I have been studying the excel mouthpiece volume data spreadsheet
created by Keith that he share with me some time ago.  From these
measurements and calculations in every instance the used volume inside
the mouthpiece exceeds that of the missing cone found by using Ferron's
formulas.  That is even before adding an additional amount to the volume
of the mouthpiece to compensate for the movement of the reed to get the
mouthpiece "equivalent volume".

This discrepancy suggests that:

1) The acoustician's pronouncement that the mouthpiece must closely
match the volume of the missing cone in order for the saxophone to play
properly in tune, and in tune with itself is not accurate in the real
world.  OR

2) The method to extrapolate the length and volume of the missing cone
from the end of the neck given by Ferron is inaccurate in that the
volume calculated in this fashion is too small.

My idea at this point would be to take some of the measurements of
mouthpiece volume Keith has done, add an appropriate amount to get the
"equivalent volume", and then work backwards from there to determine the
relationship of that volume to the body tube and/or neck of the
saxophone.  From there  the challenge would be to find a way to
interpret the physical measurements of the body and/or neck to estimate
the missing cone volume known to produce the correct intonation and
tuning.

It is my belief that this information would be immensely useful to
mouthpiece making and adjustment, in that an accurate way to determine
the volume needed for any given model of saxophone to compliment its
truncated cone would allow makers and refacers to match a mouthpieces
length and chamber volume to any new or vintage saxophone.

John

Another potential problem is the raw data measurements in my spreadsheet.  I just took end diameter readings of the neck.  I did not try to reach in past any straight cylinders on each end as Lance had recently suggested.  I did recently reach inside my YBS-52 neck to see if the new measurements helped my cone volume calculation get closer to my actual mouthpiece volume measurement.  It made the discrepancy worse so I did not remeasure all my necks.

The discrepancy is probably due to my embouchure preferences.  This dictates where I need to tune my mouthpieces and the the resulting volumes that I measure.  If the theory ends up telling me I need to pull out or push in more, and use a different embouchure to play it in tune, I doubt that I will follow that path.  I'm willing to try it, but I'm skeptical.




________________________________
From: John <jtalcott47@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, February 17, 2010 9:35:43 PM
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] The Elusive Missing Cone

  
I have been studying the excel mouthpiece volume data spreadsheet created by Keith that he share with me some time ago.  From these measurements and calculations in every instance the used volume inside the mouthpiece exceeds that of the missing cone found by using Ferron's formulas.  That is even before adding an additional amount to the volume of the mouthpiece to compensate for the movement of the reed to get the mouthpiece "equivalent volume".

This discrepancy suggests that:

1) The acoustician' s pronouncement that the mouthpiece must closely match the volume of the missing cone in order for the saxophone to play properly in tune, and in tune with itself is not accurate in the real world.  OR

2) The method to extrapolate the length and volume of the missing cone from the end of the neck given by Ferron is inaccurate in that the volume calculated in this fashion is too small.

My idea at this point would be to take some of the measurements of mouthpiece volume Keith has done, add an appropriate amount to get the "equivalent volume", and then work backwards from there to determine the relationship of that volume to the body tube and/or neck of the saxophone.  From there  the challenge would be to find a way to interpret the physical measurements of the body and/or neck to estimate the missing cone volume known to produce the correct intonation and tuning.

It is my belief that this information would be immensely useful to mouthpiece making and adjustment, in that an accurate way to determine the volume needed for any given model of saxophone to compliment its truncated cone would allow makers and refacers to match a mouthpieces length and chamber volume to any new or vintage saxophone.

John




      

There are so many ifs here...You have temperature differential across the tube, gas composition differential across the tube, adjustments to the cone based on the compliance added by extra toneholes, reed effects, wall effects, etc., etc. There is also the seeming fact (according to some authors)
 that the sax is "necked in", meaning that the end diameter is somewhat narrower than it should be for a straight cone, not to mention that there is no single cone to begin with.

I think that there is no doubt that the theory is correct "in theory", but there are plenty of real-world circumstances that make it impossible to accurately calculate the missing volume in a way that predicts how things are going to end up intonation-wise. It's really a "try-it-and-see"
 situation. Calculations just don't work. Don't forget, too, that the player enters heavily into the calculus, as s/he can lip notes, both changing intonation via reed damping and by changing the equivalent volume under the reed.

I once pestered Joe Wolfe about some stuff like this, and he send me a cartoon about "nerd sniping", in which a complex and basically non-solvable but seemingly simple problem is presented to a nerd, who gets so lost in calculation that he doesn't see a truck bearing down on him. I think what he
 was trying to say was that the science has very definite limitations when it comes to problems involving lots of complex and interactive variables, and wasting too much time on trying to solve problems by calculation can be bad for one's health.

Toby



Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:                                           

 Another potential problem is the raw data measurements in my spreadsheet.  I just took end diameter readings of the neck.  I did not try to reach in past any straight cylinders on each end as Lance had recently suggested.  I did recently reach inside my YBS-52 neck to see if the new measurements
 helped my cone volume calculation get closer to my actual mouthpiece volume measurement.  It made the discrepancy worse so I did not remeasure all my necks.
  
 The discrepancy is probably due to my embouchure preferences.  This dictates where I need to tune my mouthpieces and the the resulting volumes that I measure.  If the theory ends up telling me I need to pull out or push in more, and use a different embouchure to play it in tune, I doubt that I
 will follow that path.  I'm willing to try it, but I'm skeptical.
 

 
  
---------------------------------
 From: John <jtalcott47@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, February 17, 2010 9:35:43 PM
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] The Elusive Missing Cone

    I have been studying the excel mouthpiece volume data spreadsheet created by Keith that he share with me some time ago.  From these measurements and calculations in every instance the used volume inside the mouthpiece exceeds that of the missing cone found by using Ferron's formulas.  That is
 even before adding an additional amount to the volume of the mouthpiece to compensate for the movement of the reed to get the mouthpiece "equivalent volume".

This discrepancy suggests that:

1) The acoustician' s pronouncement that the mouthpiece must closely match the volume of the missing cone in order for the saxophone to play properly in tune, and in tune with itself is not accurate in the real world.  OR

2) The method to extrapolate the length and volume of the missing cone from the end of the neck given by Ferron is inaccurate in that the volume calculated in this fashion is too small.

My idea at this point would be  to take some of the measurements of mouthpiece volume Keith has done, add an appropriate amount to get the "equivalent volume", and then work backwards from there to determine the relationship of that volume to the body tube and/or neck of the saxophone.  From there
  the challenge would be to find a way to interpret the physical measurements of the body and/or neck to estimate the missing cone volume known to produce the correct intonation and tuning.

It is my belief that this information would be immensely useful to mouthpiece making and adjustment, in that an accurate way to determine the volume needed for any given model of saxophone to compliment its truncated cone would allow makers and refacers to match a mouthpieces length and chamber
 volume to any new or vintage saxophone.

John






        
      
                 
                 
 

Your point is well taken Toby about the minutiae of the variables,
however it is still entirely possible to accurately measure the interior
volume of a mouthpiece past the neck when the intonation and harmonics
of the saxophone are in the best possible alignment once the saxophone
is properly warmed up.   It is also possible to get a good estimate of
the total  "equivalent volume" of the mouthpiece by employing the
technique used by Benade and Gebler FMA p. 466.

The length and volume of the cone required to complete the truncated
neck can be also be calculated as well as the truncated body tube
measured from the where the bow attaches to the body tube.  By comparing
these measurements and calculations to the actual missing cone volume
provided by the mouthpiece on several sizes and makes of saxophones,
there is a possibility  that a pattern of relationships will emerge that
will point to the ways to convert the geometric measurements of the
truncated tube to the "acoustic measurements" that determine the missing
cone volume needed.

John


--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
>
> There are so many ifs here...You have temperature differential across
the tube, gas composition differential across the tube, adjustments to
the cone based on the compliance added by extra toneholes, reed effects,
wall effects, etc., etc. There is also the seeming fact (according to
some authors)
>  that the sax is "necked in", meaning that the end diameter is
somewhat narrower than it should be for a straight cone, not to mention
that there is no single cone to begin with.
>
> I think that there is no doubt that the theory is correct "in theory",
but there are plenty of real-world circumstances that make it impossible
to accurately calculate the missing volume in a way that predicts how
things are going to end up intonation-wise. It's really a
"try-it-and-see"
>  situation. Calculations just don't work. Don't forget, too, that the
player enters heavily into the calculus, as s/he can lip notes, both
changing intonation via reed damping and by changing the equivalent
volume under the reed.
>
> I once pestered Joe Wolfe about some stuff like this, and he send me a
cartoon about "nerd sniping", in which a complex and basically
non-solvable but seemingly simple problem is presented to a nerd, who
gets so lost in calculation that he doesn't see a truck bearing down on
him. I think what he
>  was trying to say was that the science has very definite limitations
when it comes to problems involving lots of complex and interactive
variables, and wasting too much time on trying to solve problems by
calculation can be bad for one's health.
>
> Toby
>
>
>
> Keith Bradbury kwbradbury@... wrote:
>
>  Another potential problem is the raw data measurements in my
spreadsheet.  I just took end diameter readings of the neck.  I did not
try to reach in past any straight cylinders on each end as Lance had
recently suggested.  I did recently reach inside my YBS-52 neck to see
if the new measurements
>  helped my cone volume calculation get closer to my actual mouthpiece
volume measurement.  It made the discrepancy worse so I did not
remeasure all my necks.
>
>  The discrepancy is probably due to my embouchure preferences.  This
dictates where I need to tune my mouthpieces and the the resulting
volumes that I measure.  If the theory ends up telling me I need to pull
out or push in more, and use a different embouchure to play it in tune,
I doubt that I
>  will follow that path.  I'm willing to try it, but I'm skeptical.
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>  From: John jtalcott47@...
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wed, February 17, 2010 9:35:43 PM
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] The Elusive Missing Cone
>
>     I have been studying the excel mouthpiece volume data spreadsheet
created by Keith that he share with me some time ago.  From these
measurements and calculations in every instance the used volume inside
the mouthpiece exceeds that of the missing cone found by using Ferron's
formulas.  That is
>  even before adding an additional amount to the volume of the
mouthpiece to compensate for the movement of the reed to get the
mouthpiece "equivalent volume".
>
> This discrepancy suggests that:
>
> 1) The acoustician' s pronouncement that the mouthpiece must closely
match the volume of the missing cone in order for the saxophone to play
properly in tune, and in tune with itself is not accurate in the real
world.  OR
>
> 2) The method to extrapolate the length and volume of the missing cone
from the end of the neck given by Ferron is inaccurate in that the
volume calculated in this fashion is too small.
>
> My idea at this point would be  to take some of the measurements of
mouthpiece volume Keith has done, add an appropriate amount to get the
"equivalent volume", and then work backwards from there to determine the
relationship of that volume to the body tube and/or neck of the
saxophone.  From there
>   the challenge would be to find a way to interpret the physical
measurements of the body and/or neck to estimate the missing cone volume
known to produce the correct intonation and tuning.
>
> It is my belief that this information would be immensely useful to
mouthpiece making and adjustment, in that an accurate way to determine
the volume needed for any given model of saxophone to compliment its
truncated cone would allow makers and refacers to match a mouthpieces
length and chamber
>  volume to any new or vintage saxophone.
>
> John
>

Analysis of this type is a waste of time....even if you COULD find the magic
mathematical bullet, what would you do with it? If you apply this magic
bullet to an existing mouthpiece, you will in all probability alter its
playing characteristics to such a degree that it would no longer be
recognizable or viable. I am unaware of any manufacturers who do this type
of analysis, or believe for a minute that it has any merit whatsoever.  

 

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of kymarto123@...
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 11:40 PM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] The Elusive Missing Cone

 

  

There are so many ifs here...You have temperature differential across the
tube, gas composition differential across the tube, adjustments to the cone
based on the compliance added by extra toneholes, reed effects, wall
effects, etc., etc. There is also the seeming fact (according to some
authors) that the sax is "necked in", meaning that the end diameter is
somewhat narrower than it should be for a straight cone, not to mention that
there is no single cone to begin with.

I think that there is no doubt that the theory is correct "in theory", but
there are plenty of real-world circumstances that make it impossible to
accurately calculate the missing volume in a way that predicts how things
are going to end up intonation-wise. It's really a "try-it-and-see"
situation. Calculations just don't work. Don't forget, too, that the player
enters heavily into the calculus, as s/he can lip notes, both changing
intonation via reed damping and by changing the equivalent volume under the
reed.

I once pestered Joe Wolfe about some stuff like this, and he send me a
cartoon about "nerd sniping", in which a complex and basically non-solvable
but seemingly simple problem is presented to a nerd, who gets so lost in
calculation that he doesn't see a truck bearing down on him. I think what he
was trying to say was that the science has very definite limitations when it
comes to problems involving lots of complex and interactive variables, and
wasting too much time on trying to solve problems by calculation can be bad
for one's health.

Toby



Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:

  

Another potential problem is the raw data measurements in my spreadsheet.  I
just took end diameter readings of the neck.  I did not try to reach in past
any straight cylinders on each end as Lance had recently suggested.  I did
recently reach inside my YBS-52 neck to see if the new measurements helped
my cone volume calculation get closer to my actual mouthpiece volume
measurement.  It made the discrepancy worse so I did not remeasure all my
necks.

 

The discrepancy is probably due to my embouchure preferences.  This dictates
where I need to tune my mouthpieces and the the resulting volumes that I
measure.  If the theory ends up telling me I need to pull out or push in
more, and use a different embouchure to play it in tune, I doubt that I will
follow that path.  I'm willing to try it, but I'm skeptical.

 

 


  _____  


From: John <jtalcott47@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, February 17, 2010 9:35:43 PM
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] The Elusive Missing Cone

  

I have been studying the excel mouthpiece volume data spreadsheet created by
Keith that he share with me some time ago.  From these measurements and
calculations in every instance the used volume inside the mouthpiece exceeds
that of the missing cone found by using Ferron's formulas.  That is even
before adding an additional amount to the volume of the mouthpiece to
compensate for the movement of the reed to get the mouthpiece "equivalent
volume".

This discrepancy suggests that:

1) The acoustician' s pronouncement that the mouthpiece must closely match
the volume of the missing cone in order for the saxophone to play properly
in tune, and in tune with itself is not accurate in the real world.  OR

2) The method to extrapolate the length and volume of the missing cone from
the end of the neck given by Ferron is inaccurate in that the volume
calculated in this fashion is too small.

My idea at this point would be to take some of the measurements of
mouthpiece volume Keith has done, add an appropriate amount to get the
"equivalent volume", and then work backwards from there to determine the
relationship of that volume to the body tube and/or neck of the saxophone.
From there  the challenge would be to find a way to interpret the physical
measurements of the body and/or neck to estimate the missing cone volume
known to produce the correct intonation and tuning.

It is my belief that this information would be immensely useful to
mouthpiece making and adjustment, in that an accurate way to determine the
volume needed for any given model of saxophone to compliment its truncated
cone would allow makers and refacers to match a mouthpieces length and
chamber volume to any new or vintage saxophone.

John

 

 

 

Yes, that's true. It is entirely possible that after a number of measurements you will find a statistical trend that will indicate a relationship between what you measure as the missing cone and what you measure as the mpc volume that will tend to give optimum intonation. It will be interesting to
 see if there is a close correlation across the board, or whether different saxes "want" different mpc volumes for best intonation,

Toby

John <jtalcott47@...> wrote:                                           Your point is well taken Toby about the minutiae of the variables,
 however it is still entirely possible to accurately measure the interior
 volume of a mouthpiece past the neck when the intonation and harmonics
 of the saxophone are in the best possible alignment once the saxophone
 is properly warmed up.   It is also possible to get a good estimate of
 the total  "equivalent volume" of the mouthpiece by employing the
 technique used by Benade and Gebler FMA p. 466.
 
 The length and volume of the cone required to complete the truncated
 neck can be also be calculated as well as the truncated body tube
 measured from the where the bow attaches to the body tube.  By comparing
 these measurements and calculations to the actual missing cone volume
 provided by the mouthpiece on several sizes and makes of saxophones,
 there is a possibility  that a pattern of relationships will emerge that
 will point to the ways to convert the geometric measurements of the
 truncated tube to the "acoustic measurements" that determine the missing
 cone volume needed.
 
 John
 
 --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
 >
 > There are so many ifs here...You have temperature differential across
 the tube, gas composition differential across the tube, adjustments to
 the cone based on the compliance added by extra toneholes, reed effects,
 wall effects, etc., etc. There is also the seeming fact (according to
 some authors)
 >  that the sax is "necked in", meaning that the end diameter is
 somewhat narrower than it should be for a straight cone, not to mention
 that there is no single cone to begin with.
 >
 > I think that there is no doubt that the theory is correct "in theory",
 but there are plenty of real-world circumstances that make it impossible
 to accurately calculate the missing volume in a way that predicts how
 things are going to end up intonation-wise. It's really a
 "try-it-and-see"
 >  situation. Calculations just don't work. Don't forget, too, that the
 player enters heavily into the calculus, as s/he can lip notes, both
 changing intonation via reed damping and by changing the equivalent
 volume under the reed.
 >
 > I once pestered Joe Wolfe about some stuff like this, and he send me a
 cartoon about "nerd sniping", in which a complex and basically
 non-solvable but seemingly simple problem is presented to a nerd, who
 gets so lost in calculation that he doesn't see a truck bearing down on
 him. I think what he
 >  was trying to say was that the science has very definite limitations
 when it comes to problems involving lots of complex and interactive
 variables, and wasting too much time on trying to solve problems by
 calculation can be bad for one's health.
 >
 > Toby
 >
 >
 >
 > Keith Bradbury kwbradbury@... wrote:
 >
 >  Another potential problem is the raw data measurements in my
 spreadsheet.  I just took end diameter readings of the neck.  I did not
 try to reach in past any straight cylinders on each end as Lance had
 recently suggested.  I did recently reach inside my YBS-52 neck to see
 if the new measurements
 >  helped my cone volume calculation get closer to my actual mouthpiece
 volume measurement.  It made the discrepancy worse so I did not
 remeasure all my necks.
 >
 >  The discrepancy is probably due to my embouchure preferences.  This
 dictates where I need to tune my mouthpieces and the the resulting
 volumes that I measure.  If the theory ends up telling me I need to pull
 out or push in more, and use a different embouchure to play it in tune,
 I doubt that I
 >  will follow that path.  I'm willing to try it, but I'm skeptical.
 >
 >
 >
 >
 > ---------------------------------
 >  From: John jtalcott47@...
 > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
 > Sent: Wed, February 17, 2010 9:35:43 PM
 > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] The Elusive Missing Cone
 >
 >     I have been studying the excel mouthpiece volume data spreadsheet
 created by Keith that he share with me some time ago.  From these
 measurements and calculations in every instance the used volume inside
 the mouthpiece exceeds that of the missing cone found by using Ferron's
 formulas.  That is
 >  even before adding an additional amount to the volume of the
 mouthpiece to compensate for the movement of the reed to get the
 mouthpiece "equivalent volume".
 >
 > This discrepancy suggests that:
 >
 > 1) The acoustician' s pronouncement that the mouthpiece must closely
 match the volume of the missing cone in order for the saxophone to play
 properly in tune, and in tune with itself is not accurate in the real
 world.  OR
 >
 > 2) The method to extrapolate the length and volume of the missing cone
 from the end of the neck given by Ferron is inaccurate in that the
 volume calculated in this fashion is too small.
 >
 > My idea at this point would be  to take some of the measurements of
 mouthpiece volume Keith has done, add an appropriate amount to get the
 "equivalent volume", and then work backwards from there to determine the
 relationship of that volume to the body tube and/or neck of the
 saxophone.  From there
 >   the challenge would be to find a way to interpret the physical
 measurements of the body and/or neck to estimate the missing cone volume
 known to produce the correct intonation and tuning.
 >
 > It is my belief that this information would be immensely useful to
 mouthpiece making and adjustment, in that an accurate way to determine
 the volume needed for any given model of saxophone to compliment its
 truncated cone would allow makers and refacers to match a mouthpieces
 length and chamber
 >  volume to any new or vintage saxophone.
 >
 > John
 >
 
 
      
                 
                 
 

Has anybody tried my excel for missing volume and Frs in the File Section?

I have found it useful.

jim

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: John 
  To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 5:58 AM
  Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone


    
  Your point is well taken Toby about the minutiae of the variables,
  however it is still entirely possible to accurately measure the interior
  volume of a mouthpiece past the neck when the intonation and harmonics
  of the saxophone are in the best possible alignment once the saxophone
  is properly warmed up. It is also possible to get a good estimate of
  the total "equivalent volume" of the mouthpiece by employing the
  technique used by Benade and Gebler FMA p. 466.

  The length and volume of the cone required to complete the truncated
  neck can be also be calculated as well as the truncated body tube
  measured from the where the bow attaches to the body tube. By comparing
  these measurements and calculations to the actual missing cone volume
  provided by the mouthpiece on several sizes and makes of saxophones,
  there is a possibility that a pattern of relationships will emerge that
  will point to the ways to convert the geometric measurements of the
  truncated tube to the "acoustic measurements" that determine the missing
  cone volume needed.

  John

  --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
  >
  > There are so many ifs here...You have temperature differential across
  the tube, gas composition differential across the tube, adjustments to
  the cone based on the compliance added by extra toneholes, reed effects,
  wall effects, etc., etc. There is also the seeming fact (according to
  some authors)
  > that the sax is "necked in", meaning that the end diameter is
  somewhat narrower than it should be for a straight cone, not to mention
  that there is no single cone to begin with.
  >
  > I think that there is no doubt that the theory is correct "in theory",
  but there are plenty of real-world circumstances that make it impossible
  to accurately calculate the missing volume in a way that predicts how
  things are going to end up intonation-wise. It's really a
  "try-it-and-see"
  > situation. Calculations just don't work. Don't forget, too, that the
  player enters heavily into the calculus, as s/he can lip notes, both
  changing intonation via reed damping and by changing the equivalent
  volume under the reed.
  >
  > I once pestered Joe Wolfe about some stuff like this, and he send me a
  cartoon about "nerd sniping", in which a complex and basically
  non-solvable but seemingly simple problem is presented to a nerd, who
  gets so lost in calculation that he doesn't see a truck bearing down on
  him. I think what he
  > was trying to say was that the science has very definite limitations
  when it comes to problems involving lots of complex and interactive
  variables, and wasting too much time on trying to solve problems by
  calculation can be bad for one's health.
  >
  > Toby
  >
  >
  >
  > Keith Bradbury kwbradbury@... wrote:
  >
  > Another potential problem is the raw data measurements in my
  spreadsheet. I just took end diameter readings of the neck. I did not
  try to reach in past any straight cylinders on each end as Lance had
  recently suggested. I did recently reach inside my YBS-52 neck to see
  if the new measurements
  > helped my cone volume calculation get closer to my actual mouthpiece
  volume measurement. It made the discrepancy worse so I did not
  remeasure all my necks.
  >
  > The discrepancy is probably due to my embouchure preferences. This
  dictates where I need to tune my mouthpieces and the the resulting
  volumes that I measure. If the theory ends up telling me I need to pull
  out or push in more, and use a different embouchure to play it in tune,
  I doubt that I
  > will follow that path. I'm willing to try it, but I'm skeptical.
  >
  >
  >
  >
  > ---------------------------------
  > From: John jtalcott47@...
  > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
  > Sent: Wed, February 17, 2010 9:35:43 PM
  > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] The Elusive Missing Cone
  >
  > I have been studying the excel mouthpiece volume data spreadsheet
  created by Keith that he share with me some time ago. From these
  measurements and calculations in every instance the used volume inside
  the mouthpiece exceeds that of the missing cone found by using Ferron's
  formulas. That is
  > even before adding an additional amount to the volume of the
  mouthpiece to compensate for the movement of the reed to get the
  mouthpiece "equivalent volume".
  >
  > This discrepancy suggests that:
  >
  > 1) The acoustician' s pronouncement that the mouthpiece must closely
  match the volume of the missing cone in order for the saxophone to play
  properly in tune, and in tune with itself is not accurate in the real
  world. OR
  >
  > 2) The method to extrapolate the length and volume of the missing cone
  from the end of the neck given by Ferron is inaccurate in that the
  volume calculated in this fashion is too small.
  >
  > My idea at this point would be to take some of the measurements of
  mouthpiece volume Keith has done, add an appropriate amount to get the
  "equivalent volume", and then work backwards from there to determine the
  relationship of that volume to the body tube and/or neck of the
  saxophone. From there
  > the challenge would be to find a way to interpret the physical
  measurements of the body and/or neck to estimate the missing cone volume
  known to produce the correct intonation and tuning.
  >
  > It is my belief that this information would be immensely useful to
  mouthpiece making and adjustment, in that an accurate way to determine
  the volume needed for any given model of saxophone to compliment its
  truncated cone would allow makers and refacers to match a mouthpieces
  length and chamber
  > volume to any new or vintage saxophone.
  >
  > John
  >



  

Actually, what I would like to see is an exploration of length to the tip of the reed. It is always possible to adjust mpc volume by moving the mpc on the cork, but there is also a tuning effect depending on the length. From what I get from Benade, and my own experiences in adjusting chambers, not
 all "volumes" are created equal; it is a combination of both the mpc volume and the length of the bore which determines the mode relationships (you can read the Benade section on oboe reeds in his 1977 paper). 

