined it could be. I strongly suggest that people who are interested in acoustics completely ignore it and read Nederveen or other credible books. While there are some parts that are reasonably accurate, there is so much
>  misinformation in there that it is basically useless.
> 
> If people are interested I can list some of the stuff I have found that is not and cannot be true, as well as other things that sound extremely fishy to me.
> 
> Toby
>


 


      

I imagine that Ferron's discussion of the changing frequencies of theoretically increasing the taper of an incomplete cone (with a correct x0 substitution), pp 14-15, will be one of the first things that some find objectionable.  I would ask those who disagree with his view, that they then please explain why Benade's formula for determining fn for his straight-sided expanding cone substantiates Ferron's statement - https://ccrma.stanford.edu/marl/Benade/documents/Benade-Physics323-1977.pdf

page 3.




________________________________
From: "kymarto123@..." <kymarto123@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, January 13, 2010 8:14:19 AM
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron

  
I just received my copy of Ferron's book. OMG. It is far worse than I imagined it could be. I strongly suggest that people who are interested in acoustics completely ignore it and read Nederveen or other credible books. While there are some parts that are reasonably accurate, there is so much misinformation in there that it is basically useless.

If people are interested I can list some of the stuff I have found that is not and cannot be true, as well as other things that sound extremely fishy to me.

Toby

 
 


      

It doesn't. If you look at Benade's formula it says: 

Fn = c/4L* sqrt((2n-1)^2+(8/pi^2)*(L/x0)), where Fn is the frequency of the mode n, c = speed of sound, L = length and x0 = length of end truncation, not length of 'correct end substitution'.

When the cone is complete, x0 = 0, which cancels out the last two terms, and the formula then becomes simply  Fn = c/4L * sqrt((2n-1)^2).

Benade's formula therefore is the way to find the frequency of an incomplete cone, and only applies until the truncation length is ~1/3 the length of the complete cone, after which some different things happen to determine Fn.

Toby


MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:                                           
I imagine that Ferron's discussion of the changing frequencies of theoretically increasing the taper of an incomplete cone (with a correct x0 substitution), pp 14-15, will be one of the first things that some find objectionable.  I would ask those who disagree with his view, that they then please
 explain why Benade's formula for determining fn for his straight-sided expanding cone substantiates Ferron's statement - https://ccrma.stanford.edu/marl/Benade/documents/Benade-Physics323-1977.pdf

page 3.



---------------------------------
From: "kymarto123@..." <kymarto123@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, January 13, 2010 8:14:19 AM
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron

                                      I just received my copy of Ferron's book. OMG. It is far worse than I imagined it could be. I strongly suggest that people who are interested in acoustics completely ignore it and read Nederveen or other credible books. While there are some parts that are
 reasonably accurate, there is so much  misinformation in there that it is basically useless.
 
 If people are interested I can list some of the stuff I have found that is not and cannot be true, as well as other things that sound extremely fishy to me.
 
 Toby
  
 
       
           

  

        
      
                 
                 
 

Toby,

Since when can we divide by 0?  Your x0 = 0 renders the formula invalid so the terms do not cancel.  What it says is that the frequency of the the truncated cone, for any fn, is a factor of the tube's taper.  Plug it into excel.  It does exactly what Ferron describes.

L-MM





________________________________
From: "kymarto123@..." <kymarto123@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, January 13, 2010 7:21:50 PM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron

  
It doesn't. If you look at Benade's formula it says: 

Fn = c/4L* sqrt((2n-1)^ 2+(8/pi^2) *(L/x0)), where Fn is the frequency of the mode n, c = speed of sound, L = length and x0 =length of end truncation, not length of 'correct end substitution'.

When the cone is complete, x0 = 0, which cancels out the last two terms, and the formula then becomes simply  Fn = c/4L * sqrt((2n-1)^ 2).

Benade's formula therefore is the way to find the frequency of an incomplete cone, and only applies until the truncation length is ~1/3 the length of the complete cone, after which some different things happen to determine Fn.

Toby


MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:
  
>I imagine that Ferron's discussion of the changing frequencies of
> theoretically increasing the taper of an incomplete cone (with a correct x0 substitution) , pp 14-15, will be one of the first things that some find objectionable.  I would ask those who disagree with his view, that they then please explain why Benade's formula for determining fn
> for his straight-sided expanding cone substantiates Ferron's statement - https://ccrma. stanford. edu/marl/ Benade/documents /Benade-Physics3 23-1977.pdf
>
>>page 3.
>
>
>
>
________________________________
From: "kymarto123@ ybb.ne.jp" <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
>To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
>Sent: Wed, January 13, 2010 8:14:19 AM
>Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron
>
>  
>I just received my copy of Ferron's book. OMG. It is far worse than I imagined it could be. I strongly suggest that people who are interested in acoustics completely ignore it and read Nederveen or other credible
> books. While there are some parts that are reasonably accurate, there is so much  misinformation in there that it is basically useless.
>
>> If people are interested I can list some of the stuff I have found that is not and cannot be true, as well as other things that sound extremely fishy to me.
>
>> Toby
>
> 
>

 
 


      

"Benade's formula therefore is the way to find the frequency of an
incomplete cone, and only applies until the truncation length is ~1/3
the length of the complete cone...."

As our saxophone truncation length (regardless of whether you adhere to the Dr J. Wolf, x0=mouthpiece = ca. 8%, or the Benade x0=mouthpiece + neck view = ca.22% (Nederveen)) never gets close to 1/3rd the length of the complete cone, this is irrelevant.  



      

That's true, you can't divide by 0. Silly me. However that doesn't change the fact that we are talking about a truncated cone and not a complete cone. There is no "correct substitution" term included. This formula does not describe what happens when a mouthpiece of the correct volume acts as the
 missing cone tip, and this is exactly what Wolfe describes in the FAQ.Within certain limits set by the fact that air has mass and the walls are not lossless, a complete cone always plays harmonic overtones and a cone of a given length plays a frequency depending on that length.

And don't forget that the effective truncation changes with every fingering. In the palm keys, the truncation length exceeds 1:3 and approaches (or possibly meets) 1:2.

Toby

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

Since when can we divide by 0?  Your x0 = 0 renders the formula invalid so the terms do not cancel.  What it says is that the frequency of the the truncated cone, for any fn, is a factor of the tube's taper.  Plug it into excel.  It does exactly what Ferron describes.

L-MM




---------------------------------
From: "kymarto123@..." <kymarto123@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, January 13, 2010 7:21:50 PM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron

                                      It doesn't. If you look at Benade's formula it says: 
 
 Fn = c/4L* sqrt((2n-1)^ 2+(8/pi^2) *(L/x0)), where Fn is the frequency of the mode n, c = speed of sound, L = length and x0 = length of end truncation, not length of 'correct end substitution'.
 
 When the cone is complete, x0 = 0, which cancels out the last two terms, and the formula then becomes simply  Fn = c/4L * sqrt((2n-1)^ 2).
 
 Benade's formula therefore is the way to find the frequency of an incomplete cone, and only applies until the truncation length is ~1/3 the length of the complete cone, after which some different things happen to determine Fn.
 
 Toby
 
 
 MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:
                                      
I imagine that Ferron's discussion of the changing frequencies of  theoretically increasing the taper of an incomplete cone (with a correct x0 substitution) , pp 14-15, will be one of the first things that some find objectionable.  I would ask those who disagree with his view, that they then
 please explain why Benade's formula for determining fn  for his straight-sided expanding cone substantiates Ferron's statement - https://ccrma. stanford. edu/marl/ Benade/documents /Benade-Physics3 23-1977.pdf
 
 page 3.
 

 
---------------------------------
From: "kymarto123@ ybb.ne.jp" <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
 To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
 Sent: Wed, January 13, 2010 8:14:19 AM
 Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron
 
                                       I just received my copy of Ferron's book. OMG. It is far worse than I imagined it could be. I strongly suggest that people who are interested in acoustics completely ignore it and read Nederveen or other credible  books. While there are some parts that are
 reasonably accurate, there is so much  misinformation in there that it is basically useless.
  
  If people are interested I can list some of the stuff I have found that is not and cannot be true, as well as other things that sound extremely fishy to me.
  
  Toby
   
 
       
           

  

         
      
                 
   
       
           

  

          
      
                 
                 
 

Hi Marc,

I've uploaded a revised version of the spreadsheet for 1/2mm gauges and tip openings in inches in the Files area; "AD's Elliptical Facing Mark II".  Hopefully this is more useful for you and others.

Regards,
Andrew

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Marc Shamasian <shamasian001@...> wrote:
>
> HI all, so i've been looking at the AD elliptical chart and trying to configure it to something i'm more comfortable with.  I'm trying to convert it to the 1/2mm gauge scale and to use inches rather than mm for the tip opening and tip rail measurements.  The formulas are a little over my head to make any kind of logical changes to them.  Can anyone shed some light on that?  Thanks
> 
> Marc

Lance,

If you have actually made an Excel spreadsheet using this formula, would you mind sharing it?  I would love to learn from how it is done.

John

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
>
> Toby,
> 
> Since when can we divide by 0?  Your x0 = 0 renders the formula invalid so the terms do not cancel.  What it says is that the frequency of the the truncated cone, for any fn, is a factor of the tube's taper.  Plug it into excel.  It does exactly what Ferron describes.
> 
> L-MM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: "kymarto123@..." <kymarto123@...>
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wed, January 13, 2010 7:21:50 PM
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron
> 
>   
> It doesn't. If you look at Benade's formula it says: 
> 
> Fn = c/4L* sqrt((2n-1)^ 2+(8/pi^2) *(L/x0)), where Fn is the frequency of the mode n, c = speed of sound, L = length and x0 =length of end truncation, not length of 'correct end substitution'.
> 
> When the cone is complete, x0 = 0, which cancels out the last two terms, and the formula then becomes simply  Fn = c/4L * sqrt((2n-1)^ 2).
> 
> Benade's formula therefore is the way to find the frequency of an incomplete cone, and only applies until the truncation length is ~1/3 the length of the complete cone, after which some different things happen to determine Fn.
> 
> Toby
> 
> 
> MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:
>   
> >I imagine that Ferron's discussion of the changing frequencies of
> > theoretically increasing the taper of an incomplete cone (with a correct x0 substitution) , pp 14-15, will be one of the first things that some find objectionable.  I would ask those who disagree with his view, that they then please explain why Benade's formula for determining fn
> > for his straight-sided expanding cone substantiates Ferron's statement - https://ccrma. stanford. edu/marl/ Benade/documents /Benade-Physics3 23-1977.pdf
> >
> >>page 3.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> ________________________________
> From: "kymarto123@ ybb.ne.jp" <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
> >To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> >Sent: Wed, January 13, 2010 8:14:19 AM
> >Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron
> >
> >  
> >I just received my copy of Ferron's book. OMG. It is far worse than I imagined it could be. I strongly suggest that people who are interested in acoustics completely ignore it and read Nederveen or other credible
> > books. While there are some parts that are reasonably accurate, there is so much  misinformation in there that it is basically useless.
> >
> >> If people are interested I can list some of the stuff I have found that is not and cannot be true, as well as other things that sound extremely fishy to me.
> >
> >> Toby
> >
> > 
> >
>

Great discussion!!  I always thought that the sax was best defined best by multivarriate calculas.  Those formulas are beyond me ,but really breakdown when you have to build something from the results.  Turns out that approximations have to be used anyway.  Looks like building a sax is still a craft.


Bill Daleiden
A NEW Tune, LLC
(920) 264-5827

--- On Thu, 1/14/10, John <jtalcott47@...> wrote:


From: John <jtalcott47@...>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Ferron
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, January 14, 2010, 8:33 AM


  



Lance,

If you have actually made an Excel spreadsheet using this formula, would you mind sharing it? I would love to learn from how it is done.

John

--- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ ...> wrote:
>
> Toby,
> 
> Since when can we divide by 0? Your x0 = 0 renders the formula invalid so the terms do not cancel. What it says is that the frequency of the the truncated cone, for any fn, is a factor of the tube's taper. Plug it into excel. It does exactly what Ferron describes.
> 
> L-MM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________ _________ _________ __
> From: "kymarto123@ ..." <kymarto123@ ...>
> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Wed, January 13, 2010 7:21:50 PM
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron
> 
> 
> It doesn't. If you look at Benade's formula it says: 
> 
> Fn = c/4L* sqrt((2n-1)^ 2+(8/pi^2) *(L/x0)), where Fn is the frequency of the mode n, c = speed of sound, L = length and x0 =length of end truncation, not length of 'correct end substitution' .
> 
> When the cone is complete, x0 = 0, which cancels out the last two terms, and the formula then becomes simply Fn = c/4L * sqrt((2n-1)^ 2).
> 
> Benade's formula therefore is the way to find the frequency of an incomplete cone, and only applies until the truncation length is ~1/3 the length of the complete cone, after which some different things happen to determine Fn.
> 
> Toby
> 
> 
> MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> >I imagine that Ferron's discussion of the changing frequencies of
> > theoretically increasing the taper of an incomplete cone (with a correct x0 substitution) , pp 14-15, will be one of the first things that some find objectionable. I would ask those who disagree with his view, that they then please explain why Benade's formula for determining fn
> > for his straight-sided expanding cone substantiates Ferron's statement - https://ccrma. stanford. edu/marl/ Benade/documents /Benade-Physics3 23-1977.pdf
> >
> >>page 3.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> ____________ _________ _________ __
> From: "kymarto123@ ybb.ne.jp" <kymarto123@ ybb. ne.jp>
> >To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> >Sent: Wed, January 13, 2010 8:14:19 AM
> >Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron
> >
> > 
> >I just received my copy of Ferron's book. OMG. It is far worse than I imagined it could be. I strongly suggest that people who are interested in acoustics completely ignore it and read Nederveen or other credible
> > books. While there are some parts that are reasonably accurate, there is so much misinformation in there that it is basically useless.
> >
> >> If people are interested I can list some of the stuff I have found that is not and cannot be true, as well as other things that sound extremely fishy to me.
> >
> >> Toby
> >
> > 
> >
>









      

In a complete cone, the theoretical frequency determination is very simple.
   
  From CCRMA:
   
  Pressure distributions along a pipe of length  L  are dependent on the boundary conditions at each end. A complete cone has discrete standing wave frequencies given by  Fn = nc/2L for n 0 1,2,3...where c is the speed of wave propagation in air. 
   
  Note that there are no terms for cone angle, only for cone length.
   
  Toby
  

kymarto123@... wrote:
            That's true, you can't divide by 0. Silly me. However that doesn't change the fact that we are talking about a truncated cone and not a complete cone. There is no "correct substitution" term included. This formula does not describe what happens when a mouthpiece of the correct volume
 acts as the missing cone tip, and this is exactly what Wolfe describes in the FAQ.Within certain limits set by the fact that air has mass and the walls are not lossless, a complete cone always plays harmonic overtones and a cone of a given length plays a frequency depending on that length.

And don't forget that the effective truncation changes with every fingering. In the palm keys, the truncation length exceeds 1:3 and approaches (or possibly meets) 1:2.

Toby

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

Since when can we divide by 0?  Your x0 = 0 renders the formula invalid so the terms do not cancel.  What it says is that the frequency of the the truncated cone, for any fn, is a factor of the tube's taper.  Plug it into excel.  It does exactly what Ferron describes.

L-MM



    
---------------------------------
  From: "kymarto123@..." <kymarto123@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, January 13, 2010 7:21:50 PM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron

      It doesn't. If you look at Benade's formula it says: 

Fn = c/4L* sqrt((2n-1)^ 2+(8/pi^2) *(L/x0)), where Fn is the frequency of the mode n, c = speed of sound, L = length and x0 = length of end truncation, not length of 'correct end substitution'.

When the cone is complete, x0 = 0, which cancels out the last two terms, and the formula then becomes simply  Fn = c/4L * sqrt((2n-1)^ 2).

Benade's formula therefore is the way to find the frequency of an incomplete cone, and only applies until the truncation length is ~1/3 the length of the complete cone, after which some different things happen to determine Fn.

Toby


MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:
        
    I imagine that Ferron's discussion of the changing frequencies of theoretically increasing the taper of an incomplete cone (with a correct x0 substitution) , pp 14-15, will be one of the first things that some find objectionable.  I would ask those who disagree with his view, that they then
 please explain why Benade's formula for determining fn for his straight-sided expanding cone substantiates Ferron's statement - https://ccrma. stanford. edu/marl/ Benade/documents /Benade-Physics3 23-1977.pdf

page 3.

  
    
---------------------------------
  From: "kymarto123@ ybb.ne.jp" <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Wed, January 13, 2010 8:14:19 AM
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron

      I just received my copy of Ferron's book. OMG. It is far worse than I imagined it could be. I strongly suggest that people who are interested in acoustics completely ignore it and read Nederveen or other credible books. While there are some parts that are reasonably accurate, there is so
 much misinformation in there that it is basically useless.

If people are interested I can list some of the stuff I have found that is not and cannot be true, as well as other things that sound extremely fishy to me.

Toby

  





  


  





  


  
  

  
            
 

The subject was the incomplete cone.





________________________________
From: "kymarto123@..." <kymarto123@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, January 14, 2010 9:38:10 PM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron

  
In a complete cone, the theoretical frequency determination is very simple.
 
From CCRMA:
 
Pressure distributions along a pipe of length  L  are dependent on the boundary conditions at each end. A complete cone has discrete standing wave frequencies given by  Fn = nc/2L for n 0 1,2,3...where c is the speed of wave propagation in air. 
 
Note that there are no terms for cone angle, only for cone length.
 
Toby


kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp wrote:
  
>That's true, you can't divide by 0. Silly me. However that doesn't change the fact that we are talking about a truncated cone and not a complete cone. There is no "correct substitution" term included. This formula does
> not describe what happens when a mouthpiece of the correct volume acts as the missing cone tip, and this is exactly what Wolfe describes in the FAQ.Within certain limits set by the fact that air has mass and the walls are not lossless, a complete cone always plays harmonic overtones and a cone of
> a given length plays a frequency depending on that length.
>
>>And don't forget that the effective truncation changes with every fingering. In the palm keys, the truncation length exceeds 1:3 and approaches (or possibly meets) 1:2.
>
>>Toby
>
>MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote: 
>  
>>Toby,
>>
>>>>Since when can we divide by 0?  Your x0 = 0 renders the formula invalid so the terms do not cancel.  What it says is that the frequency of the the truncated cone, for any fn, is a factor of the tube's taper.  Plug it into excel.  It does exactly what Ferron describes.
>>
>>>>L-MM
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
________________________________
 From: "kymarto123@ ybb.ne.jp" <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
>>To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
>>Sent: Wed, January 13, 2010 7:21:50 PM
>>Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron
>>
>>  
>>It doesn't. If you look at Benade's formula it says: 
>>
>>>>Fn = c/4L* sqrt((2n-1)^ 2+(8/pi^2) *(L/x0)), where Fn is the frequency of the mode n, c = speed of sound, L = length and x0 =length of end truncation, not length of 'correct end substitution'.
>>
>>>>When the cone is complete, x0 = 0, which cancels out the last two terms, and the formula then becomes simply  Fn = c/4L * sqrt((2n-1)^ 2).
>>
>>>>Benade's formula therefore is the way to find the frequency of an incomplete cone, and only applies until the truncation length is ~1/3 the length of the complete cone, after which some different things happen to determine Fn.
>>
>>>>Toby
>>
>>
>>MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:
>>  
>>>I imagine that Ferron's discussion of the changing frequencies of theoretically increasing the taper of an incomplete cone (with a correct x0 substitution) , pp 14-15, will be one of the first things that some find objectionable.  I would ask those who
>>> disagree with his view, that they then please explain why Benade's formula for determining fn for his straight-sided expanding cone substantiates Ferron's statement - https://ccrma. stanford. edu/marl/ Benade/documents /Benade-Physics3 23-1977.pdf
>>>
>>>>>>page 3.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
________________________________
 From: "kymarto123@ ybb.ne.jp"
>>> <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
>>>To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
>>>Sent: Wed, January 13, 2010 8:14:19 AM
>>>Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron
>>>
>>>  
>>>I just received my copy of Ferron's book. OMG. It is far worse than I imagined it could be. I strongly suggest that people who are interested in acoustics completely ignore it and read Nederveen or other credible books. While there are some parts that
>>> are reasonably accurate, there is so much misinformation in there that it is basically useless.
>>>
>>>>>>If people are interested I can list some of the stuff I have found that is not and cannot be true, as well as other things that sound extremely fishy to me.
>>>
>>>>>>Toby
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

 
 


      

So you agree that for a complete cone, angle doesn't influence pitch or mode relationships? This is not what Ferron is saying, as far as I can tell.

Toby

MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:                                           
The subject was the incomplete cone.




---------------------------------
From: "kymarto123@..." <kymarto123@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, January 14, 2010 9:38:10 PM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron

                                      
In a complete cone, the theoretical frequency determination is very simple.
   
  From CCRMA:
   
  Pressure distributions along a pipe of length  L  are dependent on the boundary conditions at each end. A complete  cone has discrete standing wave frequencies given by  Fn = nc/2L for n 0 1,2,3...where c is the speed of wave propagation in air. 
   
  Note that there are no terms for cone angle, only  for cone length.
   
  Toby
  
 
 kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp wrote:
        That's true, you can't divide by 0. Silly me. However that doesn't change the fact that we are talking about a truncated cone and not a complete cone. There is no "correct substitution" term included. This formula does  not describe what happens when a mouthpiece of the correct volume acts
 as the missing cone tip, and this is exactly what Wolfe describes in the FAQ.Within certain limits set by the fact that air has mass and the walls are not lossless, a complete cone always plays harmonic overtones and a cone of  a given length plays a frequency depending on that length.
 
 And don't forget that the effective truncation changes with every fingering. In the palm keys, the truncation length exceeds 1:3 and approaches (or possibly meets) 1:2.
 
 Toby
 
 MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:        
    Toby,
 
 Since when can we divide by 0?  Your x0 = 0 renders the formula invalid so the terms do not cancel.  What it says is that the frequency of the the truncated cone, for any fn, is a factor of the tube's taper.  Plug it into excel.  It does exactly what Ferron describes.
 
 L-MM
 
 
 
     
---------------------------------
  From: "kymarto123@ ybb.ne.jp" <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
 To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
 Sent: Wed, January 13, 2010 7:21:50 PM
 Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron
 
       It doesn't. If you look at Benade's formula it says: 
 
 Fn = c/4L* sqrt((2n-1)^ 2+(8/pi^2) *(L/x0)), where Fn is the frequency of the mode n, c = speed of sound, L = length and x0 = length of end truncation, not length of 'correct end substitution'.
 
 When the cone is complete, x0 = 0, which cancels out the last two terms, and the formula then becomes simply  Fn = c/4L * sqrt((2n-1)^ 2).
 
 Benade's formula therefore is the way to find the frequency of an incomplete cone, and only applies until the truncation length is ~1/3 the length of the complete cone, after which some different things happen to determine Fn.
 
 Toby
 
 
 MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:
        
    I imagine that Ferron's discussion of the changing frequencies of theoretically increasing the taper of an incomplete cone (with a correct x0 substitution) , pp 14-15, will be one of the first things that some find objectionable.  I would ask those who  disagree with his view, that they then
 please explain why Benade's formula for determining fn for his straight-sided expanding cone substantiates Ferron's statement - https://ccrma. stanford. edu/marl/ Benade/documents /Benade-Physics3 23-1977.pdf
 
 page 3.
 
  
     
---------------------------------
  From: "kymarto123@ ybb.ne.jp"  <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
 To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
 Sent: Wed, January 13, 2010 8:14:19 AM
 Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron
 
       I just received my copy of Ferron's book. OMG. It is far worse than I imagined it could be. I strongly suggest that people who are interested in acoustics completely ignore it and read Nederveen or other credible books. While there are some parts that  are reasonably accurate, there is so
 much misinformation in there that it is basically useless.
 
 If people are interested I can list some of the stuff I have found that is not and cannot be true, as well as other things that sound extremely fishy to me.
 
 Toby
 
  





   


   





   


   
  



   
       
           

  

        
      
                 
                 
 

Andrew,

I didn't even notice that you'd done that until now. That's really great, thanks a whole lot. Much appreciated. 

Regards,
Matt

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "crunchie_nuts" <andrewhdonaldson@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Marc,
> 
> I've uploaded a revised version of the spreadsheet for 1/2mm gauges and tip openings in inches in the Files area; "AD's Elliptical Facing Mark II".  Hopefully this is more useful for you and others.
> 
> Regards,
> Andrew
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Marc Shamasian <shamasian001@> wrote:
> >
> > HI all, so i've been looking at the AD elliptical chart and trying to configure it to something i'm more comfortable with.  I'm trying to convert it to the 1/2mm gauge scale and to use inches rather than mm for the tip opening and tip rail measurements.  The formulas are a little over my head to make any kind of logical changes to them.  Can anyone shed some light on that?  Thanks
> > 
> > Marc
>

Complete Cones:  I see that the worldwide acoustical discussion is limited, exclusively, to musically applicable shapes - shapes that do have usable integral harmonic resonance characteristics, and, as you say, no reference is made to taper at all.  I would like to see some scientific proof, as I find it difficult to believe that a complete cone, 1m long, with a slant angle (side to base) of, 89.99 deg., and a opening of .2mm, would have identical resonance characteristics, compared to a complete cone, 1m long, with a slant angle of, 1 deg., and an opening of 57m.







________________________________
From: "kymarto123@..." <kymarto123@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, January 15, 2010 3:50:51 AM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron

  
So you agree that for a complete cone, angle doesn't influence pitch or mode relationships? This is not what Ferron is saying, as far as I can tell.

Toby

MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:
  
>The subject was the incomplete cone.
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________
From: "kymarto123@ ybb.ne.jp" <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
>To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
>Sent: Thu, January 14, 2010 9:38:10 PM
>Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron
>
>  
>In a complete cone, the theoretical frequency determination is very simple.
> 
>From CCRMA:
> 
>Pressure distributions along a pipe
> of length  L  are dependent on the boundary conditions at each end. A complete  cone has discrete standing wave frequencies given by  Fn = nc/2L for n 0 1,2,3...where c is the speed of wave propagation in air. 
> 
>Note that there are no terms for
> cone angle, only  for cone length.
> 
>Toby
>
>
>kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp wrote:
>  
>>That's true, you can't divide by 0. Silly me. However that doesn't change the fact
>> that we are talking about a truncated cone and not a complete cone. There is no "correct substitution" term included. This formula does  not describe what happens when a mouthpiece of the correct volume acts as the missing cone tip, and this is exactly what Wolfe describes in the FAQ.Within
>> certain limits set by the fact that air has mass and the walls are not lossless, a complete cone always plays harmonic overtones and a cone of  a given length plays a frequency depending on that length.
>>
>>>> And don't forget that the effective truncation changes with every fingering. In the palm keys, the truncation length exceeds 1:3 and approaches (or possibly meets) 1:2.
>>
>>>> Toby
>>
>>MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote: 
>>  
>>>Toby,
>>>
>>>>>> Since when can we divide by 0?  Your x0 = 0 renders the formula invalid so the terms do not cancel.  What it says is that the frequency of the the truncated cone, for any fn, is a factor of the tube's taper.  Plug it into excel.  It does exactly what Ferron describes.
>>>
>>>>>> L-MM
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
________________________________
 From: "kymarto123@ ybb.ne.jp"
>>> <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
>>>To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
>>>Sent: Wed, January 13, 2010 7:21:50 PM
>>>Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron
>>>
>>>  
>>>It doesn't. If you look at Benade's formula it says: 
>>>
>>>>>> Fn = c/4L* sqrt((2n-1)^ 2+(8/pi^2) *(L/x0)), where Fn is the frequency of the mode n, c = speed of sound, L = length and x0 =length of end truncation, not length of 'correct end substitution'.
>>>
>>>>>> When the cone is complete, x0 = 0, which cancels out the last two terms, and the formula then becomes simply  Fn = c/4L * sqrt((2n-1)^ 2).
>>>
>>>>>> Benade's formula therefore is the way to find the frequency of an incomplete cone, and only applies until the truncation length is ~1/3 the length of the complete cone, after which some different things happen to determine Fn.
>>>
>>>>>> Toby
>>>
>>>
>>>MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>  
>>>>I imagine that Ferron's discussion of the changing frequencies of theoretically increasing the taper of an incomplete cone (with a correct x0 substitution) , pp 14-15, will be one of the first things that some find objectionable.  I would
>>>> ask those who  disagree with his view, that they then please explain why Benade's formula for determining fn for his straight-sided expanding cone substantiates Ferron's statement - https://ccrma. stanford. edu/marl/ Benade/documents /Benade-Physics3 23-1977.pdf
>>>>
>>>>>>>> page 3.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
________________________________
 From: "kymarto123@ ybb.ne.jp"  <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
>>>>To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
>>>>Sent: Wed, January 13, 2010 8:14:19 AM
>>>>Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron
>>>>
>>>>  
>>>>I just received my copy of Ferron's book. OMG. It is far worse than I imagined it could be. I strongly suggest that people who are interested in acoustics completely ignore it and read Nederveen or other credible books. While there are some parts
>>>> that  are reasonably accurate, there is so much misinformation in there that it is basically useless.
>>>>
>>>>>>>> If people are interested I can list some of the stuff I have found that is not and cannot be true, as well as other things that sound extremely fishy to me.
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Toby
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> 
>

 
 


      

But back to the subject of Ferron.  Benade seems to agree with him regarding pp. 14-15.




________________________________
From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, January 15, 2010 12:27:10 PM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron

  
Complete Cones:  I see that the worldwide acoustical discussion is limited, exclusively, to musically applicable shapes - shapes that do have usable integral harmonic resonance characteristics, and, as you say, no reference is made to taper at all.  I would like to see some scientific proof, as I find it difficult to believe that a complete cone, 1m long, with a slant angle (side to base) of, 89.99 deg., and a opening of .2mm, would have identical resonance characteristics, compared to a complete cone, 1m long, with a slant angle of, 1 deg., and an opening of 57m.







________________________________
From: "kymarto123@ ybb.ne.jp" <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Fri, January 15, 2010 3:50:51 AM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron

  
So you agree that for a complete cone, angle doesn't influence pitch or mode relationships? This is not what Ferron is saying, as far as I can tell.

Toby

MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:
  
>The subject was the incomplete cone.
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________
From: "kymarto123@ ybb.ne.jp" <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
>To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
>Sent: Thu, January 14, 2010 9:38:10 PM
>Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron
>
>  
>In a complete cone, the theoretical frequency determination is very simple.
> 
>From CCRMA:
> 
>Pressure distributions along a pipe
> of length  L  are dependent on the boundary conditions at each end. A complete  cone has discrete standing wave frequencies given by  Fn = nc/2L for n 0 1,2,3...where c is the speed of wave propagation in air. 
> 
>Note that there are no terms for
> cone angle, only  for cone length.
> 
>Toby
>
>
>kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp wrote:
>  
>>That's true, you can't divide by 0. Silly me. However that doesn't change the fact
>> that we are talking about a truncated cone and not a complete cone. There is no "correct substitution" term included. This formula does  not describe what happens when a mouthpiece of the correct volume acts as the missing cone tip, and this is exactly what Wolfe describes in the FAQ.Within
>> certain limits set by the fact that air has mass and the walls are not lossless, a complete cone always plays harmonic overtones and a cone of  a given length plays a frequency depending on that length.
>>
>>>> And don't forget that the effective truncation changes with every fingering. In the palm keys, the truncation length exceeds 1:3 and approaches (or possibly meets) 1:2.
>>
>>>> Toby
>>
>>MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote: 
>>  
>>>Toby,
>>>
>>>>>> Since when can we divide by 0?  Your x0 = 0 renders the formula invalid so the terms do not cancel.  What it says is that the frequency of the the truncated cone, for any fn, is a factor of the tube's taper.  Plug it into excel.  It does exactly what Ferron describes.
>>>
>>>>>> L-MM
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
________________________________
 From: "kymarto123@ ybb.ne.jp"
>>> <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
>>>To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
>>>Sent: Wed, January 13, 2010 7:21:50 PM
>>>Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron
>>>
>>>  
>>>It doesn't. If you look at Benade's formula it says: 
>>>
>>>>>> Fn = c/4L* sqrt((2n-1)^ 2+(8/pi^2) *(L/x0)), where Fn is the frequency of the mode n, c = speed of sound, L = length and x0 =length of end truncation, not length of 'correct end substitution'.
>>>
>>>>>> When the cone is complete, x0 = 0, which cancels out the last two terms, and the formula then becomes simply  Fn = c/4L * sqrt((2n-1)^ 2).
>>>
>>>>>> Benade's formula therefore is the way to find the frequency of an incomplete cone, and only applies until the truncation length is ~1/3 the length of the complete cone, after which some different things happen to determine Fn.
>>>
>>>>>> Toby
>>>
>>>
>>>MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>  
>>>>I imagine that Ferron's discussion of the changing frequencies of theoretically increasing the taper of an incomplete cone (with a correct x0 substitution) , pp 14-15, will be one of the first things that some find objectionable.  I would
>>>> ask those who  disagree with his view, that they then please explain why Benade's formula for determining fn for his straight-sided expanding cone substantiates Ferron's statement - https://ccrma. stanford. edu/marl/ Benade/documents /Benade-Physics3 23-1977.pdf
>>>>
>>>>>>>> page 3.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
________________________________
 From: "kymarto123@ ybb.ne.jp"  <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
>>>>To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
>>>>Sent: Wed, January 13, 2010 8:14:19 AM
>>>>Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron
>>>>
>>>>  
>>>>I just received my copy of Ferron's book. OMG. It is far worse than I imagined it could be. I strongly suggest that people who are interested in acoustics completely ignore it and read Nederveen or other credible books. While there are some parts
>>>> that  are reasonably accurate, there is so much misinformation in there that it is basically useless.
>>>>
>>>>>>>> If people are interested I can list some of the stuff I have found that is not and cannot be true, as well as other things that sound extremely fishy to me.
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Toby
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> 
>

 

 


      

as does the UNSW FAQ page.




________________________________
From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, January 15, 2010 3:02:15 PM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron

  
But back to the subject of Ferron.  Benade seems to agree with him regarding pp. 14-15.




________________________________
From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Fri, January 15, 2010 12:27:10 PM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron

  
Complete Cones:  I see that the worldwide acoustical discussion is limited, exclusively, to musically applicable shapes - shapes that do have usable integral harmonic resonance characteristics, and, as you say, no reference is made to taper at all.  I would like to see some scientific proof, as I find it difficult to believe that a complete cone, 1m long, with a slant angle (side to base) of, 89.99 deg., and a opening of .2mm, would have identical resonance characteristics, compared to a complete cone, 1m long, with a slant angle of, 1 deg., and an opening of 57m.







________________________________
From: "kymarto123@ ybb.ne.jp" <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Fri, January 15, 2010 3:50:51 AM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron

  
So you agree that for a complete cone, angle doesn't influence pitch or mode relationships? This is not what Ferron is saying, as far as I can tell.

Toby

MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:
  
>The subject was the incomplete cone.
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________
From: "kymarto123@ ybb.ne.jp" <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
>To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
>Sent: Thu, January 14, 2010 9:38:10 PM
>Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron
>
>  
>In a complete cone, the theoretical frequency determination is very simple.
> 
>From CCRMA:
> 
>Pressure distributions along a pipe
> of length  L  are dependent on the boundary conditions at each end. A complete  cone has discrete standing wave frequencies given by  Fn = nc/2L for n 0 1,2,3...where c is the speed of wave propagation in air. 
> 
>Note that there are no terms for
> cone angle, only  for cone length.
> 
>Toby
>
>
>kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp wrote:
>  
>>That's true, you can't divide by 0. Silly me. However that doesn't change the fact
>> that we are talking about a truncated cone and not a complete cone. There is no "correct substitution" term included. This formula does  not describe what happens when a mouthpiece of the correct volume acts as the missing cone tip, and this is exactly what Wolfe describes in the FAQ.Within
>> certain limits set by the fact that air has mass and the walls are not lossless, a complete cone always plays harmonic overtones and a cone of  a given length plays a frequency depending on that length.
>>
>>>> And don't forget that the effective truncation changes with every fingering. In the palm keys, the truncation length exceeds 1:3 and approaches (or possibly meets) 1:2.
>>
>>>> Toby
>>
>>MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote: 
>>  
>>>Toby,
>>>
>>>>>> Since when can we divide by 0?  Your x0 = 0 renders the formula invalid so the terms do not cancel.  What it says is that the frequency of the the truncated cone, for any fn, is a factor of the tube's taper.  Plug it into excel.  It does exactly what Ferron describes.
>>>
>>>>>> L-MM
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
________________________________
 From: "kymarto123@ ybb.ne.jp"
>>> <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
>>>To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
>>>Sent: Wed, January 13, 2010 7:21:50 PM
>>>Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron
>>>
>>>  
>>>It doesn't. If you look at Benade's formula it says: 
>>>
>>>>>> Fn = c/4L* sqrt((2n-1)^ 2+(8/pi^2) *(L/x0)), where Fn is the frequency of the mode n, c = speed of sound, L = length and x0 =length of end truncation, not length of 'correct end substitution'.
>>>
>>>>>> When the cone is complete, x0 = 0, which cancels out the last two terms, and the formula then becomes simply  Fn = c/4L * sqrt((2n-1)^ 2).
>>>
>>>>>> Benade's formula therefore is the way to find the frequency of an incomplete cone, and only applies until the truncation length is ~1/3 the length of the complete cone, after which some different things happen to determine Fn.
>>>
>>>>>> Toby
>>>
>>>
>>>MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>  
>>>>I imagine that Ferron's discussion of the changing frequencies of theoretically increasing the taper of an incomplete cone (with a correct x0 substitution) , pp 14-15, will be one of the first things that some find objectionable.  I would
>>>> ask those who  disagree with his view, that they then please explain why Benade's formula for determining fn for his straight-sided expanding cone substantiates Ferron's statement - https://ccrma. stanford. edu/marl/ Benade/documents /Benade-Physics3 23-1977.pdf
>>>>
>>>>>>>> page 3.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
________________________________
 From: "kymarto123@ ybb.ne.jp"  <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
>>>>To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
>>>>Sent: Wed, January 13, 2010 8:14:19 AM
>>>>Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron
>>>>
>>>>  
>>>>I just received my copy of Ferron's book. OMG. It is far worse than I imagined it could be. I strongly suggest that people who are interested in acoustics completely ignore it and read Nederveen or other credible books. While there are some parts
>>>> that  are reasonably accurate, there is so much misinformation in there that it is basically useless.
>>>>
>>>>>>>> If people are interested I can list some of the stuff I have found that is not and cannot be true, as well as other things that sound extremely fishy to me.
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Toby
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> 
>

 


 


      

Indeed not. As I say, there are complexities that limit the theoretical in the real world, such as the fact that air has mass and that wall losses are very high. And beyond that, there are a huge number of variables which do not scale linearly, so that there is certainly a limited range of cone
 angles which are musically usable.

But we know for a fact that semi-angles between 0.4 and 3.0 degrees are completely OK for woodwinds, since we have working instruments with angles in that range. This is a relatively wide range, over which octaves remain true and pitch remains the same, scaled solely by length.

Toby

MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:                                           
Complete Cones:  I see that the worldwide acoustical discussion is limited, exclusively, to musically applicable shapes - shapes that do have usable integral harmonic resonance characteristics, and, as you say, no reference is made to taper at all.  I would like to see some scientific proof, as I
 find it difficult to believe that a complete cone, 1m long, with a slant angle (side to base) of, 89.99 deg., and a opening of .2mm, would have identical resonance characteristics, compared to a complete cone, 1m long, with a slant angle of, 1 deg., and an opening of 57m.






---------------------------------
From: "kymarto123@..." <kymarto123@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, January 15, 2010 3:50:51 AM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron

                                      So you agree that for a complete cone, angle doesn't influence pitch or mode relationships? This is not what Ferron is saying, as far as I can tell.
 
 Toby
 
 MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:
                                      
The subject was the incomplete cone.
 
 

 
---------------------------------
From: "kymarto123@ ybb.ne.jp" <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
 To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
 Sent: Thu, January 14, 2010 9:38:10 PM
 Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron
 
                                       
In a complete cone, the theoretical frequency determination is very simple.
   
  From CCRMA:
   
  Pressure distributions along a pipe  of length  L  are dependent on the boundary conditions at each end. A complete  cone has discrete standing wave frequencies given by  Fn = nc/2L for n 0 1,2,3...where c is the speed of wave propagation in air. 
   
  Note that there are no terms for  cone angle, only  for cone length.
   
  Toby
  
  
  kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp wrote:
        That's true, you can't divide by 0. Silly me. However that doesn't change the fact  that we are talking about a truncated cone and not a complete cone. There is no "correct substitution" term included. This formula does  not describe what happens when a mouthpiece of the correct volume
 acts as the missing cone tip, and this is exactly what Wolfe describes in the FAQ.Within  certain limits set by the fact that air has mass and the walls are not lossless, a complete cone always plays harmonic overtones and a cone of  a given length plays a frequency depending on that length.
  
  And don't forget that the effective truncation changes with every fingering. In the palm keys, the truncation length exceeds 1:3 and approaches (or possibly meets) 1:2.
  
  Toby
  
  MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:        
    Toby,
  
  Since when can we divide by 0?  Your x0 = 0 renders the formula invalid so the terms do not cancel.  What it says is that the frequency of the the truncated cone, for any fn, is a factor of the tube's taper.  Plug it into excel.  It does exactly what Ferron describes.
  
  L-MM
  
  
  
      
---------------------------------
  From: "kymarto123@ ybb.ne.jp"  <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
  To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
  Sent: Wed, January 13, 2010 7:21:50 PM
  Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron
  
        It doesn't. If you look at Benade's formula it says: 
  
  Fn = c/4L* sqrt((2n-1)^ 2+(8/pi^2) *(L/x0)), where Fn is the frequency of the mode n, c = speed of sound, L = length and x0 = length of end truncation, not length of 'correct end substitution'.
  
  When the cone is complete, x0 = 0, which cancels out the last two terms, and the formula then becomes simply  Fn = c/4L * sqrt((2n-1)^ 2).
  
  Benade's formula therefore is the way to find the frequency of an incomplete cone, and only applies until the truncation length is ~1/3 the length of the complete cone, after which some different things happen to determine Fn.
  
  Toby
  
  
  MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:
        
    I imagine that Ferron's discussion of the changing frequencies of theoretically increasing the taper of an incomplete cone (with a correct x0 substitution) , pp 14-15, will be one of the first things that some find objectionable.  I would  ask those who  disagree with his view, that they then
 please explain why Benade's formula for determining fn for his straight-sided expanding cone substantiates Ferron's statement - https://ccrma. stanford. edu/marl/ Benade/documents /Benade-Physics3 23-1977.pdf
  
  page 3.
  
  
      
---------------------------------
  From: "kymarto123@ ybb.ne.jp"  <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
  To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
  Sent: Wed, January 13, 2010 8:14:19 AM
  Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron
  
        I just received my copy of Ferron's book. OMG. It is far worse than I imagined it could be. I strongly suggest that people who are interested in acoustics completely ignore it and read Nederveen or other credible books. While there are some parts  that  are reasonably accurate, there is so
 much misinformation in there that it is basically useless.
  
  If people are interested I can list some of the stuff I have found that is not and cannot be true, as well as other things that sound extremely fishy to me.
  
  Toby
  
  





    


    





    


    
  



    
       
           

  

         
      
                 
   
       
           

  

        
      
                 
                 
 

Not if you consider that Benade is talking about a truncated cone with no substitution and Ferron is talking about a truncated cone with a substitution.

Toby

MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:                                           
But back to the subject of Ferron.  Benade seems to agree with him regarding pp. 14-15.



---------------------------------
From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, January 15, 2010 12:27:10 PM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron

                                      
Complete Cones:  I see that the worldwide acoustical discussion is limited, exclusively, to musically applicable shapes - shapes that do have usable integral harmonic resonance characteristics, and, as you say, no reference is made to taper at all.  I would like to see some scientific proof, as I
 find it difficult to believe that a complete cone, 1m long, with a slant angle (side to base) of, 89.99 deg., and a opening of .2mm, would have identical resonance characteristics, compared to a complete cone, 1m long, with a slant angle of, 1 deg., and an opening of 57m.






---------------------------------
From: "kymarto123@ ybb.ne.jp" <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Fri, January 15, 2010 3:50:51 AM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron

                                      So you agree that for a complete cone, angle doesn't influence pitch or mode relationships? This is not what Ferron is saying, as far as I can tell.
 