Toby

kymarto123@... wrote:                                           Yes, that's true. It is entirely possible that after a number of measurements you will find a statistical trend that will indicate a relationship between what you measure as the missing cone and what you measure as the mpc
 volume that will tend to give optimum intonation. It will be interesting to  see if there is a close correlation across the board, or whether different saxes "want" different mpc volumes for best intonation,
 
 Toby
 
 John <jtalcott47@...> wrote:
                                      Your point is well taken Toby about the minutiae of the variables,
  however it is still entirely possible to accurately measure the interior
  volume of a mouthpiece past the neck when the intonation and harmonics
  of the saxophone are in the best possible alignment once the saxophone
  is properly warmed up.   It is also possible to get a good estimate of
  the total  "equivalent volume" of the mouthpiece by employing the
  technique used by Benade and Gebler FMA p. 466.
  
  The length and volume of the cone required to complete the truncated
  neck can be also be calculated as well as the truncated body tube
  measured from the where the bow attaches to the body tube.  By comparing
  these measurements and calculations to the actual missing cone volume
  provided by the mouthpiece on several sizes and makes of saxophones,
  there is a possibility  that a pattern of relationships will emerge that
  will point to the ways to convert the geometric measurements of the
  truncated tube to the "acoustic measurements" that determine the missing
  cone volume needed.
  
  John
  
  --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
  >
  > There are so many ifs here...You have temperature differential across
  the tube, gas composition differential across the tube, adjustments to
  the cone based on the compliance added by extra toneholes, reed effects,
  wall effects, etc., etc. There is also the seeming fact (according to
  some authors)
  >  that the sax is "necked in", meaning that the end diameter is
  somewhat narrower than it should be for a straight cone, not to mention
  that there is no single cone to begin with.
  >
  > I think that there is no doubt that the theory is correct "in theory",
  but there are plenty of real-world circumstances that make it impossible
  to accurately calculate the missing volume in a way that predicts how
  things are going to end up intonation-wise. It's really a
  "try-it-and-see"
  >  situation. Calculations just don't work. Don't forget, too, that the
  player enters heavily into the calculus, as s/he can lip notes, both
  changing intonation via reed damping and by changing the equivalent
  volume under the reed.
  >
  > I once pestered Joe Wolfe about some stuff like this, and he send me a
  cartoon about "nerd sniping", in which a complex and basically
  non-solvable but seemingly simple problem is presented to a nerd, who
  gets so lost in calculation that he doesn't see a truck bearing down on
  him. I think what he
  >  was trying to say was that the science has very definite limitations
  when it comes to problems involving lots of complex and interactive
  variables, and wasting too much time on trying to solve problems by
  calculation can be bad for one's health.
  >
  > Toby
  >
  >
  >
  > Keith Bradbury kwbradbury@... wrote:
  >
  >  Another potential problem is the raw data measurements in my
  spreadsheet.  I just took end diameter readings of the neck.  I did not
  try to reach in past any straight cylinders on each end as Lance had
  recently suggested.  I did recently reach inside my YBS-52 neck to see
  if the new measurements
  >  helped my cone volume calculation get closer to my actual mouthpiece
  volume measurement.  It made the discrepancy worse so I did not
  remeasure all my necks.
  >
  >  The discrepancy is probably due to my embouchure preferences.  This
  dictates where I need to tune my mouthpieces and the the resulting
  volumes that I measure.  If the theory ends up telling me I need to pull
  out or push in more, and use a different embouchure to play it in tune,
  I doubt that I
  >  will follow that path.  I'm willing to try it, but I'm skeptical.
  >
  >
  >
  >
  > ---------------------------------
  >  From: John jtalcott47@...
  > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
  > Sent: Wed, February 17, 2010 9:35:43 PM
  > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] The Elusive Missing Cone
  >
  >     I have been studying the excel mouthpiece volume data spreadsheet
  created by Keith that he share with me some time ago.  From these
  measurements and calculations in every instance the used volume inside
  the mouthpiece exceeds that of the missing cone found by using Ferron's
  formulas.  That is
  >  even before adding an additional amount to the volume of the
  mouthpiece to compensate for the movement of the reed to get the
  mouthpiece "equivalent volume".
  >
  > This discrepancy suggests that:
  >
  > 1) The acoustician' s pronouncement that the mouthpiece must closely
  match the volume of the missing cone in order for the saxophone to play
  properly in tune, and in tune with itself is not accurate in the real
  world.  OR
  >
  > 2) The method to extrapolate the length and volume of the missing cone
  from the end of the neck given by Ferron is inaccurate in that the
  volume calculated in this fashion is too small.
  >
  > My idea at this point would be  to take some of the measurements of
  mouthpiece volume Keith has done, add an appropriate amount to get the
  "equivalent volume", and then work backwards from there to determine the
  relationship of that volume to the body tube and/or neck of the
  saxophone.  From there
  >   the challenge would be to find a way to interpret the physical
  measurements of the body and/or neck to estimate the missing cone volume
  known to produce the correct intonation and tuning.
  >
  > It is my belief that this information would be immensely useful to
  mouthpiece making and adjustment, in that an accurate way to determine
  the volume needed for any given model of saxophone to compliment its
  truncated cone would allow makers and refacers to match a mouthpieces
  length and chamber
  >  volume to any new or vintage saxophone.
  >
  > John
  >
  
  
      
                 
   
 
      
                 
                 
 

John,
   
  Considering further, here is an little experiment that might give you a baseline for further exploration:
   
  Use the same horn and hopefully the same reed, and try several (or many) different mpcs, measuring the volume of each at the point it produces good intonation. Obviously different facings are going to change the volume and some of the reed characteristcis slightly, but this should definitely
 indicate the range of volumes which give optimum intonation with different mpcs. I am guessing that the "optimum" volume is going to vary somewhat depending on the mpc design.
   
  Another interesting test would be to have a number of different players use the same setup and adjust the mpc for optimum intonation. Based on embouchure and blowing characteristics, the optimum volume may well vary significantly from player to player.
   
  Some rough answers to those two questions will give you a more solid baseline from which to perform your volume investigations, as the "ideal-missing-cone-volume" is a fixed property in those cases, the horn (and hopefully the temperature) being the same.
   
  Toby
   
  

kymarto123@... wrote:
            Actually, what I would like to see is an exploration of length to the tip of the reed. It is always possible to adjust mpc volume by moving the mpc on the cork, but there is also a tuning effect depending on the length. From what I get from Benade, and my own experiences in adjusting
 chambers, not all "volumes" are created equal; it is a combination of both the mpc volume and the length of the bore which determines the mode relationships (you can read the Benade section on oboe reeds in his 1977 paper). 

Toby

kymarto123@... wrote:        Yes, that's true. It is entirely possible that after a number of measurements you will find a statistical trend that will indicate a relationship between what you measure as the missing cone and what you measure as the mpc volume that will tend to give optimum
 intonation. It will be interesting to see if there is a close correlation across the board, or whether different saxes "want" different mpc volumes for best intonation,

Toby

John <jtalcott47@...> wrote:
        Your point is well taken Toby about the minutiae of the variables,
however it is still entirely possible to accurately measure the interior
volume of a mouthpiece past the neck when the intonation and harmonics
of the saxophone are in the best possible alignment once the saxophone
is properly warmed up. It is also possible to get a good estimate of
the total "equivalent volume" of the mouthpiece by employing the
technique used by Benade and Gebler FMA p. 466.

The length and volume of the cone required to complete the truncated
neck can be also be calculated as well as the truncated body tube
measured from the where the bow attaches to the body tube. By comparing
these measurements and calculations to the actual missing cone volume
provided by the mouthpiece on several sizes and makes of saxophones,
there is a possibility that a pattern of relationships will emerge that
will point to the ways to convert the geometric measurements of the
truncated tube to the "acoustic measurements" that determine the missing
cone volume needed.

John

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
>
> There are so many ifs here...You have temperature differential across
the tube, gas composition differential across the tube, adjustments to
the cone based on the compliance added by extra toneholes, reed effects,
wall effects, etc., etc. There is also the seeming fact (according to
some authors)
> that the sax is "necked in", meaning that the end diameter is
somewhat narrower than it should be for a straight cone, not to mention
that there is no single cone to begin with.
>
> I think that there is no doubt that the theory is correct "in theory",
but there are plenty of real-world circumstances that make it impossible
to accurately calculate the missing volume in a way that predicts how
things are going to end up intonation-wise. It's really a
"try-it-and-see"
> situation. Calculations just don't work. Don't forget, too, that the
player enters heavily into the calculus, as s/he can lip notes, both
changing intonation via reed damping and by changing the equivalent
volume under the reed.
>
> I once pestered Joe Wolfe about some stuff like this, and he send me a
cartoon about "nerd sniping", in which a complex and basically
non-solvable but seemingly simple problem is presented to a nerd, who
gets so lost in calculation that he doesn't see a truck bearing down on
him. I think what he
> was trying to say was that the science has very definite limitations
when it comes to problems involving lots of complex and interactive
variables, and wasting too much time on trying to solve problems by
calculation can be bad for one's health.
>
> Toby
>
>
>
> Keith Bradbury kwbradbury@... wrote:
>
> Another potential problem is the raw data measurements in my
spreadsheet. I just took end diameter readings of the neck. I did not
try to reach in past any straight cylinders on each end as Lance had
recently suggested. I did recently reach inside my YBS-52 neck to see
if the new measurements
> helped my cone volume calculation get closer to my actual mouthpiece
volume measurement. It made the discrepancy worse so I did not
remeasure all my necks.
>
> The discrepancy is probably due to my embouchure preferences. This
dictates where I need to tune my mouthpieces and the the resulting
volumes that I measure. If the theory ends up telling me I need to pull
out or push in more, and use a different embouchure to play it in tune,
I doubt that I
> will follow that path. I'm willing to try it, but I'm skeptical.
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> From: John jtalcott47@...
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wed, February 17, 2010 9:35:43 PM
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] The Elusive Missing Cone
>
> I have been studying the excel mouthpiece volume data spreadsheet
created by Keith that he share with me some time ago. From these
measurements and calculations in every instance the used volume inside
the mouthpiece exceeds that of the missing cone found by using Ferron's
formulas. That is
> even before adding an additional amount to the volume of the
mouthpiece to compensate for the movement of the reed to get the
mouthpiece "equivalent volume".
>
> This discrepancy suggests that:
>
> 1) The acoustician' s pronouncement that the mouthpiece must closely
match the volume of the missing cone in order for the saxophone to play
properly in tune, and in tune with itself is not accurate in the real
world. OR
>
> 2) The method to extrapolate the length and volume of the missing cone
from the end of the neck given by Ferron is inaccurate in that the
volume calculated in this fashion is too small.
>
> My idea at this point would be to take some of the measurements of
mouthpiece volume Keith has done, add an appropriate amount to get the
"equivalent volume", and then work backwards from there to determine the
relationship of that volume to the body tube and/or neck of the
saxophone. From there
> the challenge would be to find a way to interpret the physical
measurements of the body and/or neck to estimate the missing cone volume
known to produce the correct intonation and tuning.
>
> It is my belief that this information would be immensely useful to
mouthpiece making and adjustment, in that an accurate way to determine
the volume needed for any given model of saxophone to compliment its
truncated cone would allow makers and refacers to match a mouthpieces
length and chamber
> volume to any new or vintage saxophone.
>
> John
>




  
  


  
  

  
            
 

I know we have had this discussion before, but can you quote the specific language Benade uses that you interpret to mean that the length to the tip of the saxophone mouthpiece is a separate factor in determining the pitch and intonation of the saxophone?

John

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
>
> Actually, what I would like to see is an exploration of length to the tip of the reed. It is always possible to adjust mpc volume by moving the mpc on the cork, but there is also a tuning effect depending on the length. From what I get from Benade, and my own experiences in adjusting chambers, not
>  all "volumes" are created equal; it is a combination of both the mpc volume and the length of the bore which determines the mode relationships (you can read the Benade section on oboe reeds in his 1977 paper). 

Hi John,

First, thanks for passing on that reply from Joe Wolfe. In terms of the Benade quote, he says (on pgs 25- 26):

"(A) Suppose the D4-D5 octave is OK, but the scale runs flat in going up from D4 to C5 (i.e., the low-register scale runs short with an extra big jump between C5 and the D5 that is the bottom note of the second register. If everything sings as described earlier, then try to renegotiate with a narrower staple and/or a narrower reed--but you must be aware of the tuning checks given below, so as not to get into a bind! (Shorter should somewhat do the job too, but save it for what it does best--see below.)

(B) Suppose the D4-D5 octave is OK, more or less, but the whole scale seems a trifle flat from what you want it to be. THIS IS A DANGEROUS GAME IF YOU DON'T KNOW FOR A FACT WHAT PITCH THE INSTRUMENT WAS DESIGNED FOR !

Provided the instrument pretty well sings with the reed you have and provided the scale runs a trifle short in the manner indicated in step A , the cure is to use a slightly SHORTER stape and/or reed--a narrower one of each will stretch the scale rather than raise it en masse. THIS SEEMS OBVIOUS--IT IS NOT, HOWEVER. It is a special quirk of a cone of variable length provided at the top with a cavity--somewhat elongated--and a constriction.

As little as 3 mm shortening will raise the overall playing pitch of essentially the whole scale by 15 to 20 cents on an oboe if the cooperations are in reasonably good order.

THIS IS NOT TRUE FOR THE FLUTE (conical bore or cylindrical bore) OR THE CLARINET.

(C) If you have to raise the pitch as in step B or stretch the scale as in A, the cooperations may have been upset, and you have to go through the whole business outlined in the previous parts of this section on the oboe.

ACTUALLY, ONE KEEPS ALL OF THIS MATERIAL IN MIND AT THE SAME TIME WHILE NEGOTIATIONG THE PROPER PROPORTIONS FOR REED AND STAPLE.

EVERYTHING IN THESE NOTES TRANSLATE WITHOUT ESSENTIAL CHANGE FOR THE BASSOON;

WITH ONLY A LITTLE CHANGE IT ADAPTS THINGS TO THE SAXOPHONE;

AND IT IS NO GOOD AT ALL FOR FLUTE OR CLARINET."

This indicates pretty clearly to me that length plays a role as well as volume, since the volume inside the reed, which is changed if you narrow or shorten the reed, is analogous to the volume inside the sax mpc. However shortening the reed raises all modes more or less equally, whereas narrowing it stretches them. It's alse interesting to read all the stuff about adjusting the reed/staple before he gets to that part.


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: John 
  To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 11:25 AM
  Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone


    
  I know we have had this discussion before, but can you quote the specific language Benade uses that you interpret to mean that the length to the tip of the saxophone mouthpiece is a separate factor in determining the pitch and intonation of the saxophone?

  John

  --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
  >
  > Actually, what I would like to see is an exploration of length to the tip of the reed. It is always possible to adjust mpc volume by moving the mpc on the cork, but there is also a tuning effect depending on the length. From what I get from Benade, and my own experiences in adjusting chambers, not
  > all "volumes" are created equal; it is a combination of both the mpc volume and the length of the bore which determines the mode relationships (you can read the Benade section on oboe reeds in his 1977 paper). 



  

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that Benade's statement
that making the reed or staple shorter on the oboe will raise the pitch
of all of the notes an equal amount AND that making the reed shorter is
the equivalent of pushing a sax mouthpiece further onto the cork. 
Obviously making the neck of the saxophone shorter would not be a
practical way to change the pitch.

Then you are claiming that using a narrower reed or staple which has the
same length to the tip but less volume will stretch the scale making the
higher tones go sharp.  The equivalent of this on saxophone would be to
leave the mouthpiece in the same place on the neck, but give the
interior of the mouthpiece less volume with an insert or interior
coating, etc.  This in turn would sharpen lower notes some, but the
higher notes more "stretching" the scale.

I think I finally get the analogy.  It would be simple to check using my
mouthpiece inserts.  The first step would be  to warm up the saxophone
and mark the spot on the neck where the mouthpiece plays well in tune in
both registers.  Then put the mouthpiece onto the cork 1/4" and check
the pitches of a 2 octave scale to see if they all go sharp by close to
the same amount.
The last step would be to put the mouthpiece back to the original
position and put the 1/4" insert into the shank of the mouthpiece.

If your theory is correct with the insert (narrower reed) the lower
notes of the scale then would go sharp to the same degree as pushing the
mouthpiece in 1/4", but as one plays up the scale into the second
octave, the pitch should go even sharper.  I will do this test and
record the results.  This would also be an excellent test for the
artificial embouchure when I get it up and running.

John


--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "Toby" <kymarto123@...> wrote:
>
> Hi John,
>
> First, thanks for passing on that reply from Joe Wolfe. In terms of
the Benade quote, he says (on pgs 25- 26):
>
> "(A) Suppose the D4-D5 octave is OK, but the scale runs flat in going
up from D4 to C5 (i.e., the low-register scale runs short with an extra
big jump between C5 and the D5 that is the bottom note of the second
register. If everything sings as described earlier, then try to
renegotiate with a narrower staple and/or a narrower reed--but you must
be aware of the tuning checks given below, so as not to get into a bind!
(Shorter should somewhat do the job too, but save it for what it does
best--see below.)
>
> (B) Suppose the D4-D5 octave is OK, more or less, but the whole scale
seems a trifle flat from what you want it to be. THIS IS A DANGEROUS
GAME IF YOU DON'T KNOW FOR A FACT WHAT PITCH THE INSTRUMENT WAS DESIGNED
FOR !
>
> Provided the instrument pretty well sings with the reed you have and
provided the scale runs a trifle short in the manner indicated in step A
, the cure is to use a slightly SHORTER stape and/or reed--a narrower
one of each will stretch the scale rather than raise it en masse. THIS
SEEMS OBVIOUS--IT IS NOT, HOWEVER. It is a special quirk of a cone of
variable length provided at the top with a cavity--somewhat
elongated--and a constriction.
>
> As little as 3 mm shortening will raise the overall playing pitch of
essentially the whole scale by 15 to 20 cents on an oboe if the
cooperations are in reasonably good order.
>
> THIS IS NOT TRUE FOR THE FLUTE (conical bore or cylindrical bore) OR
THE CLARINET.
>
> (C) If you have to raise the pitch as in step B or stretch the scale
as in A, the cooperations may have been upset, and you have to go
through the whole business outlined in the previous parts of this
section on the oboe.
>
> ACTUALLY, ONE KEEPS ALL OF THIS MATERIAL IN MIND AT THE SAME TIME
WHILE NEGOTIATIONG THE PROPER PROPORTIONS FOR REED AND STAPLE.
>
> EVERYTHING IN THESE NOTES TRANSLATE WITHOUT ESSENTIAL CHANGE FOR THE
BASSOON;
>
> WITH ONLY A LITTLE CHANGE IT ADAPTS THINGS TO THE SAXOPHONE;
>
> AND IT IS NO GOOD AT ALL FOR FLUTE OR CLARINET."
>
> This indicates pretty clearly to me that length plays a role as well
as volume, since the volume inside the reed, which is changed if you
narrow or shorten the reed, is analogous to the volume inside the sax
mpc. However shortening the reed raises all modes more or less equally,
whereas narrowing it stretches them. It's alse interesting to read all
the stuff about adjusting the reed/staple before he gets to that part.
>
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: John
>   To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 11:25 AM
>   Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
>
>
>
>   I know we have had this discussion before, but can you quote the
specific language Benade uses that you interpret to mean that the length
to the tip of the saxophone mouthpiece is a separate factor in
determining the pitch and intonation of the saxophone?
>
>   John
>
>   --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, kymarto123@ wrote:
>   >
>   > Actually, what I would like to see is an exploration of length to
the tip of the reed. It is always possible to adjust mpc volume by
moving the mpc on the cork, but there is also a tuning effect depending
on the length. From what I get from Benade, and my own experiences in
adjusting chambers, not
>   > all "volumes" are created equal; it is a combination of both the
mpc volume and the length of the bore which determines the mode
relationships (you can read the Benade section on oboe reeds in his 1977
paper).
>

Hi John,

Yes, that seems to be the way it should work on sax if I understand Benade correctly. It is also worth reading the earlier part on the oboe leading up to that, to see how Benade approaches fitting the reed to the oboe.

Of course oboe reeds are not a direct analogy to a sax mpc, because the staple is analogous to the neck. There is another thing at work in oboe reeds, and I don't know how it translates: the interior volume of the reed is nowhere near as large as the missing cone, but apparently the reed
 compliance is enough to lower the pitch to correct intonation, although by volume alone the upper modes should be quite sharp.

It's a shame Dr. Benade is not still around so that we could ask him. He apparently did quite a bit of sax mpc experimentation in his time.

Toby

John <jtalcott47@...> wrote:                                            If I understand you correctly, you are saying that Benade's statement that making the reed or staple shorter on the oboe will raise the pitch of all of the notes an equal amount AND that making the reed shorter is the
 equivalent of pushing a sax mouthpiece further onto the cork.  Obviously making the neck of the saxophone shorter would not be a practical way to change the pitch.

Then you are claiming that using a narrower reed or staple which has the same length to the tip but less volume will stretch the scale making the higher tones go sharp.  The equivalent of this on saxophone would be to leave the mouthpiece in the same place on the neck, but give the interior of the
 mouthpiece less volume with an insert or interior coating, etc.  This in turn would sharpen lower notes some, but the higher notes more "stretching" the scale.

I think I finally get the analogy.  It would be simple to check using my mouthpiece inserts.  The first step would be  to warm up the saxophone and mark the spot on the neck where the mouthpiece plays well in tune in both registers.  Then put the mouthpiece onto the cork 1/4" and check the pitches
 of a 2 octave scale to see if they all go sharp by close to the same amount.
The last step would be to put the mouthpiece back to the original position and put the 1/4" insert into the shank of the mouthpiece.

If your theory is correct with the insert (narrower reed) the lower notes of the scale then would go sharp to the same degree as pushing the mouthpiece in 1/4", but as one plays up the scale into the second octave, the pitch should go even sharper.  I will do this test and record the results. 
 This would also be an excellent test for the artificial embouchure when I get it up and running.

John


--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "Toby" <kymarto123@...> wrote:
>
> Hi John,
> 
> First, thanks for passing on that reply from Joe Wolfe. In terms of the Benade quote, he says (on pgs 25- 26):
> 
> "(A) Suppose the D4-D5 octave is OK, but the scale runs flat in going up from D4 to C5 (i.e., the low-register scale runs short with an extra big jump between C5 and the D5 that is the bottom note of the second register. If everything sings as described earlier, then try to renegotiate with a
 narrower staple and/or a narrower reed--but you must be aware of the tuning checks given below, so as not to get into a bind! (Shorter should somewhat do the job too, but save it for what it does best--see below.)
> 
> (B) Suppose the D4-D5 octave is OK, more or less, but the whole scale seems a trifle flat from what you want it to be. THIS IS A DANGEROUS GAME IF YOU DON'T KNOW FOR A FACT WHAT PITCH THE INSTRUMENT WAS DESIGNED FOR !
> 
> Provided the instrument pretty well sings with the reed you have and provided the scale runs a trifle short in the manner indicated in step A , the cure is to use a slightly SHORTER stape and/or reed--a narrower one of each will stretch the scale rather than raise it en masse. THIS SEEMS
 OBVIOUS--IT IS NOT, HOWEVER. It is a special quirk of a cone of variable length provided at the top with a cavity--somewhat elongated--and a constriction.
> 
> As little as 3 mm shortening will raise the overall playing pitch of essentially the whole scale by 15 to 20 cents on an oboe if the cooperations are in reasonably good order.
> 
> THIS IS NOT TRUE FOR THE FLUTE (conical bore or cylindrical bore) OR THE CLARINET.
> 
> (C) If you have to raise the pitch as in step B or stretch the scale as in A, the cooperations may have been upset, and you have to go through the whole business outlined in the previous parts of this section on the oboe.
> 
> ACTUALLY, ONE KEEPS ALL OF THIS MATERIAL IN MIND AT THE SAME TIME WHILE NEGOTIATIONG THE PROPER PROPORTIONS FOR REED AND STAPLE.
> 
> EVERYTHING IN THESE NOTES TRANSLATE WITHOUT ESSENTIAL CHANGE FOR THE BASSOON;
> 
> WITH ONLY A LITTLE CHANGE IT ADAPTS THINGS TO THE SAXOPHONE;
> 
> AND IT IS NO GOOD AT ALL FOR FLUTE OR CLARINET."
> 
> This indicates pretty clearly to me that length plays a role as well as volume, since the volume inside the reed, which is changed if you narrow or shorten the reed, is analogous to the volume inside the sax mpc. However shortening the reed raises all modes more or less equally, whereas
 narrowing it stretches them. It's alse interesting to read all the stuff about adjusting the reed/staple before he gets to that part.
> 
> 
>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: John 
>   To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
>   Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 11:25 AM
>   Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
> 
> 
>     
>   I know we have had this discussion before, but can you quote the specific language Benade uses that you interpret to mean that the length to the tip of the saxophone mouthpiece is a separate factor in determining the pitch and intonation of the saxophone?
> 
>   John
> 
>   --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, kymarto123@ wrote:
>   >
>   > Actually, what I would like to see is an exploration of length to the tip of the reed. It is always possible to adjust mpc volume by moving the mpc on the cork, but there is also a tuning effect depending on the length. From what I get from Benade, and my own experiences in adjusting
 chambers, not
>   > all "volumes" are created equal; it is a combination of both the mpc volume and the length of the bore which determines the mode relationships (you can read the Benade section on oboe reeds in his 1977 paper).
>
  
      
                 
                 
 

John,

Thanks for the experiments.