 Toby
 
 MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:
                                      
The subject was the incomplete cone.
 
 

 
---------------------------------
From: "kymarto123@ ybb.ne.jp" <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
 To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
 Sent: Thu, January 14, 2010 9:38:10 PM
 Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron
 
                                       
In a complete cone, the theoretical frequency determination is very simple.
   
  From CCRMA:
   
  Pressure distributions along a pipe  of length  L  are dependent on the boundary conditions at each end. A complete  cone has discrete standing wave frequencies given by  Fn = nc/2L for n 0 1,2,3...where c is the speed of wave propagation in air. 
   
  Note that there are no terms for  cone angle, only  for cone length.
   
  Toby
  
  
  kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp wrote:
        That's true, you can't divide by 0. Silly me. However that doesn't change the fact  that we are talking about a truncated cone and not a complete cone. There is no "correct substitution" term included. This formula does  not describe what happens when a mouthpiece of the correct volume
 acts as the missing cone tip, and this is exactly what Wolfe describes in the FAQ.Within  certain limits set by the fact that air has mass and the walls are not lossless, a complete cone always plays harmonic overtones and a cone of  a given length plays a frequency depending on that length.
  
  And don't forget that the effective truncation changes with every fingering. In the palm keys, the truncation length exceeds 1:3 and approaches (or possibly meets) 1:2.
  
  Toby
  
  MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:        
    Toby,
  
  Since when can we divide by 0?  Your x0 = 0 renders the formula invalid so the terms do not cancel.  What it says is that the frequency of the the truncated cone, for any fn, is a factor of the tube's taper.  Plug it into excel.  It does exactly what Ferron describes.
  
  L-MM
  
  
  
      
---------------------------------
  From: "kymarto123@ ybb.ne.jp"  <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
  To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
  Sent: Wed, January 13, 2010 7:21:50 PM
  Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron
  
        It doesn't. If you look at Benade's formula it says: 
  
  Fn = c/4L* sqrt((2n-1)^ 2+(8/pi^2) *(L/x0)), where Fn is the frequency of the mode n, c = speed of sound, L = length and x0 = length of end truncation, not length of 'correct end substitution'.
  
  When the cone is complete, x0 = 0, which cancels out the last two terms, and the formula then becomes simply  Fn = c/4L * sqrt((2n-1)^ 2).
  
  Benade's formula therefore is the way to find the frequency of an incomplete cone, and only applies until the truncation length is ~1/3 the length of the complete cone, after which some different things happen to determine Fn.
  
  Toby
  
  
  MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:
        
    I imagine that Ferron's discussion of the changing frequencies of theoretically increasing the taper of an incomplete cone (with a correct x0 substitution) , pp 14-15, will be one of the first things that some find objectionable.  I would  ask those who  disagree with his view, that they then
 please explain why Benade's formula for determining fn for his straight-sided expanding cone substantiates Ferron's statement - https://ccrma. stanford. edu/marl/ Benade/documents /Benade-Physics3 23-1977.pdf
  
  page 3.
  
  
      
---------------------------------
  From: "kymarto123@ ybb.ne.jp"  <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
  To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
  Sent: Wed, January 13, 2010 8:14:19 AM
  Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron
  
        I just received my copy of Ferron's book. OMG. It is far worse than I imagined it could be. I strongly suggest that people who are interested in acoustics completely ignore it and read Nederveen or other credible books. While there are some parts  that  are reasonably accurate, there is so
 much misinformation in there that it is basically useless.
  
  If people are interested I can list some of the stuff I have found that is not and cannot be true, as well as other things that sound extremely fishy to me.
  
  Toby
  
  





    


    





    


    
  



    
       
           

  

         
      
                 
   
       
           

  

              
           

  

          
      
                 
                 
 

Again, not if you consider that the FAQ is specifically talking about the fact that an incomplete cone with get its harmonics in line if a suitable substitution is in place.

Ferron says: "Regardless of the instrument, a bore whose cone is too wide, is flat in the upper register."

You should know that this kind of narrowing of the modes is characteristic of a substitution whose volume is too large. This is indeed what happens when you use the same mpc on an wider cone with the same diameter at the truncation, since the volume of the missing tip is less than for narrower
 cone. But this is not what Ferron is saying. He qualifies everything on pg 14 with the statement: "Practically speaking, the cone is always cutaway, and the interior volume of the mouthpiece must correspond exactly to the missing part of the cone."

Also, moving just a bit deeper, his explanation of how changing cone angle adds a linear increase in Hz to the modes is not at all accurate, not even for a truncated cone with no substitution. The increase is neither linear for the modes, nor is it constant, depending as it does upon truncation
 ratio as well as mode and frequency.

Toby

MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:                                           
as does the UNSW FAQ page.



---------------------------------
From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, January 15, 2010 3:02:15 PM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron

                                      
But back to the subject of Ferron.  Benade seems to agree with him regarding pp. 14-15.



---------------------------------
From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Fri, January 15, 2010 12:27:10 PM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron

                                      
Complete Cones:  I see that the worldwide acoustical discussion is limited, exclusively, to musically applicable shapes - shapes that do have usable integral harmonic resonance characteristics, and, as you say, no reference is made to taper at all.  I would like to see some scientific proof, as I
 find it difficult to believe that a complete cone, 1m long, with a slant angle (side to base) of, 89.99 deg., and a opening of .2mm, would have identical resonance characteristics, compared to a complete cone, 1m long, with a slant angle of, 1 deg., and an opening of 57m.






---------------------------------
From: "kymarto123@ ybb.ne.jp" <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Fri, January 15, 2010 3:50:51 AM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron

                                      So you agree that for a complete cone, angle doesn't influence pitch or mode relationships? This is not what Ferron is saying, as far as I can tell.
 
 Toby
 
 MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:
                                      
The subject was the incomplete cone.
 
 

 
---------------------------------
From: "kymarto123@ ybb.ne.jp" <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
 To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
 Sent: Thu, January 14, 2010 9:38:10 PM
 Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron
 
                                       
In a complete cone, the theoretical frequency determination is very simple.
   
  From CCRMA:
   
  Pressure distributions along a pipe  of length  L  are dependent on the boundary conditions at each end. A complete  cone has discrete standing wave frequencies given by  Fn = nc/2L for n 0 1,2,3...where c is the speed of wave propagation in air. 
   
  Note that there are no terms for  cone angle, only  for cone length.
   
  Toby
  
  
  kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp wrote:
        That's true, you can't divide by 0. Silly me. However that doesn't change the fact  that we are talking about a truncated cone and not a complete cone. There is no "correct substitution" term included. This formula does  not describe what happens when a mouthpiece of the correct volume
 acts as the missing cone tip, and this is exactly what Wolfe describes in the FAQ.Within  certain limits set by the fact that air has mass and the walls are not lossless, a complete cone always plays harmonic overtones and a cone of  a given length plays a frequency depending on that length.
  
  And don't forget that the effective truncation changes with every fingering. In the palm keys, the truncation length exceeds 1:3 and approaches (or possibly meets) 1:2.
  
  Toby
  
  MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:        
    Toby,
  
  Since when can we divide by 0?  Your x0 = 0 renders the formula invalid so the terms do not cancel.  What it says is that the frequency of the the truncated cone, for any fn, is a factor of the tube's taper.  Plug it into excel.  It does exactly what Ferron describes.
  
  L-MM
  
  
  
      
---------------------------------
  From: "kymarto123@ ybb.ne.jp"  <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
  To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
  Sent: Wed, January 13, 2010 7:21:50 PM
  Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron
  
        It doesn't. If you look at Benade's formula it says: 
  
  Fn = c/4L* sqrt((2n-1)^ 2+(8/pi^2) *(L/x0)), where Fn is the frequency of the mode n, c = speed of sound, L = length and x0 = length of end truncation, not length of 'correct end substitution'.
  
  When the cone is complete, x0 = 0, which cancels out the last two terms, and the formula then becomes simply  Fn = c/4L * sqrt((2n-1)^ 2).
  
  Benade's formula therefore is the way to find the frequency of an incomplete cone, and only applies until the truncation length is ~1/3 the length of the complete cone, after which some different things happen to determine Fn.
  
  Toby
  
  
  MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:
        
    I imagine that Ferron's discussion of the changing frequencies of theoretically increasing the taper of an incomplete cone (with a correct x0 substitution) , pp 14-15, will be one of the first things that some find objectionable.  I would  ask those who  disagree with his view, that they then
 please explain why Benade's formula for determining fn for his straight-sided expanding cone substantiates Ferron's statement - https://ccrma. stanford. edu/marl/ Benade/documents /Benade-Physics3 23-1977.pdf
  
  page 3.
  
  
      
---------------------------------
  From: "kymarto123@ ybb.ne.jp"  <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
  To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
  Sent: Wed, January 13, 2010 8:14:19 AM
  Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron
  
        I just received my copy of Ferron's book. OMG. It is far worse than I imagined it could be. I strongly suggest that people who are interested in acoustics completely ignore it and read Nederveen or other credible books. While there are some parts  that  are reasonably accurate, there is so
 much misinformation in there that it is basically useless.
  
  If people are interested I can list some of the stuff I have found that is not and cannot be true, as well as other things that sound extremely fishy to me.
  
  Toby
  
  





    


    





    


    
  



    
       
           

  

         
      
                 
   
       
           

  

              
           

  

                
           

  

        
      
                 
                 
 

I should have said that the volume of the missing tip is less for the wider cone (since the diameter of the base of the cone is the same but the larger angle makes the height to the vertex less). This would mean that the same substitution on a wider cone would have a volume too large to mimic the
 now-lessened volume of the new missing conic apex.

However as soon as you correct the volume (via mpc adjustment) that would widen the modes back to harmonic relationships (insofar as that is possible in any incomplete cone).

Toby

kymarto123@... wrote:                                           Again, not if you consider that the FAQ is specifically talking about the fact that an incomplete cone with get its harmonics in line if a suitable substitution is in place.
 
 Ferron says: "Regardless of the instrument, a bore whose cone is too wide, is flat in the upper register."
 
 You should know that this kind of narrowing of the modes is characteristic of a substitution whose volume is too large. This is indeed what happens when you use the same mpc on an wider cone with the same diameter at the truncation, since the volume of the missing tip is less than for narrower 
 cone. But this is not what Ferron is saying. He qualifies everything on pg 14 with the statement: "Practically speaking, the cone is always cutaway, and the interior volume of the mouthpiece must correspond exactly to the missing part of the cone."
 
 Also, moving just a bit deeper, his explanation of how changing cone angle adds a linear increase in Hz to the modes is not at all accurate, not even for a truncated cone with no substitution. The increase is neither linear for the modes, nor is it constant, depending as it does upon truncation 
 ratio as well as mode and frequency.
 
 Toby
 
 MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
                                      
as does the UNSW FAQ page.
 

 
---------------------------------
From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
 To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
 Sent: Fri, January 15, 2010 3:02:15 PM
 Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron
 
                                       
But back to the subject of Ferron.  Benade seems to agree with him regarding pp. 14-15.
 

 
---------------------------------
From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
 To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
 Sent: Fri, January 15, 2010 12:27:10 PM
 Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron
 
                                       
Complete Cones:  I see that the worldwide acoustical  discussion is limited, exclusively, to musically applicable shapes - shapes that do have usable integral harmonic resonance characteristics, and, as you say, no reference is made to taper at all.  I would like to see some scientific proof, as I
 find it difficult to believe that a complete  cone, 1m long, with a slant angle (side to base) of, 89.99 deg., and a opening of .2mm, would have identical resonance characteristics, compared to a complete cone, 1m long, with a slant angle of, 1 deg., and an opening of 57m.
 
 
 
 
 
 
---------------------------------
From: "kymarto123@ ybb.ne.jp" <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
 To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
 Sent: Fri, January 15, 2010 3:50:51 AM
 Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron
 
                                       So you agree that for a complete cone, angle doesn't influence pitch or mode relationships? This is not what Ferron is saying, as far as I can tell.
  
  Toby
  
  MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:
                                      
The subject was the incomplete cone.
  
  

  
---------------------------------
From: "kymarto123@ ybb.ne.jp" <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
  To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
  Sent: Thu, January 14, 2010 9:38:10 PM
  Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron
  
                                        
In a complete cone, the theoretical frequency determination is very simple.
   
  From CCRMA:
   
  Pressure distributions along a pipe   of length  L  are dependent on the boundary conditions at each end. A complete  cone has discrete standing wave frequencies given by  Fn = nc/2L for n 0 1,2,3...where c is the speed of wave propagation in air. 
   
  Note that there are no terms for   cone angle, only  for cone length.
   
  Toby
  
   
   kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp wrote:
        That's true, you can't divide by 0. Silly me. However that doesn't  change the fact  that we are talking about a truncated cone and not a complete cone. There is no "correct substitution" term included. This formula does  not describe what happens when a mouthpiece of the correct volume
 acts as the missing cone tip, and this is exactly what Wolfe describes in the  FAQ.Within  certain limits set by the fact that air has mass and the walls are not lossless, a complete cone always plays harmonic overtones and a cone of  a given length plays a frequency depending on that length.
   
   And don't forget that the effective truncation changes with every fingering. In the palm keys, the truncation length exceeds 1:3 and approaches (or possibly meets) 1:2.
   
   Toby
   
   MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:        
    Toby,
   
   Since when can we divide by 0?  Your x0 = 0 renders the formula invalid so the terms do not cancel.  What it says is that the frequency of the the truncated cone, for any fn, is a factor of the tube's taper.  Plug it into excel.  It does exactly what Ferron describes.
   
   L-MM
   
   
   
       
---------------------------------
  From: "kymarto123@ ybb.ne.jp"  <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
   To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
   Sent: Wed, January 13, 2010 7:21:50 PM
   Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron
   
         It doesn't. If you look at Benade's formula it says: 
   
   Fn = c/4L* sqrt((2n-1)^ 2+(8/pi^2) *(L/x0)), where Fn is the frequency of the mode n, c = speed of sound, L = length and x0 = length of end truncation, not length of 'correct end substitution'.
   
   When the cone is complete, x0 = 0, which cancels out the last two terms, and the formula then becomes simply  Fn = c/4L * sqrt((2n-1)^ 2).
   
   Benade's formula therefore is the way to find the frequency of an incomplete cone, and only applies until the truncation length is ~1/3 the length of the complete cone, after which some different things happen to determine Fn.
   
   Toby
   
   
   MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:
        
    I imagine that Ferron's discussion of the changing frequencies of theoretically increasing the taper of an incomplete cone (with a correct x0 substitution) , pp 14-15, will be one of the first things that some find objectionable.  I would   ask those who  disagree with his view, that they then
 please explain why Benade's formula for determining fn for his straight-sided expanding cone substantiates Ferron's statement - https://ccrma. stanford. edu/marl/ Benade/documents /Benade-Physics3 23-1977.pdf
   
   page 3.
   
  
       
---------------------------------
  From: "kymarto123@ ybb.ne.jp"  <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
   To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
   Sent: Wed, January 13, 2010 8:14:19 AM
   Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron
   
         I just received my copy of Ferron's book. OMG. It is far worse than I imagined it could be. I strongly suggest that people who are interested in acoustics completely ignore it and read Nederveen or other credible books. While there are some parts   that  are reasonably accurate, there is
 so much misinformation in there that it is basically useless.
   
   If people are interested I can list some of the stuff I have found that is not and cannot be true, as well as other things that sound extremely fishy to me.
   
   Toby
   
  





     


     





     


     
  



     
       
           

  

          
      
                 
    
       
           

  

               
           

  

                 
           

  

         
      
                 
   
 
      
                 
                 
 

To bring the discussion back to a practical level, it seems to me that
the most important information to be derived from all of this is what
are the predicted effects of using a neck with a narrower or wider cone
on a saxophone.  The tenon end would, of course, be a fixed diameter,
but the taper to the tip could be enlarged or narrowed with the use of
dent balls or draw plates.  It is this type data that I am most
interested in that can possibly be used to improve the intonation and
harmonicity of  existing instruments.

Another thought I have been mulling over is to explore the effects of
widening and narrowing the bore at locations of pressure and velocity
anti nodes in the saxophone, not by moving the wall of the tube, but by
changing the volume of the closed toneholes in the vicinity.  This could
be done by stacking resonators to protrude more into the opening or
conversely making pads with a concave surface to enlarge the area.  Of
course adding to and taking away from the tonehole chimney is another
option, but it more difficult and would create problems on the stack
keys that are interrelated.

John




--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
>
> I should have said that the volume of the missing tip is less for the
wider cone (since the diameter of the base of the cone is the same but
the larger angle makes the height to the vertex less). This would mean
that the same substitution on a wider cone would have a volume too large
to mimic the
>  now-lessened volume of the new missing conic apex.
>
> However as soon as you correct the volume (via mpc adjustment) that
would widen the modes back to harmonic relationships (insofar as that is
possible in any incomplete cone).
>
> Toby
>
> kymarto123@... wrote:                                           Again,
not if you consider that the FAQ is specifically talking about the fact
that an incomplete cone with get its harmonics in line if a suitable
substitution is in place.
>
>  Ferron says: "Regardless of the instrument, a bore whose cone is too
wide, is flat in the upper register."
>
>  You should know that this kind of narrowing of the modes is
characteristic of a substitution whose volume is too large. This is
indeed what happens when you use the same mpc on an wider cone with the
same diameter at the truncation, since the volume of the missing tip is
less than for narrower
>  cone. But this is not what Ferron is saying. He qualifies everything
on pg 14 with the statement: "Practically speaking, the cone is always
cutaway, and the interior volume of the mouthpiece must correspond
exactly to the missing part of the cone."
>
>  Also, moving just a bit deeper, his explanation of how changing cone
angle adds a linear increase in Hz to the modes is not at all accurate,
not even for a truncated cone with no substitution. The increase is
neither linear for the modes, nor is it constant, depending as it does
upon truncation
>  ratio as well as mode and frequency.
>
>  Toby
>
>  MartinMods lancelotburt@... wrote:
>
> as does the UNSW FAQ page.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> From: MartinMods lancelotburt@...
>  To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>  Sent: Fri, January 15, 2010 3:02:15 PM
>  Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron
>
>
> But back to the subject of Ferron.  Benade seems to agree with him
regarding pp. 14-15.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
>  To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
>  Sent: Fri, January 15, 2010 12:27:10 PM
>  Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron
>
>
> Complete Cones:  I see that the worldwide acoustical  discussion is
limited, exclusively, to musically applicable shapes - shapes that do
have usable integral harmonic resonance characteristics, and, as you
say, no reference is made to taper at all.  I would like to see some
scientific proof, as I
>  find it difficult to believe that a complete  cone, 1m long, with a
slant angle (side to base) of, 89.99 deg., and a opening of .2mm, would
have identical resonance characteristics, compared to a complete cone,
1m long, with a slant angle of, 1 deg., and an opening of 57m.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> From: "kymarto123@ ybb.ne.jp" kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
>  To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
>  Sent: Fri, January 15, 2010 3:50:51 AM
>  Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron
>
>                                        So you agree that for a
complete cone, angle doesn't influence pitch or mode relationships? This
is not what Ferron is saying, as far as I can tell.
>
>   Toby
>
>   MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> The subject was the incomplete cone.
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> From: "kymarto123@ ybb.ne.jp" kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
>   To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
>   Sent: Thu, January 14, 2010 9:38:10 PM
>   Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron
>
>
> In a complete cone, the theoretical frequency determination is very
simple.
>
>   From CCRMA:
>
>   Pressure distributions along a pipe   of length  L  are dependent on
the boundary conditions at each end. A complete  cone has discrete
standing wave frequencies given by  Fn = nc/2L for n 0 1,2,3...where c
is the speed of wave propagation in air.
>
>   Note that there are no terms for   cone angle, only  for cone
length.
>
>   Toby
>
>
>    kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp wrote:
>         That's true, you can't divide by 0. Silly me. However that
doesn't  change the fact  that we are talking about a truncated cone and
not a complete cone. There is no "correct substitution" term included.
This formula does  not describe what happens when a mouthpiece of the
correct volume
>  acts as the missing cone tip, and this is exactly what Wolfe
describes in the  FAQ.Within  certain limits set by the fact that air
has mass and the walls are not lossless, a complete cone always plays
harmonic overtones and a cone of  a given length plays a frequency
depending on that length.
>
>    And don't forget that the effective truncation changes with every
fingering. In the palm keys, the truncation length exceeds 1:3 and
approaches (or possibly meets) 1:2.
>
>    Toby
>
>    MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:
>     Toby,
>
>    Since when can we divide by 0?  Your x0 = 0 renders the formula
invalid so the terms do not cancel.  What it says is that the frequency
of the the truncated cone, for any fn, is a factor of the tube's taper. 
Plug it into excel.  It does exactly what Ferron describes.
>
>    L-MM
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>   From: "kymarto123@ ybb.ne.jp"  kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
>    To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
>    Sent: Wed, January 13, 2010 7:21:50 PM
>    Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron
>
>          It doesn't. If you look at Benade's formula it says:
>
>    Fn = c/4L* sqrt((2n-1)^ 2+(8/pi^2) *(L/x0)), where Fn is the
frequency of the mode n, c = speed of sound, L = length and x0 = length
of end truncation, not length of 'correct end substitution'.
>
>    When the cone is complete, x0 = 0, which cancels out the last two
terms, and the formula then becomes simply  Fn = c/4L * sqrt((2n-1)^ 2).
>
>    Benade's formula therefore is the way to find the frequency of an
incomplete cone, and only applies until the truncation length is ~1/3
the length of the complete cone, after which some different things
happen to determine Fn.
>
>    Toby
>
>
>    MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>     I imagine that Ferron's discussion of the changing frequencies of
theoretically increasing the taper of an incomplete cone (with a correct
x0 substitution) , pp 14-15, will be one of the first things that some
find objectionable.  I would   ask those who  disagree with his view,
that they then
>  please explain why Benade's formula for determining fn for his
straight-sided expanding cone substantiates Ferron's statement -
https://ccrma. stanford. edu/marl/ Benade/documents /Benade-Physics3
23-1977.pdf
>
>    page 3.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>   From: "kymarto123@ ybb.ne.jp"  kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
>    To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
>    Sent: Wed, January 13, 2010 8:14:19 AM
>    Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron
>
>          I just received my copy of Ferron's book. OMG. It is far
worse than I imagined it could be. I strongly suggest that people who
are interested in acoustics completely ignore it and read Nederveen or
other credible books. While there are some parts   that  are reasonably
accurate, there is
>  so much misinformation in there that it is basically useless.
>
>    If people are interested I can list some of the stuff I have found
that is not and cannot be true, as well as other things that sound
extremely fishy to me.
>
>    Toby
>

".....widening and narrowing the bore at locations of pressure and velocity
anti nodes in the saxophone, not by moving the wall of the tube, but by
changing the volume of the closed toneholes in the vicinity.  This
could be done by stacking resonators to protrude more into the opening
or conversely making pads with a concave surface to enlarge the area."

Making changes in the closed tone hole chimney volume in this manner, also affects the open-hole venting, the cut-off frequency, and possibly the efficiency of the mechanism, if compensations are made.  I think, as per Ferron, this type of adjustment should be reserved for the final, very fine tweak adjustments, for artists with exceptional instruments. 



________________________________
From: John <jtalcott47@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, January 16, 2010 3:04:02 PM
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Ferron--correction

  
To bring the discussion back to apractical level, it seems to me that the most important information to be derived from all of this is what are the predicted effects of using a neck with a narrower or wider cone on a saxophone.  The tenon end would, of course, be a fixed diameter, but the taper to the tip could be enlarged or narrowed with the use of dent balls or draw plates.  It is this type data that I am most interested in that can possibly be used to improve the intonation and harmonicity of  existing instruments.

Another thought I have been mulling over is to explore the effects of widening and narrowing the bore at locations of pressure and velocity anti nodes in the saxophone, not by moving the wall of the tube, but by changing the volume of the closed toneholes in the vicinity.  This could be done by stacking resonators to protrude more into the opening or conversely making pads with a concave surface to enlarge the area.  Of course adding to and taking away from the tonehole chimney is another option, but it more difficult and would create problems on the stack keys that are interrelated.

John




--- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, <kymarto123@. ..> wrote:
>
> I should have said that the volume of the missing tip is less for the wider cone (since the diameter of the base of the cone is the same but the larger angle makes the height to the vertex less). This would mean that the same substitution on a wider cone would have a volume too large to mimic the
>  now-lessened volume of the new missing conic apex.
> 
> However as soon as you correct the volume (via mpc adjustment) that would widen the modes back to harmonic relationships (insofar as that is possible in any incomplete cone).
> 
> Toby
> 
> kymarto123@. .. wrote:                                           Again, not if you consider that the FAQ is specifically talking about the fact that an incomplete cone with get its harmonics in line if a suitable substitution is in place.
> 
>  Ferron says: "Regardless of the instrument, a bore whose cone is too wide, is flat in the upper register."
> 
>  You should know that this kind of narrowing of the modes is characteristic of a substitution whose volume is too large. This is indeed what happens when you use the same mpc on an wider cone with the same diameter at the truncation, since the volume of the missing tip is less than for narrower 
>  cone. But this is not what Ferron is saying. He qualifies everything on pg 14 with the statement: "Practically speaking, the cone is always cutaway, and the interior volume of the mouthpiece must correspond exactly to the missing part of the cone."
> 
>  Also, moving just a bit deeper, his explanation of how changing cone angle adds a linear increase in Hz to the modes is not at all accurate, not even for a truncated cone with no substitution. The increase is neither linear for the modes, nor is it constant, depending as it does upon truncation 
>  ratio as well as mode and frequency.
> 
>  Toby
> 
>  MartinMods lancelotburt@ ... wrote:
> 
> as does the UNSW FAQ page.
> 
> 
> 
> ------------ --------- --------- ---
> From: MartinMods lancelotburt@ ...
>  To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
>  Sent: Fri, January 15, 2010 3:02:15 PM
>  Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron
> 
> 
> But back to the subject of Ferron.  Benade seems to agree with him regarding pp. 14-15.
> 
> 
> 
> ------------ --------- --------- ---
> From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
>  To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
>  Sent: Fri, January 15, 2010 12:27:10 PM
>  Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron
> 
> 
> Complete Cones:  I see that the worldwide acoustical  discussion is limited, exclusively, to musically applicable shapes - shapes that do have usable integral harmonic resonance characteristics, and, as you say, no reference is made to taper at all.  I would like to see some scientific proof, as I
>  find it difficult to believe that a complete  cone, 1m long, with a slant angle (side to base) of, 89.99 deg., and a opening of .2mm, would have identical resonance characteristics, compared to a complete cone, 1m long, with a slant angle of, 1 deg., and an opening of 57m.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------ --------- --------- ---
> From: "kymarto123@ ybb.ne.jp" kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
>  To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
>  Sent: Fri, January 15, 2010 3:50:51 AM
>  Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron
> 
>                                        So you agree that for a complete cone, angle doesn't influence pitch or mode relationships? This is not what Ferron is saying, as far as I can tell.
> 
>   Toby
> 
>   MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> The subject was the incomplete cone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------ --------- --------- ---
> From: "kymarto123@ ybb.ne.jp" kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
>   To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
>   Sent: Thu, January 14, 2010 9:38:10 PM
>   Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron
> 
> 
> In a complete cone, the theoretical frequency determination is very simple.
> 
>   From CCRMA:
> 
>   Pressure distributions along a pipe   of length  L  are dependent on the boundary conditions at each end. A complete  cone has discrete standing wave frequencies given by  Fn = nc/2L for n 0 1,2,3...where c is the speed of wave propagation in air. 
> 
>   Note that there are no terms for   cone angle, only  for cone length.
> 
>   Toby
> 
> 
>    kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp wrote:
>         That's true, you can't divide by 0. Silly me. However that doesn't  change the fact  that we are talking about a truncated cone and not a complete cone. There is no "correct substitution" term included. This formula does  not describe what happens when a mouthpiece of the correct volume
>  acts as the missing cone tip, and this is exactly what Wolfe describes in the  FAQ.Within  certain limits set by the fact that air has mass and the walls are not lossless, a complete cone always plays harmonic overtones and a cone of  a given length plays a frequency depending on that length.
> 
>    And don't forget that the effective truncation changes with every fingering. In the palm keys, the truncation length exceeds 1:3 and approaches (or possibly meets) 1:2.
> 
>    Toby
> 
>    MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote: 
>     Toby,
> 
>    Since when can we divide by 0?  Your x0 = 0 renders the formula invalid so the terms do not cancel.  What it says is that the frequency of the the truncated cone, for any fn, is a factor of the tube's taper.  Plug it into excel.  It does exactly what Ferron describes.
> 
>    L-MM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------ --------- --------- ---
>   From: "kymarto123@ ybb.ne.jp"  kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
>    To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
>    Sent: Wed, January 13, 2010 7:21:50 PM
>    Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron
> 
>          It doesn't. If you look at Benade's formula it says: 
> 
>    Fn = c/4L* sqrt((2n-1)^ 2+(8/pi^2) *(L/x0)), where Fn is the frequency of the mode n, c = speed of sound, L = length and x0 = length of end truncation, not length of 'correct end substitution' .
> 
>    When the cone is complete, x0 = 0, which cancels out the last two terms, and the formula then becomes simply  Fn = c/4L * sqrt((2n-1)^ 2).
> 
>    Benade's formula therefore is the way to find the frequency of an incomplete cone, and only applies until the truncation length is ~1/3 the length of the complete cone, after which some different things happen to determine Fn.
> 
>    Toby
> 
> 
>    MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>     I imagine that Ferron's discussion of the changing frequencies of theoretically increasing the taper of an incomplete cone (with a correct x0 substitution) , pp 14-15, will be one of the first things that some find objectionable.  I would   ask those who  disagree with his view, that they then
>  please explain why Benade's formula for determining fn for his straight-sided expanding cone substantiates Ferron's statement - https://ccrma. stanford. edu/marl/ Benade/documents /Benade-Physics3 23-1977.pdf
> 
>    page 3.
> 
> 
> 
> ------------ --------- --------- ---
>   From: "kymarto123@ ybb.ne.jp"  kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
>    To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
>    Sent: Wed, January 13, 2010 8:14:19 AM
>    Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron
> 
>          I just received my copy of Ferron's book. OMG. It is far worse than I imagined it could be. I strongly suggest that people who are interested in acoustics completely ignore it and read Nederveen or other credible books. While there are some parts   that  are reasonably accurate, there is
>  so much misinformation in there that it is basically useless.
> 
>    If people are interested I can list some of the stuff I have found that is not and cannot be true, as well as other things that sound extremely fishy to me.
> 
>    Toby
>

 


      

I was thinking more in terms of starting to experiment with the palm
keys and side keys where these factors would not be as critical.  This
is part of my motivation to find a practical method to find the
approximate location of the pressure antinodes.

I have been working with Benade's other formulas for finding n frequency
relationships in a changing cone and I think that I have discovered an
important principle.  Using his mathematics the frequency ratios remain
intact as whole number multiples.  What does change however is the pitch
of the fundamental.  This leads me to think that the out of tune
harmonics are not directly the result of the cone being the wrong taper,
but the result of the player putting the mouthpiece much farther on or
off to bring the instrument back to an AD0 tuning.   A taper too
narrow would be just fine if the tonehole locations were correct and the
saxophone played at AE0  A taper too wide would be ok if the
mouthpiece could be set to play at AC0.

What do you think?  I may be using the wrong formula or interpreting the
results the wrong way,  but so far this has been my conclusion.

John



--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
wrote:
>
>
>
> ".....widening and narrowing the bore at locations of pressure and
velocity
> anti nodes in the saxophone, not by moving the wall of the tube, but
by
> changing the volume of the closed toneholes in the vicinity.  This
> could be done by stacking resonators to protrude more into the opening
> or conversely making pads with a concave surface to enlarge the area."
>
> Making changes in the closed tone hole chimney volume in this manner,
also affects the open-hole venting, the cut-off frequency, and possibly
the efficiency of the mechanism, if compensations are made.  I think, as
per Ferron, this type of adjustment should be reserved for the final,
very fine tweak adjustments, for artists with exceptional instruments.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: John jtalcott47@...
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sat, January 16, 2010 3:04:02 PM
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Ferron--correction
>
>
> To bring the discussion back to apractical level, it seems to me that
the most important information to be derived from all of this is what
are the predicted effects of using a neck with a narrower or wider cone
on a saxophone.  The tenon end would, of course, be a fixed diameter,
but the taper to the tip could be enlarged or narrowed with the use of
dent balls or draw plates.  It is this type data that I am most
interested in that can possibly be used to improve the intonation and
harmonicity of  existing instruments.
>
> Another thought I have been mulling over is to explore the effects of
widening and narrowing the bore at locations of pressure and velocity
anti nodes in the saxophone, not by moving the wall of the tube, but by
changing the volume of the closed toneholes in the vicinity.  This could
be done by stacking resonators to protrude more into the opening or
conversely making pads with a concave surface to enlarge the area.  Of
course adding to and taking away from the tonehole chimney is another
option, but it more difficult and would create problems on the stack
keys that are interrelated.
>
> John
>
>
>
>
> --- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, kymarto123@ ..> wrote:
> >
> > I should have said that the volume of the missing tip is less for
the wider cone (since the diameter of the base of the cone is the same
but the larger angle makes the height to the vertex less). This would
mean that the same substitution on a wider cone would have a volume too
large to mimic the
> >  now-lessened volume of the new missing conic apex.
> >
> > However as soon as you correct the volume (via mpc adjustment) that
would widen the modes back to harmonic relationships (insofar as that is
possible in any incomplete cone).
> >
> > Toby
> >
> > kymarto123@ .. wrote:                                          
Again, not if you consider that the FAQ is specifically talking about
the fact that an incomplete cone with get its harmonics in line if a
suitable substitution is in place.
> >
> >  Ferron says: "Regardless of the instrument, a bore whose cone is
too wide, is flat in the upper register."
> >
> >  You should know that this kind of narrowing of the modes is
characteristic of a substitution whose volume is too large. This is
indeed what happens when you use the same mpc on an wider cone with the
same diameter at the truncation, since the volume of the missing tip is
less than for narrower
> >  cone. But this is not what Ferron is saying. He qualifies
everything on pg 14 with the statement: "Practically speaking, the cone
is always cutaway, and the interior volume of the mouthpiece must
correspond exactly to the missing part of the cone."
> >
> >  Also, moving just a bit deeper, his explanation of how changing
cone angle adds a linear increase in Hz to the modes is not at all
accurate, not even for a truncated cone with no substitution. The
increase is neither linear for the modes, nor is it constant, depending
as it does upon truncation
> >  ratio as well as mode and frequency.
> >
> >  Toby
> >
> >  MartinMods lancelotburt@ ... wrote:
> >
> > as does the UNSW FAQ page.
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------ --------- --------- ---
> > From: MartinMods lancelotburt@ ...
> >  To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> >  Sent: Fri, January 15, 2010 3:02:15 PM
> >  Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron
> >
> >
> > But back to the subject of Ferron.  Benade seems to agree with him
regarding pp. 14-15.
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------ --------- --------- ---
> > From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
> >  To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> >  Sent: Fri, January 15, 2010 12:27:10 PM
> >  Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron
> >
> >
> > Complete Cones:  I see that the worldwide acoustical  discussion is
limited, exclusively, to musically applicable shapes - shapes that do
have usable integral harmonic resonance characteristics, and, as you
say, no reference is made to taper at all.  I would like to see some
scientific proof, as I
> >  find it difficult to believe that a complete  cone, 1m long, with a
slant angle (side to base) of, 89.99 deg., and a opening of .2mm, would
have identical resonance characteristics, compared to a complete cone,
1m long, with a slant angle of, 1 deg., and an opening of 57m.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------ --------- --------- ---
> > From: "kymarto123@ ybb.ne.jp" kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
> >  To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> >  Sent: Fri, January 15, 2010 3:50:51 AM
> >  Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron
> >
> >                                        So you agree that for a
complete cone, angle doesn't influence pitch or mode relationships? This
is not what Ferron is saying, as far as I can tell.
> >
> >   Toby
> >
> >   MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > The subject was the incomplete cone.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------ --------- --------- ---
> > From: "kymarto123@ ybb.ne.jp" kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
> >   To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> >   Sent: Thu, January 14, 2010 9:38:10 PM
> >   Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron
> >
> >
> > In a complete cone, the theoretical frequency determination is very
simple.
> >
> >   From CCRMA:
> >
> >   Pressure distributions along a pipe   of length  L  are dependent
on the boundary conditions at each end. A complete  cone has discrete
standing wave frequencies given by  Fn = nc/2L for n 0 1,2,3...where c
is the speed of wave propagation in air.
> >
> >   Note that there are no terms for   cone angle, only  for cone
length.
> >
> >   Toby
> >
> >
> >    kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp wrote:
> >         That's true, you can't divide by 0. Silly me. However that
doesn't  change the fact  that we are talking about a truncated cone and
not a complete cone. There is no "correct substitution" term included.
This formula does  not describe what happens when a mouthpiece of the
correct volume
> >  acts as the missing cone tip, and this is exactly what Wolfe
describes in the  FAQ.Within  certain limits set by the fact that air
has mass and the walls are not lossless, a complete cone always plays
harmonic overtones and a cone of  a given length plays a frequency
depending on that length.
> >
> >    And don't forget that the effective truncation changes with every
fingering. In the palm keys, the truncation length exceeds 1:3 and
approaches (or possibly meets) 1:2.
> >
> >    Toby
> >
> >    MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:
> >     Toby,
> >
> >    Since when can we divide by 0?  Your x0 = 0 renders the formula
invalid so the terms do not cancel.  What it says is that the frequency
of the the truncated cone, for any fn, is a factor of the tube's taper. 
Plug it into excel.  It does exactly what Ferron describes.
> >
> >    L-MM
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------ --------- --------- ---
> >   From: "kymarto123@ ybb.ne.jp"  kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
> >    To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> >    Sent: Wed, January 13, 2010 7:21:50 PM
> >    Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron
> >
> >          It doesn't. If you look at Benade's formula it says:
> >
> >    Fn = c/4L* sqrt((2n-1)^ 2+(8/pi^2) *(L/x0)), where Fn is the
frequency of the mode n, c = speed of sound, L = length and x0 = length
of end truncation, not length of 'correct end substitution' .
> >
> >    When the cone is complete, x0 = 0, which cancels out the last two
terms, and the formula then becomes simply  Fn = c/4L * sqrt((2n-1)^ 2).
> >
> >    Benade's formula therefore is the way to find the frequency of an
incomplete cone, and only applies until the truncation length is ~1/3
the length of the complete cone, after which some different things
happen to determine Fn.
> >
> >    Toby
> >
> >
> >    MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >     I imagine that Ferron's discussion of the changing frequencies
of theoretically increasing the taper of an incomplete cone (with a
correct x0 substitution) , pp 14-15, will be one of the first things
that some find objectionable.  I would   ask those who  disagree with
his view, that they then
> >  please explain why Benade's formula for determining fn for his
straight-sided expanding cone substantiates Ferron's statement -
https://ccrma. stanford. edu/marl/ Benade/documents /Benade-Physics3
23-1977.pdf
> >
> >    page 3.
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------ --------- --------- ---
> >   From: "kymarto123@ ybb.ne.jp"  kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
> >    To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> >    Sent: Wed, January 13, 2010 8:14:19 AM
> >    Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron
> >
> >          I just received my copy of Ferron's book. OMG. It is far
worse than I imagined it could be. I strongly suggest that people who
are interested in acoustics completely ignore it and read Nederveen or
other credible books. While there are some parts   that  are reasonably
accurate, there is
> >  so much misinformation in there that it is basically useless.
> >
> >    If people are interested I can list some of the stuff I have
found that is not and cannot be true, as well as other things that sound
extremely fishy to me.
> >
> >    Toby
> >
>