Keep in mind that changing the MP position also changes the volume and, also,
the truncation ratio.

jim
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: John 
  To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Saturday, February 20, 2010 3:47 PM
  Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone


    
  If I understand you correctly, you are saying that Benade's statement that making the reed or staple shorter on the oboe will raise the pitch of all of the notes an equal amount AND that making the reed shorter is the equivalent of pushing a sax mouthpiece further onto the cork.  Obviously making the neck of the saxophone shorter would not be a practical way to change the pitch.

  Then you are claiming that using a narrower reed or staple which has the same length to the tip but less volume will stretch the scale making the higher tones go sharp.  The equivalent of this on saxophone would be to leave the mouthpiece in the same place on the neck, but give the interior of the mouthpiece less volume with an insert or interior coating, etc.  This in turn would sharpen lower notes some, but the higher notes more "stretching" the scale.

  I think I finally get the analogy.  It would be simple to check using my mouthpiece inserts.  The first step would be  to warm up the saxophone and mark the spot on the neck where the mouthpiece plays well in tune in both registers.  Then put the mouthpiece onto the cork 1/4" and check the pitches of a 2 octave scale to see if they all go sharp by close to the same amount.
  The last step would be to put the mouthpiece back to the original position and put the 1/4" insert into the shank of the mouthpiece.

  If your theory is correct with the insert (narrower reed) the lower notes of the scale then would go sharp to the same degree as pushing the mouthpiece in 1/4", but as one plays up the scale into the second octave, the pitch should go even sharper.  I will do this test and record the results.  This would also be an excellent test for the artificial embouchure when I get it up and running.

  John


  --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "Toby" <kymarto123@...> wrote:
  >
  > Hi John,
  > 
  > First, thanks for passing on that reply from Joe Wolfe. In terms of the Benade quote, he says (on pgs 25- 26):
  > 
  > "(A) Suppose the D4-D5 octave is OK, but the scale runs flat in going up from D4 to C5 (i.e., the low-register scale runs short with an extra big jump between C5 and the D5 that is the bottom note of the second register. If everything sings as described earlier, then try to renegotiate with a narrower staple and/or a narrower reed--but you must be aware of the tuning checks given below, so as not to get into a bind! (Shorter should somewhat do the job too, but save it for what it does best--see below.)
  > 
  > (B) Suppose the D4-D5 octave is OK, more or less, but the whole scale seems a trifle flat from what you want it to be. THIS IS A DANGEROUS GAME IF YOU DON'T KNOW FOR A FACT WHAT PITCH THE INSTRUMENT WAS DESIGNED FOR !
  > 
  > Provided the instrument pretty well sings with the reed you have and provided the scale runs a trifle short in the manner indicated in step A , the cure is to use a slightly SHORTER stape and/or reed--a narrower one of each will stretch the scale rather than raise it en masse. THIS SEEMS OBVIOUS--IT IS NOT, HOWEVER. It is a special quirk of a cone of variable length provided at the top with a cavity--somewhat elongated--and a constriction.
  > 
  > As little as 3 mm shortening will raise the overall playing pitch of essentially the whole scale by 15 to 20 cents on an oboe if the cooperations are in reasonably good order.
  > 
  > THIS IS NOT TRUE FOR THE FLUTE (conical bore or cylindrical bore) OR THE CLARINET.
  > 
  > (C) If you have to raise the pitch as in step B or stretch the scale as in A, the cooperations may have been upset, and you have to go through the whole business outlined in the previous parts of this section on the oboe.
  > 
  > ACTUALLY, ONE KEEPS ALL OF THIS MATERIAL IN MIND AT THE SAME TIME WHILE NEGOTIATIONG THE PROPER PROPORTIONS FOR REED AND STAPLE.
  > 
  > EVERYTHING IN THESE NOTES TRANSLATE WITHOUT ESSENTIAL CHANGE FOR THE BASSOON;
  > 
  > WITH ONLY A LITTLE CHANGE IT ADAPTS THINGS TO THE SAXOPHONE;
  > 
  > AND IT IS NO GOOD AT ALL FOR FLUTE OR CLARINET."
  > 
  > This indicates pretty clearly to me that length plays a role as well as volume, since the volume inside the reed, which is changed if you narrow or shorten the reed, is analogous to the volume inside the sax mpc. However shortening the reed raises all modes more or less equally, whereas narrowing it stretches them. It's alse interesting to read all the stuff about adjusting the reed/staple before he gets to that part.
  > 
  > 
  > ----- Original Message ----- 
  > From: John 
  > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
  > Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 11:25 AM
  > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > I know we have had this discussion before, but can you quote the specific language Benade uses that you interpret to mean that the length to the tip of the saxophone mouthpiece is a separate factor in determining the pitch and intonation of the saxophone?
  > 
  > John
  > 
  > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, kymarto123@ wrote:
  > >
  > > Actually, what I would like to see is an exploration of length to the tip of the reed. It is always possible to adjust mpc volume by moving the mpc on the cork, but there is also a tuning effect depending on the length. From what I get from Benade, and my own experiences in adjusting chambers, not
  > > all "volumes" are created equal; it is a combination of both the mpc volume and the length of the bore which determines the mode relationships (you can read the Benade section on oboe reeds in his 1977 paper).
  >


  

Jim,

Changing mpc position does not alter the truncation ratio.

Toby

Jim West <mcbop@...> wrote:                                              
John,
  
 Thanks for the experiments.
  
 Keep in mind that changing the MP position also  changes the volume and, also,
 the truncation ratio.
  
 jim
    ----- Original Message ----- 
   From:    John 
   To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com    
   Sent: Saturday, February 20, 2010 3:47    PM
   Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive    Missing Cone
   

        If I understand you correctly, you are saying that Benade's statement that    making the reed or staple shorter on the oboe will raise the pitch of    all of the notes an equal amount AND that making the reed shorter is the    equivalent of pushing a sax mouthpiece further onto the cork. 
 Obviously    making the neck of the saxophone shorter would not be a practical way to    change the pitch.

Then you are claiming that using a narrower reed    or staple which has the same length to the tip but less volume will    stretch the scale making the higher tones go sharp.  The equivalent of    this on saxophone would be to leave the mouthpiece in the same place on the    neck, but give the
 interior of the mouthpiece less volume with an insert or    interior coating, etc.  This in turn would sharpen lower notes some, but    the higher notes more "stretching" the scale.

I think I finally get the    analogy.  It would be simple to check using my mouthpiece inserts.     The first step would be  to warm up the saxophone and mark the spot on    the neck where the mouthpiece plays well in tune in both registers.  Then    put the mouthpiece onto the cork 1/4" and check
 the pitches of a 2 octave    scale to see if they all go sharp by close to the same amount.
The last    step would be to put the mouthpiece back to the original position and put the    1/4" insert into the shank of the mouthpiece.

If your theory is correct    with the insert (narrower reed) the lower notes of the scale then would go    sharp to the same degree as pushing the mouthpiece in 1/4", but as one plays    up the scale into the second octave, the pitch should go even sharper.  I    will do this test and record the
 results.  This would also be an    excellent test for the artificial embouchure when I get it up and    running.

John


--- In    MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "Toby" <kymarto123@...>    wrote:
>
> Hi John,
> 
> First, thanks for passing on    that reply from Joe Wolfe. In terms of the Benade quote, he says (on pgs 25-    26):
> 
> "(A) Suppose the D4-D5 octave is OK, but the scale runs    flat in going up from D4 to C5 (i.e., the low-register scale runs short with    an extra big jump between C5 and the D5 that is the bottom note of the second    register. If everything sings as described earlier, then try to renegotiate 
   with a narrower staple and/or a narrower reed--but you must be aware of the    tuning checks given below, so as not to get into a bind! (Shorter should    somewhat do the job too, but save it for what it does best--see    below.)
> 
> (B) Suppose the D4-D5 octave is OK, more or less, but    the whole scale seems a trifle flat from what you want it to be. THIS IS A    DANGEROUS GAME IF YOU DON'T KNOW FOR A FACT WHAT PITCH THE INSTRUMENT WAS    DESIGNED FOR !
> 
> Provided the instrument pretty well sings with    the reed you have and provided the scale runs a trifle short in the manner    indicated in step A , the cure is to use a slightly SHORTER stape and/or    reed--a narrower one of each will stretch the scale rather than raise it en    masse. THIS
 SEEMS OBVIOUS--IT IS NOT, HOWEVER. It is a special quirk of a cone    of variable length provided at the top with a cavity--somewhat elongated--and    a constriction.
> 
> As little as 3 mm shortening will raise the    overall playing pitch of essentially the whole scale by 15 to 20 cents on an    oboe if the cooperations are in reasonably good order.
> 
> THIS    IS NOT TRUE FOR THE FLUTE (conical bore or cylindrical bore) OR THE    CLARINET.
> 
> (C) If you have to raise the pitch as in step B or    stretch the scale as in A, the cooperations may have been upset, and you have    to go through the whole business outlined in the previous parts of this    section on the oboe.
> 
> ACTUALLY, ONE KEEPS ALL OF THIS MATERIAL    IN MIND AT THE SAME TIME WHILE NEGOTIATIONG THE PROPER PROPORTIONS FOR REED    AND STAPLE.
> 
> EVERYTHING IN THESE NOTES TRANSLATE WITHOUT    ESSENTIAL CHANGE FOR THE BASSOON;
> 
> WITH ONLY A LITTLE CHANGE    IT ADAPTS THINGS TO THE SAXOPHONE;
> 
> AND IT IS NO GOOD AT ALL    FOR FLUTE OR CLARINET."
> 
> This indicates pretty clearly to me    that length plays a role as well as volume, since the volume inside the reed,    which is changed if you narrow or shorten the reed, is analogous to the volume    inside the sax mpc. However shortening the reed raises all modes more or less    equally,
 whereas narrowing it stretches them. It's alse interesting to read    all the stuff about adjusting the reed/staple before he gets to that    part.
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From:    John 
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent:    Friday, February 19, 2010 11:25 AM
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The    Elusive Missing Cone
> 
> 
> 
> I know we have had    this discussion before, but can you quote the specific language Benade uses    that you interpret to mean that the length to the tip of the saxophone    mouthpiece is a separate factor in determining the pitch and intonation of the    saxophone?
> 
> John
> 
> --- In    MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, kymarto123@ wrote:
>    >
> > Actually, what I would like to see is an exploration of    length to the tip of the reed. It is always possible to adjust mpc volume by    moving the mpc on the cork, but there is also a tuning effect depending on the    length. From what I get from Benade, and my own experiences in adjusting 
   chambers, not
> > all "volumes" are created equal; it is a    combination of both the mpc volume and the length of the bore which determines    the mode relationships (you can read the Benade section on oboe reeds in his    1977 paper).
>


 
      
                 
                 
 

Toby,

If there were a difference, would you calculate the truncation ratio based upon the main body taper or the neck taper?

Lance


--- On Sat, 2/27/10, kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...> wrote:

From: kymarto123@ybb.ne.jp <kymarto123@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, February 27, 2010, 2:05 AM







 



  


    
      
      
      Jim,



Changing mpc position does not alter the truncation ratio.



Toby



Jim West <mcbop@.... com> wrote:                                         John,   Thanks for the
 experiments.   Keep in mind that changing the MP position also  changes the volume and, also, the truncation ratio.   jim    ----- Original Message -----    From:    John    To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com       Sent: Saturday, February 20, 2010 3:47    PM   Subject:
 [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive    Missing Cone   

        If I understand you correctly, you are saying that Benade's statement that    making the reed or staple shorter on the oboe will raise the pitch of    all of the notes an equal amount AND that making the reed shorter is the   
 equivalent of pushing a sax mouthpiece further onto the cork.  Obviously    making the neck of the saxophone shorter would not be a practical way to    change the pitch.



Then you are claiming that using a narrower reed    or staple which has the same length to the tip but less volume will    stretch the scale making the higher tones go sharp.  The equivalent of    this on saxophone would be to leave the mouthpiece in the same place on the    neck, but
 give the interior of the mouthpiece less volume with an insert or    interior coating, etc.  This in turn would sharpen lower notes some, but    the higher notes more "stretching" the scale.



I think I finally get the    analogy.  It would be simple to check using my mouthpiece inserts.     The first step would be  to warm up the saxophone and mark the spot on    the neck where the mouthpiece plays well in tune in both registers.  Then    put the mouthpiece onto the
 cork 1/4" and check the pitches of a 2 octave    scale to see if they all go sharp by close to the same amount.

The last    step would be to put the mouthpiece back to the original position and put the    1/4" insert into the shank of the mouthpiece.



If your theory is correct    with the insert (narrower reed) the lower notes of the scale then would go    sharp to the same degree as pushing the mouthpiece in 1/4", but as one plays    up the scale into the second octave, the pitch should go even sharper.  I    will do this test and record
 the results.  This would also be an    excellent test for the artificial embouchure when I get it up and    running.



John





--- In    MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, "Toby" <kymarto123@. ..>    wrote:

>

> Hi John,

> 

> First, thanks for passing on    that reply from Joe Wolfe. In terms of the Benade quote, he says (on pgs 25-    26):

> 

> "(A) Suppose the D4-D5 octave is OK, but the scale runs    flat in going up from D4 to C5 (i.e., the low-register scale runs short with    an extra big jump between C5 and the D5 that is the bottom note of the second    register. If everything sings as described earlier, then try to
 renegotiate    with a narrower staple and/or a narrower reed--but you must be aware of the    tuning checks given below, so as not to get into a bind! (Shorter should    somewhat do the job too, but save it for what it does best--see    below.)

> 

> (B) Suppose the D4-D5 octave is OK, more or less, but    the whole scale seems a trifle flat from what you want it to be. THIS IS A    DANGEROUS GAME IF YOU DON'T KNOW FOR A FACT WHAT PITCH THE INSTRUMENT WAS    DESIGNED FOR !

> 

> Provided the instrument pretty well sings with    the reed you have and provided the scale runs a trifle short in the manner    indicated in step A , the cure is to use a slightly SHORTER stape and/or    reed--a narrower one of each will stretch the scale rather than raise it en    masse.
 THIS SEEMS OBVIOUS--IT IS NOT, HOWEVER. It is a special quirk of a cone    of variable length provided at the top with a cavity--somewhat elongated--and    a constriction.

> 

> As little as 3 mm shortening will raise the    overall playing pitch of essentially the whole scale by 15 to 20 cents on an    oboe if the cooperations are in reasonably good order.

> 

> THIS    IS NOT TRUE FOR THE FLUTE (conical bore or cylindrical bore) OR THE    CLARINET.

> 

> (C) If you have to raise the pitch as in step B or    stretch the scale as in A, the cooperations may have been upset, and you have    to go through the whole business outlined in the previous parts of this    section on the oboe.

> 

> ACTUALLY, ONE KEEPS ALL OF THIS MATERIAL    IN MIND AT THE SAME TIME WHILE NEGOTIATIONG THE PROPER PROPORTIONS FOR REED    AND STAPLE.

> 

> EVERYTHING IN THESE NOTES TRANSLATE WITHOUT    ESSENTIAL CHANGE FOR THE BASSOON;

> 

> WITH ONLY A LITTLE CHANGE    IT ADAPTS THINGS TO THE SAXOPHONE;

> 

> AND IT IS NO GOOD AT ALL    FOR FLUTE OR CLARINET."

> 

> This indicates pretty clearly to me    that length plays a role as well as volume, since the volume inside the reed,    which is changed if you narrow or shorten the reed, is analogous to the volume    inside the sax mpc. However shortening the reed raises all modes more or less    equally,
 whereas narrowing it stretches them. It's alse interesting to read    all the stuff about adjusting the reed/staple before he gets to that    part.

> 

> 

> ----- Original Message ----- 

> From:    John 

> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com 

> Sent:    Friday, February 19, 2010 11:25 AM

> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The    Elusive Missing Cone

> 

> 

> 

> I know we have had    this discussion before, but can you quote the specific language Benade uses    that you interpret to mean that the length to the tip of the saxophone    mouthpiece is a separate factor in determining the pitch and intonation of the    saxophone?

> 

> John

> 

> --- In    MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, kymarto123@ wrote:

>    >

> > Actually, what I would like to see is an exploration of    length to the tip of the reed. It is always possible to adjust mpc volume by    moving the mpc on the cork, but there is also a tuning effect depending on the    length. From what I get from Benade, and my own experiences in
 adjusting    chambers, not

> > all "volumes" are created equal; it is a    combination of both the mpc volume and the length of the bore which determines    the mode relationships (you can read the Benade section on oboe reeds in his    1977 paper).

>

                        


 


    
     

    
    


 



  






      

I'm not sure how I could answer that hypothetical question. But consider this: the truncation ratio changes for each note, as you open keys and change the length of the air column. I'm not sure, but I'm guessing that if you had two different cone angles, you would probably have to take something
 like the the average of the two. taking into account the ratio of the respective lengths. If the neck angle is different from the body angle, that would mean that as you ascend the notes on the tube, the effective cone angle would change, as more of the neck and less of the body tube comprised
 the total "working" cone. 

Toby



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

If there were a difference, would you calculate the truncation ratio based upon the main body taper or the neck taper?

Lance


--- On Sat, 2/27/10, kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...> wrote:

From: kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, February 27, 2010, 2:05 AM

                                    Jim,
 
 Changing mpc position does not alter the truncation ratio.
 
 Toby
 
 Jim West <mcbop@.... com> wrote:
                                         
John,
  
 Thanks for the  experiments.
  
 Keep in mind that changing the MP position also  changes the volume and, also,
 the truncation ratio.
  
 jim
    ----- Original Message ----- 
   From:    John 
   To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com    
   Sent: Saturday, February 20, 2010 3:47    PM
   Subject:  [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive    Missing Cone
   
 
        If I understand you correctly, you are saying that Benade's statement that    making the reed or staple shorter on the oboe will raise the pitch of    all of the notes an equal amount AND that making the reed shorter is the     equivalent of pushing a sax mouthpiece further onto the cork. 
 Obviously    making the neck of the saxophone shorter would not be a practical way to    change the pitch.
 
 Then you are claiming that using a narrower reed    or staple which has the same length to the tip but less volume will    stretch the scale making the higher tones go sharp.  The equivalent of    this on saxophone would be to leave the mouthpiece in the same place on the    neck, but  give the
 interior of the mouthpiece less volume with an insert or    interior coating, etc.  This in turn would sharpen lower notes some, but    the higher notes more "stretching" the scale.
 
 I think I finally get the    analogy.  It would be simple to check using my mouthpiece inserts.     The first step would be  to warm up the saxophone and mark the spot on    the neck where the mouthpiece plays well in tune in both registers.  Then    put the mouthpiece onto the  cork 1/4" and
 check the pitches of a 2 octave    scale to see if they all go sharp by close to the same amount.
 The last    step would be to put the mouthpiece back to the original position and put the    1/4" insert into the shank of the mouthpiece.
 
 If your theory is correct    with the insert (narrower reed) the lower notes of the scale then would go    sharp to the same degree as pushing the mouthpiece in 1/4", but as one plays    up the scale into the second octave, the pitch should go even sharper.  I    will do this test and record  the
 results.  This would also be an    excellent test for the artificial embouchure when I get it up and    running.
 
 John
 
 
 --- In    MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, "Toby" <kymarto123@. ..>    wrote:
 >
 > Hi John,
 > 
 > First, thanks for passing on    that reply from Joe Wolfe. In terms of the Benade quote, he says (on pgs 25-    26):
 > 
 > "(A) Suppose the D4-D5 octave is OK, but the scale runs    flat in going up from D4 to C5 (i.e., the low-register scale runs short with    an extra big jump between C5 and the D5 that is the bottom note of the second    register. If everything sings as described earlier, then try to 
 renegotiate    with a narrower staple and/or a narrower reed--but you must be aware of the    tuning checks given below, so as not to get into a bind! (Shorter should    somewhat do the job too, but save it for what it does best--see    below.)
 > 
 > (B) Suppose the D4-D5 octave is OK, more or less, but    the whole scale seems a trifle flat from what you want it to be. THIS IS A    DANGEROUS GAME IF YOU DON'T KNOW FOR A FACT WHAT PITCH THE INSTRUMENT WAS    DESIGNED FOR !
 > 
 > Provided the instrument pretty well sings with    the reed you have and provided the scale runs a trifle short in the manner    indicated in step A , the cure is to use a slightly SHORTER stape and/or    reed--a narrower one of each will stretch the scale rather than raise it en    masse.  THIS
 SEEMS OBVIOUS--IT IS NOT, HOWEVER. It is a special quirk of a cone    of variable length provided at the top with a cavity--somewhat elongated--and    a constriction.
 > 
 > As little as 3 mm shortening will raise the    overall playing pitch of essentially the whole scale by 15 to 20 cents on an    oboe if the cooperations are in reasonably good order.
 > 
 > THIS    IS NOT TRUE FOR THE FLUTE (conical bore or cylindrical bore) OR THE    CLARINET.
 > 
 > (C) If you have to raise the pitch as in step B or    stretch the scale as in A, the cooperations may have been upset, and you have    to go through the whole business outlined in the previous parts of this    section on the oboe.
 > 
 > ACTUALLY, ONE KEEPS ALL OF THIS MATERIAL    IN MIND AT THE SAME TIME WHILE NEGOTIATIONG THE PROPER PROPORTIONS FOR REED    AND STAPLE.
 > 
 > EVERYTHING IN THESE NOTES TRANSLATE WITHOUT    ESSENTIAL CHANGE FOR THE BASSOON;
 > 
 > WITH ONLY A LITTLE CHANGE    IT ADAPTS THINGS TO THE SAXOPHONE;
 > 
 > AND IT IS NO GOOD AT ALL    FOR FLUTE OR CLARINET."
 > 
 > This indicates pretty clearly to me    that length plays a role as well as volume, since the volume inside the reed,    which is changed if you narrow or shorten the reed, is analogous to the volume    inside the sax mpc. However shortening the reed raises all modes more or less    equally, 
 whereas narrowing it stretches them. It's alse interesting to read    all the stuff about adjusting the reed/staple before he gets to that    part.
 > 
 > 
 > ----- Original Message ----- 
 > From:    John 
 > To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com 
 > Sent:    Friday, February 19, 2010 11:25 AM
 > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The    Elusive Missing Cone
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > I know we have had    this discussion before, but can you quote the specific language Benade uses    that you interpret to mean that the length to the tip of the saxophone    mouthpiece is a separate factor in determining the pitch and intonation of the    saxophone?
 > 
 > John
 > 
 > --- In    MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, kymarto123@ wrote:
 >    >
 > > Actually, what I would like to see is an exploration of    length to the tip of the reed. It is always possible to adjust mpc volume by    moving the mpc on the cork, but there is also a tuning effect depending on the    length. From what I get from Benade, and my own experiences in 
 adjusting    chambers, not
 > > all "volumes" are created equal; it is a    combination of both the mpc volume and the length of the bore which determines    the mode relationships (you can read the Benade section on oboe reeds in his    1977 paper).
 >
 

 
      
                 
   
       
              

        
      
                 
                 
 

I believe it is important to remember that in actuality the truncation of the cone occurs at the top of the neck in order to provide a source to generate the soundwave.  The only time the truncation occurs elsewhere is to make the saxophone fit into its case.

The neck in spite of its gentle curve, short cylinder attached to its bottom, and small octave vent perturbation is much closer to an ideal cone than is the body section of the saxophone with its extensive "lattice" of closed tone holes.

Acoustically speaking, the flare of the body cone should be greater than its measured slope because the sound wave passes more and more of these closed tone holes as it moves to the bow of the sax---each tonehole representing a larger bore to the sound wave along the way.

It is my thinking then that to use the geometric physical dimensions of the body tube to determine the length or volume of the missing cone will produce much more inaccurate results than using the dimensions of the neck which are closer to the ideal cone.  Your mileage may vary.

John

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
>
> I'm not sure how I could answer that hypothetical question. But consider this: the truncation ratio changes for each note, as you open keys and change the length of the air column. I'm not sure, but I'm guessing that if you had two different cone angles, you would probably have to take something
>  like the the average of the two. taking into account the ratio of the respective lengths. If the neck angle is different from the body angle, that would mean that as you ascend the notes on the tube, the effective cone angle would change, as more of the neck and less of the body tube comprised
>  the total "working" cone. 
> 
> Toby
> 
> 
> 
> MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:                                           Toby,
> 
> If there were a difference, would you calculate the truncation ratio based upon the main body taper or the neck taper?
> 
> Lance
> 
> 
> --- On Sat, 2/27/10, kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...> wrote:
> 
> From: kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...>
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Saturday, February 27, 2010, 2:05 AM
> 
>                                     Jim,
>  
>  Changing mpc position does not alter the truncation ratio.
>  
>  Toby
>  
>  Jim West <mcbop@... com> wrote:
>                                          
> John,
>   
>  Thanks for the  experiments.
>   
>  Keep in mind that changing the MP position also  changes the volume and, also,
>  the truncation ratio.
>   
>  jim
>     ----- Original Message ----- 
>    From:    John 
>    To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com    
>    Sent: Saturday, February 20, 2010 3:47    PM
>    Subject:  [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive    Missing Cone
>    
>  
>         If I understand you correctly, you are saying that Benade's statement that    making the reed or staple shorter on the oboe will raise the pitch of    all of the notes an equal amount AND that making the reed shorter is the     equivalent of pushing a sax mouthpiece further onto the cork. 
>  Obviously    making the neck of the saxophone shorter would not be a practical way to    change the pitch.
>  
>  Then you are claiming that using a narrower reed    or staple which has the same length to the tip but less volume will    stretch the scale making the higher tones go sharp.  The equivalent of    this on saxophone would be to leave the mouthpiece in the same place on the    neck, but  give the
>  interior of the mouthpiece less volume with an insert or    interior coating, etc.  This in turn would sharpen lower notes some, but    the higher notes more "stretching" the scale.
>  
>  I think I finally get the    analogy.  It would be simple to check using my mouthpiece inserts.     The first step would be  to warm up the saxophone and mark the spot on    the neck where the mouthpiece plays well in tune in both registers.  Then    put the mouthpiece onto the  cork 1/4" and
>  check the pitches of a 2 octave    scale to see if they all go sharp by close to the same amount.
>  The last    step would be to put the mouthpiece back to the original position and put the    1/4" insert into the shank of the mouthpiece.
>  
>  If your theory is correct    with the insert (narrower reed) the lower notes of the scale then would go    sharp to the same degree as pushing the mouthpiece in 1/4", but as one plays    up the scale into the second octave, the pitch should go even sharper.  I    will do this test and record  the
>  results.  This would also be an    excellent test for the artificial embouchure when I get it up and    running.
>  
>  John
>  
>  
>  --- In    MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, "Toby" <kymarto123@ ..>    wrote:
>  >
>  > Hi John,
>  > 
>  > First, thanks for passing on    that reply from Joe Wolfe. In terms of the Benade quote, he says (on pgs 25-    26):
>  > 
>  > "(A) Suppose the D4-D5 octave is OK, but the scale runs    flat in going up from D4 to C5 (i.e., the low-register scale runs short with    an extra big jump between C5 and the D5 that is the bottom note of the second    register. If everything sings as described earlier, then try to 
>  renegotiate    with a narrower staple and/or a narrower reed--but you must be aware of the    tuning checks given below, so as not to get into a bind! (Shorter should    somewhat do the job too, but save it for what it does best--see    below.)
>  > 
>  > (B) Suppose the D4-D5 octave is OK, more or less, but    the whole scale seems a trifle flat from what you want it to be. THIS IS A    DANGEROUS GAME IF YOU DON'T KNOW FOR A FACT WHAT PITCH THE INSTRUMENT WAS    DESIGNED FOR !
>  > 
>  > Provided the instrument pretty well sings with    the reed you have and provided the scale runs a trifle short in the manner    indicated in step A , the cure is to use a slightly SHORTER stape and/or    reed--a narrower one of each will stretch the scale rather than raise it en    masse.  THIS
>  SEEMS OBVIOUS--IT IS NOT, HOWEVER. It is a special quirk of a cone    of variable length provided at the top with a cavity--somewhat elongated--and    a constriction.
>  > 
>  > As little as 3 mm shortening will raise the    overall playing pitch of essentially the whole scale by 15 to 20 cents on an    oboe if the cooperations are in reasonably good order.
>  > 
>  > THIS    IS NOT TRUE FOR THE FLUTE (conical bore or cylindrical bore) OR THE    CLARINET.
>  > 
>  > (C) If you have to raise the pitch as in step B or    stretch the scale as in A, the cooperations may have been upset, and you have    to go through the whole business outlined in the previous parts of this    section on the oboe.
>  > 
>  > ACTUALLY, ONE KEEPS ALL OF THIS MATERIAL    IN MIND AT THE SAME TIME WHILE NEGOTIATIONG THE PROPER PROPORTIONS FOR REED    AND STAPLE.
>  > 
>  > EVERYTHING IN THESE NOTES TRANSLATE WITHOUT    ESSENTIAL CHANGE FOR THE BASSOON;
>  > 
>  > WITH ONLY A LITTLE CHANGE    IT ADAPTS THINGS TO THE SAXOPHONE;
>  > 
>  > AND IT IS NO GOOD AT ALL    FOR FLUTE OR CLARINET."
>  > 
>  > This indicates pretty clearly to me    that length plays a role as well as volume, since the volume inside the reed,    which is changed if you narrow or shorten the reed, is analogous to the volume    inside the sax mpc. However shortening the reed raises all modes more or less    equally, 
>  whereas narrowing it stretches them. It's alse interesting to read    all the stuff about adjusting the reed/staple before he gets to that    part.
>  > 
>  > 
>  > ----- Original Message ----- 
>  > From:    John 
>  > To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com 
>  > Sent:    Friday, February 19, 2010 11:25 AM
>  > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The    Elusive Missing Cone
>  > 
>  > 
>  > 
>  > I know we have had    this discussion before, but can you quote the specific language Benade uses    that you interpret to mean that the length to the tip of the saxophone    mouthpiece is a separate factor in determining the pitch and intonation of the    saxophone?
>  > 
>  > John
>  > 
>  > --- In    MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, kymarto123@ wrote:
>  >    >
>  > > Actually, what I would like to see is an exploration of    length to the tip of the reed. It is always possible to adjust mpc volume by    moving the mpc on the cork, but there is also a tuning effect depending on the    length. From what I get from Benade, and my own experiences in 
>  adjusting    chambers, not
>  > > all "volumes" are created equal; it is a    combination of both the mpc volume and the length of the bore which determines    the mode relationships (you can read the Benade section on oboe reeds in his    1977 paper).
>  >
>

I am unaware of any manufacturer making a neck that is a "pure cone"...all
of the manufacturers with whom I have worked for as a designer use a cone of
varying taper, not an even continuous taper. This is very standard practice
in the industry.

 

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of John
Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2010 1:23 PM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone

 

  



I believe it is important to remember that in actuality the truncation of
the cone occurs at the top of the neck in order to provide a source to
generate the soundwave. The only time the truncation occurs elsewhere is to
make the saxophone fit into its case.

The neck in spite of its gentle curve, short cylinder attached to its
bottom, and small octave vent perturbation is much closer to an ideal cone
than is the body section of the saxophone with its extensive "lattice" of
closed tone holes.

Acoustically speaking, the flare of the body cone should be greater than its
measured slope because the sound wave passes more and more of these closed
tone holes as it moves to the bow of the sax---each tonehole representing a
larger bore to the sound wave along the way.

It is my thinking then that to use the geometric physical dimensions of the
body tube to determine the length or volume of the missing cone will produce
much more inaccurate results than using the dimensions of the neck which are
closer to the ideal cone. Your mileage may vary.

John

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> , <kymarto123@...> wrote:
>
> I'm not sure how I could answer that hypothetical question. But consider
this: the truncation ratio changes for each note, as you open keys and
change the length of the air column. I'm not sure, but I'm guessing that if
you had two different cone angles, you would probably have to take something
> like the the average of the two. taking into account the ratio of the
respective lengths. If the neck angle is different from the body angle, that
would mean that as you ascend the notes on the tube, the effective cone
angle would change, as more of the neck and less of the body tube comprised
> the total "working" cone. 
> 
> Toby
> 
> 
> 
> MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote: Toby,
> 
> If there were a difference, would you calculate the truncation ratio based
upon the main body taper or the neck taper?
> 
> Lance
> 
> 
> --- On Sat, 2/27/10, kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...> wrote:
> 
> From: kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...>
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> 
> Date: Saturday, February 27, 2010, 2:05 AM
> 
> Jim,
> 
> Changing mpc position does not alter the truncation ratio.
> 
> Toby
> 
> Jim West <mcbop@... com> wrote:
> 
> John,
> 
> Thanks for the experiments.
> 
> Keep in mind that changing the MP position also changes the volume and,
also,
> the truncation ratio.
> 
> jim
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: John 
> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com 
> Sent: Saturday, February 20, 2010 3:47 PM
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
> 
> 
> If I understand you correctly, you are saying that Benade's statement that
making the reed or staple shorter on the oboe will raise the pitch of all of
the notes an equal amount AND that making the reed shorter is the equivalent
of pushing a sax mouthpiece further onto the cork. 
> Obviously making the neck of the saxophone shorter would not be a
practical way to change the pitch.
> 
> Then you are claiming that using a narrower reed or staple which has the
same length to the tip but less volume will stretch the scale making the
higher tones go sharp. The equivalent of this on saxophone would be to leave
the mouthpiece in the same place on the neck, but give the
> interior of the mouthpiece less volume with an insert or interior coating,
etc. This in turn would sharpen lower notes some, but the higher notes more
"stretching" the scale.
> 
> I think I finally get the analogy. It would be simple to check using my
mouthpiece inserts. The first step would be to warm up the saxophone and
mark the spot on the neck where the mouthpiece plays well in tune in both
registers. Then put the mouthpiece onto the cork 1/4" and
> check the pitches of a 2 octave scale to see if they all go sharp by close
to the same amount.
> The last step would be to put the mouthpiece back to the original position
and put the 1/4" insert into the shank of the mouthpiece.
> 
> If your theory is correct with the insert (narrower reed) the lower notes
of the scale then would go sharp to the same degree as pushing the
mouthpiece in 1/4", but as one plays up the scale into the second octave,
the pitch should go even sharper. I will do this test and record the
> results. This would also be an excellent test for the artificial
embouchure when I get it up and running.
> 
> John
> 
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, "Toby" <kymarto123@ ..> wrote:
> >
> > Hi John,
> > 
> > First, thanks for passing on that reply from Joe Wolfe. In terms of the
Benade quote, he says (on pgs 25- 26):
> > 
> > "(A) Suppose the D4-D5 octave is OK, but the scale runs flat in going up
from D4 to C5 (i.e., the low-register scale runs short with an extra big
jump between C5 and the D5 that is the bottom note of the second register.
If everything sings as described earlier, then try to 
> renegotiate with a narrower staple and/or a narrower reed--but you must be
aware of the tuning checks given below, so as not to get into a bind!
(Shorter should somewhat do the job too, but save it for what it does
best--see below.)
> > 
> > (B) Suppose the D4-D5 octave is OK, more or less, but the whole scale
seems a trifle flat from what you want it to be. THIS IS A DANGEROUS GAME IF
YOU DON'T KNOW FOR A FACT WHAT PITCH THE INSTRUMENT WAS DESIGNED FOR !
> > 
> > Provided the instrument pretty well sings with the reed you have and
provided the scale runs a trifle short in the manner indicated in step A ,
the cure is to use a slightly SHORTER stape and/or reed--a narrower one of
each will stretch the scale rather than raise it en masse. THIS
> SEEMS OBVIOUS--IT IS NOT, HOWEVER. It is a special quirk of a cone of
variable length provided at the top with a cavity--somewhat elongated--and a
constriction.
> > 
> > As little as 3 mm shortening will raise the overall playing pitch of
essentially the whole scale by 15 to 20 cents on an oboe if the cooperations
are in reasonably good order.
> > 
> > THIS IS NOT TRUE FOR THE FLUTE (conical bore or cylindrical bore) OR THE
CLARINET.
> > 
> > (C) If you have to raise the pitch as in step B or stretch the scale as
in A, the cooperations may have been upset, and you have to go through the
whole business outlined in the previous parts of this section on the oboe.
> > 
> > ACTUALLY, ONE KEEPS ALL OF THIS MATERIAL IN MIND AT THE SAME TIME WHILE
NEGOTIATIONG THE PROPER PROPORTIONS FOR REED AND STAPLE.
> > 
> > EVERYTHING IN THESE NOTES TRANSLATE WITHOUT ESSENTIAL CHANGE FOR THE
BASSOON;
> > 
> > WITH ONLY A LITTLE CHANGE IT ADAPTS THINGS TO THE SAXOPHONE;
> > 
> > AND IT IS NO GOOD AT ALL FOR FLUTE OR CLARINET."
> > 
> > This indicates pretty clearly to me that length plays a role as well as
volume, since the volume inside the reed, which is changed if you narrow or
shorten the reed, is analogous to the volume inside the sax mpc. However
shortening the reed raises all modes more or less equally, 
> whereas narrowing it stretches them. It's alse interesting to read all the
stuff about adjusting the reed/staple before he gets to that part.
> > 
> > 
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: John 
> > To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com 
> > Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 11:25 AM
> > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > I know we have had this discussion before, but can you quote the
specific language Benade uses that you interpret to mean that the length to
the tip of the saxophone mouthpiece is a separate factor in determining the
pitch and intonation of the saxophone?
> > 
> > John
> > 
> > --- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, kymarto123@ wrote:
> > >
> > > Actually, what I would like to see is an exploration of length to the
tip of the reed. It is always possible to adjust mpc volume by moving the
mpc on the cork, but there is also a tuning effect depending on the length.
From what I get from Benade, and my own experiences in 
> adjusting chambers, not
> > > all "volumes" are created equal; it is a combination of both the mpc
volume and the length of the bore which determines the mode relationships
(you can read the Benade section on oboe reeds in his 1977 paper).
> >
>

"The neck in spite of its gentle curve, short cylinder attached to its
bottom, and small octave vent perturbation is much closer to an ideal
cone than is the body section of the saxophone with its extensive
"lattice" of closed tone holes.



Acoustically speaking, the flare of the body cone should be greater
than its measured slope because the sound wave passes more and more of
these closed tone holes as it moves to the bow of the sax---each
tonehole representing a larger bore to the sound wave along the way.



It is my thinking then that to use the geometric physical dimensions of
the body tube to determine the length or volume of the missing cone
will produce much more inaccurate results than using the dimensions of
the neck which are closer to the ideal cone. 


John"

John,

I understand your thinking and it seems reasonable, however, there are a few important things that your explanation does not take into account, which I believe it should, to be sound (no pun intended):

1. With the exception of the duplicated tone holes (side C, side Bb, Chromatic F#),  the inaccuracies induced by the closed tone holes are compensated for by way of tone hole placement/size - adjusting the length of the tube - in order to provide an accurate low octave (lower frequency) scale.  

2. All of the tone holes and all of the notes emanate from the body of the saxophone.  Not one tone emanates from the neck.   A good low octave scale can be achieved via #1 regardless of the neck taper.

3. All acoustical publications describe the substitution volume requirement as mainly a prerequisite for LOWER FREQUENCY accuracy and response.

4. All acoustical publications describe the modified neck taper, or similar upper body taper (oboes) as an adjustment to the main body taper to insure alignment of HIGHER FREQUENCIES.

5. The Frs, mouthpice on it's neck playing frequency adjustment is responsible for higher frequency alignment. 

6.  Nederveen diagrams clearly and describes the difference between the missing cone based upon the body taper and that of the neck (or modified upper body) taper, and their acoustical effects in his book.  I won't give you the page, as, if you have the book you should know it, and if you don't, it doesn't matter.

What Nederveen says, and what #1-#5 indicate, is that low frequency requirements remain low frequency requirements, and higher frequency requirements the same.  To be correct, the missing cone volume, which insures lower frequency accuracy and response, must be determined by the tube which generates the low frequency octave tones - the main body tube.  






      

But, for example, take a modern soprano, which has a much wider cone section at the top of the tube that makes a rather abrupt transition to the main cone of the body. It is only a minor fraction of the full tube length. Would you use that as your cone to calculate the missing volume? I don't
 think so. OTOH you are quite right that the main body of the sax is essentially a wider cone than it appears because of the extra compliance of the tone holes.

There are mathematical ways of calculating the effects of the cavities of closed tone holes, but it is a major pain, from what I have seen.Still, since every sax has basically the same tone holes, it might be possible to get a figure for the effective change in cone due to tone holes that would
 apply to all saxes.

So what have we got? A non-ideal cone with extra compliances, which must be tweaked in order to pull the modes into line. One place where it is tweaked is in the neck curve, and at the very end of the neck. Therefore, while the neck might be close to conical, it does not have the effective angle
 of the full tube, I think. 

And really, where does all this get us? The mpc is moved according to the ambient temperature and the reed compliance changes the modes, not to mention embouchure effects. At best, the ideal mpc volume, like the ideal cone, is a theoretical fiction, subject to the vagaries of the real world. I
 think that "close enough for jazz" really applies here.

John, the truncation ratio is a measure of the length of the missing segment compared to the length of the full cone. Every time you open a tone hole, effectively shortening the tube, you change the truncation ratio. Mode relationships in a truncated cone depend on the ratio of the diameters of
 the two ends. The neck diameter is fixed, but the end diameter will depend on how much of the tube is in play. Actually these two concepts are just two ways of saying the same thing..

Toby

MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:                                           
 "The neck in spite of its gentle curve, short cylinder attached to its bottom, and small octave vent perturbation is much closer to an ideal cone than is the body section of the saxophone with its extensive "lattice" of closed tone holes.
 
 Acoustically speaking, the flare of the body cone should be greater than its measured slope because the sound wave passes more and more of these closed tone holes as it moves to the bow of the sax---each tonehole representing a larger bore to the sound wave along the way.
 
 It is my thinking then that to use the geometric physical dimensions of the body tube to determine the length or volume of the missing cone will produce much more inaccurate results than using the dimensions of the neck which are closer to the ideal cone. 

 John"

John,

I understand your thinking and it seems reasonable, however, there are a few important things that your explanation does not take into account, which I believe it should, to be sound (no pun intended):

1. With the exception of the duplicated tone holes (side C, side Bb, Chromatic F#),  the inaccuracies induced by the closed tone holes are compensated for by way of tone hole placement/size - adjusting the length of the tube - in order to provide an accurate low octave (lower frequency) scale.  

2. All of the tone holes and all of the notes emanate from the body of the saxophone.  Not one tone emanates from the neck.   A good low octave scale can be achieved via #1 regardless of the neck taper.

3. All acoustical publications describe the substitution volume requirement as mainly a prerequisite for LOWER FREQUENCY accuracy and response.

4. All acoustical publications describe the  modified neck taper, or similar upper body taper (oboes) as an adjustment to the main body taper to insure alignment of HIGHER FREQUENCIES.

5. The Frs, mouthpice on it's neck playing frequency adjustment is responsible for higher frequency alignment. 

6.  Nederveen diagrams clearly and describes the difference between the missing cone based upon the body taper and that of the neck (or modified upper body) taper, and their acoustical effects in his book.  I won't give you the page, as, if you have the book you should know it, and if you don't,
 it doesn't matter.

What Nederveen says, and what #1-#5 indicate, is that low frequency requirements remain low frequency requirements, and higher frequency requirements the same.  To be correct, the missing cone volume, which insures lower frequency accuracy and response, must be determined by the tube which
 generates the low frequency octave tones - the main body tube.   




        
      
                 
                 
 

This is, I think, a way to compensate for the fact that the rest of the sax is no way near that ideal cone, and there are other factors further pulling the modes out of line.

Toby

STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...> wrote:                                                 
  I am unaware of any manufacturer making a neck that is a $B!H(Bpure cone$B!I!D!D(B.all of the manufacturers with whom I have worked for as a designer use a cone of varying taper, not an even continuous taper. This is very standard practice in the industry.
   
      From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John
 Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2010 1:23 PM
 To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
 Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
  
  
   
    
        
 
 I believe it is important to remember that in actuality the truncation of the cone occurs at the top of the neck in order to provide a source to generate the soundwave. The only time the truncation occurs elsewhere is to make the saxophone fit into its case.
 
 The neck in spite of its gentle curve, short cylinder attached to its bottom, and small octave vent perturbation is much closer to an ideal cone than is the body section of the saxophone with its extensive "lattice" of closed tone holes.
 
 Acoustically speaking, the flare of the body cone should be greater than its measured slope because the sound wave passes more and more of these closed tone holes as it moves to the bow of the sax---each tonehole representing a larger bore to the sound wave along the way.
 
 It is my thinking then that to use the geometric physical dimensions of the body tube to determine the length or volume of the missing cone will produce much more inaccurate results than using the dimensions of the neck which are closer to the ideal cone. Your mileage may vary.
 
 John
 
 --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
 >
 > I'm not sure how I could answer that hypothetical question. But consider this: the truncation ratio changes for each note, as you open keys and change the length of the air column. I'm not sure, but I'm guessing that if you had two different cone angles, you would probably have to take something
 > like the the average of the two. taking into account the ratio of the respective lengths. If the neck angle is different from the body angle, that would mean that as you ascend the notes on the tube, the effective cone angle would change, as more of the neck and less of the body tube comprised
 > the total "working" cone. 
 > 
 > Toby
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote: Toby,
 > 
 > If there were a difference, would you calculate the truncation ratio based upon the main body taper or the neck taper?
 > 
 > Lance
 > 
 > 
 > --- On Sat, 2/27/10, kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...> wrote:
 > 
 > From: kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...>
 > Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
 > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
 > Date: Saturday, February 27, 2010, 2:05 AM
 > 
 > Jim,
 > 
 > Changing mpc position does not alter the truncation ratio.
 > 
 > Toby
 > 
 > Jim West <mcbop@... com> wrote:
 > 
 > John,
 > 
 > Thanks for the experiments.
 > 
 > Keep in mind that changing the MP position also changes the volume and, also,
 > the truncation ratio.
 > 
 > jim
 > ----- Original Message ----- 
 > From: John 
 > To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com 
 > Sent: Saturday, February 20, 2010 3:47 PM
 > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
 > 
 > 
 > If I understand you correctly, you are saying that Benade's statement that making the reed or staple shorter on the oboe will raise the pitch of all of the notes an equal amount AND that making the reed shorter is the equivalent of pushing a sax mouthpiece further onto the cork. 
 > Obviously making the neck of the saxophone shorter would not be a practical way to change the pitch.
 > 
 > Then you are claiming that using a narrower reed or staple which has the same length to the tip but less volume will stretch the scale making the higher tones go sharp. The equivalent of this on saxophone would be to leave the mouthpiece in the same place on the neck, but give the
 > interior of the mouthpiece less volume with an insert or interior coating, etc. This in turn would sharpen lower notes some, but the higher notes more "stretching" the scale.
 > 
 > I think I finally get the analogy. It would be simple to check using my mouthpiece inserts. The first step would be to warm up the saxophone and mark the spot on the neck where the mouthpiece plays well in tune in both registers. Then put the mouthpiece onto the cork 1/4" and
 > check the pitches of a 2 octave scale to see if they all go sharp by close to the same amount.
 > The last step would be to put the mouthpiece back to the original position and put the 1/4" insert into the shank of the mouthpiece.
 > 
 > If your theory is correct with the insert (narrower reed) the lower notes of the scale then would go sharp to the same degree as pushing the mouthpiece in 1/4", but as one plays up the scale into the second octave, the pitch should go even sharper. I will do this test and record the
 > results. This would also be an excellent test for the artificial embouchure when I get it up and running.
 > 
 > John
 > 
 > 
 > --- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, "Toby" <kymarto123@ ..> wrote:
 > >
 > > Hi John,
 > > 
 > > First, thanks for passing on that reply from Joe Wolfe. In terms of the Benade quote, he says (on pgs 25- 26):
 > > 
 > > "(A) Suppose the D4-D5 octave is OK, but the scale runs flat in going up from D4 to C5 (i.e., the low-register scale runs short with an extra big jump between C5 and the D5 that is the bottom note of the second register. If everything sings as described earlier, then try to 
 > renegotiate with a narrower staple and/or a narrower reed--but you must be aware of the tuning checks given below, so as not to get into a bind! (Shorter should somewhat do the job too, but save it for what it does best--see below.)
 > > 
 > > (B) Suppose the D4-D5 octave is OK, more or less, but the whole scale seems a trifle flat from what you want it to be. THIS IS A DANGEROUS GAME IF YOU DON'T KNOW FOR A FACT WHAT PITCH THE INSTRUMENT WAS DESIGNED FOR !
 > > 
 > > Provided the instrument pretty well sings with the reed you have and provided the scale runs a trifle short in the manner indicated in step A , the cure is to use a slightly SHORTER stape and/or reed--a narrower one of each will stretch the scale rather than raise it en masse. THIS
 > SEEMS OBVIOUS--IT IS NOT, HOWEVER. It is a special quirk of a cone of variable length provided at the top with a cavity--somewhat elongated--and a constriction.
 > > 
 > > As little as 3 mm shortening will raise the overall playing pitch of essentially the whole scale by 15 to 20 cents on an oboe if the cooperations are in reasonably good order.
 > > 
 > > THIS IS NOT TRUE FOR THE FLUTE (conical bore or cylindrical bore) OR THE CLARINET.
 > > 
 > > (C) If you have to raise the pitch as in step B or stretch the scale as in A, the cooperations may have been upset, and you have to go through the whole business outlined in the previous parts of this section on the oboe.
 > > 
 > > ACTUALLY, ONE KEEPS ALL OF THIS MATERIAL IN MIND AT THE SAME TIME WHILE NEGOTIATIONG THE PROPER PROPORTIONS FOR REED AND STAPLE.
 > > 
 > > EVERYTHING IN THESE NOTES TRANSLATE WITHOUT ESSENTIAL CHANGE FOR THE BASSOON;
 > > 
 > > WITH ONLY A LITTLE CHANGE IT ADAPTS THINGS TO THE SAXOPHONE;
 > > 
 > > AND IT IS NO GOOD AT ALL FOR FLUTE OR CLARINET."
 > > 
 > > This indicates pretty clearly to me that length plays a role as well as volume, since the volume inside the reed, which is changed if you narrow or shorten the reed, is analogous to the volume inside the sax mpc. However shortening the reed raises all modes more or less equally, 
 > whereas narrowing it stretches them. It's alse interesting to read all the stuff about adjusting the reed/staple before he gets to that part.
 > > 
 > > 
 > > ----- Original Message ----- 
 > > From: John 
 > > To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com 
 > > Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 11:25 AM
 > > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
 > > 
 > > 
 > > 
 > > I know we have had this discussion before, but can you quote the specific language Benade uses that you interpret to mean that the length to the tip of the saxophone mouthpiece is a separate factor in determining the pitch and intonation of the saxophone?
 > > 
 > > John
 > > 
 > > --- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, kymarto123@ wrote:
 > > >
 > > > Actually, what I would like to see is an exploration of length to the tip of the reed. It is always possible to adjust mpc volume by moving the mpc on the cork, but there is also a tuning effect depending on the length. From what I get from Benade, and my own experiences in 
 > adjusting chambers, not
 > > > all "volumes" are created equal; it is a combination of both the mpc volume and the length of the bore which determines the mode relationships (you can read the Benade section on oboe reeds in his 1977 paper).
 > >
 >
  
    
  
  
     


      
                 
                 
 

Let's just cut to the chase in this discussion and save some time. 
These two paragraphs seem to summarize the argument presented in the
previous post on the question of whether the body tube or neck should be
used to calculate the volume (length) of the missing cone.