Hi John,
Hans is in the hospital with a bowel twist or blockage.  Hopefully it will resolve in the next couple of days and he can be  in touch.  
Janet
---- John <jtalcott47@...> wrote: 
> I was thinking more in terms of starting to experiment with the palm
> keys and side keys where these factors would not be as critical.  This
> is part of my motivation to find a practical method to find the
> approximate location of the pressure antinodes.
> 
> I have been working with Benade's other formulas for finding n frequency
> relationships in a changing cone and I think that I have discovered an
> important principle.  Using his mathematics the frequency ratios remain
> intact as whole number multiples.  What does change however is the pitch
> of the fundamental.  This leads me to think that the out of tune
> harmonics are not directly the result of the cone being the wrong taper,
> but the result of the player putting the mouthpiece much farther on or
> off to bring the instrument back to an AD0 tuning.   A taper too
> narrow would be just fine if the tonehole locations were correct and the
> saxophone played at AE0  A taper too wide would be ok if the
> mouthpiece could be set to play at AC0.
> 
> What do you think?  I may be using the wrong formula or interpreting the
> results the wrong way,  but so far this has been my conclusion.
> 
> John
> 
> 
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > ".....widening and narrowing the bore at locations of pressure and
> velocity
> > anti nodes in the saxophone, not by moving the wall of the tube, but
> by
> > changing the volume of the closed toneholes in the vicinity.  This
> > could be done by stacking resonators to protrude more into the opening
> > or conversely making pads with a concave surface to enlarge the area."
> >
> > Making changes in the closed tone hole chimney volume in this manner,
> also affects the open-hole venting, the cut-off frequency, and possibly
> the efficiency of the mechanism, if compensations are made.  I think, as
> per Ferron, this type of adjustment should be reserved for the final,
> very fine tweak adjustments, for artists with exceptional instruments.
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: John jtalcott47@...
> > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Sat, January 16, 2010 3:04:02 PM
> > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Ferron--correction
> >
> >
> > To bring the discussion back to apractical level, it seems to me that
> the most important information to be derived from all of this is what
> are the predicted effects of using a neck with a narrower or wider cone
> on a saxophone.  The tenon end would, of course, be a fixed diameter,
> but the taper to the tip could be enlarged or narrowed with the use of
> dent balls or draw plates.  It is this type data that I am most
> interested in that can possibly be used to improve the intonation and
> harmonicity of  existing instruments.
> >
> > Another thought I have been mulling over is to explore the effects of
> widening and narrowing the bore at locations of pressure and velocity
> anti nodes in the saxophone, not by moving the wall of the tube, but by
> changing the volume of the closed toneholes in the vicinity.  This could
> be done by stacking resonators to protrude more into the opening or
> conversely making pads with a concave surface to enlarge the area.  Of
> course adding to and taking away from the tonehole chimney is another
> option, but it more difficult and would create problems on the stack
> keys that are interrelated.
> >
> > John
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, kymarto123@ ..> wrote:
> > >
> > > I should have said that the volume of the missing tip is less for
> the wider cone (since the diameter of the base of the cone is the same
> but the larger angle makes the height to the vertex less). This would
> mean that the same substitution on a wider cone would have a volume too
> large to mimic the
> > >  now-lessened volume of the new missing conic apex.
> > >
> > > However as soon as you correct the volume (via mpc adjustment) that
> would widen the modes back to harmonic relationships (insofar as that is
> possible in any incomplete cone).
> > >
> > > Toby
> > >
> > > kymarto123@ .. wrote:                                          
> Again, not if you consider that the FAQ is specifically talking about
> the fact that an incomplete cone with get its harmonics in line if a
> suitable substitution is in place.
> > >
> > >  Ferron says: "Regardless of the instrument, a bore whose cone is
> too wide, is flat in the upper register."
> > >
> > >  You should know that this kind of narrowing of the modes is
> characteristic of a substitution whose volume is too large. This is
> indeed what happens when you use the same mpc on an wider cone with the
> same diameter at the truncation, since the volume of the missing tip is
> less than for narrower
> > >  cone. But this is not what Ferron is saying. He qualifies
> everything on pg 14 with the statement: "Practically speaking, the cone
> is always cutaway, and the interior volume of the mouthpiece must
> correspond exactly to the missing part of the cone."
> > >
> > >  Also, moving just a bit deeper, his explanation of how changing
> cone angle adds a linear increase in Hz to the modes is not at all
> accurate, not even for a truncated cone with no substitution. The
> increase is neither linear for the modes, nor is it constant, depending
> as it does upon truncation
> > >  ratio as well as mode and frequency.
> > >
> > >  Toby
> > >
> > >  MartinMods lancelotburt@ ... wrote:
> > >
> > > as does the UNSW FAQ page.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------ --------- --------- ---
> > > From: MartinMods lancelotburt@ ...
> > >  To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> > >  Sent: Fri, January 15, 2010 3:02:15 PM
> > >  Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron
> > >
> > >
> > > But back to the subject of Ferron.  Benade seems to agree with him
> regarding pp. 14-15.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------ --------- --------- ---
> > > From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
> > >  To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> > >  Sent: Fri, January 15, 2010 12:27:10 PM
> > >  Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron
> > >
> > >
> > > Complete Cones:  I see that the worldwide acoustical  discussion is
> limited, exclusively, to musically applicable shapes - shapes that do
> have usable integral harmonic resonance characteristics, and, as you
> say, no reference is made to taper at all.  I would like to see some
> scientific proof, as I
> > >  find it difficult to believe that a complete  cone, 1m long, with a
> slant angle (side to base) of, 89.99 deg., and a opening of .2mm, would
> have identical resonance characteristics, compared to a complete cone,
> 1m long, with a slant angle of, 1 deg., and an opening of 57m.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------ --------- --------- ---
> > > From: "kymarto123@ ybb.ne.jp" kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
> > >  To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> > >  Sent: Fri, January 15, 2010 3:50:51 AM
> > >  Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron
> > >
> > >                                        So you agree that for a
> complete cone, angle doesn't influence pitch or mode relationships? This
> is not what Ferron is saying, as far as I can tell.
> > >
> > >   Toby
> > >
> > >   MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > The subject was the incomplete cone.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------ --------- --------- ---
> > > From: "kymarto123@ ybb.ne.jp" kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
> > >   To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> > >   Sent: Thu, January 14, 2010 9:38:10 PM
> > >   Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron
> > >
> > >
> > > In a complete cone, the theoretical frequency determination is very
> simple.
> > >
> > >   From CCRMA:
> > >
> > >   Pressure distributions along a pipe   of length  L  are dependent
> on the boundary conditions at each end. A complete  cone has discrete
> standing wave frequencies given by  Fn = nc/2L for n 0 1,2,3...where c
> is the speed of wave propagation in air.
> > >
> > >   Note that there are no terms for   cone angle, only  for cone
> length.
> > >
> > >   Toby
> > >
> > >
> > >    kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp wrote:
> > >         That's true, you can't divide by 0. Silly me. However that
> doesn't  change the fact  that we are talking about a truncated cone and
> not a complete cone. There is no "correct substitution" term included.
> This formula does  not describe what happens when a mouthpiece of the
> correct volume
> > >  acts as the missing cone tip, and this is exactly what Wolfe
> describes in the  FAQ.Within  certain limits set by the fact that air
> has mass and the walls are not lossless, a complete cone always plays
> harmonic overtones and a cone of  a given length plays a frequency
> depending on that length.
> > >
> > >    And don't forget that the effective truncation changes with every
> fingering. In the palm keys, the truncation length exceeds 1:3 and
> approaches (or possibly meets) 1:2.
> > >
> > >    Toby
> > >
> > >    MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >     Toby,
> > >
> > >    Since when can we divide by 0?  Your x0 = 0 renders the formula
> invalid so the terms do not cancel.  What it says is that the frequency
> of the the truncated cone, for any fn, is a factor of the tube's taper. 
> Plug it into excel.  It does exactly what Ferron describes.
> > >
> > >    L-MM
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------ --------- --------- ---
> > >   From: "kymarto123@ ybb.ne.jp"  kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
> > >    To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> > >    Sent: Wed, January 13, 2010 7:21:50 PM
> > >    Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron
> > >
> > >          It doesn't. If you look at Benade's formula it says:
> > >
> > >    Fn = c/4L* sqrt((2n-1)^ 2+(8/pi^2) *(L/x0)), where Fn is the
> frequency of the mode n, c = speed of sound, L = length and x0 = length
> of end truncation, not length of 'correct end substitution' .
> > >
> > >    When the cone is complete, x0 = 0, which cancels out the last two
> terms, and the formula then becomes simply  Fn = c/4L * sqrt((2n-1)^ 2).
> > >
> > >    Benade's formula therefore is the way to find the frequency of an
> incomplete cone, and only applies until the truncation length is ~1/3
> the length of the complete cone, after which some different things
> happen to determine Fn.
> > >
> > >    Toby
> > >
> > >
> > >    MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >     I imagine that Ferron's discussion of the changing frequencies
> of theoretically increasing the taper of an incomplete cone (with a
> correct x0 substitution) , pp 14-15, will be one of the first things
> that some find objectionable.  I would   ask those who  disagree with
> his view, that they then
> > >  please explain why Benade's formula for determining fn for his
> straight-sided expanding cone substantiates Ferron's statement -
> https://ccrma. stanford. edu/marl/ Benade/documents /Benade-Physics3
> 23-1977.pdf
> > >
> > >    page 3.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------ --------- --------- ---
> > >   From: "kymarto123@ ybb.ne.jp"  kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
> > >    To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> > >    Sent: Wed, January 13, 2010 8:14:19 AM
> > >    Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron
> > >
> > >          I just received my copy of Ferron's book. OMG. It is far
> worse than I imagined it could be. I strongly suggest that people who
> are interested in acoustics completely ignore it and read Nederveen or
> other credible books. While there are some parts   that  are reasonably
> accurate, there is
> > >  so much misinformation in there that it is basically useless.
> > >
> > >    If people are interested I can list some of the stuff I have
> found that is not and cannot be true, as well as other things that sound
> extremely fishy to me.
> > >
> > >    Toby
> > >
> >
> 

Enlarging and altering the taper of the tip end is what our neck enhancer is
all about...we have sold a great many over the years..I spent several years
exploring the various aspects of increasing mass, adding a venture, and
changing the intake shape of the neck, and found various design parameters
that worked and many that did not. There is a great deal that can be done on
that end of the horn.

 

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of John
Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2010 2:04 PM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Ferron--correction

 

  

To bring the discussion back to a practical level, it seems to me that the
most important information to be derived from all of this is what are the
predicted effects of using a neck with a narrower or wider cone on a
saxophone.  The tenon end would, of course, be a fixed diameter, but the
taper to the tip could be enlarged or narrowed with the use of dent balls or
draw plates.  It is this type data that I am most interested in that can
possibly be used to improve the intonation and harmonicity of  existing
instruments.

Another thought I have been mulling over is to explore the effects of
widening and narrowing the bore at locations of pressure and velocity anti
nodes in the saxophone, not by moving the wall of the tube, but by changing
the volume of the closed toneholes in the vicinity.  This could be done by
stacking resonators to protrude more into the opening or conversely making
pads with a concave surface to enlarge the area.  Of course adding to and
taking away from the tonehole chimney is another option, but it more
difficult and would create problems on the stack keys that are interrelated.

John




--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
>
> I should have said that the volume of the missing tip is less for the
wider cone (since the diameter of the base of the cone is the same but the
larger angle makes the height to the vertex less). This would mean that the
same substitution on a wider cone would have a volume too large to mimic the
> now-lessened volume of the new missing conic apex.
> 
> However as soon as you correct the volume (via mpc adjustment) that would
widen the modes back to harmonic relationships (insofar as that is possible
in any incomplete cone).
> 
> Toby
> 
> kymarto123@... wrote: Again, not if you consider that the FAQ is
specifically talking about the fact that an incomplete cone with get its
harmonics in line if a suitable substitution is in place.
> 
> Ferron says: "Regardless of the instrument, a bore whose cone is too wide,
is flat in the upper register."
> 
> You should know that this kind of narrowing of the modes is characteristic
of a substitution whose volume is too large. This is indeed what happens
when you use the same mpc on an wider cone with the same diameter at the
truncation, since the volume of the missing tip is less than for narrower 
> cone. But this is not what Ferron is saying. He qualifies everything on pg
14 with the statement: "Practically speaking, the cone is always cutaway,
and the interior volume of the mouthpiece must correspond exactly to the
missing part of the cone."
> 
> Also, moving just a bit deeper, his explanation of how changing cone angle
adds a linear increase in Hz to the modes is not at all accurate, not even
for a truncated cone with no substitution. The increase is neither linear
for the modes, nor is it constant, depending as it does upon truncation 
> ratio as well as mode and frequency.
> 
> Toby
> 
> MartinMods lancelotburt@... wrote:
> 
> as does the UNSW FAQ page.
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------
> From: MartinMods lancelotburt@...
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Fri, January 15, 2010 3:02:15 PM
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron
> 
> 
> But back to the subject of Ferron. Benade seems to agree with him
regarding pp. 14-15.
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------
> From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Fri, January 15, 2010 12:27:10 PM
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron
> 
> 
> Complete Cones: I see that the worldwide acoustical discussion is limited,
exclusively, to musically applicable shapes - shapes that do have usable
integral harmonic resonance characteristics, and, as you say, no reference
is made to taper at all. I would like to see some scientific proof, as I
> find it difficult to believe that a complete cone, 1m long, with a slant
angle (side to base) of, 89.99 deg., and a opening of .2mm, would have
identical resonance characteristics, compared to a complete cone, 1m long,
with a slant angle of, 1 deg., and an opening of 57m.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------
> From: "kymarto123@ ybb.ne.jp" kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Fri, January 15, 2010 3:50:51 AM
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron
> 
> So you agree that for a complete cone, angle doesn't influence pitch or
mode relationships? This is not what Ferron is saying, as far as I can tell.
> 
> Toby
> 
> MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> The subject was the incomplete cone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------
> From: "kymarto123@ ybb.ne.jp" kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Thu, January 14, 2010 9:38:10 PM
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron
> 
> 
> In a complete cone, the theoretical frequency determination is very
simple.
> 
> From CCRMA:
> 
> Pressure distributions along a pipe of length L are dependent on the
boundary conditions at each end. A complete cone has discrete standing wave
frequencies given by Fn = nc/2L for n 0 1,2,3...where c is the speed of wave
propagation in air. 
> 
> Note that there are no terms for cone angle, only for cone length.
> 
> Toby
> 
> 
> kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp wrote:
> That's true, you can't divide by 0. Silly me. However that doesn't change
the fact that we are talking about a truncated cone and not a complete cone.
There is no "correct substitution" term included. This formula does not
describe what happens when a mouthpiece of the correct volume
> acts as the missing cone tip, and this is exactly what Wolfe describes in
the FAQ.Within certain limits set by the fact that air has mass and the
walls are not lossless, a complete cone always plays harmonic overtones and
a cone of a given length plays a frequency depending on that length.
> 
> And don't forget that the effective truncation changes with every
fingering. In the palm keys, the truncation length exceeds 1:3 and
approaches (or possibly meets) 1:2.
> 
> Toby
> 
> MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote: 
> Toby,
> 
> Since when can we divide by 0? Your x0 = 0 renders the formula invalid so
the terms do not cancel. What it says is that the frequency of the the
truncated cone, for any fn, is a factor of the tube's taper. Plug it into
excel. It does exactly what Ferron describes.
> 
> L-MM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------
> From: "kymarto123@ ybb.ne.jp" kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Wed, January 13, 2010 7:21:50 PM
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron
> 
> It doesn't. If you look at Benade's formula it says: 
> 
> Fn = c/4L* sqrt((2n-1)^ 2+(8/pi^2) *(L/x0)), where Fn is the frequency of
the mode n, c = speed of sound, L = length and x0 = length of end
truncation, not length of 'correct end substitution'.
> 
> When the cone is complete, x0 = 0, which cancels out the last two terms,
and the formula then becomes simply Fn = c/4L * sqrt((2n-1)^ 2).
> 
> Benade's formula therefore is the way to find the frequency of an
incomplete cone, and only applies until the truncation length is ~1/3 the
length of the complete cone, after which some different things happen to
determine Fn.
> 
> Toby
> 
> 
> MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> I imagine that Ferron's discussion of the changing frequencies of
theoretically increasing the taper of an incomplete cone (with a correct x0
substitution) , pp 14-15, will be one of the first things that some find
objectionable. I would ask those who disagree with his view, that they then
> please explain why Benade's formula for determining fn for his
straight-sided expanding cone substantiates Ferron's statement -
https://ccrma. stanford. edu/marl/ Benade/documents /Benade-Physics3
23-1977.pdf
> 
> page 3.
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------
> From: "kymarto123@ ybb.ne.jp" kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Wed, January 13, 2010 8:14:19 AM
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron
> 
> I just received my copy of Ferron's book. OMG. It is far worse than I
imagined it could be. I strongly suggest that people who are interested in
acoustics completely ignore it and read Nederveen or other credible books.
While there are some parts that are reasonably accurate, there is
> so much misinformation in there that it is basically useless.
> 
> If people are interested I can list some of the stuff I have found that is
not and cannot be true, as well as other things that sound extremely fishy
to me.
> 
> Toby
>

In all honesty, I suggest empirical experiment, because of the number of variables. In the shakuhachi world, we use small squares of wet paper, which stick to the inside of the bore but can be moved around with a stick. Putting such little perturbations of various sizes in different places in the
 bore allow one to immediately see (hear) what a corresponding constriction in that area would do, and you don't have to drill any "Ferron holes" to find the "sensitive harmonic spots". 

Of course this is only half the story, and we have a big advantage in shakuhachi making, since we can easily widen as well as narrow the bore. Generally speaking, if putting paper at a certain point makes tuning or response worse for the note(s) in question, we widen the bore slightly at that
 point. 

It is always difficult to know when the optimum has been reached, so as we widen, we continue to put the bits of paper in the bore, and when a bit of paper finally makes things better rather than worse, we stop and add just a bit of putty at that point.

With the sax neck this means a lot of hammering, and it is not a very nice prospect.

If putting paper in the bore at various spots helps the problem, then we are in better shape, since for shak we need only build up the inside at that point. With sax, one could actually use a permanent putty like car body putty in the spot where the bore needs narrowing.

Be aware that a small, deep perturbation--even if of the same volume as a larger, shallower one, will have a very different effect. An antinode might be a singular spot, but like a bell curve, there is a smooth buildup on either side.

As far as closed toneholes go, you need also know that the volume under a closed tonehole does not count the same for a pressure antinode and a displacement antinode. Air displacement tends to be along the axis of the bore, so for a displacement antinode changing the volume under a closed tonehole
 has much less effect that a smooth widening of the bore at that point. No so, however, for a pressure antinode. There is an exact formula for calculating the effect under a closed tonehole on pg 449 of FMA.

In an earlier mail, you speculated that changes in area high in the neck would not have an effect, since the harmonics with antinodes at that point are above cutoff frequency and thus do not contribute to the regime of oscillation. However that is not exactly accurate.

First, it is worth remembering that strong resonances in the tube above cutoff actually rob the vibrating system of energy as dynamics are increased and they come increasingly into play, so inhibiting them might actually change the sound output for the better. I am not sure about this, nor how
 much it might affect things, but there is a more germane point. Very small changes in diameter can have a very large effect on harmonics if the change in diameter is a significant fraction of a wavelength, since this can cause interference effects, either reinforcing or cancelling the partial in
 question. This is probably why very minor differences in head joint geometry in flutes give such different timbres and response, even if tuning is generally unaffected. There is no reason that the same kinds of effects would not pertain to the sax neck.

Toby

John <jtalcott47@...> wrote:                                            To bring the discussion back to a practical level, it seems to me that the most important information to be derived from all of this is what are the predicted effects of using a neck with a narrower or wider cone on a
 saxophone.  The tenon end would, of course, be a fixed diameter, but the taper to the tip could be enlarged or narrowed with the use of dent balls or draw plates.  It is this type data that I am most interested in that can possibly be used to improve the intonation and harmonicity of  existing
 instruments.

Another thought I have been mulling over is to explore the effects of widening and narrowing the bore at locations of pressure and velocity anti nodes in the saxophone, not by moving the wall of the tube, but by changing the volume of the closed toneholes in the vicinity.  This could be done by
 stacking resonators to protrude more into the opening or conversely making pads with a concave surface to enlarge the area.  Of course adding to and taking away from the tonehole chimney is another option, but it more difficult and would create problems on the stack keys that are interrelated.

John




--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
>
> I should have said that the volume of the missing tip is less for the wider cone (since the diameter of the base of the cone is the same but the larger angle makes the height to the vertex less). This would mean that the same substitution on a wider cone would have a volume too large to mimic the
>  now-lessened volume of the new missing conic apex.
> 
> However as soon as you correct the volume (via mpc adjustment) that would widen the modes back to harmonic relationships (insofar as that is possible in any incomplete cone).
> 
> Toby
> 
> kymarto123@... wrote:                                           Again, not if you consider that the FAQ is specifically talking about the fact that an incomplete cone with get its harmonics in line if a suitable substitution is in place.
>  
>  Ferron says: "Regardless of the instrument, a bore whose cone is too wide, is flat in the upper register."
>  
>  You should know that this kind of narrowing of the modes is characteristic of a substitution whose volume is too large. This is indeed what happens when you use the same mpc on an wider cone with the same diameter at the truncation, since the volume of the missing tip is less than for narrower 
>  cone. But this is not what Ferron is saying. He qualifies everything on pg 14 with the statement: "Practically speaking, the cone is always cutaway, and the interior volume of the mouthpiece must correspond exactly to the missing part of the cone."
>  
>  Also, moving just a bit deeper, his explanation of how changing cone angle adds a linear increase in Hz to the modes is not at all accurate, not even for a truncated cone with no substitution. The increase is neither linear for the modes, nor is it constant, depending as it does upon truncation 
>  ratio as well as mode and frequency.
>  
>  Toby
>  
>  MartinMods lancelotburt@... wrote:
>                                       
> as does the UNSW FAQ page.
>  
> 
>  
> ---------------------------------
> From: MartinMods lancelotburt@...
>  To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>  Sent: Fri, January 15, 2010 3:02:15 PM
>  Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron
>  
>                                        
> But back to the subject of Ferron.  Benade seems to agree with him regarding pp. 14-15.
>  
> 
>  
> ---------------------------------
> From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
>  To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
>  Sent: Fri, January 15, 2010 12:27:10 PM
>  Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron
>  
>                                        
> Complete Cones:  I see that the worldwide acoustical  discussion is limited, exclusively, to musically applicable shapes - shapes that do have usable integral harmonic resonance characteristics, and, as you say, no reference is made to taper at all.  I would like to see some scientific proof, as
 I
>  find it difficult to believe that a complete  cone, 1m long, with a slant angle (side to base) of, 89.99 deg., and a opening of .2mm, would have identical resonance characteristics, compared to a complete cone, 1m long, with a slant angle of, 1 deg., and an opening of 57m.
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> ---------------------------------
> From: "kymarto123@ ybb.ne.jp" kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
>  To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
>  Sent: Fri, January 15, 2010 3:50:51 AM
>  Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron
>  
>                                        So you agree that for a complete cone, angle doesn't influence pitch or mode relationships? This is not what Ferron is saying, as far as I can tell.
>   
>   Toby
>   
>   MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:
>                                       
> The subject was the incomplete cone.
>   
>   
> 
>   
> ---------------------------------
> From: "kymarto123@ ybb.ne.jp" kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
>   To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
>   Sent: Thu, January 14, 2010 9:38:10 PM
>   Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron
>   
>                                         
> In a complete cone, the theoretical frequency determination is very simple.
>    
>   From CCRMA:
>    
>   Pressure distributions along a pipe   of length  L  are dependent on the boundary conditions at each end. A complete  cone has discrete standing wave frequencies given by  Fn = nc/2L for n 0 1,2,3...where c is the speed of wave propagation in air. 
>    
>   Note that there are no terms for   cone angle, only  for cone length.
>    
>   Toby
>   
>    
>    kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp wrote:
>         That's true, you can't divide by 0. Silly me. However that doesn't  change the fact  that we are talking about a truncated cone and not a complete cone. There is no "correct substitution" term included. This formula does  not describe what happens when a mouthpiece of the correct volume
>  acts as the missing cone tip, and this is exactly what Wolfe describes in the  FAQ.Within  certain limits set by the fact that air has mass and the walls are not lossless, a complete cone always plays harmonic overtones and a cone of  a given length plays a frequency depending on that length.
>    
>    And don't forget that the effective truncation changes with every fingering. In the palm keys, the truncation length exceeds 1:3 and approaches (or possibly meets) 1:2.
>    
>    Toby
>    
>    MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:        
>     Toby,
>    
>    Since when can we divide by 0?  Your x0 = 0 renders the formula invalid so the terms do not cancel.  What it says is that the frequency of the the truncated cone, for any fn, is a factor of the tube's taper.  Plug it into excel.  It does exactly what Ferron describes.
>    
>    L-MM
>    
>    
>    
>        
> ---------------------------------
>   From: "kymarto123@ ybb.ne.jp"  kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
>    To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
>    Sent: Wed, January 13, 2010 7:21:50 PM
>    Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron
>    
>          It doesn't. If you look at Benade's formula it says: 
>    
>    Fn = c/4L* sqrt((2n-1)^ 2+(8/pi^2) *(L/x0)), where Fn is the frequency of the mode n, c = speed of sound, L = length and x0 = length of end truncation, not length of 'correct end substitution'.
>    
>    When the cone is complete, x0 = 0, which cancels out the last two terms, and the formula then becomes simply  Fn = c/4L * sqrt((2n-1)^ 2).
>    
>    Benade's formula therefore is the way to find the frequency of an incomplete cone, and only applies until the truncation length is ~1/3 the length of the complete cone, after which some different things happen to determine Fn.
>    
>    Toby
>    
>    
>    MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:
>         
>     I imagine that Ferron's discussion of the changing frequencies of theoretically increasing the taper of an incomplete cone (with a correct x0 substitution) , pp 14-15, will be one of the first things that some find objectionable.  I would   ask those who  disagree with his view, that they
 then
>  please explain why Benade's formula for determining fn for his straight-sided expanding cone substantiates Ferron's statement - https://ccrma. stanford. edu/marl/ Benade/documents /Benade-Physics3 23-1977.pdf
>    
>    page 3.
>    
>   
>        
> ---------------------------------
>   From: "kymarto123@ ybb.ne.jp"  kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
>    To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
>    Sent: Wed, January 13, 2010 8:14:19 AM
>    Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron
>    
>          I just received my copy of Ferron's book. OMG. It is far worse than I imagined it could be. I strongly suggest that people who are interested in acoustics completely ignore it and read Nederveen or other credible books. While there are some parts   that  are reasonably accurate, there is
>  so much misinformation in there that it is basically useless.
>    
>    If people are interested I can list some of the stuff I have found that is not and cannot be true, as well as other things that sound extremely fishy to me.
>    
>    Toby
>
  
      
                 
                 
 

 In all honesty, I suggest empirical experiment, because of the numberof
variables.