6.  Nederveen diagrams clearly and describes the difference between the
missing cone based upon the body taper and that of the neck (or modified
upper body) taper, and their acoustical effects in his book.  I won't
give you the page, as, if you have the book you should know it, and if
you don't, it doesn't matter.

Come on Lance.  If you are going to pull Nederveen out of your holster
in this shootout, you have got to do better than that.  Nederveen's
diagrams all have numbers as do the equations and pages in his book.  
You are making a statement of fact that "Nederveen describes the
difference between the missing cone based upon the body taper and that
of the neck, and their acoustical effects."  A specific citation here is
requested in order to discuss Nederveen's exact words and their
meanings.

> What Nederveen says, and what #1-#5 indicate, is that low frequency
requirements remain low frequency requirements, and higher frequency
requirements the same.  To be correct, the missing cone volume, which
insures lower frequency accuracy and response, must be determined by the
tube which generates the low frequency octave tones - the main body
tube.

Again, a conclusion has been drawn upon information in Nederveen's book
that has not been quoted directly nor referenced by page number.  In
order to respond to these arguments based on information drawn from
Nederveen's book it is necessary to have the original statements
presented verbatim and in context because as you know, information can
be interpreted in many different ways.   Thank you.

There's only one diagram in Nederveen's book showing the projected missing cone of the neck (or in this case, modified upper body) taper superimposed over that of the body taper - page 119, Fig A3.15.  

"On the oboe, near the top, we sometimes find that the cone angle in the upper part of the instrument is slightly increased, in the way sketched in Fig. A3.15.  Kergomand (1988) and Dalmont et all (1995) have shown that this modification helps the higher resonances to remain harmonic up to thigher frequencies.  This can be understood as follows.  In the resonance condition eq. (27.2) the term containing the mouthpiece volume V approximately compensates the second term in the power series expansion of tan(wo-Wo). The increased cone angle near the top introduces a term which compensated the third term in this expansion."  

Nederveen's resonance formula on page 39, describes the term containing the mouthpiece volume (based upon the main body taper (as there is no other taper mentioned until the reduced taper above) as fulfilling the second term requirements in the power series he uses to describe waves in a truncated conical tube - ie. the relationship of the first octave to the second.  "Saxophones were found to have a (real) cavity volume somewhere in the proper range, Vm/Vo=1"  

The thing is John,  the entire body of hertofore published works on acoustics start out describing the volume requirement of the substitution of the ideal cone as being a prerequisite for lower frequency relationships.  In later discussion, when the reality of  increased taper angle in the neck or upper body is introduced, it is universally described as being a compensation for higher frequency relationships.  At no point is the definition of the substitutions lower frequency volume prerequisite redefined as being based upon the upper cone taper's modification for higher frequencies. Just the contrary (example: Nederveen).  Only you claim that this is so, and I have yet to see you provide one bit of published information from any organized study, to support your statement.   Show me something and I'll take it seriously, otherwise, it seems just based upon your whim, contradictory to everything else.






      

"...OTOH you are quite right that the main body of the sax is essentially a
wider cone than it appears because of the extra compliance of the tone
holes."

You speak as if no compensations are made in open tone hole placement/size (equivalent to tube length) for the effects of the extra compliance of closed tone holes.




      

Cone length and cone angle are two different things. Actually, I wonder if the extra compliance of the closed tone holes actually changes the effective cone angle, or just act as an extra tube length. Do you know?

Toby

MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:                                           "...OTOH you are quite right that the main body of the sax is essentially a wider cone than it appears because of the extra compliance of the tone holes."

You speak as if no compensations are made in open tone hole placement/size (equivalent to tube length) for the effects of the extra compliance of closed tone holes.
 
        
      
                 
                 
 

A series of closed tone holes acts as an enlargement of the bore.  If the designer started with a cone of x degree taper and added tone holes, then in effect, the taper would become wider.  If however, the designer reduced the initial taper x slightly, in order to compensate for the added compliance of the tone holes or left the end diameter unchanged but changed the position of the tone holes (length), thus narrowing the taper, then your observation would be invalid.  

The thing is, you don't know for sure what any manufacturer's initial design is or what compensations are made.  I can follow your and John's logic, but your postulation is not based upon anything solid, not mathematics, not any scientific procedure, nor any empirical trial and error testing.  It is mere supposition which you are stating as fact more or less.  Something which you usually come down hard on others for.  

I suggest, since non of the as yet published works on acoustics (save Ferron, which many have more or less thrown out the window in many regards) substantiate John's premise, that he submit a comprehensive study for review by the interested acoustical society, in which he also responds convincingly to every heretofore published study stating the contrary view.

1. 

--- On Mon, 3/1/10, kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...> wrote:

From: kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 7:20 AM







 



  


    
      
      
      Cone length and cone angle are two different things. Actually, I wonder if the extra compliance of the closed tone holes actually changes the effective cone angle, or just act as an extra tube length. Do you know?



Toby



MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:                                      "...OTOH you are quite right that the main body of the sax is essentially a wider cone than it appears because of the extra compliance of the tone holes."



You speak as if no compensations are made in open tone hole placement/size (equivalent to tube length) for the effects of the extra compliance of closed tone holes.

 

                               


 


    
     

    
    


 



  






      

Toby wrote: "Changing mpc position does not alter the truncation
ratio".

Toby,

What is the definition of "truncation ratio"?

Your friend,

jim


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: MartinMods 
  To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 8:49 AM
  Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone


    
        A series of closed tone holes acts as an enlargement of the bore.  If the designer started with a cone of x degree taper and added tone holes, then in effect, the taper would become wider.  If however, the designer reduced the initial taper x slightly, in order to compensate for the added compliance of the tone holes or left the end diameter unchanged but changed the position of the tone holes (length), thus narrowing the taper, then your observation would be invalid.  

        The thing is, you don't know for sure what any manufacturer's initial design is or what compensations are made.  I can follow your and John's logic, but your postulation is not based upon anything solid, not mathematics, not any scientific procedure, nor any empirical trial and error testing.  It is mere supposition which you are stating as fact more or less.  Something which you usually come down hard on others for.  

        I suggest, since non of the as yet published works on acoustics (save Ferron, which many have more or less thrown out the window in many regards) substantiate John's premise, that he submit a comprehensive study for review by the interested acoustical society, in which he also responds convincingly to every heretofore published study stating the contrary view.

        1. 

        --- On Mon, 3/1/10, kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...> wrote:


          From: kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...>
          Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
          To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
          Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 7:20 AM


            
          Cone length and cone angle are two different things. Actually, I wonder if the extra compliance of the closed tone holes actually changes the effective cone angle, or just act as an extra tube length. Do you know?

          Toby

          MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:

              
                  "...OTOH you are quite right that the main body of the sax is essentially a wider cone than it appears because of the extra compliance of the tone holes."

                  You speak as if no compensations are made in open tone hole placement/size (equivalent to tube length) for the effects of the extra compliance of closed tone holes.
                 



       



  

I think it would be based upon the theoretical rather than the physical dimensions

--- On Mon, 3/1/10, Jim West <mcbop@...> wrote:

From: Jim West <mcbop@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 6:21 PM







 



  


    
      
      
      


Toby wrote: "Changing mpc position does not alter the 
truncation
ratio".
 
Toby,
 
What is the 
definition of "truncation ratio"?
 
Your 
friend,
 
jim



  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: 
  MartinMods 
  To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com 
  
  Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 8:49 
AM
  Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The 
  Elusive Missing Cone
  
  
  
  
  
    
    
      A series of closed tone holes acts as an enlargement of 
        the bore.  If the designer started with a cone of x degree taper 
        and added tone holes, then in effect, the taper would become 
        wider.  If however, the designer reduced the initial taper x 
        slightly, in order to compensate for the added compliance of the tone 
        holes or left the end diameter unchanged but changed the position of the 
        tone holes (length), thus narrowing the taper, then your observation 
        would be invalid.  

The thing is, you don't know for sure 
        what any manufacturer' s initial design is or what compensations are 
        made.  I can follow your and John's logic, but your postulation is 
        not based upon anything solid, not mathematics, not any scientific 
        procedure, nor any empirical trial and error testing.  It is mere 
        supposition which you are stating as fact more or less.  Something 
        which you usually come down hard on others for.  

I suggest, 
        since non of the as yet published works on acoustics (save Ferron, which 
        many have more or less thrown out the window in many regards) 
        substantiate John's premise, that he submit a comprehensive study for 
        review by the interested acoustical society, in which he also responds 
        convincingly to every heretofore published study stating the contrary 
        view.

1. 

--- On Mon, 3/1/10, kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp 
        <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp> wrote:

        
From: 
          kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp 
          <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: 
          The Elusive Missing Cone
To: 
          MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Monday, March 1, 
          2010, 7:20 AM


            
          
          Cone length and cone angle are two different things. Actually, I 
          wonder if the extra compliance of the closed tone holes actually 
          changes the effective cone angle, or just act as an extra tube length. 
          Do you know?

Toby

MartinMods <lancelotburt@ 
          yahoo.com> wrote:
            
            
            
            
              
              
                "...OTOH you are quite right that the main body of 
                  the sax is essentially a wider cone than it appears because of 
                  the extra compliance of the tone holes."

You speak as 
                  if no compensations are made in open tone hole placement/size 
                  (equivalent to tube length) for the effects of the extra 
                  compliance of closed tone 
            holes.



          



    
     

    
    


 



  






      

Jim,

The truncation ratio is the ratio of the missing part of the cone to the full cone. The missing part of the cone is determined by extrapolating from the end of the neck to the virtual conic apex by extending out using the cone angle of the tube. Obviously this missing conic apex is the same no
 matter what the length of the conic frustum (the body of the sax), and depends entirely on the diameter of the base and the cone angle. 

However, if you change the length of the frustum by opening keys, so that the air column does not reach the end of the bell, you have altered the ratio.

Toby

Jim West <mcbop@...> wrote:                                           $Bo;(B�   
Toby wrote: "Changing mpc position does not alter the  truncation
 ratio".
  
 Toby,
  
 What is the  definition of "truncation ratio"?
  
 Your  friend,
  
 jim
 

    ----- Original Message ----- 
   From:    MartinMods 
   To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com    
   Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 8:49  AM
   Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The    Elusive Missing Cone
   

                            A series of closed tone holes acts as an enlargement of          the bore.  If the designer started with a cone of x degree taper          and added tone holes, then in effect, the taper would become          wider.  If however, the designer reduced the initial taper x 
         slightly, in order to compensate for the added compliance of the tone          holes or left the end diameter unchanged but changed the position of the          tone holes (length), thus narrowing the taper, then your observation          would be invalid.  

The thing is, you don't know for sure          what any manufacturer's initial design is or what compensations are          made.  I can follow your and John's logic, but your postulation is          not based upon anything solid, not mathematics, not any scientific          procedure, nor any
 empirical trial and error testing.  It is mere          supposition which you are stating as fact more or less.  Something          which you usually come down hard on others for.  

I suggest,          since non of the as yet published works on acoustics (save Ferron, which          many have more or less thrown out the window in many regards)          substantiate John's premise, that he submit a comprehensive study for          review by the interested acoustical society,
 in which he also responds          convincingly to every heretofore published study stating the contrary          view.

1. 

--- On Mon, 3/1/10, kymarto123@...          <kymarto123@...> wrote:
         
From:            kymarto123@...            <kymarto123@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re:            The Elusive Missing Cone
To:            MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, March 1,            2010, 7:20 AM

                                   Cone length and cone angle are two different things. Actually, I            wonder if the extra compliance of the closed tone holes actually            changes the effective cone angle, or just act as an extra tube length.            Do you know?

Toby

MartinMods <lancelotburt@            yahoo.com> wrote:
                                                                                                   "...OTOH you are quite right that the main body of                    the sax is essentially a wider cone than it appears because of                    the extra compliance of the tone holes."

You speak as                    if no compensations are made in open tone hole placement/size                    (equivalent to tube length) for the effects of the extra                    compliance of closed tone              holes.




           





 
      
                 
                 
 

Toby,

I don't think so.

Nederveen, page 69: "For conical reed instruments ............the truncation, i.e., the distance
between the top of the extrapolated cone and the geometric top the instrument."

The GEOMETRIC TOP  of the sax is the mouthpiece tip. The truncation ratio (Scavone's beta}
= Xo/L, Where Xo is the distance from the missing cone apex to the MP. L is the length of
the air column  measured from the apex. On page 23 of his dissertation, Scavone shows 
a graph of the partials as they are affected by beta. The greater beta, the more spread are
the partials. This makes sense because higher beta makes the sax more like a clarinet.

The junctions we use to make calculations about the missing apex are imaginary and do
not constitute a truncation in the played sax. We need a different word for these places.
{body/neck junction, neck/mp junction} Any suggestions?

jim

----- Original Messag
  From: kymarto123@... 
  To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 4:49 PM
  Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone


    
  Jim,

  The truncation ratio is the ratio of the missing part of the cone to the full cone. The missing part of the cone is determined by extrapolating from the end of the neck to the virtual conic apex by extending out using the cone angle of the tube. Obviously this missing conic apex is the same no matter what the length of the conic frustum (the body of the sax), and depends entirely on the diameter of the base and the cone angle. 

  However, if you change the length of the frustum by opening keys, so that the air column does not reach the end of the bell, you have altered the ratio.

  Toby

  Jim West <mcbop@...> wrote:

      
    鏤? 
    Toby wrote: "Changing mpc position does not alter the truncation
    ratio".

    Toby,

    What is the definition of "truncation ratio"?

    Your friend,

    jim


      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: MartinMods 
      To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
      Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 8:49 AM
      Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone


        
            A series of closed tone holes acts as an enlargement of the bore.  If the designer started with a cone of x degree taper and added tone holes, then in effect, the taper would become wider.  If however, the designer reduced the initial taper x slightly, in order to compensate for the added compliance of the tone holes or left the end diameter unchanged but changed the position of the tone holes (length), thus narrowing the taper, then your observation would be invalid.  

            The thing is, you don't know for sure what any manufacturer's initial design is or what compensations are made.  I can follow your and John's logic, but your postulation is not based upon anything solid, not mathematics, not any scientific procedure, nor any empirical trial and error testing.  It is mere supposition which you are stating as fact more or less.  Something which you usually come down hard on others for.  

            I suggest, since non of the as yet published works on acoustics (save Ferron, which many have more or less thrown out the window in many regards) substantiate John's premise, that he submit a comprehensive study for review by the interested acoustical society, in which he also responds convincingly to every heretofore published study stating the contrary view.

            1. 

            --- On Mon, 3/1/10, kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...> wrote:


              From: kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...>
              Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
              To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
              Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 7:20 AM


                
              Cone length and cone angle are two different things. Actually, I wonder if the extra compliance of the closed tone holes actually changes the effective cone angle, or just act as an extra tube length. Do you know?

              Toby

              MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:
                  
                      "...OTOH you are quite right that the main body of the sax is essentially a wider cone than it appears because of the extra compliance of the tone holes."

                      You speak as if no compensations are made in open tone hole placement/size (equivalent to tube length) for the effects of the extra compliance of closed tone holes.
                     



           





  

"
Nederveen, page 69: "For conical reed instruments 
............ the truncation, i.e., the distance
between the top of the extrapolated cone and the geometric top 
the instrument."
 
The GEOMETRIC TOP  of the sax is the mouthpiece tip."

Jim,

I think you are misinterpreting what Nederveen is saying.  The extrapolated cone is the "missing cone" determined by theoretically extending the truncated body to the apex.  The geometric top of the instrument is the point of truncation.  Nederveen describes this later when discussing how the truncation ratio, the ratio of the length of the truncated body, to the length of the theoretical missing cone to the apex, determines the period of reed closure during each cycle.



      

Oh come on Lance, the geometric top of the instrument is the place where the cone is cut off: the end of the neck.

"The cone is truncated at a diameter of 9.2 mm, and the 
missing cone of length ~150 mm is replaced by a mouthpiece 
with a volume of 2.25 cm3. When this is added to the effective 
volume due to the compliance of a reed (between 1.2 and 1.9 
cm3, discussed later), it is comparable with that of the missing 
cone (3.35 cm3). This replacement has the effect of achieving 
resonances that fall approximately in the harmonic series 
expected for the complete cone [15, 16]. (The impedance 
peaks of a simple truncated cone are more widely spaced and 
not harmonically related.)"


Toby

MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:                                           "
Nederveen, page 69: "For conical reed instruments  ............ the truncation, i.e., the distance
 between the top of the extrapolated cone and the geometric top  the instrument."
  
 The GEOMETRIC TOP  of the sax is the mouthpiece tip."

Jim,

I think you are misinterpreting what Nederveen is saying.  The extrapolated cone is the "missing cone" determined by theoretically extending the truncated body to the apex.  The geometric top of the instrument is the point of truncation.  Nederveen describes this later when discussing how the
 truncation ratio, the ratio of the length of the truncated body, to the length of the theoretical missing cone to the apex, determines the period of reed closure during each cycle.

        
      
                 
                 
 

Jim, with all due respect, this is absolutely incorrect. Check Nederveen pg 39. Look at fig. 27.5. r0 is the truncated part of the cone, r1 is the full cone. The truncation ratio isr0/r1. And you are wrong, the geometric top of the instrument is the end of the neck, the mpc is the substitution for
 the missing conic apex. It would not make a lick of sense if the substitution for the missing apex were part of the missing apex. 

This quote discusses the effect of truncation ratio on the reed cycle, and perhaps the language is clearer:

An analogous Helmholtz motion can be found in conical reed instruments. The reed alternately closes the reed channel and, similarly to the string, two phases alternate: a long phase, during which the reed channel is open, and a shorter phase, during which the reed closes the reed channel. The
 ratio N of the time duration of the two episodes is equal to the ratio of the length of the cone (which is truncated because of the reed) to the length of the missing part of the cone. This specific oscillation of the reed has a direct consequence on the spectrum: harmonics whose frequencies are
 close to N multiplied by the fundamental frequencies are weak. In other words, there is an anti-formant whose frequency is Nf1, where f1 is the fundamental frequency. This frequency does not depend on the played note and is inversely proportional to the length of the missing part of the cone. 

Scavone is discussing something completely different.

Toby

Jim West <mcbop@...> wrote:                                              
Toby,
  
 I don't think so.
  
 Nederveen, page 69: "For conical reed instruments  ............the truncation, i.e., the distance
 between the top of the extrapolated cone and the geometric top  the instrument."
  
 The GEOMETRIC TOP  of the sax is the mouthpiece tip. The  truncation ratio (Scavone's beta}
 = Xo/L, Where Xo is the distance from the missing cone apex to  the MP. L is the length of
 the air column  measured from the apex. On page 23 of his  dissertation, Scavone shows 
 a graph of the partials as they are affected by beta. The  greater beta, the more spread are
 the partials. This makes sense because higher beta makes the  sax more like a clarinet.
  
 The junctions we use to make calculations about the missing  apex are imaginary and do
 not constitute a truncation in the played sax. We need a  different word for these places.
 {body/neck junction, neck/mp junction} Any  suggestions?
  
 jim
 
 ----- Original Messag
    From:    kymarto123@... 
   To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com    
   Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 4:49  PM
   Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The    Elusive Missing Cone
   

        Jim,

The truncation ratio is the ratio of the missing part of the    cone to the full cone. The missing part of the cone is determined by    extrapolating from the end of the neck to the virtual conic apex by extending    out using the cone angle of the tube. Obviously this missing conic apex is the   
 same no matter what the length of the conic frustum (the body of the sax), and    depends entirely on the diameter of the base and the cone angle.    

However, if you change the length of the frustum by opening keys, so    that the air column does not reach the end of the bell, you have altered the    ratio.

Toby

Jim West <mcbop@...> wrote:   
            $Bo;(B� 
     Toby wrote: "Changing mpc position does not alter the      truncation
     ratio".
      
     Toby,
      
     What is the      definition of "truncation ratio"?
      
     Your      friend,
      
     jim
     

            -----        Original Message ----- 
       From:        MartinMods 
       To:        MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com        
       Sent:        Monday, March 01, 2010 8:49 AM
       Subject:        Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
       

                                                    A series of closed tone holes acts as an enlargement              of the bore.  If the designer started with a cone of x degree              taper and added tone holes, then in effect, the taper would become              wider.  If however, the
 designer reduced the initial taper x              slightly, in order to compensate for the added compliance of the              tone holes or left the end diameter unchanged but changed the              position of the tone holes (length), thus narrowing the taper, then              your
 observation would be invalid.  

The thing is, you              don't know for sure what any manufacturer's initial design is              or what compensations are made.  I can follow your and John's              logic, but your postulation is not based upon anything solid, not              mathematics, not any scientific
 procedure, nor any empirical trial              and error testing.  It is mere supposition which you are              stating as fact more or less.  Something which you usually come              down hard on others for.  

I suggest, since non of the              as yet published works on acoustics (save Ferron, which many have              more or less thrown out the window in many regards) substantiate              John's premise, that he submit a comprehensive study for review by              the interested
 acoustical society, in which he also responds              convincingly to every heretofore published study stating the              contrary view.

1. 

--- On Mon, 3/1/10,              kymarto123@...              <kymarto123@...> wrote:
             
From:                kymarto123@...                <kymarto123@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork]                Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
To:                MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, March 1,                2010, 7:20 AM

                                               Cone length and cone angle are two different things.                Actually, I wonder if the extra compliance of the closed tone                holes actually changes the effective cone angle, or just act as an                extra tube length. Do
 you know?

Toby

MartinMods                <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:
                                                                                                                               "...OTOH you are quite right that the main body                        of the sax is essentially a wider cone than it appears                        because of the extra
 compliance of the tone                        holes."

You speak as if no compensations are made                        in open tone hole placement/size (equivalent to tube                        length) for the effects of the extra compliance of closed                        tone                holes.




               





     


   
   

 
      
                 
                 
 

Toby,

Good discussion, but maybe we should move it to the "acoustics" section of the other
forum so as to not annoy some here.

Concerning Nederveen fig 27.5, r0 is the distance from the missing apex to the closed end
of the sax. The end of the neck is not closed.

jim
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: kymarto123@... 
  To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 7:17 AM
  Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone


    
  Jim, with all due respect, this is absolutely incorrect. Check Nederveen pg 39. Look at fig. 27.5. r0 is the truncated part of the cone, r1 is the full cone. The truncation ratio isr0/r1. And you are wrong, the geometric top of the instrument is the end of the neck, the mpc is the substitution for the missing conic apex. It would not make a lick of sense if the substitution for the missing apex were part of the missing apex. 

  This quote discusses the effect of truncation ratio on the reed cycle, and perhaps the language is clearer:

  An analogous Helmholtz motion can be found in conical reed instruments. The reed alternately closes the reed channel and, similarly to the string, two phases alternate: a long phase, during which the reed channel is open, and a shorter phase, during which the reed closes the reed channel. The ratio N of the time duration of the two episodes is equal to the ratio of the length of the cone (which is truncated because of the reed) to the length of the missing part of the cone. This specific oscillation of the reed has a direct consequence on the spectrum: harmonics whose frequencies are close to N multiplied by the fundamental frequencies are weak. In other words, there is an anti-formant whose frequency is Nf1, where f1 is the fundamental frequency. This frequency does not depend on the played note and is inversely proportional to the length of the missing part of the cone. 

  Scavone is discussing something completely different.

  Toby

  Jim West <mcbop@...> wrote:

      
    Toby,

    I don't think so.

    Nederveen, page 69: "For conical reed instruments ............the truncation, i.e., the distance
    between the top of the extrapolated cone and the geometric top the instrument."

    The GEOMETRIC TOP  of the sax is the mouthpiece tip. The truncation ratio (Scavone's beta}
    = Xo/L, Where Xo is the distance from the missing cone apex to the MP. L is the length of
    the air column  measured from the apex. On page 23 of his dissertation, Scavone shows 
    a graph of the partials as they are affected by beta. The greater beta, the more spread are
    the partials. This makes sense because higher beta makes the sax more like a clarinet.

    The junctions we use to make calculations about the missing apex are imaginary and do
    not constitute a truncation in the played sax. We need a different word for these places.
    {body/neck junction, neck/mp junction} Any suggestions?

    jim
    ----- Original Messag
      From: kymarto123@... 
      To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
      Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 4:49 PM
      Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone


        
      Jim,

      The truncation ratio is the ratio of the missing part of the cone to the full cone. The missing part of the cone is determined by extrapolating from the end of the neck to the virtual conic apex by extending out using the cone angle of the tube. Obviously this missing conic apex is the same no matter what the length of the conic frustum (the body of the sax), and depends entirely on the diameter of the base and the cone angle. 

      However, if you change the length of the frustum by opening keys, so that the air column does not reach the end of the bell, you have altered the ratio.

      Toby

      Jim West <mcbop@...> wrote: 
          
        鏤? 
        Toby wrote: "Changing mpc position does not alter the truncation
        ratio".

        Toby,

        What is the definition of "truncation ratio"?

        Your friend,

        jim


          ----- Original Message ----- 
          From: MartinMods 
          To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
          Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 8:49 AM
          Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone


            
                A series of closed tone holes acts as an enlargement of the bore.  If the designer started with a cone of x degree taper and added tone holes, then in effect, the taper would become wider.  If however, the designer reduced the initial taper x slightly, in order to compensate for the added compliance of the tone holes or left the end diameter unchanged but changed the position of the tone holes (length), thus narrowing the taper, then your observation would be invalid.  

                The thing is, you don't know for sure what any manufacturer's initial design is or what compensations are made.  I can follow your and John's logic, but your postulation is not based upon anything solid, not mathematics, not any scientific procedure, nor any empirical trial and error testing.  It is mere supposition which you are stating as fact more or less.  Something which you usually come down hard on others for.  

                I suggest, since non of the as yet published works on acoustics (save Ferron, which many have more or less thrown out the window in many regards) substantiate John's premise, that he submit a comprehensive study for review by the interested acoustical society, in which he also responds convincingly to every heretofore published study stating the contrary view.

                1. 

                --- On Mon, 3/1/10, kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...> wrote:


                  From: kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...>
                  Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
                  To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
                  Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 7:20 AM


                    
                  Cone length and cone angle are two different things. Actually, I wonder if the extra compliance of the closed tone holes actually changes the effective cone angle, or just act as an extra tube length. Do you know?

                  Toby

                  MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:
                      
                          "...OTOH you are quite right that the main body of the sax is essentially a wider cone than it appears because of the extra compliance of the tone holes."

                          You speak as if no compensations are made in open tone hole placement/size (equivalent to tube length) for the effects of the extra compliance of closed tone holes.
                         



               







  

I, for one, am not annoyed.

It may get a bit tiresome, but it belongs here certainly.  Also, I think the
recursiveness is helpful (each time I get a little more).

Haven't people been at parties, with different converations taking place in
different parts of the room?

Barry

on 3/2/10 4:01 PM, Jim West at mcbop@... wrote:

> Toby,
> 
> Good discussion, but maybe we should move it to the "acoustics" section of the
> other
> forum so as to not annoy some here.
> 
> Concerning Nederveen fig 27.5, r0 is the distance from the missing apex to the
> closed end
> of the sax. The end of the neck is not closed.
> 
> jim
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: kymarto123@...
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 7:17 AM
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
> 
> 
> 
> Jim, with all due respect, this is absolutely incorrect. Check Nederveen pg
> 39. Look at fig. 27.5. r0 is the truncated part of the cone, r1 is the full
> cone. The truncation ratio isr0/r1. And you are wrong, the geometric top of
> the instrument is the end of the neck, the mpc is the substitution for the
> missing conic apex. It would not make a lick of sense if the substitution for
> the missing apex were part of the missing apex.
> 
> This quote discusses the effect of truncation ratio on the reed cycle, and
> perhaps the language is clearer:
> 
> An analogous Helmholtz motion can be found in conical reed instruments. The
> reed alternately closes the reed channel and, similarly to the string, two
> phases alternate: a long phase, during which the reed channel is open, and a
> shorter phase, during which the reed closes the reed channel. The ratio N of
> the time duration of the two episodes is equal to the ratio of the length of
> the cone (which is truncated because of the reed) to the length of the missing
> part of the cone. This specific oscillation of the reed has a direct
> consequence on the spectrum: harmonics whose frequencies are close to N
> multiplied by the fundamental frequencies are weak. In other words, there is
> an anti-formant whose frequency is Nf1, where f1 is the fundamental frequency.
> This frequency does not depend on the played note and is inversely
> proportional to the length of the missing part of the cone.
> 
> Scavone is discussing something completely different.
> 
> Toby
> 
> Jim West <mcbop@...> wrote:
> 
> 
> Toby,
> 
> I don't think so.
> 
> Nederveen, page 69: "For conical reed instruments ............the truncation,
> i.e., the distance
> between the top of the extrapolated cone and the geometric top the
> instrument."
> 
> The GEOMETRIC TOP  of the sax is the mouthpiece tip. The truncation ratio
> (Scavone's beta}
> = Xo/L, Where Xo is the distance from the missing cone apex to the MP. L is
> the length of
> the air column  measured from the apex. On page 23 of his dissertation,
> Scavone shows 
> a graph of the partials as they are affected by beta. The greater beta, the
> more spread are
> the partials. This makes sense because higher beta makes the sax more like a
> clarinet.
> 
> The junctions we use to make calculations about the missing apex are imaginary
> and do
> not constitute a truncation in the played sax. We need a different word for
> these places.
> {body/neck junction, neck/mp junction} Any suggestions?
> 
> jim
> ----- Original Messag
> From: kymarto123@...
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 4:49 PM
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
> 
> 
> 
> Jim,
> 
> The truncation ratio is the ratio of the missing part of the cone to the full
> cone. The missing part of the cone is determined by extrapolating from the end
> of the neck to the virtual conic apex by extending out using the cone angle of
> the tube. Obviously this missing conic apex is the same no matter what the
> length of the conic frustum (the body of the sax), and depends entirely on the
> diameter of the base and the cone angle.
> 
> However, if you change the length of the frustum by opening keys, so that the
> air column does not reach the end of the bell, you have altered the ratio.
> 
> Toby
> 
> Jim West <mcbop@...> wrote:
> 
> ?? 
> Toby wrote: "Changing mpc position does not alter the truncation
> ratio".
> 
> Toby,
> 
> What is the definition of "truncation ratio"?
> 
> Your friend,
> 
> jim
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: MartinMods 
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 8:49 AM
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
> 
> 
> 
> A series of closed tone holes acts as an enlargement of the bore.  If the
> designer started with a cone of x degree taper and added tone holes, then in
> effect, the taper would become wider.  If however, the designer reduced the
> initial taper x slightly, in order to compensate for the added compliance of
> the tone holes or left the end diameter unchanged but changed the position of
> the tone holes (length), thus narrowing the taper, then your observation would
> be invalid.  
> 
> The thing is, you don't know for sure what any manufacturer's initial design
> is or what compensations are made.  I can follow your and John's logic, but
> your postulation is not based upon anything solid, not mathematics, not any
> scientific procedure, nor any empirical trial and error testing.  It is mere
> supposition which you are stating as fact more or less.  Something which you
> usually come down hard on others for.
> 
> I suggest, since non of the as yet published works on acoustics (save Ferron,
> which many have more or less thrown out the window in many regards)
> substantiate John's premise, that he submit a comprehensive study for review
> by the interested acoustical society, in which he also responds convincingly
> to every heretofore published study stating the contrary view.
> 
> 1. 
> 
> --- On Mon, 3/1/10, kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...> wrote:
> 
> 
> From: kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...>
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 7:20 AM
> 
> 
> 
> Cone length and cone angle are two different things. Actually, I wonder if the
> extra compliance of the closed tone holes actually changes the effective cone
> angle, or just act as an extra tube length. Do you know?
> 
> Toby
> 
> MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> "...OTOH you are quite right that the main body of the sax is essentially a
> wider cone than it appears because of the extra compliance of the tone holes."
> 
> You speak as if no compensations are made in open tone hole placement/size
> (equivalent to tube length) for the effects of the extra compliance of closed
> tone holes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

I think it would be far less tiresome if the participants in the endless
discussion would refrain from quoting the work of others and actually build
some saxophones, test them , and have their work published by an established
venue (sorry,  internet discussion groups and self published websites don't
count) where their work could be peer reviewed by people who actually do
this for a living. Just a thought..that's the way most scientific/academic
research is validated.

 

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Barry Levine
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 3:38 PM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone

 

  

I, for one, am not annoyed.

It may get a bit tiresome, but it belongs here certainly. Also, I think the
recursiveness is helpful (each time I get a little more).

Haven't people been at parties, with different converations taking place in
different parts of the room?

Barry

on 3/2/10 4:01 PM, Jim West at mcbop@... <mailto:mcbop%40san.rr.com>
wrote:

> Toby,
> 
> Good discussion, but maybe we should move it to the "acoustics" section of
the
> other
> forum so as to not annoy some here.
> 
> Concerning Nederveen fig 27.5, r0 is the distance from the missing apex to
the
> closed end
> of the sax. The end of the neck is not closed.
> 
> jim
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: kymarto123@... <mailto:kymarto123%40ybb.ne.jp> 
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 7:17 AM
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
> 
> 
> 
> Jim, with all due respect, this is absolutely incorrect. Check Nederveen
pg
> 39. Look at fig. 27.5. r0 is the truncated part of the cone, r1 is the
full
> cone. The truncation ratio isr0/r1. And you are wrong, the geometric top
of
> the instrument is the end of the neck, the mpc is the substitution for the
> missing conic apex. It would not make a lick of sense if the substitution
for
> the missing apex were part of the missing apex.
> 
> This quote discusses the effect of truncation ratio on the reed cycle, and
> perhaps the language is clearer:
> 
> An analogous Helmholtz motion can be found in conical reed instruments.
The
> reed alternately closes the reed channel and, similarly to the string, two
> phases alternate: a long phase, during which the reed channel is open, and
a
> shorter phase, during which the reed closes the reed channel. The ratio N
of
> the time duration of the two episodes is equal to the ratio of the length
of
> the cone (which is truncated because of the reed) to the length of the
missing
> part of the cone. This specific oscillation of the reed has a direct
> consequence on the spectrum: harmonics whose frequencies are close to N
> multiplied by the fundamental frequencies are weak. In other words, there
is
> an anti-formant whose frequency is Nf1, where f1 is the fundamental
frequency.
> This frequency does not depend on the played note and is inversely
> proportional to the length of the missing part of the cone.
> 
> Scavone is discussing something completely different.
> 
> Toby
> 
> Jim West <mcbop@... <mailto:mcbop%40san.rr.com> > wrote:
> 
> 
> Toby,
> 
> I don't think so.
> 
> Nederveen, page 69: "For conical reed instruments ............the
truncation,
> i.e., the distance
> between the top of the extrapolated cone and the geometric top the
> instrument."
> 
> The GEOMETRIC TOP of the sax is the mouthpiece tip. The truncation ratio
> (Scavone's beta}
> = Xo/L, Where Xo is the distance from the missing cone apex to the MP. L
is
> the length of
> the air column measured from the apex. On page 23 of his dissertation,
> Scavone shows 
> a graph of the partials as they are affected by beta. The greater beta,
the
> more spread are
> the partials. This makes sense because higher beta makes the sax more like
a
> clarinet.
> 
> The junctions we use to make calculations about the missing apex are
imaginary
> and do
> not constitute a truncation in the played sax. We need a different word
for
> these places.
> {body/neck junction, neck/mp junction} Any suggestions?
> 
> jim
> ----- Original Messag
> From: kymarto123@... <mailto:kymarto123%40ybb.ne.jp> 
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> 
> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 4:49 PM
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
> 
> 
> 
> Jim,
> 
> The truncation ratio is the ratio of the missing part of the cone to the
full
> cone. The missing part of the cone is determined by extrapolating from the
end
> of the neck to the virtual conic apex by extending out using the cone
angle of
> the tube. Obviously this missing conic apex is the same no matter what the
> length of the conic frustum (the body of the sax), and depends entirely on
the
> diameter of the base and the cone angle.
> 
> However, if you change the length of the frustum by opening keys, so that
the
> air column does not reach the end of the bell, you have altered the ratio.
> 
> Toby
> 
> Jim West <mcbop@... <mailto:mcbop%40san.rr.com> > wrote:
> 
> ?? 
> Toby wrote: "Changing mpc position does not alter the truncation
> ratio".
> 
> Toby,
> 
> What is the definition of "truncation ratio"?
> 
> Your friend,
> 
> jim
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: MartinMods 
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> 
> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 8:49 AM
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
> 
> 
> 
> A series of closed tone holes acts as an enlargement of the bore. If the
> designer started with a cone of x degree taper and added tone holes, then
in
> effect, the taper would become wider. If however, the designer reduced the
> initial taper x slightly, in order to compensate for the added compliance
of
> the tone holes or left the end diameter unchanged but changed the position
of
> the tone holes (length), thus narrowing the taper, then your observation
would
> be invalid. 
> 
> The thing is, you don't know for sure what any manufacturer's initial
design
> is or what compensations are made. I can follow your and John's logic, but
> your postulation is not based upon anything solid, not mathematics, not
any
> scientific procedure, nor any empirical trial and error testing. It is
mere
> supposition which you are stating as fact more or less. Something which
you
> usually come down hard on others for.
> 
> I suggest, since non of the as yet published works on acoustics (save
Ferron,
> which many have more or less thrown out the window in many regards)
> substantiate John's premise, that he submit a comprehensive study for
review
> by the interested acoustical society, in which he also responds
convincingly
> to every heretofore published study stating the contrary view.
> 
> 1. 
> 
> --- On Mon, 3/1/10, kymarto123@... <mailto:kymarto123%40ybb.ne.jp>
<kymarto123@... <mailto:kymarto123%40ybb.ne.jp> > wrote:
> 
> 
> From: kymarto123@... <mailto:kymarto123%40ybb.ne.jp>
<kymarto123@... <mailto:kymarto123%40ybb.ne.jp> >
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> 
> Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 7:20 AM
> 
> 
> 
> Cone length and cone angle are two different things. Actually, I wonder if
the
> extra compliance of the closed tone holes actually changes the effective
cone
> angle, or just act as an extra tube length. Do you know?
> 
> Toby
> 
> MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> "...OTOH you are quite right that the main body of the sax is essentially
a
> wider cone than it appears because of the extra compliance of the tone
holes."
> 
> You speak as if no compensations are made in open tone hole placement/size
> (equivalent to tube length) for the effects of the extra compliance of
closed
> tone holes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

"Concerning Nederveen fig 27.5, r0 is the distance 
from the missing apex to the closed end
of the sax. The end of the neck is not 
closed."

Jim,

Nederveen's model is closed at the end, with a V chamber positioned directly over the tube.  Therein lies you confusion perhaps.



--- On Tue, 3/2/10, Jim West <mcbop@...> wrote:

From: Jim West <mcbop@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, March 2, 2010, 9:01 PM







 



  


    
      
      
      


Toby,
 
Good discussion, but maybe we should move it to the 
"acoustics" section of the other
forum so as to not annoy some here.
 
Concerning Nederveen fig 27.5, r0 is the distance 
from the missing apex to the closed end
of the sax. The end of the neck is not 
closed.
 
jim

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: 
  kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp 
  To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com 
  
  Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 7:17 
  AM
  Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The 
  Elusive Missing Cone
  
  
  
  Jim, with all due respect, this is absolutely incorrect. Check Nederveen pg 
  39. Look at fig. 27.5. r0 is the truncated part of the cone, r1 is the full 
  cone. The truncation ratio isr0/r1. And you are wrong, the geometric top of 
  the instrument is the end of the neck, the mpc is the substitution for the 
  missing conic apex. It would not make a lick of sense if the substitution for 
  the missing apex were part of the missing apex. 

This quote discusses 
  the effect of truncation ratio on the reed cycle, and perhaps the language is 
  clearer:

An analogous Helmholtz motion can be found in conical reed 
  instruments. The reed alternately closes the reed channel and, similarly to 
  the string, two phases alternate: a long phase, during which the reed channel 
  is open, and a shorter phase, during which the reed closes the reed channel. 
  The ratio N of the time duration of 
  the two episodes is equal to the ratio of the length of the cone (which is 
  truncated because of the reed) to the length of the missing part of the cone. 
  This specific oscillation of the reed has a direct consequence on the 
  spectrum: harmonics whose frequencies are close to N multiplied by the 
  fundamental frequencies are weak. In other words, there is an anti-formant 
  whose frequency is Nf1, where f1 is the fundamental frequency. This frequency 
  does not depend on the played note and is inversely proportional to the length 
  of the missing part of the cone. 

Scavone is discussing something 
  completely different.

Toby

Jim West 
  <mcbop@.... com> wrote:
    
    
    
    Toby,
     
    I don't think so.
     
    Nederveen, page 69: "For conical reed instruments 
    ............ the truncation, i.e., the distance
    between the top of the extrapolated cone and the geometric 
    top the instrument."
     
    The GEOMETRIC TOP  of the sax is the mouthpiece tip. 
    The truncation ratio (Scavone's beta}
    = Xo/L, Where Xo is the distance from the missing cone 
    apex to the MP. L is the length of
    the air column  measured from the apex. On page 23 of 
    his dissertation, Scavone shows 
    a graph of the partials as they are affected by beta. The 
    greater beta, the more spread are
    the partials. This makes sense because higher beta makes 
    the sax more like a clarinet.
     
    The junctions we use to make calculations about the 
    missing apex are imaginary and do
    not constitute a truncation in the played sax. We need a 
    different word for these places.
    {body/neck junction, neck/mp junction} Any 
    suggestions?
     
    jim
     
    ----- Original Messag
    
      From: 
      kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp 
      To: 
      MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com 
      
      Sent: 
      Monday, March 01, 2010 4:49 PM
      Subject: 
      Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
      
  
      
      Jim,

The truncation ratio is the ratio of the missing part of 
      the cone to the full cone. The missing part of the cone is determined by 
      extrapolating from the end of the neck to the virtual conic apex by 
      extending out using the cone angle of the tube. Obviously this missing 
      conic apex is the same no matter what the length of the conic frustum (the 
      body of the sax), and depends entirely on the diameter of the base and the 
      cone angle. 

However, if you change the length of the frustum by 
      opening keys, so that the air column does not reach the end of the bell, 
      you have altered the ratio.

Toby

Jim West 
      <mcbop@.... com> wrote: 
        
        
        鏤� 
        Toby wrote: "Changing mpc position does not alter the 
        truncation
        ratio".
         
        Toby,
         
        What is 
        the definition of "truncation ratio"?
         
        Your 
        friend,
         
        jim
        

        
          ----- 
          Original Message ----- 
          From: 
          MartinMods 
          To: 
          MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com 
          
          Sent: 
          Monday, March 01, 2010 8:49 AM
          Subject: 
          Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
          
  
          
          
          
            
            
              A series of closed tone holes acts as an 
                enlargement of the bore.  If the designer started with a 
                cone of x degree taper and added tone holes, then in effect, the 
                taper would become wider.  If however, the designer reduced 
                the initial taper x slightly, in order to compensate for the 
                added compliance of the tone holes or left the end diameter 
                unchanged but changed the position of the tone holes (length), 
                thus narrowing the taper, then your observation would be 
                invalid.  

The thing is, you don't know for sure 
                what any manufacturer' s initial design is or what 
                compensations are made.  I can follow your and John's 
                logic, but your postulation is not based upon anything solid, 
                not mathematics, not any scientific procedure, nor any empirical 
                trial and error testing.  It is mere supposition which you 
                are stating as fact more or less.  Something which you 
                usually come down hard on others for.  

I suggest, 
                since non of the as yet published works on acoustics (save 
                Ferron, which many have more or less thrown out the window in 
                many regards) substantiate John's premise, that he submit a 
                comprehensive study for review by the interested acoustical 
                society, in which he also responds convincingly to every 
                heretofore published study stating the contrary view.

1. 
                

--- On Mon, 3/1/10, kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp 
                <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp> wrote:

                
From: 
                  kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp 
                  <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
Subject: Re: 
                  [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
To: 
                  MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Monday, 
                  March 1, 2010, 7:20 AM


                    
                  
                  Cone length and cone angle are two different things. 
                  Actually, I wonder if the extra compliance of the closed tone 
                  holes actually changes the effective cone angle, or just act 
                  as an extra tube length. Do you 
                  know?

Toby

MartinMods <lancelotburt@ 
                  yahoo.com> wrote:
                    
                    
                    
                    
                      
                      
                        "...OTOH you are quite right that the main 
                          body of the sax is essentially a wider cone than it 
                          appears because of the extra compliance of the tone 
                          holes."

You speak as if no compensations are 
                          made in open tone hole placement/size (equivalent to 
                          tube length) for the effects of the extra compliance 
                          of closed tone 
                    holes.



                  

        

      
      
    

  
  


    
     

    
    


 



  






      

"Oh come on Lance, the geometric top of the instrument is the place where the cone is cut off: the end of the neck."

Uh....  That's exactly what I mean Toby.  The point of the truncation - where it was chopped off - the end of the neck.  You up late tonight?



      

Jim, 

Just one last thing here. Nederveen is representing the volume of the mpc as V, substituting for the volume V0 of the truncated apex. The end is closed because when the mpc is on the sax the end is closed. He just put the mpc at right angles to make the conic truncation clearer.

The truncation ratio of the sax is about 1:10. If you include the mpc as the geometric end of the instrument then the truncation ratio becomes something like 1:5, which is clearly incorrect.

Toby

Jim West <mcbop@...> wrote:                                              
Toby,
  
 Good discussion, but maybe we should move it to the  "acoustics" section of the other
 forum so as to not annoy some here.
  
 Concerning Nederveen fig 27.5, r0 is the distance  from the missing apex to the closed end
 of the sax. The end of the neck is not  closed.
  
 jim
    ----- Original Message ----- 
   From:    kymarto123@... 
   To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com    
   Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 7:17    AM
   Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The    Elusive Missing Cone
   

        Jim, with all due respect, this is absolutely incorrect. Check Nederveen pg    39. Look at fig. 27.5. r0 is the truncated part of the cone, r1 is the full    cone. The truncation ratio isr0/r1. And you are wrong, the geometric top of    the instrument is the end of the neck, the mpc is the
 substitution for the    missing conic apex. It would not make a lick of sense if the substitution for    the missing apex were part of the missing apex. 

This quote discusses    the effect of truncation ratio on the reed cycle, and perhaps the language is    clearer:

An analogous Helmholtz motion can be found in conical reed    instruments. The reed alternately closes the reed channel and, similarly to    the string, two phases alternate: a long phase, during which the reed channel    is open, and a shorter phase, during which the reed closes the reed channel.
    The ratio N of the time duration of    the two episodes is equal to the ratio of the length of the cone (which is    truncated because of the reed) to the length of the missing part of the cone.    This specific oscillation of the reed has a direct consequence on the    spectrum: harmonics
 whose frequencies are close to N multiplied by the    fundamental frequencies are weak. In other words, there is an anti-formant    whose frequency is Nf1, where f1 is the fundamental frequency. This frequency    does not depend on the played note and is inversely proportional to the length    of
 the missing part of the cone. 

Scavone is discussing something    completely different.

Toby

Jim West    <mcbop@...> wrote:   
            
     Toby,
      
     I don't think so.
      
     Nederveen, page 69: "For conical reed instruments      ............the truncation, i.e., the distance
     between the top of the extrapolated cone and the geometric      top the instrument."
      
     The GEOMETRIC TOP  of the sax is the mouthpiece tip.      The truncation ratio (Scavone's beta}
     = Xo/L, Where Xo is the distance from the missing cone      apex to the MP. L is the length of
     the air column  measured from the apex. On page 23 of      his dissertation, Scavone shows 
     a graph of the partials as they are affected by beta. The      greater beta, the more spread are
     the partials. This makes sense because higher beta makes      the sax more like a clarinet.
      
     The junctions we use to make calculations about the      missing apex are imaginary and do
     not constitute a truncation in the played sax. We need a      different word for these places.
     {body/neck junction, neck/mp junction} Any      suggestions?
      
     jim
     
     ----- Original Messag
            From:        kymarto123@... 
       To:        MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com        
       Sent:        Monday, March 01, 2010 4:49 PM
       Subject:        Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
       

                Jim,

The truncation ratio is the ratio of the missing part of        the cone to the full cone. The missing part of the cone is determined by        extrapolating from the end of the neck to the virtual conic apex by        extending out using the cone angle of the tube. Obviously this missing       
 conic apex is the same no matter what the length of the conic frustum (the        body of the sax), and depends entirely on the diameter of the base and the        cone angle. 

However, if you change the length of the frustum by        opening keys, so that the air column does not reach the end of the bell,        you have altered the ratio.

Toby

Jim West        <mcbop@...> wrote: 
                           $Bo;(B� 
         Toby wrote: "Changing mpc position does not alter the          truncation
         ratio".
          
         Toby,
          
         What is          the definition of "truncation ratio"?
          
         Your          friend,
          
         jim
         

                    -----            Original Message ----- 
           From:            MartinMods 
           To:            MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com            
           Sent:            Monday, March 01, 2010 8:49 AM
           Subject:            Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
           

                                                                            A series of closed tone holes acts as an                  enlargement of the bore.  If the designer started with a                  cone of x degree taper and added tone holes, then in effect, the                  taper
 would become wider.  If however, the designer reduced                  the initial taper x slightly, in order to compensate for the                  added compliance of the tone holes or left the end diameter                  unchanged but changed the position of the tone holes (length),         
         thus narrowing the taper, then your observation would be                  invalid.  

The thing is, you don't know for sure                  what any manufacturer's initial design is or what                  compensations are made.  I can follow your and John's                  logic, but your postulation is not based upon anything solid,                  not mathematics, not any
 scientific procedure, nor any empirical                  trial and error testing.  It is mere supposition which you                  are stating as fact more or less.  Something which you                  usually come down hard on others for.  