On this we agree, but a good mathematical approximation tells in what
general area to begin.

With the sax neck this means a lot of hammering, and it is not a very
nice prospect.

Actually the neck area can be contracted using epoxy putty and expanded
using dent balls.

Be aware that a small, deep perturbation--even if of the same volume as
a larger, shallower one, will have a very different effect. An
antinodemight be a singular spot, but like a bell curve, there is a
smooth buildup on either side.

Agreed.

Air displacement tends to be along the axis of the bore, so for a
displacement antinode changing the volume under a closed tonehole has
much less effect that a smooth widening of the bore at that point.No so,
however, for a pressure antinode.

Here you begin to lose me.  Can you explain this statement?

There is an exact formula forcalculating the effect under a closed
tonehole on pg 449 of FMA.

That formula in effect finds the factor (percent) that the tonehole
cavity enlarges the bore at that point similar to a bend in the tubing. 
I'm not sure that even applies to the discussion of the effect of an
antinode in that area.

First, it is worth remembering that strong resonances in the tube above
cutoff actually rob the vibrating system of energy as dynamics
areincreased and they come increasingly into play, so inhibiting them
might actually change the sound output for the better.

What is your source for this information?  This is the first time I have
ever heard this statement.

Very small changes in diameter can have a very large effect on harmonics
if the change in diameter is a significant fraction of a wavelength,
since this can cause interference effects, either reinforcing or
canceling the partial in question.

You lose me again on this statement.  What interference effects are you
referring to and at what frequencies?

This is probably why very minor differences in head joint geometry in
flutes give such different timbres and response, even iftuning is
generally unaffected. There is no reason that the same kinds of effects
would not pertain to the sax neck.

This is interesting.  Are you referring to minor differences created
experimentally in the same flute headjoint or to two different
headjoints?  Wouldn't comparing the geometry of the blowhole and
strikeplate area be more similar to that of a sax mouthpiece rather than
a neck?

Toby
--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
>
>
> In all honesty, I suggest empirical experiment, because of the number
of variables. In the shakuhachi world, we use small squares of wet
paper, which stick to the inside of the bore but can be moved around
with a stick. Putting such little perturbations of various sizes in
different places in the
>  bore allow one to immediately see (hear) what a corresponding
constriction in that area would do, and you don't have to drill any
"Ferron holes" to find the "sensitive harmonic spots".
>
> Of course this is only half the story, and we have a big advantage in
shakuhachi making, since we can easily widen as well as narrow the bore.
Generally speaking, if putting paper at a certain point makes tuning or
response worse for the note(s) in question, we widen the bore slightly
at that
>  point.
>
> It is always difficult to know when the optimum has been reached, so
as we widen, we continue to put the bits of paper in the bore, and when
a bit of paper finally makes things better rather than worse, we stop
and add just a bit of putty at that point.
>
> With the sax neck this means a lot of hammering, and it is not a very
nice prospect.
>
> If putting paper in the bore at various spots helps the problem, then
we are in better shape, since for shak we need only build up the inside
at that point. With sax, one could actually use a permanent putty like
car body putty in the spot where the bore needs narrowing.
>
> Be aware that a small, deep perturbation--even if of the same volume
as a larger, shallower one, will have a very different effect. An
antinode might be a singular spot, but like a bell curve, there is a
smooth buildup on either side.
>
> As far as closed toneholes go, you need also know that the volume
under a closed tonehole does not count the same for a pressure antinode
and a displacement antinode. Air displacement tends to be along the axis
of the bore, so for a displacement antinode changing the volume under a
closed tonehole
>  has much less effect that a smooth widening of the bore at that
point. No so, however, for a pressure antinode. There is an exact
formula for calculating the effect under a closed tonehole on pg 449 of
FMA.
>
> In an earlier mail, you speculated that changes in area high in the
neck would not have an effect, since the harmonics with antinodes at
that point are above cutoff frequency and thus do not contribute to the
regime of oscillation. However that is not exactly accurate.
>
> First, it is worth remembering that strong resonances in the tube
above cutoff actually rob the vibrating system of energy as dynamics are
increased and they come increasingly into play, so inhibiting them might
actually change the sound output for the better. I am not sure about
this, nor how
>  much it might affect things, but there is a more germane point. Very
small changes in diameter can have a very large effect on harmonics if
the change in diameter is a significant fraction of a wavelength, since
this can cause interference effects, either reinforcing or cancelling
the partial in
>  question. This is probably why very minor differences in head joint
geometry in flutes give such different timbres and response, even if
tuning is generally unaffected. There is no reason that the same kinds
of effects would not pertain to the sax neck.
>
> Toby
>
> John jtalcott47@... wrote:                                           
To bring the discussion back to a practical level, it seems to me that
the most important information to be derived from all of this is what
are the predicted effects of using a neck with a narrower or wider cone
on a
>  saxophone.  The tenon end would, of course, be a fixed diameter, but
the taper to the tip could be enlarged or narrowed with the use of dent
balls or draw plates.  It is this type data that I am most interested in
that can possibly be used to improve the intonation and harmonicity of 
existing
>  instruments.
>
> Another thought I have been mulling over is to explore the effects of
widening and narrowing the bore at locations of pressure and velocity
anti nodes in the saxophone, not by moving the wall of the tube, but by
changing the volume of the closed toneholes in the vicinity.  This could
be done by
>  stacking resonators to protrude more into the opening or conversely
making pads with a concave surface to enlarge the area.  Of course
adding to and taking away from the tonehole chimney is another option,
but it more difficult and would create problems on the stack keys that
are interrelated.
>
> John
>
>
>
>
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, kymarto123@ wrote:
> >
> > I should have said that the volume of the missing tip is less for
the wider cone (since the diameter of the base of the cone is the same
but the larger angle makes the height to the vertex less). This would
mean that the same substitution on a wider cone would have a volume too
large to mimic the
> >  now-lessened volume of the new missing conic apex.
> >
> > However as soon as you correct the volume (via mpc adjustment) that
would widen the modes back to harmonic relationships (insofar as that is
possible in any incomplete cone).
> >
> > Toby
> >
> > kymarto123@ wrote:                                           Again,
not if you consider that the FAQ is specifically talking about the fact
that an incomplete cone with get its harmonics in line if a suitable
substitution is in place.
> >
> >  Ferron says: "Regardless of the instrument, a bore whose cone is
too wide, is flat in the upper register."
> >
> >  You should know that this kind of narrowing of the modes is
characteristic of a substitution whose volume is too large. This is
indeed what happens when you use the same mpc on an wider cone with the
same diameter at the truncation, since the volume of the missing tip is
less than for narrower
> >  cone. But this is not what Ferron is saying. He qualifies
everything on pg 14 with the statement: "Practically speaking, the cone
is always cutaway, and the interior volume of the mouthpiece must
correspond exactly to the missing part of the cone."
> >
> >  Also, moving just a bit deeper, his explanation of how changing
cone angle adds a linear increase in Hz to the modes is not at all
accurate, not even for a truncated cone with no substitution. The
increase is neither linear for the modes, nor is it constant, depending
as it does upon truncation
> >  ratio as well as mode and frequency.
> >
> >  Toby
> >
> >  MartinMods lancelotburt@ wrote:
> >
> > as does the UNSW FAQ page.
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > From: MartinMods lancelotburt@
> >  To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> >  Sent: Fri, January 15, 2010 3:02:15 PM
> >  Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron
> >
> >
> > But back to the subject of Ferron.  Benade seems to agree with him
regarding pp. 14-15.
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com>
> >  To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> >  Sent: Fri, January 15, 2010 12:27:10 PM
> >  Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron
> >
> >
> > Complete Cones:  I see that the worldwide acoustical  discussion is
limited, exclusively, to musically applicable shapes - shapes that do
have usable integral harmonic resonance characteristics, and, as you
say, no reference is made to taper at all.  I would like to see some
scientific proof, as
>  I
> >  find it difficult to believe that a complete  cone, 1m long, with a
slant angle (side to base) of, 89.99 deg., and a opening of .2mm, would
have identical resonance characteristics, compared to a complete cone,
1m long, with a slant angle of, 1 deg., and an opening of 57m.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > From: "kymarto123@ ybb.ne.jp" kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
> >  To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> >  Sent: Fri, January 15, 2010 3:50:51 AM
> >  Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron
> >
> >                                        So you agree that for a
complete cone, angle doesn't influence pitch or mode relationships? This
is not what Ferron is saying, as far as I can tell.
> >
> >   Toby
> >
> >   MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > The subject was the incomplete cone.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > From: "kymarto123@ ybb.ne.jp" kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
> >   To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> >   Sent: Thu, January 14, 2010 9:38:10 PM
> >   Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron
> >
> >
> > In a complete cone, the theoretical frequency determination is very
simple.
> >
> >   From CCRMA:
> >
> >   Pressure distributions along a pipe   of length  L  are dependent
on the boundary conditions at each end. A complete  cone has discrete
standing wave frequencies given by  Fn = nc/2L for n 0 1,2,3...where c
is the speed of wave propagation in air.
> >
> >   Note that there are no terms for   cone angle, only  for cone
length.
> >
> >   Toby
> >
> >
> >    kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp wrote:
> >         That's true, you can't divide by 0. Silly me. However that
doesn't  change the fact  that we are talking about a truncated cone and
not a complete cone. There is no "correct substitution" term included.
This formula does  not describe what happens when a mouthpiece of the
correct volume
> >  acts as the missing cone tip, and this is exactly what Wolfe
describes in the  FAQ.Within  certain limits set by the fact that air
has mass and the walls are not lossless, a complete cone always plays
harmonic overtones and a cone of  a given length plays a frequency
depending on that length.
> >
> >    And don't forget that the effective truncation changes with every
fingering. In the palm keys, the truncation length exceeds 1:3 and
approaches (or possibly meets) 1:2.
> >
> >    Toby
> >
> >    MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:
> >     Toby,
> >
> >    Since when can we divide by 0?  Your x0 = 0 renders the formula
invalid so the terms do not cancel.  What it says is that the frequency
of the the truncated cone, for any fn, is a factor of the tube's taper. 
Plug it into excel.  It does exactly what Ferron describes.
> >
> >    L-MM
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> >   From: "kymarto123@ ybb.ne.jp"  kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
> >    To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> >    Sent: Wed, January 13, 2010 7:21:50 PM
> >    Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron
> >
> >          It doesn't. If you look at Benade's formula it says:
> >
> >    Fn = c/4L* sqrt((2n-1)^ 2+(8/pi^2) *(L/x0)), where Fn is the
frequency of the mode n, c = speed of sound, L = length and x0 = length
of end truncation, not length of 'correct end substitution'.
> >
> >    When the cone is complete, x0 = 0, which cancels out the last two
terms, and the formula then becomes simply  Fn = c/4L * sqrt((2n-1)^ 2).
> >
> >    Benade's formula therefore is the way to find the frequency of an
incomplete cone, and only applies until the truncation length is ~1/3
the length of the complete cone, after which some different things
happen to determine Fn.
> >
> >    Toby
> >
> >
> >    MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >     I imagine that Ferron's discussion of the changing frequencies
of theoretically increasing the taper of an incomplete cone (with a
correct x0 substitution) , pp 14-15, will be one of the first things
that some find objectionable.  I would   ask those who  disagree with
his view, that they
>  then
> >  please explain why Benade's formula for determining fn for his
straight-sided expanding cone substantiates Ferron's statement -
https://ccrma. stanford. edu/marl/ Benade/documents /Benade-Physics3
23-1977.pdf
> >
> >    page 3.
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> >   From: "kymarto123@ ybb.ne.jp"  kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
> >    To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> >    Sent: Wed, January 13, 2010 8:14:19 AM
> >    Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Ferron
> >
> >          I just received my copy of Ferron's book. OMG. It is far
worse than I imagined it could be. I strongly suggest that people who
are interested in acoustics completely ignore it and read Nederveen or
other credible books. While there are some parts   that  are reasonably
accurate, there is
> >  so much misinformation in there that it is basically useless.
> >
> >    If people are interested I can list some of the stuff I have
found that is not and cannot be true, as well as other things that sound
extremely fishy to me.
> >
> >    Toby
> >
>

Hi John,

Answers below:

John <jtalcott47@...> wrote:                                             In all honesty, I suggest empirical experiment, because of the numberof variables. 

On this we agree, but a good mathematical approximation tells in what general area to begin.

With the sax neck this means a lot of hammering, and it is not a very nice prospect.

Actually the neck area can be contracted using epoxy putty and expanded using dent balls.

Be aware that a small, deep perturbation--even if of the same volume as a larger, shallower one, will have a very different effect. An antinodemight be a singular spot, but like a bell curve, there is a smooth buildup on either side.

Agreed.

Air displacement tends to be along the axis of the bore, so for a displacement antinode changing the volume under a closed tonehole has much less effect that a smooth widening of the bore at that point.No so, however, for a pressure antinode. 

Here you begin to lose me.  Can you explain this statement?

There is an exact formula forcalculating the effect under a closed tonehole on pg 449 of FMA.

That formula in effect finds the factor (percent) that the tonehole cavity enlarges the bore at that point similar to a bend in the tubing.  I'm not sure that even applies to the discussion of the effect of an antinode in that area.
Toby: No, the point is that the air in a tonehole is prevented from moving laterally because it is not in the main 'current' so to speak. This means that when a tonehole is at a displacement antinode, the volume under the tonehole does not raise the frequency as much as it would if the same volume
 were in the main bore--such as expanding the walls of the tube at that point. This means that adding resos or trying to expand the volume somehow will not have as great an effect as you might expect, although clearly it will have some effect. 
Toy
First, it is worth remembering that strong resonances in the tube above cutoff actually rob the vibrating system of energy as dynamics are increased and they come increasingly into play, so inhibiting them might actually change the sound output for the better.

What is your source for this information?  This is the first time I have ever heard this statement.
Toby: Have a look at pg. 9 of the 1977 paper of  Benade: 'These are components that lie above cutoff and so do not have peaks to talk to, and as a result do not produce energy. They constitute a drag on the system, and so act to keep the playing level from rising further when the player tries to
 blow harder.' 

Very small changes in diameter can have a very large effect on harmonics if the change in diameter is a significant fraction of a wavelength, since this can cause interference effects, either reinforcing or canceling the partial in question. 

You lose me again on this statement.  What interference effects are you referring to and at what frequencies?
This was mentioned in F&R. I will try to find the exact quote. They are talking about how very small geometrical changes can have a large influence on the the partials of a note. They say that when a geometrical change constitutes a significant portion of a partial's resonance curve, it can act to
 cancel or reinforce that particular partial, as if you introduced a second signal at that frequency either in or out of phase with the first, which could lead to reinforcement of the partial or cancellation.

This is probably why very minor differences in head joint geometry in flutes give such different timbres and response, even iftuning is generally unaffected. There is no reason that the same kinds of effects would not pertain to the sax neck.

This is interesting.  Are you referring to minor differences created experimentally in the same flute headjoint or to two different headjoints?  Wouldn't comparing the geometry of the blowhole and strikeplate area be more similar to that of a sax mouthpiece rather than a neck?  


Toby: Either. The contraction of the headjoint, the so-called 'parabolic' curve, is there to widen the mode relationships, to offset the flattening of the second mode in which the player covers more of the embouchure hole and increases the end correction. However it was early noticed that very
 slight differences in this curve, although having nearly the same effect on the mode relationships, strongly affected the way the headjoint played and sounded. 
This is different from the difference in sound and response caused by different geometries of the embouchure hole. That indeed would be more analogous to the reed/mpc combo in the sax. The headjoint tube is more or less analogous to the neck in the sax, being the upper 1/3 or so of the bore.

--Toby





 

"Air displacement tends to be along the axis of the bore"

Nederveen states that flow (displacement) enters a closed tone hole up to 10% of the tone hole's diameter.  So, for example, on a horn with 3mm high chimneys, 2mm thick wavy resonators will affect the flow at any tone hole over 10mm in diameter - almost every tone hole on a tenor. 




________________________________
From: "kymarto123@..." <kymarto123@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, January 18, 2010 1:17:58 AM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Ferron--practical use

  
Hi John,

Answers below:

John <jtalcott47@msn. com> wrote:
  
> In all honesty, I suggest empirical experiment, because of the numberof variables. 
>
>On this we agree, but a good mathematical approximation tells in what general area to begin.
>
>With the sax neck this means a lot of hammering, and it is not a very nice prospect.
>
>>Actually the neck area can be contracted using epoxy putty and expanded using dent balls.
>
>Be aware that a small, deep perturbation- -even if of the same volume as a larger, shallower one, will have a very different effect. An antinodemight be a singular spot, but like a bell curve, there is a smooth buildup on either side.
>
>Agreed.
>
>Air displacement tends to be along the axis of the bore, so for a displacement antinode changing the volume under a closed tonehole has much less effect that a smooth widening of the bore at that point.No so, however, for a pressure antinode. 
>
>>Here you begin to lose me.  Can you explain this statement?
>
>There is an exact formula forcalculating the effect under a closed tonehole on pg 449 of FMA.
>
>>That formula in effect finds the factor (percent) that the tonehole cavity enlarges the bore at that point similar to a bend in the tubing.  I'm not sure that even applies to the discussion of the effect of an antinode in that area.
>Toby:
> No, the point is that the air in a tonehole is prevented from moving laterally because it is not in the main 'current' so to speak. This means that when a tonehole is at a displacement antinode, the volume under the tonehole does not raise the frequency as much as it would if the same volume were
> in the main bore--such as expanding the walls of the tube at that point. This means that adding resos or trying to expand the volume somehow will not have as great an effect as you might expect, although clearly it will have some effect. 
>Toy
>First, it is worth remembering that strong resonances in the tube above cutoff actually rob the vibrating system of energy as dynamics are increased and they come increasingly into play, so inhibiting them might actually change the sound output for the better.
>
>>What is your source for this information?  This is the first time I have ever heard this statement.
>Toby: Have a look at pg. 9 of the 1977 paper of  Benade: 'These are components that lie above cutoff and so do not have
> peaks to talk to, and as a result do not produceenergy. They constitute a drag on the system, and so act to keep the playing level from rising further when the player
> tries to blow harder.' 
>
>Very small changes in diameter can have a very large effect on harmonics if the change in diameter is a significant fraction of a wavelength, since this can cause interference effects, either reinforcing or canceling the partial in question. 
>
>>You lose me again on this statement.  What interference effects are you referring to and at what frequencies?
>This was mentioned in F&R. I will try to find the exact quote. They are talking about how very small geometrical
> changes can have a large influence on the the partials of a note. They say that when a geometrical change constitutes a significant portion of a partial's resonance curve, it can act to cancel or reinforce that particular partial, as if you introduced a second signal at that frequency either in
> or out of phase with the first, which could lead to reinforcement of the partial or cancellation.
>
>This is probably why very minor differences in head joint geometry in flutes give such different timbres and response, even iftuning is generally unaffected. There is no reason that the same kinds of effects would not pertain to the sax neck.
>
>This is interesting.  Are you referring to minor differences created experimentally in the same flute headjoint or to two different headjoints?  Wouldn't comparing the geometry of the blowhole and strikeplate area be more similar to that of a sax mouthpiece rather
> than a neck?  
>
>
>Toby: Either. The contraction of the headjoint, the so-called 'parabolic' curve, is there to widen the mode relationships, to offset the flattening of the second mode in which the player covers more of the embouchure hole and increases the
> end correction. However it was early noticed that very slight differences in this curve, although having nearly the same effect on the mode relationships, strongly affected the way the headjoint played and sounded. 
>This is different from the difference in sound and response caused by different geometries of the embouchure hole. That indeed would be more analogous to the reed/mpc combo in the sax. The headjoint tube is more or less
> analogous to the neck in the sax, being the upper 1/3 or so of the bore.
>
>--Toby
>
>
 
 


      

Do you think this is in conflict with Benade's statement? I don't. There may be displacement, but not at the levels that it would be inside the bore. 

FWIW, I think wavy resonators are more than stupid.

Toby

MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:                                           
 "Air displacement tends to be along the axis of the bore"

Nederveen states that flow (displacement) enters a closed tone hole up to 10% of the tone hole's diameter.  So, for example, on a horn with 3mm high chimneys, 2mm thick wavy resonators will affect the flow at any tone hole over 10mm in diameter - almost every tone hole on a tenor. 



---------------------------------
From: "kymarto123@..." <kymarto123@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, January 18, 2010 1:17:58  AM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Ferron--practical use

                                      Hi John,
 
 Answers below:
 
 John <jtalcott47@msn. com> wrote:
                                        In all honesty, I suggest empirical experiment, because of the numberof variables. 
 
 On this we agree, but a good mathematical approximation tells in what general area to begin.
 
 With the sax neck this means a lot of hammering, and it is not a very nice prospect.
 
 Actually the neck area can be contracted using epoxy putty and expanded using dent balls.
 
 Be aware that a small, deep perturbation- -even if of the same volume as a larger, shallower one, will have a very different effect. An antinodemight be a singular spot, but like a bell curve, there is a smooth buildup on either side.
 
 Agreed.
 
 Air displacement tends to be along the axis of the bore, so for a displacement antinode changing the volume under a closed tonehole has much less effect that a smooth widening of the bore at that point.No so, however, for a pressure antinode. 
 
 Here you begin to lose me.  Can you explain this statement?
 
 There is an exact formula forcalculating the effect under a closed tonehole on pg 449 of FMA.
 
 That formula in effect finds the factor (percent) that the tonehole cavity enlarges the bore at that point similar to a bend in the tubing.  I'm not sure that even applies to the discussion of the effect of an antinode in that area.
Toby:  No, the point is that the air in a tonehole is prevented from moving laterally because it is not in the main 'current' so to speak. This means that when a tonehole is at a displacement antinode, the volume under the tonehole does not raise the frequency as much as it would if the same
 volume were  in the main bore--such as expanding the walls of the tube at that point. This means that adding resos or trying to expand the volume somehow will not have as great an effect as you might expect, although clearly it will have some effect. 
 Toy
 First, it is worth remembering that strong resonances in the tube above cutoff actually rob the vibrating system of energy as dynamics are increased and they come increasingly into play, so inhibiting them might actually change the sound output for the better.
 