I suggest,                  since non of the as yet published works on acoustics (save                  Ferron, which many have more or less thrown out the window in                  many regards) substantiate John's premise, that he submit a                  comprehensive study for review by the
 interested acoustical                  society, in which he also responds convincingly to every                  heretofore published study stating the contrary view.

1.                  

--- On Mon, 3/1/10, kymarto123@...                  <kymarto123@...> wrote:
                 
From:                    kymarto123@...                    <kymarto123@...>
Subject: Re:                    [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
To:                    MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday,                    March 1, 2010, 7:20 AM

                                                           Cone length and cone angle are two different things.                    Actually, I wonder if the extra compliance of the closed tone                    holes actually changes the effective cone angle, or just act                    as an
 extra tube length. Do you                    know?

Toby

MartinMods <lancelotburt@                    yahoo.com> wrote:
                                                                                                                                                           "...OTOH you are quite right that the main                            body of the sax is essentially a wider cone than it                      
      appears because of the extra compliance of the tone                            holes."

You speak as if no compensations are                            made in open tone hole placement/size (equivalent to                            tube length) for the effects of the extra compliance                            of closed tone                      holes.




                   





         


       
       

     


   
   

 
      
                 
                 
 

Steve, why does this bother you so much? Who is forcing you to read this? I think the headers make it quite clear what the content is.

Toby

STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...> wrote:                                                 
  I think it would be far less tiresome if the participants in the endless discussion would refrain from quoting the work of others and actually build some saxophones, test them , and have their work published by an established venue (sorry,  internet discussion groups and self published websites
 don$B!G(Bt count) where their work could be peer reviewed by people who actually do this for a living. Just a thought$B!D!D(Bthat$B!G(Bs the way most scientific/academic research is validated.
   
      From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Barry Levine
 Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 3:38 PM
 To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
 Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
  
  
   
    
        I, for one, am not annoyed.
 
 It may get a bit tiresome, but it belongs here certainly. Also, I think the
 recursiveness is helpful (each time I get a little more).
 
 Haven't people been at parties, with different converations taking place in
 different parts of the room?
 
 Barry
 
 on 3/2/10 4:01 PM, Jim West at mcbop@... wrote:
 
 > Toby,
 > 
 > Good discussion, but maybe we should move it to the "acoustics" section of the
 > other
 > forum so as to not annoy some here.
 > 
 > Concerning Nederveen fig 27.5, r0 is the distance from the missing apex to the
 > closed end
 > of the sax. The end of the neck is not closed.
 > 
 > jim
 > ----- Original Message -----
 > From: kymarto123@...
 > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
 > Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 7:17 AM
 > Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > Jim, with all due respect, this is absolutely incorrect. Check Nederveen pg
 > 39. Look at fig. 27.5. r0 is the truncated part of the cone, r1 is the full
 > cone. The truncation ratio isr0/r1. And you are wrong, the geometric top of
 > the instrument is the end of the neck, the mpc is the substitution for the
 > missing conic apex. It would not make a lick of sense if the substitution for
 > the missing apex were part of the missing apex.
 > 
 > This quote discusses the effect of truncation ratio on the reed cycle, and
 > perhaps the language is clearer:
 > 
 > An analogous Helmholtz motion can be found in conical reed instruments. The
 > reed alternately closes the reed channel and, similarly to the string, two
 > phases alternate: a long phase, during which the reed channel is open, and a
 > shorter phase, during which the reed closes the reed channel. The ratio N of
 > the time duration of the two episodes is equal to the ratio of the length of
 > the cone (which is truncated because of the reed) to the length of the missing
 > part of the cone. This specific oscillation of the reed has a direct
 > consequence on the spectrum: harmonics whose frequencies are close to N
 > multiplied by the fundamental frequencies are weak. In other words, there is
 > an anti-formant whose frequency is Nf1, where f1 is the fundamental frequency.
 > This frequency does not depend on the played note and is inversely
 > proportional to the length of the missing part of the cone.
 > 
 > Scavone is discussing something completely different.
 > 
 > Toby
 > 
 > Jim West <mcbop@...> wrote:
 > 
 > 
 > Toby,
 > 
 > I don't think so.
 > 
 > Nederveen, page 69: "For conical reed instruments ............the truncation,
 > i.e., the distance
 > between the top of the extrapolated cone and the geometric top the
 > instrument."
 > 
 > The GEOMETRIC TOP of the sax is the mouthpiece tip. The truncation ratio
 > (Scavone's beta}
 > = Xo/L, Where Xo is the distance from the missing cone apex to the MP. L is
 > the length of
 > the air column measured from the apex. On page 23 of his dissertation,
 > Scavone shows 
 > a graph of the partials as they are affected by beta. The greater beta, the
 > more spread are
 > the partials. This makes sense because higher beta makes the sax more like a
 > clarinet.
 > 
 > The junctions we use to make calculations about the missing apex are imaginary
 > and do
 > not constitute a truncation in the played sax. We need a different word for
 > these places.
 > {body/neck junction, neck/mp junction} Any suggestions?
 > 
 > jim
 > ----- Original Messag
 > From: kymarto123@...
 > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
 > Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 4:49 PM
 > Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > Jim,
 > 
 > The truncation ratio is the ratio of the missing part of the cone to the full
 > cone. The missing part of the cone is determined by extrapolating from the end
 > of the neck to the virtual conic apex by extending out using the cone angle of
 > the tube. Obviously this missing conic apex is the same no matter what the
 > length of the conic frustum (the body of the sax), and depends entirely on the
 > diameter of the base and the cone angle.
 > 
 > However, if you change the length of the frustum by opening keys, so that the
 > air column does not reach the end of the bell, you have altered the ratio.
 > 
 > Toby
 > 
 > Jim West <mcbop@...> wrote:
 > 
 > ?? 
 > Toby wrote: "Changing mpc position does not alter the truncation
 > ratio".
 > 
 > Toby,
 > 
 > What is the definition of "truncation ratio"?
 > 
 > Your friend,
 > 
 > jim
 > 
 > 
 > ----- Original Message -----
 > From: MartinMods 
 > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
 > Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 8:49 AM
 > Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > A series of closed tone holes acts as an enlargement of the bore. If the
 > designer started with a cone of x degree taper and added tone holes, then in
 > effect, the taper would become wider. If however, the designer reduced the
 > initial taper x slightly, in order to compensate for the added compliance of
 > the tone holes or left the end diameter unchanged but changed the position of
 > the tone holes (length), thus narrowing the taper, then your observation would
 > be invalid. 
 > 
 > The thing is, you don't know for sure what any manufacturer's initial design
 > is or what compensations are made. I can follow your and John's logic, but
 > your postulation is not based upon anything solid, not mathematics, not any
 > scientific procedure, nor any empirical trial and error testing. It is mere
 > supposition which you are stating as fact more or less. Something which you
 > usually come down hard on others for.
 > 
 > I suggest, since non of the as yet published works on acoustics (save Ferron,
 > which many have more or less thrown out the window in many regards)
 > substantiate John's premise, that he submit a comprehensive study for review
 > by the interested acoustical society, in which he also responds convincingly
 > to every heretofore published study stating the contrary view.
 > 
 > 1. 
 > 
 > --- On Mon, 3/1/10, kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...> wrote:
 > 
 > 
 > From: kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...>
 > Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
 > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
 > Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 7:20 AM
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > Cone length and cone angle are two different things. Actually, I wonder if the
 > extra compliance of the closed tone holes actually changes the effective cone
 > angle, or just act as an extra tube length. Do you know?
 > 
 > Toby
 > 
 > MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:
 > 
 > "...OTOH you are quite right that the main body of the sax is essentially a
 > wider cone than it appears because of the extra compliance of the tone holes."
 > 
 > You speak as if no compensations are made in open tone hole placement/size
 > (equivalent to tube length) for the effects of the extra compliance of closed
 > tone holes.
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > 
  
    
  
  
     


      
                 
                 
 

Toby (and others):

It doesn't bother me in the least. I've read the posts with considerable
interest. I do think you guys are doing the saxophone community a great
disservice through the implication that this is how the saxophone design
process works. It isn't. Not even close. I'm not just speaking of my own
process, but also about the process employed by everyone I know who builds
horns for a living. 

 

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of kymarto123@...
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 6:51 PM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone

 

  

Steve, why does this bother you so much? Who is forcing you to read this? I
think the headers make it quite clear what the content is.

Toby

STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...> wrote:

  

I think it would be far less tiresome if the participants in the endless
discussion would refrain from quoting the work of others and actually build
some saxophones, test them , and have their work published by an established
venue (sorry,  internet discussion groups and self published websites don't
count) where their work could be peer reviewed by people who actually do
this for a living. Just a thought..that's the way most scientific/academic
research is validated.

 

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Barry Levine
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 3:38 PM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone

 

  

I, for one, am not annoyed.

It may get a bit tiresome, but it belongs here certainly. Also, I think the
recursiveness is helpful (each time I get a little more).

Haven't people been at parties, with different converations taking place in
different parts of the room?

Barry

on 3/2/10 4:01 PM, Jim West at mcbop@... <mailto:mcbop%40san.rr.com>
wrote:

> Toby,
> 
> Good discussion, but maybe we should move it to the "acoustics" section of
the
> other
> forum so as to not annoy some here.
> 
> Concerning Nederveen fig 27.5, r0 is the distance from the missing apex to
the
> closed end
> of the sax. The end of the neck is not closed.
> 
> jim
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: kymarto123@... <mailto:kymarto123%40ybb.ne.jp> 
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 7:17 AM
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
> 
> 
> 
> Jim, with all due respect, this is absolutely incorrect. Check Nederveen
pg
> 39. Look at fig. 27.5. r0 is the truncated part of the cone, r1 is the
full
> cone. The truncation ratio isr0/r1. And you are wrong, the geometric top
of
> the instrument is the end of the neck, the mpc is the substitution for the
> missing conic apex. It would not make a lick of sense if the substitution
for
> the missing apex were part of the missing apex.
> 
> This quote discusses the effect of truncation ratio on the reed cycle, and
> perhaps the language is clearer:
> 
> An analogous Helmholtz motion can be found in conical reed instruments.
The
> reed alternately closes the reed channel and, similarly to the string, two
> phases alternate: a long phase, during which the reed channel is open, and
a
> shorter phase, during which the reed closes the reed channel. The ratio N
of
> the time duration of the two episodes is equal to the ratio of the length
of
> the cone (which is truncated because of the reed) to the length of the
missing
> part of the cone. This specific oscillation of the reed has a direct
> consequence on the spectrum: harmonics whose frequencies are close to N
> multiplied by the fundamental frequencies are weak. In other words, there
is
> an anti-formant whose frequency is Nf1, where f1 is the fundamental
frequency.
> This frequency does not depend on the played note and is inversely
> proportional to the length of the missing part of the cone.
> 
> Scavone is discussing something completely different.
> 
> Toby
> 
> Jim West <mcbop@... <mailto:mcbop%40san.rr.com> > wrote:
> 
> 
> Toby,
> 
> I don't think so.
> 
> Nederveen, page 69: "For conical reed instruments ............the
truncation,
> i.e., the distance
> between the top of the extrapolated cone and the geometric top the
> instrument."
> 
> The GEOMETRIC TOP of the sax is the mouthpiece tip. The truncation ratio
> (Scavone's beta}
> = Xo/L, Where Xo is the distance from the missing cone apex to the MP. L
is
> the length of
> the air column measured from the apex. On page 23 of his dissertation,
> Scavone shows 
> a graph of the partials as they are affected by beta. The greater beta,
the
> more spread are
> the partials. This makes sense because higher beta makes the sax more like
a
> clarinet.
> 
> The junctions we use to make calculations about the missing apex are
imaginary
> and do
> not constitute a truncation in the played sax. We need a different word
for
> these places.
> {body/neck junction, neck/mp junction} Any suggestions?
> 
> jim
> ----- Original Messag
> From: kymarto123@... <mailto:kymarto123%40ybb.ne.jp> 
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> 
> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 4:49 PM
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
> 
> 
> 
> Jim,
> 
> The truncation ratio is the ratio of the missing part of the cone to the
full
> cone. The missing part of the cone is determined by extrapolating from the
end
> of the neck to the virtual conic apex by extending out using the cone
angle of
> the tube. Obviously this missing conic apex is the same no matter what the
> length of the conic frustum (the body of the sax), and depends entirely on
the
> diameter of the base and the cone angle.
> 
> However, if you change the length of the frustum by opening keys, so that
the
> air column does not reach the end of the bell, you have altered the ratio.
> 
> Toby
> 
> Jim West <mcbop@... <mailto:mcbop%40san.rr.com> > wrote:
> 
> ?? 
> Toby wrote: "Changing mpc position does not alter the truncation
> ratio".
> 
> Toby,
> 
> What is the definition of "truncation ratio"?
> 
> Your friend,
> 
> jim
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: MartinMods 
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> 
> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 8:49 AM
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
> 
> 
> 
> A series of closed tone holes acts as an enlargement of the bore. If the
> designer started with a cone of x degree taper and added tone holes, then
in
> effect, the taper would become wider. If however, the designer reduced the
> initial taper x slightly, in order to compensate for the added compliance
of
> the tone holes or left the end diameter unchanged but changed the position
of
> the tone holes (length), thus narrowing the taper, then your observation
would
> be invalid. 
> 
> The thing is, you don't know for sure what any manufacturer's initial
design
> is or what compensations are made. I can follow your and John's logic, but
> your postulation is not based upon anything solid, not mathematics, not
any
> scientific procedure, nor any empirical trial and error testing. It is
mere
> supposition which you are stating as fact more or less. Something which
you
> usually come down hard on others for.
> 
> I suggest, since non of the as yet published works on acoustics (save
Ferron,
> which many have more or less thrown out the window in many regards)
> substantiate John's premise, that he submit a comprehensive study for
review
> by the interested acoustical society, in which he also responds
convincingly
> to every heretofore published study stating the contrary view.
> 
> 1. 
> 
> --- On Mon, 3/1/10, kymarto123@... <mailto:kymarto123%40ybb.ne.jp>
<kymarto123@... <mailto:kymarto123%40ybb.ne.jp> > wrote:
> 
> 
> From: kymarto123@... <mailto:kymarto123%40ybb.ne.jp>
<kymarto123@... <mailto:kymarto123%40ybb.ne.jp> >
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> 
> Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 7:20 AM
> 
> 
> 
> Cone length and cone angle are two different things. Actually, I wonder if
the
> extra compliance of the closed tone holes actually changes the effective
cone
> angle, or just act as an extra tube length. Do you know?
> 
> Toby
> 
> MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> "...OTOH you are quite right that the main body of the sax is essentially
a
> wider cone than it appears because of the extra compliance of the tone
holes."
> 
> You speak as if no compensations are made in open tone hole placement/size
> (equivalent to tube length) for the effects of the extra compliance of
closed
> tone holes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

 

 

Yes, much too late. Sorry. Jim's message I found later in my spam filter, and obviously I should have seen that first. My apologies.

Toby

MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:                                           "Oh come on Lance, the geometric top of the instrument is the place where the cone is cut off: the end of the neck."

Uh....  That's exactly what I mean Toby.  The point of the truncation - where it was chopped off - the end of the neck.  You up late tonight?

          
      
                 
                 
 

Steve,

I don' think anyone is pretending that saxes are designed by theory alone. But theory is valuable, or could be valuable, if makers would or could employ it. Here is a quote from the foreword to Nederveen's book:

"Physicists are strange people who do not rest before everything is 'understood', which to them means: 'formulated in mathematical relations and equations'. Musical instruments obey fundamental physical laws, and it is understandable therefore that many prominent acousticians--such as von Helmholtz, Rayleigh and Bonasse--have studied various aspects of instruments' behavior, and not without success.

An important aim of investigations into a musical instrument is to explain its pitch when sounded, a subject already initiated by Pythagoras, though in a somewhat mystical manner. Were this problem solved for all instruments, a significant step in the direction of scientific design would have been taken. In instrument-making today, rule-of-thumb or trial-and-error methods are far too often the ruling factor. [my emphasis]

In my opinion, the author of this book...has been successful in giving a physical and mathematical description of many, if not of all, mechanisms governing the tuning of woodwind instruments. He has thus made an important contribution toward the qualitative and quantitative explanation of their behavior. His results constitute a powerful tool both for correcting tuning errors in existing instruments and for creating new designs."

Nederveen himself says:

"Because empirically designed instruments are fairly satisfactory, there has always been a lack of commercial interest in instrument research...Moreover, a musical instrument often is said to be a work of art inaccessible to scientific research although several publications suggest otherwise. These resent investigations have increased knowledge in matters of tuning and tone-quality of musical instruments, knowledge that can replace mere trial-and-error by scientific calculations. Up to now, however, there have been no spectacular results and this may explain the reserve of musicians and instrument makers toward research..."

As I keep saying, no one is proposing that we should try to design an instrument solely on the drawing board; however science can certainly to better designs. It is interesting to consider that the airplane is much younger than the sax, but dedicated R&D (from commercial pressures, to be sure) has brought us incredible advances in its form. In less than 75 years we went from the Wright Flyer I to the SR-71 Blackbird, and now to the F-22 Raptor. In that time the sax got an automatic octave key and a high F#.

Of course these products are not really comparable, but it may well be that science does hold some keys towards significant improvements in musical instrument design. One only has to look at the flute pre- and post-Böhm to see what is possible in instrument design. Makers stumbled along with small incremental improvements in the same basic design for about 200 years, until old Theobald completely changed the playing field. There were hundreds of flute makers, both large and small, who were left in the dust by his new design, based largely on newly-understood acoustic principles.

Toby
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: STEVE GOODSON 
  To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 10:04 AM
  Subject: RE: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone


    

  Toby (and others):

  It doesn't bother me in the least. I've read the posts with considerable interest. I do think you guys are doing the saxophone community a great disservice through the implication that this is how the saxophone design process works. It isn't. Not even close. I'm not just speaking of my own process, but also about the process employed by everyone I know who builds horns for a living. 



  From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of kymarto123@ybb.ne.jp
  Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 6:51 PM
  To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
  Subject: RE: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone



    

  Steve, why does this bother you so much? Who is forcing you to read this? I think the headers make it quite clear what the content is.

  Toby

  STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...> wrote:

      

    I think it would be far less tiresome if the participants in the endless discussion would refrain from quoting the work of others and actually build some saxophones, test them , and have their work published by an established venue (sorry,  internet discussion groups and self published websites don't count) where their work could be peer reviewed by people who actually do this for a living. Just a thought..that's the way most scientific/academic research is validated.



    From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Barry Levine
    Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 3:38 PM
    To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
    Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone



      

    I, for one, am not annoyed.

    It may get a bit tiresome, but it belongs here certainly. Also, I think the
    recursiveness is helpful (each time I get a little more).

    Haven't people been at parties, with different converations taking place in
    different parts of the room?

    Barry

    on 3/2/10 4:01 PM, Jim West at mcbop@... wrote:

    > Toby,
    > 
    > Good discussion, but maybe we should move it to the "acoustics" section of the
    > other
    > forum so as to not annoy some here.
    > 
    > Concerning Nederveen fig 27.5, r0 is the distance from the missing apex to the
    > closed end
    > of the sax. The end of the neck is not closed.
    > 
    > jim
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: kymarto123@...
    > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
    > Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 7:17 AM
    > Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
    > 
    > 
    > 
    > Jim, with all due respect, this is absolutely incorrect. Check Nederveen pg
    > 39. Look at fig. 27.5. r0 is the truncated part of the cone, r1 is the full
    > cone. The truncation ratio isr0/r1. And you are wrong, the geometric top of
    > the instrument is the end of the neck, the mpc is the substitution for the
    > missing conic apex. It would not make a lick of sense if the substitution for
    > the missing apex were part of the missing apex.
    > 
    > This quote discusses the effect of truncation ratio on the reed cycle, and
    > perhaps the language is clearer:
    > 
    > An analogous Helmholtz motion can be found in conical reed instruments. The
    > reed alternately closes the reed channel and, similarly to the string, two
    > phases alternate: a long phase, during which the reed channel is open, and a
    > shorter phase, during which the reed closes the reed channel. The ratio N of
    > the time duration of the two episodes is equal to the ratio of the length of
    > the cone (which is truncated because of the reed) to the length of the missing
    > part of the cone. This specific oscillation of the reed has a direct
    > consequence on the spectrum: harmonics whose frequencies are close to N
    > multiplied by the fundamental frequencies are weak. In other words, there is
    > an anti-formant whose frequency is Nf1, where f1 is the fundamental frequency.
    > This frequency does not depend on the played note and is inversely
    > proportional to the length of the missing part of the cone.
    > 
    > Scavone is discussing something completely different.
    > 
    > Toby
    > 
    > Jim West <mcbop@...> wrote:
    > 
    > 
    > Toby,
    > 
    > I don't think so.
    > 
    > Nederveen, page 69: "For conical reed instruments ............the truncation,
    > i.e., the distance
    > between the top of the extrapolated cone and the geometric top the
    > instrument."
    > 
    > The GEOMETRIC TOP of the sax is the mouthpiece tip. The truncation ratio
    > (Scavone's beta}
    > = Xo/L, Where Xo is the distance from the missing cone apex to the MP. L is
    > the length of
    > the air column measured from the apex. On page 23 of his dissertation,
    > Scavone shows 
    > a graph of the partials as they are affected by beta. The greater beta, the
    > more spread are
    > the partials. This makes sense because higher beta makes the sax more like a
    > clarinet.
    > 
    > The junctions we use to make calculations about the missing apex are imaginary
    > and do
    > not constitute a truncation in the played sax. We need a different word for
    > these places.
    > {body/neck junction, neck/mp junction} Any suggestions?
    > 
    > jim
    > ----- Original Messag
    > From: kymarto123@...
    > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
    > Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 4:49 PM
    > Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
    > 
    > 
    > 
    > Jim,
    > 
    > The truncation ratio is the ratio of the missing part of the cone to the full
    > cone. The missing part of the cone is determined by extrapolating from the end
    > of the neck to the virtual conic apex by extending out using the cone angle of
    > the tube. Obviously this missing conic apex is the same no matter what the
    > length of the conic frustum (the body of the sax), and depends entirely on the
    > diameter of the base and the cone angle.
    > 
    > However, if you change the length of the frustum by opening keys, so that the
    > air column does not reach the end of the bell, you have altered the ratio.
    > 
    > Toby
    > 
    > Jim West <mcbop@...> wrote:
    > 
    > ?? 
    > Toby wrote: "Changing mpc position does not alter the truncation
    > ratio".
    > 
    > Toby,
    > 
    > What is the definition of "truncation ratio"?
    > 
    > Your friend,
    > 
    > jim
    > 
    > 
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: MartinMods 
    > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
    > Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 8:49 AM
    > Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
    > 
    > 
    > 
    > A series of closed tone holes acts as an enlargement of the bore. If the
    > designer started with a cone of x degree taper and added tone holes, then in
    > effect, the taper would become wider. If however, the designer reduced the
    > initial taper x slightly, in order to compensate for the added compliance of
    > the tone holes or left the end diameter unchanged but changed the position of
    > the tone holes (length), thus narrowing the taper, then your observation would
    > be invalid. 
    > 
    > The thing is, you don't know for sure what any manufacturer's initial design
    > is or what compensations are made. I can follow your and John's logic, but
    > your postulation is not based upon anything solid, not mathematics, not any
    > scientific procedure, nor any empirical trial and error testing. It is mere
    > supposition which you are stating as fact more or less. Something which you
    > usually come down hard on others for.
    > 
    > I suggest, since non of the as yet published works on acoustics (save Ferron,
    > which many have more or less thrown out the window in many regards)
    > substantiate John's premise, that he submit a comprehensive study for review
    > by the interested acoustical society, in which he also responds convincingly
    > to every heretofore published study stating the contrary view.
    > 
    > 1. 
    > 
    > --- On Mon, 3/1/10, kymarto123@ybb.ne.jp <kymarto123@...> wrote:
    > 
    > 
    > From: kymarto123@ybb.ne.jp <kymarto123@...>
    > Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
    > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
    > Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 7:20 AM
    > 
    > 
    > 
    > Cone length and cone angle are two different things. Actually, I wonder if the
    > extra compliance of the closed tone holes actually changes the effective cone
    > angle, or just act as an extra tube length. Do you know?
    > 
    > Toby
    > 
    > MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:
    > 
    > "...OTOH you are quite right that the main body of the sax is essentially a
    > wider cone than it appears because of the extra compliance of the tone holes."
    > 
    > You speak as if no compensations are made in open tone hole placement/size
    > (equivalent to tube length) for the effects of the extra compliance of closed
    > tone holes.
    > 
    > 
    > 
    > 
    > 
    > 
    > 
    > 
    > 
    > 
    > 
    > 
    > 







  

Hi Toby,

I really believe that some things are best ignored.  I wouldn't waste my
time defending against such petty backbiting.  It really says more about
the source than it does about those of us who are engaged in an
intelligent discussion.  'Nuf said.

  While the missing cone debate has been raging, I have been doing some
more calculations and extending some of the studies I have previously
posted on my website.  Here are the fruits of my labors.

Basically I began by  finding the ideal spot on the neck for a
mouthpiece on a saxophone I am very familiar with.  Because the tuning
and intonation aligns so beautifully at this spot, the assumption was
made that the volume of the missing cone is effectively replicated by
the equivalent volume of the mouthpiece when it is played in that exact
position.

From there I worked backwards measuring the physical volume of the
mouthpiece, calculating the volume to add to that to get the total
"effective volume" using the method described by Benade.  Once that
figure was obtained, I used Ferron's math to calculate the taper of the
neck, and from there the length and volume of the missing  cone
extrapolated by extending the taper of the neck.  The calculated volume
of that missing cone was then compared to the effective volume of the
mouthpiece.   The results were within 1.8 % of perfect agreement.