 What is your source for this information?  This is the first time I have ever heard this statement.
Toby: Have a look at pg. 9 of the 1977 paper of  Benade: 'These are components that lie above cutoff and so do not have  peaks to talk to, and as a result do not produce energy. They constitute a drag on the system, and so act to keep the playing level from rising further when the player  tries to
 blow harder.' 
 
 Very small changes in diameter can have a very large effect on harmonics if the change in diameter is a significant fraction of a wavelength, since this can cause interference effects, either reinforcing or canceling the partial in question. 
 
 You lose me again on this statement.  What interference effects are you referring to and at what frequencies?
This was mentioned in F&R. I will try to find the exact quote. They are talking about how very small geometrical  changes can have a large influence on the the partials of a note. They say that when a geometrical change constitutes a significant portion of a partial's resonance curve, it can act
 to cancel or reinforce that particular partial, as if you introduced a second signal at that frequency either in  or out of phase with the first, which could lead to reinforcement of the partial or cancellation.
 
 This is probably why very minor differences in head joint geometry in flutes give such different timbres and response, even iftuning is generally unaffected. There is no reason that the same kinds of effects would not pertain to the sax neck.
 
 This is interesting.  Are you referring to minor differences created experimentally in the same flute headjoint or to two different headjoints?  Wouldn't comparing the geometry of the blowhole and strikeplate area be more similar to that of a sax mouthpiece rather  than a neck?  
 

 Toby: Either. The contraction of the headjoint, the so-called 'parabolic' curve, is there to widen the mode relationships, to offset the flattening of the second mode in which the player covers more of the embouchure hole and increases the  end correction. However it was early noticed that very
 slight differences in this curve, although having nearly the same effect on the mode relationships, strongly affected the way the headjoint played and sounded. 
This is different from the difference in sound and response caused by different geometries of the embouchure hole. That indeed would be more analogous to the reed/mpc combo in the sax. The headjoint tube is more or less  analogous to the neck in the sax, being the upper 1/3 or so of the bore.
 
--Toby
 

 
  
       
           

  


        
      
                 
                 
 

One does not contradict the other.




________________________________
From: "kymarto123@..." <kymarto123@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, January 18, 2010 2:37:39 AM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Ferron--practical use

  
Do you think this is in conflict with Benade's statement? I don't. There may be displacement, but not at the levels that it would be inside the bore. 

FWIW, I think wavy resonators are more than stupid.

Toby

MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:
  
>"Air displacement tends to be along the axis of the bore"
>
>>Nederveen states that flow (displacement) enters a closed tone hole up to 10% of the tone hole's diameter.  So, for example, on a horn with 3mm high chimneys, 2mm thick wavy resonators will affect the flow at any tone hole over 10mm in diameter - almost every tone hole on a tenor. 
>
>
>
>
________________________________
From: "kymarto123@ ybb.ne.jp" <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
>To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
>Sent: Mon, January 18, 2010 1:17:58  AM
>Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Ferron--practical use
>
>  
>Hi John,
>
>> Answers below:
>
>John <jtalcott47@msn. com> wrote:
>  
>> In all honesty, I suggest empirical experiment, because of
>> the numberof variables. 
>>
>>On this we agree, but a good mathematical approximation tells in what general area to begin.
>>
>>With the sax neck this means a lot of hammering, and it is not a very nice prospect.
>>
>>>> Actually the neck area can be contracted using epoxy putty and expanded using dent balls.
>>
>>Be aware that a small, deep perturbation- -even if of the same volume as a larger, shallower one, will have a very different effect. An antinodemight be a singular spot, but like a bell curve, there is a smooth buildup on either side.
>>
>>Agreed.
>>
>>Air displacement tends to be along the axis of the bore, so for a displacement antinode changing the volume under a closed tonehole has much less effect that a smooth widening of the bore at that point.No so, however, for a pressure antinode. 
>>
>>>> Here you begin to lose me.  Can you explain this statement?
>>
>>There is an exact formula forcalculating the effect under a closed tonehole on pg 449 of FMA.
>>
>>>> That formula in effect finds the factor (percent) that the tonehole cavity enlarges the bore at that point similar to a bend in the tubing.  I'm not sure that even applies to the discussion of the effect of an antinode in that area.
>>Toby: 
>> No, the point is that the air in a tonehole is prevented from moving laterally because it is not in the main 'current' so to speak. This means that when a tonehole is at a displacement antinode, the volume under the tonehole does not raise the frequency as much as it would if the same volume were
>>  in the main bore--such as expanding the walls of the tube at that point. This means that adding resos or trying to expand the volume somehow will not have as great an effect as you might expect, although clearly it will have some effect. 
>>Toy
>>First, it is worth remembering that strong resonances in the tube above cutoff actually rob the vibrating system of energy as dynamics are increased and they come increasingly into play, so inhibiting them might actually change the sound output for the better.
>>
>>>> What is your source for this information?  This is the first time I have ever heard this statement.
>>Toby: Have a look at pg. 9 of the 1977 paper of  Benade: 'These are components that lie above cutoff and so do not have 
>> peaks to talk to, and as a result do not produceenergy. They constitute a drag on the system, and so act to keep the playing level from rising further when the player 
>> tries to blow harder.' 
>>
>>Very small changes in diameter can have a very large effect on harmonics if the change in diameter is a significant fraction of a wavelength, since this can cause interference effects, either reinforcing or canceling the partial in question. 
>>
>>>> You lose me again on this statement.  What interference effects are you referring to and at what frequencies?
>>This was mentioned in F&R. I will try to find the exact quote. They are talking about how very small
>> geometrical  changes can have a large influence on the the partials of a note. They say that when a geometrical change constitutes a significant portion of a partial's resonance curve, it can act to cancel or reinforce that particular partial, as if you introduced a second signal at that
>> frequency either in  or out of phase with the first, which could lead to reinforcement of the partial or cancellation.
>>
>>This is probably why very minor differences in head joint geometry in flutes give such different timbres and response, even iftuning is generally unaffected. There is no reason that the same kinds of effects would not pertain to the sax neck.
>>
>>This is interesting.  Are you referring to minor differences created experimentally in the same flute headjoint or to two different headjoints?  Wouldn't comparing the geometry of the blowhole and strikeplate area be more similar to that of a sax mouthpiece rather 
>> than a neck?  
>>
>>
>>Toby: Either. The contraction of the headjoint, the so-called 'parabolic' curve, is there to widen the mode relationships, to offset the flattening of the second mode in which the player covers more of the embouchure hole and increases the 
>> end correction. However it was early noticed that very slight differences in this curve, although having nearly the same effect on the mode relationships, strongly affected the way the headjoint played and sounded. 
>>This is different from the difference in sound and response caused by different geometries of the embouchure hole. That indeed would be more analogous to the reed/mpc combo in the sax. The headjoint tube is more or less 
>> analogous to the neck in the sax, being the upper 1/3 or so of the bore.
>>
>>--Toby
>>
>>
> 
>

 
 


      

I'm sorry, but at this point in the proceedings I just gotta ask: 

 

HAVE YOU GUYS ACTUALLY BUILT ANYTHING OR DO YOU JUST TALK ABOUT WHAT YOU
HAVE READ? If  you have actually built something, is it commercially
available so we can all check it out? There seems to be seemingly endless
discussion, but very little product production...

 

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of kymarto123@...
Sent: Monday, January 18, 2010 12:18 AM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Ferron--practical use

 

  

Hi John,

Answers below:

John <jtalcott47@...> wrote:

  

 In all honesty, I suggest empirical experiment, because of the numberof
variables. 

On this we agree, but a good mathematical approximation tells in what
general area to begin.

With the sax neck this means a lot of hammering, and it is not a very nice
prospect.

Actually the neck area can be contracted using epoxy putty and expanded
using dent balls.

Be aware that a small, deep perturbation--even if of the same volume as a
larger, shallower one, will have a very different effect. An antinodemight
be a singular spot, but like a bell curve, there is a smooth buildup on
either side.

Agreed.

Air displacement tends to be along the axis of the bore, so for a
displacement antinode changing the volume under a closed tonehole has much
less effect that a smooth widening of the bore at that point.No so, however,
for a pressure antinode. 

Here you begin to lose me.  Can you explain this statement?

There is an exact formula forcalculating the effect under a closed tonehole
on pg 449 of FMA.

That formula in effect finds the factor (percent) that the tonehole cavity
enlarges the bore at that point similar to a bend in the tubing.  I'm not
sure that even applies to the discussion of the effect of an antinode in
that area.

Toby: No, the point is that the air in a tonehole is prevented from moving
laterally because it is not in the main 'current' so to speak. This means
that when a tonehole is at a displacement antinode, the volume under the
tonehole does not raise the frequency as much as it would if the same volume
were in the main bore--such as expanding the walls of the tube at that
point. This means that adding resos or trying to expand the volume somehow
will not have as great an effect as you might expect, although clearly it
will have some effect. 
Toy
First, it is worth remembering that strong resonances in the tube above
cutoff actually rob the vibrating system of energy as dynamics are increased
and they come increasingly into play, so inhibiting them might actually
change the sound output for the better.

What is your source for this information?  This is the first time I have
ever heard this statement.

Toby: Have a look at pg. 9 of the 1977 paper of  Benade: 'These are
components that lie above cutoff and so do not have peaks to talk to, and as
a result do not produce energy. They constitute a drag on the system, and so
act to keep the playing level from rising further when the player tries to
blow harder.' 

Very small changes in diameter can have a very large effect on harmonics if
the change in diameter is a significant fraction of a wavelength, since this
can cause interference effects, either reinforcing or canceling the partial
in question. 

You lose me again on this statement.  What interference effects are you
referring to and at what frequencies?

This was mentioned in F&R. I will try to find the exact quote. They are
talking about how very small geometrical changes can have a large influence
on the the partials of a note. They say that when a geometrical change
constitutes a significant portion of a partial's resonance curve, it can act
to cancel or reinforce that particular partial, as if you introduced a
second signal at that frequency either in or out of phase with the first,
which could lead to reinforcement of the partial or cancellation.

This is probably why very minor differences in head joint geometry in flutes
give such different timbres and response, even iftuning is generally
unaffected. There is no reason that the same kinds of effects would not
pertain to the sax neck.

This is interesting.  Are you referring to minor differences created
experimentally in the same flute headjoint or to two different headjoints?
Wouldn't comparing the geometry of the blowhole and strikeplate area be more
similar to that of a sax mouthpiece rather than a neck?  


Toby: Either. The contraction of the headjoint, the so-called 'parabolic'
curve, is there to widen the mode relationships, to offset the flattening of
the second mode in which the player covers more of the embouchure hole and
increases the end correction. However it was early noticed that very slight
differences in this curve, although having nearly the same effect on the
mode relationships, strongly affected the way the headjoint played and
sounded. 

This is different from the difference in sound and response caused by
different geometries of the embouchure hole. That indeed would be more
analogous to the reed/mpc combo in the sax. The headjoint tube is more or
less analogous to the neck in the sax, being the upper 1/3 or so of the
bore.

--Toby

 

 

I have to agree...my inbox is flooded with the "jousting".

Sonus Instrument Repair


--- On Mon, 1/18/10, STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...> wrote:

From: STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...>
Subject: RE: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Ferron--practical use
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, January 18, 2010, 12:31 AM







 



  


    
      
      
      







I’m sorry, but at this point in the proceedings I just
gotta ask:  

   

HAVE YOU GUYS ACTUALLY BUILT ANYTHING OR DO YOU JUST TALK ABOUT
WHAT YOU HAVE READ? If  you have actually built something, is it commercially
available so we can all check it out? There seems to be seemingly endless
discussion, but very little product production……. 

   





From:
MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:MouthpieceW ork@yahoogroups. com] On
Behalf Of kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp

Sent: Monday, January 18, 2010 12:18 AM

To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com

Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Ferron--practical use 





   

   







Hi John,



Answers below:



John <jtalcott47@msn. com> wrote: 



   





 In all honesty, I suggest
empirical experiment, because of the numberof variables. 



On this we agree, but a good mathematical
approximation tells in what general area to begin.



With the sax neck this means a lot of hammering, and
it is not a very nice prospect.



Actually the neck area can be contracted using epoxy putty and expanded using
dent balls.



Be aware that a small, deep perturbation- -even if of
the same volume as a larger, shallower one, will have a very different effect.
An antinodemight be a singular spot, but like a bell curve, there is a smooth
buildup on either side.



Agreed.



Air displacement tends to be along the axis of the
bore, so for a displacement antinode changing the volume under a closed tonehole
has much less effect that a smooth widening of the bore at that point.No so,
however, for a pressure antinode. 



Here you begin to lose me.  Can you explain this statement?



There is an exact formula forcalculating the effect
under a closed tonehole on pg 449 of FMA.



That formula in effect finds the factor (percent) that the tonehole cavity
enlarges the bore at that point similar to a bend in the tubing.  I'm not
sure that even applies to the discussion of the effect of an antinode in that
area. 





Toby: No, the
point is that the air in a tonehole is prevented from moving laterally because
it is not in the main 'current' so to speak. This means that when a tonehole is
at a displacement antinode, the volume under the tonehole does not raise the
frequency as much as it would if the same volume were in the main bore--such as
expanding the walls of the tube at that point. This means that adding resos or
trying to expand the volume somehow will not have as great an effect as you
might expect, although clearly it will have some effect. 

Toy

First, it is worth remembering that strong resonances
in the tube above cutoff actually rob the vibrating system of energy as
dynamics are increased and they come increasingly into play, so inhibiting them
might actually change the sound output for the better.



What is your source for this information?  This is the first time I have
ever heard this statement. 





Toby:
Have a look at pg. 9 of the 1977 paper of  Benade: 'These are components
that lie above cutoff and so do not have peaks to talk to, and as a result do
not produce energy. They constitute a drag on the system, and so act to
keep the playing level from rising further when the player tries to blow
harder.' 



Very small changes in diameter can have a very large
effect on harmonics if the change in diameter is a significant fraction of a
wavelength, since this can cause interference effects, either reinforcing or
canceling the partial in question. 



You lose me again on this statement.  What interference effects are you
referring to and at what frequencies? 





This
was mentioned in F&R. I will try to find the exact quote. They are talking
about how very small geometrical changes can have a large influence on the the
partials of a note. They say that when a geometrical change constitutes a
significant portion of a partial's resonance curve, it can act to cancel or
reinforce that particular partial, as if you introduced a second signal at that
frequency either in or out of phase with the first, which could lead to
reinforcement of the partial or cancellation.



This is probably why very minor differences in head
joint geometry in flutes give such different timbres and response, even
iftuning is generally unaffected. There is no reason that the same kinds of
effects would not pertain to the sax neck.



This is interesting.  Are you referring
to minor differences created experimentally in the same flute headjoint or to
two different headjoints?  Wouldn't comparing the geometry of the blowhole
and strikeplate area be more similar to that of a sax mouthpiece rather than a
neck?   







Toby: Either. The
contraction of the headjoint, the so-called 'parabolic' curve, is there to
widen the mode relationships, to offset the flattening of the second mode in
which the player covers more of the embouchure hole and increases the end
correction. However it was early noticed that very slight differences in this
curve, although having nearly the same effect on the mode relationships,
strongly affected the way the headjoint played and sounded.  





This
is different from the difference in sound and response caused by different
geometries of the embouchure hole. That indeed would be more analogous to the
reed/mpc combo in the sax. The headjoint tube is more or less analogous to the neck in
the sax, being the upper 1/3 or so of the bore. 





--Toby 



   







  







 










    
     

    
    


 



  






      

That formula in effect finds the factor (percent) that the tonehole
cavity enlarges the bore at that point similar to a bend in the tubing. 
I'm not sure that even applies to the discussion of the effect of an
antinode in that area.

Toby: No, the point is that the air in a tonehole is prevented from
moving laterally because it is not in the main 'current' so to speak.
This means that when a tonehole is at a displacement antinode, the
volume under the tonehole does not raise the frequency as much as it
would if the same volume were in the main bore--such as expanding the
walls of the tube at that point. This means that adding resos or trying
to expand the volume somehow will not have as great an effect as you
might expect, although clearly it will have some effect.
Toby

Benade FMA p.474

Contracting the bore at a pressure antinode raises the pitch.
Explanding the bore at a pressure antinode lowers the pitch (implied).

Contracting the bore at a velocity (displacement) antinode lowers the
pitch.
Expanding the bore at a velocity (displacement) antinode raises the
pitch (implied).

He also says writes that bore changes at a pressure node or velocity
node will have no effect upon the frequency.

Various diagrams of the soundwaves in woodwinds seem to indicate that
for cylindrical instruments the pressure antinodes are at the same
location as the velocity nodes, and that the velocity antinodes are at
the same location as the pressure nodes.

In conical instruments this seems to be the case as one moves to the
higher harmonics.  Is there an explanation for this apparent
contradiction?

John





--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
>
> Hi John,
>
> Answers below:
>
> John <jtalcott47@...> wrote:
In all honesty, I suggest empirical experiment, because of the numberof
variables.
>
> On this we agree, but a good mathematical approximation tells in what
general area to begin.
>
> With the sax neck this means a lot of hammering, and it is not a very
nice prospect.
>
> Actually the neck area can be contracted using epoxy putty and
expanded using dent balls.
>
> Be aware that a small, deep perturbation--even if of the same volume
as a larger, shallower one, will have a very different effect. An
antinodemight be a singular spot, but like a bell curve, there is a
smooth buildup on either side.
>
> Agreed.
>
> Air displacement tends to be along the axis of the bore, so for a
displacement antinode changing the volume under a closed tonehole has
much less effect that a smooth widening of the bore at that point.No so,
however, for a pressure antinode.
>
> Here you begin to lose me.  Can you explain this statement?
>
> There is an exact formula forcalculating the effect under a closed
tonehole on pg 449 of FMA.
>
> That formula in effect finds the factor (percent) that the tonehole
cavity enlarges the bore at that point similar to a bend in the tubing. 
I'm not sure that even applies to the discussion of the effect of an
antinode in that area.
> Toby: No, the point is that the air in a tonehole is prevented from
moving laterally because it is not in the main 'current' so to speak.
This means that when a tonehole is at a displacement antinode, the
volume under the tonehole does not raise the frequency as much as it
would if the same volume
>  were in the main bore--such as expanding the walls of the tube at
that point. This means that adding resos or trying to expand the volume
somehow will not have as great an effect as you might expect, although
clearly it will have some effect.
> Toy
> First, it is worth remembering that strong resonances in the tube
above cutoff actually rob the vibrating system of energy as dynamics are
increased and they come increasingly into play, so inhibiting them might
actually change the sound output for the better.
>
> What is your source for this information?  This is the first time I
have ever heard this statement.
> Toby: Have a look at pg. 9 of the 1977 paper of  Benade: 'These are
components that lie above cutoff and so do not have peaks to talk to,
and as a result do not produce energy. They constitute a drag on the
system, and so act to keep the playing level from rising further when
the player tries to
>  blow harder.'
>
> Very small changes in diameter can have a very large effect on
harmonics if the change in diameter is a significant fraction of a
wavelength, since this can cause interference effects, either
reinforcing or canceling the partial in question.
>
> You lose me again on this statement.  What interference effects are
you referring to and at what frequencies?
> This was mentioned in F&R. I will try to find the exact quote. They
are talking about how very small geometrical changes can have a large
influence on the the partials of a note. They say that when a
geometrical change constitutes a significant portion of a partial's
resonance curve, it can act to
>  cancel or reinforce that particular partial, as if you introduced a
second signal at that frequency either in or out of phase with the
first, which could lead to reinforcement of the partial or cancellation.
>
> This is probably why very minor differences in head joint geometry in
flutes give such different timbres and response, even iftuning is
generally unaffected. There is no reason that the same kinds of effects
would not pertain to the sax neck.
>
> This is interesting.  Are you referring to minor differences created
experimentally in the same flute headjoint or to two different
headjoints?  Wouldn't comparing the geometry of the blowhole and
strikeplate area be more similar to that of a sax mouthpiece rather than
a neck?
>
>
> Toby: Either. The contraction of the headjoint, the so-called
'parabolic' curve, is there to widen the mode relationships, to offset
the flattening of the second mode in which the player covers more of the
embouchure hole and increases the end correction. However it was early
noticed that very
>  slight differences in this curve, although having nearly the same
effect on the mode relationships, strongly affected the way the
headjoint played and sounded.
> This is different from the difference in sound and response caused by
different geometries of the embouchure hole. That indeed would be more
analogous to the reed/mpc combo in the sax. The headjoint tube is more
or less analogous to the neck in the sax, being the upper 1/3 or so of
the bore.
>
> --Toby
>

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
>
> Hi John,
>
> Answers below:
>
> John jtalcott47@... wrote:                                            
In all honesty, I suggest empirical experiment, because of the numberof
variables.
>
> On this we agree, but a good mathematical approximation tells in what
general area to begin.
>
> With the sax neck this means a lot of hammering, and it is not a very
nice prospect.
>
> Actually the neck area can be contracted using epoxy putty and
expanded using dent balls.
>
> Be aware that a small, deep perturbation--even if of the same volume
as a larger, shallower one, will have a very different effect. An
antinodemight be a singular spot, but like a bell curve, there is a
smooth buildup on either side.
>
> Agreed.
>
> Air displacement tends to be along the axis of the bore, so for a
displacement antinode changing the volume under a closed tonehole has
much less effect that a smooth widening of the bore at that point.No so,
however, for a pressure antinode.
>
> Here you begin to lose me.  Can you explain this statement?
>
> There is an exact formula forcalculating the effect under a closed
tonehole on pg 449 of FMA.
>
> That formula in effect finds the factor (percent) that the tonehole
cavity enlarges the bore at that point similar to a bend in the tubing. 
I'm not sure that even applies to the discussion of the effect of an
antinode in that area.
> Toby: No, the point is that the air in a tonehole is prevented from
moving laterally because it is not in the main 'current' so to speak.
This means that when a tonehole is at a displacement antinode, the
volume under the tonehole does not raise the frequency as much as it
would if the same volume
>  were in the main bore--such as expanding the walls of the tube at
that point. This means that adding resos or trying to expand the volume
somehow will not have as great an effect as you might expect, although
clearly it will have some effect.
> Toy
> First, it is worth remembering that strong resonances in the tube
above cutoff actually rob the vibrating system of energy as dynamics are
increased and they come increasingly into play, so inhibiting them might
actually change the sound output for the better.
>
> What is your source for this information?  This is the first time I
have ever heard this statement.
> Toby: Have a look at pg. 9 of the 1977 paper of  Benade: 'These are
components that lie above cutoff and so do not have peaks to talk to,
and as a result do not produce energy. They constitute a drag on the
system, and so act to keep the playing level from rising further when
the player tries to
>  blow harder.'
>
> Very small changes in diameter can have a very large effect on
harmonics if the change in diameter is a significant fraction of a
wavelength, since this can cause interference effects, either
reinforcing or canceling the partial in question.
>
> You lose me again on this statement.  What interference effects are
you referring to and at what frequencies?
> This was mentioned in F&R. I will try to find the exact quote. They
are talking about how very small geometrical changes can have a large
influence on the the partials of a note. They say that when a
geometrical change constitutes a significant portion of a partial's
resonance curve, it can act to
>  cancel or reinforce that particular partial, as if you introduced a
second signal at that frequency either in or out of phase with the
first, which could lead to reinforcement of the partial or cancellation.
>
> This is probably why very minor differences in head joint geometry in
flutes give such different timbres and response, even iftuning is
generally unaffected. There is no reason that the same kinds of effects
would not pertain to the sax neck.
>
> This is interesting.  Are you referring to minor differences created
experimentally in the same flute headjoint or to two different
headjoints?  Wouldn't comparing the geometry of the blowhole and
strikeplate area be more similar to that of a sax mouthpiece rather than
a neck?
>
>
> Toby: Either. The contraction of the headjoint, the so-called
'parabolic' curve, is there to widen the mode relationships, to offset
the flattening of the second mode in which the player covers more of the
embouchure hole and increases the end correction. However it was early
noticed that very
>  slight differences in this curve, although having nearly the same
effect on the mode relationships, strongly affected the way the
headjoint played and sounded.
> This is different from the difference in sound and response caused by
different geometries of the embouchure hole. That indeed would be more
analogous to the reed/mpc combo in the sax. The headjoint tube is more
or less analogous to the neck in the sax, being the upper 1/3 or so of
the bore.
>
> --Toby
>

Since the current topic of discussion seems to be discussion itself, I am restating the important acoustics question in this post.

How does one interpret Benade's statement when the pressure antinode and the velocity node are at the same location?  

John

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "John" <jtalcott47@...> wrote:
>
> That formula in effect finds the factor (percent) that the tonehole
> cavity enlarges the bore at that point similar to a bend in the tubing. 
> I'm not sure that even applies to the discussion of the effect of an
> antinode in that area.
> 
> Toby: No, the point is that the air in a tonehole is prevented from
> moving laterally because it is not in the main 'current' so to speak.
> This means that when a tonehole is at a displacement antinode, the
> volume under the tonehole does not raise the frequency as much as it
> would if the same volume were in the main bore--such as expanding the
> walls of the tube at that point. This means that adding resos or trying
> to expand the volume somehow will not have as great an effect as you
> might expect, although clearly it will have some effect.
> Toby
> 
> Benade FMA p.474
> 
> Contracting the bore at a pressure antinode raises the pitch.
> Explanding the bore at a pressure antinode lowers the pitch (implied).
> 
> Contracting the bore at a velocity (displacement) antinode lowers the
> pitch.
> Expanding the bore at a velocity (displacement) antinode raises the
> pitch (implied).
> 
> He also says writes that bore changes at a pressure node or velocity
> node will have no effect upon the frequency.
> 
> Various diagrams of the soundwaves in woodwinds seem to indicate that
> for cylindrical instruments the pressure antinodes are at the same
> location as the velocity nodes, and that the velocity antinodes are at
> the same location as the pressure nodes.
> 
> In conical instruments this seems to be the case as one moves to the
> higher harmonics.  Is there an explanation for this apparent
> contradiction?
> 
> John
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi John,
> >
> > Answers below:
> >
> > John <jtalcott47@> wrote:
> In all honesty, I suggest empirical experiment, because of the numberof
> variables.
> >
> > On this we agree, but a good mathematical approximation tells in what
> general area to begin.
> >
> > With the sax neck this means a lot of hammering, and it is not a very
> nice prospect.
> >
> > Actually the neck area can be contracted using epoxy putty and
> expanded using dent balls.
> >
> > Be aware that a small, deep perturbation--even if of the same volume
> as a larger, shallower one, will have a very different effect. An
> antinodemight be a singular spot, but like a bell curve, there is a
> smooth buildup on either side.
> >
> > Agreed.
> >
> > Air displacement tends to be along the axis of the bore, so for a
> displacement antinode changing the volume under a closed tonehole has
> much less effect that a smooth widening of the bore at that point.No so,
> however, for a pressure antinode.
> >
> > Here you begin to lose me.  Can you explain this statement?
> >
> > There is an exact formula forcalculating the effect under a closed
> tonehole on pg 449 of FMA.
> >
> > That formula in effect finds the factor (percent) that the tonehole
> cavity enlarges the bore at that point similar to a bend in the tubing. 
> I'm not sure that even applies to the discussion of the effect of an
> antinode in that area.
> > Toby: No, the point is that the air in a tonehole is prevented from
> moving laterally because it is not in the main 'current' so to speak.
> This means that when a tonehole is at a displacement antinode, the
> volume under the tonehole does not raise the frequency as much as it
> would if the same volume
> >  were in the main bore--such as expanding the walls of the tube at
> that point. This means that adding resos or trying to expand the volume
> somehow will not have as great an effect as you might expect, although
> clearly it will have some effect.
> > Toy
> > First, it is worth remembering that strong resonances in the tube
> above cutoff actually rob the vibrating system of energy as dynamics are
> increased and they come increasingly into play, so inhibiting them might
> actually change the sound output for the better.
> >
> > What is your source for this information?  This is the first time I
> have ever heard this statement.
> > Toby: Have a look at pg. 9 of the 1977 paper of  Benade: 'These are
> components that lie above cutoff and so do not have peaks to talk to,
> and as a result do not produce energy. They constitute a drag on the
> system, and so act to keep the playing level from rising further when
> the player tries to
> >  blow harder.'
> >
> > Very small changes in diameter can have a very large effect on
> harmonics if the change in diameter is a significant fraction of a
> wavelength, since this can cause interference effects, either
> reinforcing or canceling the partial in question.
> >
> > You lose me again on this statement.  What interference effects are
> you referring to and at what frequencies?
> > This was mentioned in F&R. I will try to find the exact quote. They
> are talking about how very small geometrical changes can have a large
> influence on the the partials of a note. They say that when a
> geometrical change constitutes a significant portion of a partial's
> resonance curve, it can act to
> >  cancel or reinforce that particular partial, as if you introduced a
> second signal at that frequency either in or out of phase with the
> first, which could lead to reinforcement of the partial or cancellation.
> >
> > This is probably why very minor differences in head joint geometry in
> flutes give such different timbres and response, even iftuning is
> generally unaffected. There is no reason that the same kinds of effects
> would not pertain to the sax neck.
> >
> > This is interesting.  Are you referring to minor differences created
> experimentally in the same flute headjoint or to two different
> headjoints?  Wouldn't comparing the geometry of the blowhole and
> strikeplate area be more similar to that of a sax mouthpiece rather than
> a neck?
> >
> >
> > Toby: Either. The contraction of the headjoint, the so-called
> 'parabolic' curve, is there to widen the mode relationships, to offset
> the flattening of the second mode in which the player covers more of the
> embouchure hole and increases the end correction. However it was early
> noticed that very
> >  slight differences in this curve, although having nearly the same
> effect on the mode relationships, strongly affected the way the
> headjoint played and sounded.
> > This is different from the difference in sound and response caused by
> different geometries of the embouchure hole. That indeed would be more
> analogous to the reed/mpc combo in the sax. The headjoint tube is more
> or less analogous to the neck in the sax, being the upper 1/3 or so of
> the bore.
> >
> > --Toby
> >
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi John,
> >
> > Answers below:
> >
> > John jtalcott47@ wrote:                                            
> In all honesty, I suggest empirical experiment, because of the numberof
> variables.
> >
> > On this we agree, but a good mathematical approximation tells in what
> general area to begin.
> >
> > With the sax neck this means a lot of hammering, and it is not a very
> nice prospect.
> >
> > Actually the neck area can be contracted using epoxy putty and
> expanded using dent balls.
> >
> > Be aware that a small, deep perturbation--even if of the same volume
> as a larger, shallower one, will have a very different effect. An
> antinodemight be a singular spot, but like a bell curve, there is a
> smooth buildup on either side.
> >
> > Agreed.
> >
> > Air displacement tends to be along the axis of the bore, so for a
> displacement antinode changing the volume under a closed tonehole has
> much less effect that a smooth widening of the bore at that point.No so,
> however, for a pressure antinode.
> >
> > Here you begin to lose me.  Can you explain this statement?
> >
> > There is an exact formula forcalculating the effect under a closed
> tonehole on pg 449 of FMA.
> >
> > That formula in effect finds the factor (percent) that the tonehole
> cavity enlarges the bore at that point similar to a bend in the tubing. 
> I'm not sure that even applies to the discussion of the effect of an
> antinode in that area.
> > Toby: No, the point is that the air in a tonehole is prevented from
> moving laterally because it is not in the main 'current' so to speak.
> This means that when a tonehole is at a displacement antinode, the
> volume under the tonehole does not raise the frequency as much as it
> would if the same volume
> >  were in the main bore--such as expanding the walls of the tube at
> that point. This means that adding resos or trying to expand the volume
> somehow will not have as great an effect as you might expect, although
> clearly it will have some effect.
> > Toy
> > First, it is worth remembering that strong resonances in the tube
> above cutoff actually rob the vibrating system of energy as dynamics are
> increased and they come increasingly into play, so inhibiting them might
> actually change the sound output for the better.
> >
> > What is your source for this information?  This is the first time I
> have ever heard this statement.
> > Toby: Have a look at pg. 9 of the 1977 paper of  Benade: 'These are
> components that lie above cutoff and so do not have peaks to talk to,
> and as a result do not produce energy. They constitute a drag on the
> system, and so act to keep the playing level from rising further when
> the player tries to
> >  blow harder.'
> >
> > Very small changes in diameter can have a very large effect on
> harmonics if the change in diameter is a significant fraction of a
> wavelength, since this can cause interference effects, either
> reinforcing or canceling the partial in question.
> >
> > You lose me again on this statement.  What interference effects are
> you referring to and at what frequencies?
> > This was mentioned in F&R. I will try to find the exact quote. They
> are talking about how very small geometrical changes can have a large
> influence on the the partials of a note. They say that when a
> geometrical change constitutes a significant portion of a partial's
> resonance curve, it can act to
> >  cancel or reinforce that particular partial, as if you introduced a
> second signal at that frequency either in or out of phase with the
> first, which could lead to reinforcement of the partial or cancellation.
> >
> > This is probably why very minor differences in head joint geometry in
> flutes give such different timbres and response, even iftuning is
> generally unaffected. There is no reason that the same kinds of effects
> would not pertain to the sax neck.
> >
> > This is interesting.  Are you referring to minor differences created
> experimentally in the same flute headjoint or to two different
> headjoints?  Wouldn't comparing the geometry of the blowhole and
> strikeplate area be more similar to that of a sax mouthpiece rather than
> a neck?
> >
> >
> > Toby: Either. The contraction of the headjoint, the so-called
> 'parabolic' curve, is there to widen the mode relationships, to offset
> the flattening of the second mode in which the player covers more of the
> embouchure hole and increases the end correction. However it was early
> noticed that very
> >  slight differences in this curve, although having nearly the same
> effect on the mode relationships, strongly affected the way the
> headjoint played and sounded.
> > This is different from the difference in sound and response caused by
> different geometries of the embouchure hole. That indeed would be more
> analogous to the reed/mpc combo in the sax. The headjoint tube is more
> or less analogous to the neck in the sax, being the upper 1/3 or so of
> the bore.
> >
> > --Toby
> >
>

"affects the timbre" seems to be the correct interpretation to me due to the
amplitude effects on the partials.

On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 8:48 AM, John <jtalcott47@...> wrote:

>
>
> Since the current topic of discussion seems to be discussion itself, I am
> restating the important acoustics question in this post.
>
> How does one interpret Benade's statement when the pressure antinode and
> the velocity node are at the same location?
>
> John
>
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com <MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "John" <jtalcott47@...> wrote:
> >
> > That formula in effect finds the factor (percent) that the tonehole
> > cavity enlarges the bore at that point similar to a bend in the tubing.
> > I'm not sure that even applies to the discussion of the effect of an
> > antinode in that area.
> >
> > Toby: No, the point is that the air in a tonehole is prevented from
> > moving laterally because it is not in the main 'current' so to speak.
> > This means that when a tonehole is at a displacement antinode, the
> > volume under the tonehole does not raise the frequency as much as it
> > would if the same volume were in the main bore--such as expanding the
> > walls of the tube at that point. This means that adding resos or trying
> > to expand the volume somehow will not have as great an effect as you
> > might expect, although clearly it will have some effect.
> > Toby
> >
> > Benade FMA p.474
> >
> > Contracting the bore at a pressure antinode raises the pitch.
> > Explanding the bore at a pressure antinode lowers the pitch (implied).
> >
> > Contracting the bore at a velocity (displacement) antinode lowers the
> > pitch.
> > Expanding the bore at a velocity (displacement) antinode raises the
> > pitch (implied).
> >
> > He also says writes that bore changes at a pressure node or velocity
> > node will have no effect upon the frequency.
> >
> > Various diagrams of the soundwaves in woodwinds seem to indicate that
> > for cylindrical instruments the pressure antinodes are at the same
> > location as the velocity nodes, and that the velocity antinodes are at
> > the same location as the pressure nodes.
> >
> > In conical instruments this seems to be the case as one moves to the
> > higher harmonics. Is there an explanation for this apparent
> > contradiction?
> >
> > John
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com <MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>,
> <kymarto123@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi John,
> > >
> > > Answers below:
> > >
> > > John <jtalcott47@> wrote:
> > In all honesty, I suggest empirical experiment, because of the numberof
> > variables.
> > >
> > > On this we agree, but a good mathematical approximation tells in what
> > general area to begin.
> > >
> > > With the sax neck this means a lot of hammering, and it is not a very
> > nice prospect.
> > >
> > > Actually the neck area can be contracted using epoxy putty and
> > expanded using dent balls.
> > >
> > > Be aware that a small, deep perturbation--even if of the same volume
> > as a larger, shallower one, will have a very different effect. An
> > antinodemight be a singular spot, but like a bell curve, there is a
> > smooth buildup on either side.
> > >
> > > Agreed.
> > >
> > > Air displacement tends to be along the axis of the bore, so for a
> > displacement antinode changing the volume under a closed tonehole has
> > much less effect that a smooth widening of the bore at that point.No so,
> > however, for a pressure antinode.
> > >
> > > Here you begin to lose me. Can you explain this statement?
> > >
> > > There is an exact formula forcalculating the effect under a closed
> > tonehole on pg 449 of FMA.
> > >
> > > That formula in effect finds the factor (percent) that the tonehole
> > cavity enlarges the bore at that point similar to a bend in the tubing.
> > I'm not sure that even applies to the discussion of the effect of an
> > antinode in that area.
> > > Toby: No, the point is that the air in a tonehole is prevented from
> > moving laterally because it is not in the main 'current' so to speak.
> > This means that when a tonehole is at a displacement antinode, the
> > volume under the tonehole does not raise the frequency as much as it
> > would if the same volume
> > > were in the main bore--such as expanding the walls of the tube at
> > that point. This means that adding resos or trying to expand the volume
> > somehow will not have as great an effect as you might expect, although
> > clearly it will have some effect.
> > > Toy
> > > First, it is worth remembering that strong resonances in the tube
> > above cutoff actually rob the vibrating system of energy as dynamics are
> > increased and they come increasingly into play, so inhibiting them might
> > actually change the sound output for the better.
> > >
> > > What is your source for this information? This is the first time I
> > have ever heard this statement.
> > > Toby: Have a look at pg. 9 of the 1977 paper of Benade: 'These are
> > components that lie above cutoff and so do not have peaks to talk to,
> > and as a result do not produce energy. They constitute a drag on the
> > system, and so act to keep the playing level from rising further when
> > the player tries to
> > > blow harder.'
> > >
> > > Very small changes in diameter can have a very large effect on
> > harmonics if the change in diameter is a significant fraction of a
> > wavelength, since this can cause interference effects, either
> > reinforcing or canceling the partial in question.
> > >
> > > You lose me again on this statement. What interference effects are
> > you referring to and at what frequencies?
> > > This was mentioned in F&R. I will try to find the exact quote. They
> > are talking about how very small geometrical changes can have a large
> > influence on the the partials of a note. They say that when a
> > geometrical change constitutes a significant portion of a partial's
> > resonance curve, it can act to
> > > cancel or reinforce that particular partial, as if you introduced a
> > second signal at that frequency either in or out of phase with the
> > first, which could lead to reinforcement of the partial or cancellation.
> > >
> > > This is probably why very minor differences in head joint geometry in
> > flutes give such different timbres and response, even iftuning is
> > generally unaffected. There is no reason that the same kinds of effects
> > would not pertain to the sax neck.
> > >
> > > This is interesting. Are you referring to minor differences created
> > experimentally in the same flute headjoint or to two different
> > headjoints? Wouldn't comparing the geometry of the blowhole and
> > strikeplate area be more similar to that of a sax mouthpiece rather than
> > a neck?
> > >
> > >
> > > Toby: Either. The contraction of the headjoint, the so-called
> > 'parabolic' curve, is there to widen the mode relationships, to offset
> > the flattening of the second mode in which the player covers more of the
> > embouchure hole and increases the end correction. However it was early
> > noticed that very
> > > slight differences in this curve, although having nearly the same
> > effect on the mode relationships, strongly affected the way the
> > headjoint played and sounded.
> > > This is different from the difference in sound and response caused by
> > different geometries of the embouchure hole. That indeed would be more
> > analogous to the reed/mpc combo in the sax. The headjoint tube is more
> > or less analogous to the neck in the sax, being the upper 1/3 or so of
> > the bore.
> > >
> > > --Toby
> > >
> >
> > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com <MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>,
> <kymarto123@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi John,
> > >
> > > Answers below:
> > >
> > > John jtalcott47@ wrote:
> > In all honesty, I suggest empirical experiment, because of the numberof
> > variables.
> > >
> > > On this we agree, but a good mathematical approximation tells in what
> > general area to begin.
> > >
> > > With the sax neck this means a lot of hammering, and it is not a very
> > nice prospect.
> > >
> > > Actually the neck area can be contracted using epoxy putty and
> > expanded using dent balls.
> > >
> > > Be aware that a small, deep perturbation--even if of the same volume
> > as a larger, shallower one, will have a very different effect. An
> > antinodemight be a singular spot, but like a bell curve, there is a
> > smooth buildup on either side.
> > >
> > > Agreed.
> > >
> > > Air displacement tends to be along the axis of the bore, so for a
> > displacement antinode changing the volume under a closed tonehole has
> > much less effect that a smooth widening of the bore at that point.No so,
> > however, for a pressure antinode.
> > >
> > > Here you begin to lose me. Can you explain this statement?
> > >
> > > There is an exact formula forcalculating the effect under a closed
> > tonehole on pg 449 of FMA.
> > >
> > > That formula in effect finds the factor (percent) that the tonehole
> > cavity enlarges the bore at that point similar to a bend in the tubing.
> > I'm not sure that even applies to the discussion of the effect of an
> > antinode in that area.
> > > Toby: No, the point is that the air in a tonehole is prevented from
> > moving laterally because it is not in the main 'current' so to speak.
> > This means that when a tonehole is at a displacement antinode, the
> > volume under the tonehole does not raise the frequency as much as it
> > would if the same volume
> > > were in the main bore--such as expanding the walls of the tube at
> > that point. This means that adding resos or trying to expand the volume
> > somehow will not have as great an effect as you might expect, although
> > clearly it will have some effect.
> > > Toy
> > > First, it is worth remembering that strong resonances in the tube
> > above cutoff actually rob the vibrating system of energy as dynamics are
> > increased and they come increasingly into play, so inhibiting them might
> > actually change the sound output for the better.
> > >
> > > What is your source for this information? This is the first time I
> > have ever heard this statement.
> > > Toby: Have a look at pg. 9 of the 1977 paper of Benade: 'These are
> > components that lie above cutoff and so do not have peaks to talk to,
> > and as a result do not produce energy. They constitute a drag on the
> > system, and so act to keep the playing level from rising further when
> > the player tries to
> > > blow harder.'
> > >
> > > Very small changes in diameter can have a very large effect on
> > harmonics if the change in diameter is a significant fraction of a
> > wavelength, since this can cause interference effects, either
> > reinforcing or canceling the partial in question.
> > >
> > > You lose me again on this statement. What interference effects are
> > you referring to and at what frequencies?
> > > This was mentioned in F&R. I will try to find the exact quote. They
> > are talking about how very small geometrical changes can have a large
> > influence on the the partials of a note. They say that when a
> > geometrical change constitutes a significant portion of a partial's
> > resonance curve, it can act to
> > > cancel or reinforce that particular partial, as if you introduced a
> > second signal at that frequency either in or out of phase with the
> > first, which could lead to reinforcement of the partial or cancellation.
> > >
> > > This is probably why very minor differences in head joint geometry in
> > flutes give such different timbres and response, even iftuning is
> > generally unaffected. There is no reason that the same kinds of effects
> > would not pertain to the sax neck.
> > >
> > > This is interesting. Are you referring to minor differences created
> > experimentally in the same flute headjoint or to two different
> > headjoints? Wouldn't comparing the geometry of the blowhole and
> > strikeplate area be more similar to that of a sax mouthpiece rather than
> > a neck?
> > >
> > >
> > > Toby: Either. The contraction of the headjoint, the so-called
> > 'parabolic' curve, is there to widen the mode relationships, to offset
> > the flattening of the second mode in which the player covers more of the
> > embouchure hole and increases the end correction. However it was early
> > noticed that very
> > > slight differences in this curve, although having nearly the same
> > effect on the mode relationships, strongly affected the way the
> > headjoint played and sounded.
> > > This is different from the difference in sound and response caused by
> > different geometries of the embouchure hole. That indeed would be more
> > analogous to the reed/mpc combo in the sax. The headjoint tube is more
> > or less analogous to the neck in the sax, being the upper 1/3 or so of
> > the bore.
> > >
> > > --Toby
> > >
> >
>
> 
>