To test the theory that the volume of the missing cone should be
extrapolated by using the taper of the body as Lance suggests, the body
measurements were taken and the slope found for the body tube.  Using
the same formulas as before it was found that the slope of the body
differed from that of the neck by .2 degrees.  This resulted in a
missing cone 50 mm longer than the missing cone calculated from the neck
taper, and a missing cone whose volume was 10 ml greater than the one
calculated from the neck.
This missing cone volume was nowhere close to that of the mouthpiece in
its ideal spot on the neck.  In other words:

In order to replicate this missing cone volume requirement the
mouthpiece would have to be pulled completely off the neck cork and it
would still be 3 ml short!

Based on these findings it appears that Ferron's idea of extending the
neck is the more accurate one to follow to calculate the missing
cone---at least for the saxophone and mouthpiece used for this study.

The full study with scale drawings and formulas used can be found at
this link:   Missing Cone Volume Comparison Study
<http://jbtsaxmusic.homestead.com/Missing_Cone_Volume_Comparison_Study.p\
df>

To see how the "effective volume" of the mouthpiece was determined go
to:  Mouthpiece Effective Volume
<http://jbtsaxmusic.homestead.com/mouthpiece_equivalent_volume_study.pdf\
>

John


--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "Toby" <kymarto123@...> wrote:
>
> Steve,
>
> I don' think anyone is pretending that saxes are designed by theory
alone. But theory is valuable, or could be valuable, if makers would or
could employ it. Here is a quote from the foreword to Nederveen's book:
>
> "Physicists are strange people who do not rest before everything is
'understood', which to them means: 'formulated in mathematical relations
and equations'. Musical instruments obey fundamental physical laws, and
it is understandable therefore that many prominent acousticians--such as
von Helmholtz, Rayleigh and Bonasse--have studied various aspects of
instruments' behavior, and not without success.
>
> An important aim of investigations into a musical instrument is to
explain its pitch when sounded, a subject already initiated by
Pythagoras, though in a somewhat mystical manner. Were this problem
solved for all instruments, a significant step in the direction of
scientific design would have been taken. In instrument-making today,
rule-of-thumb or trial-and-error methods are far too often the ruling
factor. [my emphasis]
>
> In my opinion, the author of this book...has been successful in giving
a physical and mathematical description of many, if not of all,
mechanisms governing the tuning of woodwind instruments. He has thus
made an important contribution toward the qualitative and quantitative
explanation of their behavior. His results constitute a powerful tool
both for correcting tuning errors in existing instruments and for
creating new designs."
>
> Nederveen himself says:
>
> "Because empirically designed instruments are fairly satisfactory,
there has always been a lack of commercial interest in instrument
research...Moreover, a musical instrument often is said to be a work of
art inaccessible to scientific research although several publications
suggest otherwise. These resent investigations have increased knowledge
in matters of tuning and tone-quality of musical instruments, knowledge
that can replace mere trial-and-error by scientific calculations. Up to
now, however, there have been no spectacular results and this may
explain the reserve of musicians and instrument makers toward
research..."
>
> As I keep saying, no one is proposing that we should try to design an
instrument solely on the drawing board; however science can certainly to
better designs. It is interesting to consider that the airplane is much
younger than the sax, but dedicated R&D (from commercial pressures, to
be sure) has brought us incredible advances in its form. In less than 75
years we went from the Wright Flyer I to the SR-71 Blackbird, and now to
the F-22 Raptor. In that time the sax got an automatic octave key and a
high F#.
>
> Of course these products are not really comparable, but it may well be
that science does hold some keys towards significant improvements in
musical instrument design. One only has to look at the flute pre- and
post-Böhm to see what is possible in instrument design. Makers
stumbled along with small incremental improvements in the same basic
design for about 200 years, until old Theobald completely changed the
playing field. There were hundreds of flute makers, both large and
small, who were left in the dust by his new design, based largely on
newly-understood acoustic principles.
>
> Toby
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: STEVE GOODSON
>   To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 10:04 AM
>   Subject: RE: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
>
>
>
>
>   Toby (and others):
>
>   It doesn't bother me in the least. I've read the posts with
considerable interest. I do think you guys are doing the saxophone
community a great disservice through the implication that this is how
the saxophone design process works. It isn't. Not even close. I'm not
just speaking of my own process, but also about the process employed by
everyone I know who builds horns for a living.
>
>
>
>   From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of kymarto123@...
>   Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 6:51 PM
>   To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>   Subject: RE: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
>
>
>
>
>
>   Steve, why does this bother you so much? Who is forcing you to read
this? I think the headers make it quite clear what the content is.
>
>   Toby
>
>   STEVE GOODSON saxgourmet@... wrote:
>
>
>
>     I think it would be far less tiresome if the participants in the
endless discussion would refrain from quoting the work of others and
actually build some saxophones, test them , and have their work
published by an established venue (sorry,  internet discussion groups
and self published websites don't count) where their work could be peer
reviewed by people who actually do this for a living. Just a
thought..that's the way most scientific/academic research is validated.
>
>
>
>     From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Barry Levine
>     Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 3:38 PM
>     To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>     Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
>
>
>
>
>
>     I, for one, am not annoyed.
>
>     It may get a bit tiresome, but it belongs here certainly. Also, I
think the
>     recursiveness is helpful (each time I get a little more).
>
>     Haven't people been at parties, with different converations taking
place in
>     different parts of the room?
>
>     Barry
>
>     on 3/2/10 4:01 PM, Jim West at mcbop@... wrote:
>
>     > Toby,
>     >
>     > Good discussion, but maybe we should move it to the "acoustics"
section of the
>     > other
>     > forum so as to not annoy some here.
>     >
>     > Concerning Nederveen fig 27.5, r0 is the distance from the
missing apex to the
>     > closed end
>     > of the sax. The end of the neck is not closed.
>     >
>     > jim
>     > ----- Original Message -----
>     > From: kymarto123@...
>     > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>     > Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 7:17 AM
>     > Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > Jim, with all due respect, this is absolutely incorrect. Check
Nederveen pg
>     > 39. Look at fig. 27.5. r0 is the truncated part of the cone, r1
is the full
>     > cone. The truncation ratio isr0/r1. And you are wrong, the
geometric top of
>     > the instrument is the end of the neck, the mpc is the
substitution for the
>     > missing conic apex. It would not make a lick of sense if the
substitution for
>     > the missing apex were part of the missing apex.
>     >
>     > This quote discusses the effect of truncation ratio on the reed
cycle, and
>     > perhaps the language is clearer:
>     >
>     > An analogous Helmholtz motion can be found in conical reed
instruments. The
>     > reed alternately closes the reed channel and, similarly to the
string, two
>     > phases alternate: a long phase, during which the reed channel is
open, and a
>     > shorter phase, during which the reed closes the reed channel.
The ratio N of
>     > the time duration of the two episodes is equal to the ratio of
the length of
>     > the cone (which is truncated because of the reed) to the length
of the missing
>     > part of the cone. This specific oscillation of the reed has a
direct
>     > consequence on the spectrum: harmonics whose frequencies are
close to N
>     > multiplied by the fundamental frequencies are weak. In other
words, there is
>     > an anti-formant whose frequency is Nf1, where f1 is the
fundamental frequency.
>     > This frequency does not depend on the played note and is
inversely
>     > proportional to the length of the missing part of the cone.
>     >
>     > Scavone is discussing something completely different.
>     >
>     > Toby
>     >
>     > Jim West mcbop@... wrote:
>     >
>     >
>     > Toby,
>     >
>     > I don't think so.
>     >
>     > Nederveen, page 69: "For conical reed instruments
............the truncation,
>     > i.e., the distance
>     > between the top of the extrapolated cone and the geometric top
the
>     > instrument."
>     >
>     > The GEOMETRIC TOP of the sax is the mouthpiece tip. The
truncation ratio
>     > (Scavone's beta}
>     > = Xo/L, Where Xo is the distance from the missing cone apex to
the MP. L is
>     > the length of
>     > the air column measured from the apex. On page 23 of his
dissertation,
>     > Scavone shows
>     > a graph of the partials as they are affected by beta. The
greater beta, the
>     > more spread are
>     > the partials. This makes sense because higher beta makes the sax
more like a
>     > clarinet.
>     >
>     > The junctions we use to make calculations about the missing apex
are imaginary
>     > and do
>     > not constitute a truncation in the played sax. We need a
different word for
>     > these places.
>     > {body/neck junction, neck/mp junction} Any suggestions?
>     >
>     > jim
>     > ----- Original Messag
>     > From: kymarto123@...
>     > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>     > Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 4:49 PM
>     > Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > Jim,
>     >
>     > The truncation ratio is the ratio of the missing part of the
cone to the full
>     > cone. The missing part of the cone is determined by
extrapolating from the end
>     > of the neck to the virtual conic apex by extending out using the
cone angle of
>     > the tube. Obviously this missing conic apex is the same no
matter what the
>     > length of the conic frustum (the body of the sax), and depends
entirely on the
>     > diameter of the base and the cone angle.
>     >
>     > However, if you change the length of the frustum by opening
keys, so that the
>     > air column does not reach the end of the bell, you have altered
the ratio.
>     >
>     > Toby
>     >
>     > Jim West mcbop@... wrote:
>     >
>     > ??
>     > Toby wrote: "Changing mpc position does not alter the truncation
>     > ratio".
>     >
>     > Toby,
>     >
>     > What is the definition of "truncation ratio"?
>     >
>     > Your friend,
>     >
>     > jim
>     >
>     >
>     > ----- Original Message -----
>     > From: MartinMods
>     > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>     > Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 8:49 AM
>     > Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > A series of closed tone holes acts as an enlargement of the
bore. If the
>     > designer started with a cone of x degree taper and added tone
holes, then in
>     > effect, the taper would become wider. If however, the designer
reduced the
>     > initial taper x slightly, in order to compensate for the added
compliance of
>     > the tone holes or left the end diameter unchanged but changed
the position of
>     > the tone holes (length), thus narrowing the taper, then your
observation would
>     > be invalid.
>     >
>     > The thing is, you don't know for sure what any manufacturer's
initial design
>     > is or what compensations are made. I can follow your and John's
logic, but
>     > your postulation is not based upon anything solid, not
mathematics, not any
>     > scientific procedure, nor any empirical trial and error testing.
It is mere
>     > supposition which you are stating as fact more or less.
Something which you
>     > usually come down hard on others for.
>     >
>     > I suggest, since non of the as yet published works on acoustics
(save Ferron,
>     > which many have more or less thrown out the window in many
regards)
>     > substantiate John's premise, that he submit a comprehensive
study for review
>     > by the interested acoustical society, in which he also responds
convincingly
>     > to every heretofore published study stating the contrary view.
>     >
>     > 1.
>     >
>     > --- On Mon, 3/1/10, kymarto123@... kymarto123@... wrote:
>     >
>     >
>     > From: kymarto123@... kymarto123@...
>     > Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
>     > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>     > Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 7:20 AM
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > Cone length and cone angle are two different things. Actually, I
wonder if the
>     > extra compliance of the closed tone holes actually changes the
effective cone
>     > angle, or just act as an extra tube length. Do you know?
>     >
>     > Toby
>     >
>     > MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:
>     >
>     > "...OTOH you are quite right that the main body of the sax is
essentially a
>     > wider cone than it appears because of the extra compliance of
the tone holes."
>     >
>     > You speak as if no compensations are made in open tone hole
placement/size
>     > (equivalent to tube length) for the effects of the extra
compliance of closed
>     > tone holes.
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>

"I do think you guys are doing the saxophone community a great 
  disservice through the implication that this is how the saxophone design 
  process works. It isn’t. Not even close. I’m not just speaking of my own 
  process, but also about the process employed by everyone I know who builds 
  horns for a living."

Maybe not everyone is satisfied with those horns.......



      

John,

It seems that your experiments point to the neck angle as
being the main determinant of the truncation volume. It
may well be so. It would be interesting to test a few
different horns and see how well the data correlates, as
(according to Nederveen) the cone angle(s) can vary widely
between different sax designs.

It is probably also important to remember that there are a
number of factors which influence intonation, some quite
greatly, such as ambient temperature. Are you testing at
temps around 27 degrees?

Toby

--- John <jtalcott47@...> wrote:

> Hi Toby,
> 
> I really believe that some things are best ignored. 
> I wouldn't waste my
> time defending against such petty backbiting.  It
> really says more about
> the source than it does about those of us who are
> engaged in an
> intelligent discussion.  'Nuf said.
> 
>   While the missing cone debate has been raging, I
> have been doing some
> more calculations and extending some of the studies
> I have previously
> posted on my website.  Here are the fruits of my
> labors.
> 
> Basically I began by  finding the ideal spot on the
> neck for a
> mouthpiece on a saxophone I am very familiar with. 
> Because the tuning
> and intonation aligns so beautifully at this spot,
> the assumption was
> made that the volume of the missing cone is
> effectively replicated by
> the equivalent volume of the mouthpiece when it is
> played in that exact
> position.
> 
> From there I worked backwards measuring the physical
> volume of the
> mouthpiece, calculating the volume to add to that to
> get the total
> "effective volume" using the method described by
> Benade.  Once that
> figure was obtained, I used Ferron's math to
> calculate the taper of the
> neck, and from there the length and volume of the
> missing  cone
> extrapolated by extending the taper of the neck. 
> The calculated volume
> of that missing cone was then compared to the
> effective volume of the
> mouthpiece.   The results were within 1.8 % of
> perfect agreement.
> 
> To test the theory that the volume of the missing
> cone should be
> extrapolated by using the taper of the body as Lance
> suggests, the body
> measurements were taken and the slope found for the
> body tube.  Using
> the same formulas as before it was found that the
> slope of the body
> differed from that of the neck by .2 degrees.  This
> resulted in a
> missing cone 50 mm longer than the missing cone
> calculated from the neck
> taper, and a missing cone whose volume was 10 ml
> greater than the one
> calculated from the neck.
> This missing cone volume was nowhere close to that
> of the mouthpiece in
> its ideal spot on the neck.  In other words:
> 
> In order to replicate this missing cone volume
> requirement the
> mouthpiece would have to be pulled completely off
> the neck cork and it
> would still be 3 ml short!
> 
> Based on these findings it appears that Ferron's
> idea of extending the
> neck is the more accurate one to follow to calculate
> the missing
> cone---at least for the saxophone and mouthpiece
> used for this study.
> 
> The full study with scale drawings and formulas used
> can be found at
> this link:   Missing Cone Volume Comparison Study
>
<http://jbtsaxmusic.homestead.com/Missing_Cone_Volume_Comparison_Study.p\
> df>
> 
> To see how the "effective volume" of the mouthpiece
> was determined go
> to:  Mouthpiece Effective Volume
>
<http://jbtsaxmusic.homestead.com/mouthpiece_equivalent_volume_study.pdf\
> >
> 
> John
> 

John,

You may want to recheck your measurements, formulas and figures, as using your measurements and only calculating the volume of cones (the volume of a cone is a simple calculation - and subtracting your defined cones from one another) I get entirely different results, so something is definitely wrong.:

The volume of the neck taper missing cone based upon your neck radius (6.3mm) and missing cone length (213.7mm) is the same ( 8.88cl).  You claim your neck has a volume of 49cl, however calculating the cone from the large end of the neck radius (11.4mm) to the apex (386.7mm) and subtracting the missing cone 8.88cl from that gives me a neck volume of 43.54cl.  The volume of the cylindrical tenon section (without the gap) is 8.72cl, and I estimate the 1mm gap at the base of the tenon to be .452cl, for a mystery volume of 9.17ml.  I say mystery, since you don't include it in any of your calculations or explanations.

Taking your body measurements, you claim that the missing cone based upon the length (453.63mm) and the body small end radius (11.54mm) has total volume of 67.86cl, from which you subtract your neck volume of 49cl to get your final 18.86cl, excessively large body taper based mouthpiece volume.  

My cone calculator says a cone with a base radius of 11.54mm and a lenght of 457.63mm has a volume of 63.82cl, from which we subtract my neck volume of 43.54cl, and also the mystery volume of  9.17cl (since your diagram indicates this volume's length is part of the missing cone, and as such it's volume belongs to the neck.), so the total body based mouthpiece volume should be 10.9cl.   Still, that is not accurate since there are obviously mistakes in your figures.

Let's get it straightened out.

Lance



      

Maybe everybody is NOT satisfied, as you say, Lance. I know I’m not……why don’t you guys build some horns and submit them to manufacturers? Believe me, they’e ALWAYS looking for new ideas and ways to improve their products…..I got started in the design consulting business many years ago by building a better product and taking it to the NAMM show and letting the manufacturers play it and see that it was better. At the time, none of the factory owners knew me from Adam. You have to prove to them you know what you are talking about, have original ideas, and the chops to implement the ideas and demonstrate that they are a clear improvement. I think they recognize that there is a huge difference between actually doing it and just talking about it……at least that’s been my experience

 

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of MartinMods
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 12:20 AM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone

 

  


"I do think you guys are doing the saxophone community a great disservice through the implication that this is how the saxophone design process works. It isn’t. Not even close. I’m not just speaking of my own process, but also about the process employed by everyone I know who builds horns for a living."

Maybe not everyone is satisfied with those horns.......

 

Hi Lance,

In your "shoot from the hip" response to try to discredit the  measurements and findings of my study, you obviously overlooked an important detail.  Since I am on my way to work this morning, I don't have time to offer a detailed response to your arguments at this time.  I will simply suggest that you go back to the study and give it another look.  More when I get home about 8 1/2 hours from now.

John



--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
>
> John,
> 
> You may want to recheck your measurements, formulas and figures, as using your measurements and only calculating the volume of cones (the volume of a cone is a simple calculation - and subtracting your defined cones from one another) I get entirely different results, so something is definitely wrong.:
> 
> The volume of the neck taper missing cone based upon your neck radius (6.3mm) and missing cone length (213.7mm) is the same ( 8.88cl).  You claim your neck has a volume of 49cl, however calculating the cone from the large end of the neck radius (11.4mm) to the apex (386.7mm) and subtracting the missing cone 8.88cl from that gives me a neck volume of 43.54cl.  The volume of the cylindrical tenon section (without the gap) is 8.72cl, and I estimate the 1mm gap at the base of the tenon to be .452cl, for a mystery volume of 9.17ml.  I say mystery, since you don't include it in any of your calculations or explanations.
> 
> Taking your body measurements, you claim that the missing cone based upon the length (453.63mm) and the body small end radius (11.54mm) has total volume of 67.86cl, from which you subtract your neck volume of 49cl to get your final 18.86cl, excessively large body taper based mouthpiece volume.  
> 
> My cone calculator says a cone with a base radius of 11.54mm and a lenght of 457.63mm has a volume of 63.82cl, from which we subtract my neck volume of 43.54cl, and also the mystery volume of  9.17cl (since your diagram indicates this volume's length is part of the missing cone, and as such it's volume belongs to the neck.), so the total body based mouthpiece volume should be 10.9cl.   Still, that is not accurate since there are obviously mistakes in your figures.
> 
> Let's get it straightened out.
> 
> Lance
>

Nice work John.  If others can duplicate your results, then you may have something there.  I'll take a look too when I get a chance to spend some time with it.

With embouchure variations and equipment variations, I doubt that there will always be voluime comparison agreement within a few percent.  But I would like to re-visit and update the calcualations I did years ago and add some of the detials you have that I did not consider.




________________________________
From: John <jtalcott47@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, March 3, 2010 12:33:56 AM
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone

  
Hi Toby,

I really believe that some things are best ignored.  I wouldn't waste my time defending against such petty backbiting.  It really says more about the source than it does about those of us who are engaged in an intelligent discussion.  'Nuf said.

 While the missing cone debate has been raging, I have been doing some more calculations and extending some of the studies I have previously posted on my website.  Here are the fruits of my labors.

Basically I began by  finding the ideal spot on the neck for a mouthpiece on a saxophone I am very familiar with.  Because the tuning and intonation aligns so beautifully at this spot, the assumption was made that the volume of the missing cone is effectively replicated by the equivalent volume of the mouthpiece when it is played in that exact position.   

From there I worked backwards measuring the physical volume of the mouthpiece, calculating the volume to add to that to get the total "effective volume" using the method described by Benade.  Once that figure was obtained, I used Ferron's math to calculate the taper of the neck, and from there the length and volume of the missing  cone extrapolated by extending the taper of the neck.  The calculated volume of that missing cone was then compared to the effective volume of the mouthpiece.   The results were within 1.8 % of perfect agreement.

To test the theory that the volume of the missing cone should be extrapolated by using the taper of the body as Lance suggests, the body measurements were taken and the slope found for the body tube.  Using the same formulas as before it was found that the slope of the body differed from that of the neck by .2 degrees.  This resulted in a missing cone 50 mm longer than the missing cone calculated from the neck taper, and a missing cone whose volume was 10 ml greater than the one calculated from the neck.
This missing cone volume was nowhere close to that of the mouthpiece in its ideal spot on the neck.  In other words:

In order to replicate this missing cone volume requirement the mouthpiece would have to be pulled completely off the neck cork and it would still be 3 ml short!

Based on these findings it appears that Ferron's idea of extending the neck is the more accurate one to follow to calculate the missing cone---at least for the saxophone and mouthpiece used for this study.

The full study with scale drawings and formulas used can be found at this link:  Missing Cone Volume Comparison Study 

To see how the "effective volume" of the mouthpiece was determined go to: Mouthpiece Effective Volume 

John


--- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, "Toby" <kymarto123@. ..> wrote:
>
> Steve,
> 
> I don' think anyone is pretending that saxes are designed by theory alone. But theory is valuable, or could be valuable, if makers would or could employ it. Here is a quote from the foreword to Nederveen's book:
> 
> "Physicists are strange people who do not rest before everything is 'understood' , which to them means: 'formulated in mathematical relations and equations'. Musical instruments obey fundamental physical laws, and it is understandable therefore that many prominent acousticians- -such as von Helmholtz, Rayleigh and Bonasse--have studied various aspects of instruments' behavior, and not without success.
> 
> An important aim of investigations into a musical instrument is to explain its pitch when sounded, a subject already initiated by Pythagoras, though in a somewhat mystical manner. Were this problem solved for all instruments, a significant step in the direction of scientific design would have been taken. In instrument-making today, rule-of-thumb or trial-and-error methods are far too often the ruling factor. [my emphasis]
> 
> In my opinion, the author of this book...has been successful in giving a physical and mathematical description of many, if not of all, mechanisms governing the tuning of woodwind instruments. He has thus made an important contribution toward the qualitative and quantitative explanation of their behavior. His results constitute a powerful tool both for correcting tuning errors in existing instruments and for creating new designs."
> 
> Nederveen himself says:
> 
> "Because empirically designed instruments are fairly satisfactory, there has always been a lack of commercial interest in instrument research...Moreover , a musical instrument often is said to be a work of art inaccessible to scientific research although several publications suggest otherwise. These resent investigations have increased knowledge in matters of tuning and tone-quality of musical instruments, knowledge that can replace mere trial-and-error by scientific calculations. Up to now, however, there have been no spectacular results and this may explain the reserve of musicians and instrument makers toward research..."
> 
> As I keep saying, no one is proposing that we should try to design an instrument solely on the drawing board; however science can certainly to better designs. It is interesting to consider that the airplane is much younger than the sax, but dedicated R&D (from commercial pressures, to be sure) has brought us incredible advances in its form. In less than 75 years we went from the Wright Flyer I to the SR-71 Blackbird, and now to the F-22 Raptor. In that time the sax got an automatic octave key and a high F#.
> 
> Of course these products are not really comparable, but it may well be that science does hold some keys towards significant improvements in musical instrument design. One only has to look at the flute pre- and post-Böhm to see what is possible in instrument design. Makers stumbled along with small incremental improvements in the same basic design for about 200 years, until old Theobald completely changed the playing field. There were hundreds of flute makers, both large and small, who were left in the dust by his new design, based largely on newly-understood acoustic principles.
> 
> Toby
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: STEVE GOODSON 
> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com 
> Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 10:04 AM
> Subject: RE: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toby (and others):
> 
> It doesn't bother me in the least. I've read the posts with considerable interest. I do think you guys are doing the saxophone community a great disservice through the implication that this is how the saxophone design process works. It isn't. Not even close. I'm not just speaking of my own process, but also about the process employed by everyone I know who builds horns for a living. 
> 
> 
> 
> From: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:MouthpieceW ork@yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of kymarto123@. ..
> Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 6:51 PM
> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> Subject: RE: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steve, why does this bother you so much? Who is forcing you to read this? I think the headers make it quite clear what the content is.
> 
> Toby
> 
> STEVE GOODSON saxgourmet@. .. wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it would be far less tiresome if the participants in the endless discussion would refrain from quoting the work of others and actually build some saxophones, test them , and have their work published by an established venue (sorry, internet discussion groups and self published websites don't count) where their work could be peer reviewed by people who actually do this for a living. Just a thought..that' s the way most scientific/academic research is validated.
> 
> 
> 
> From: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:MouthpieceW ork@yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of Barry Levine
> Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 3:38 PM
> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I, for one, am not annoyed.
> 
> It may get a bit tiresome, but it belongs here certainly. Also, I think the
> recursiveness is helpful (each time I get a little more).
> 
> Haven't people been at parties, with different converations taking place in
> different parts of the room?
> 
> Barry
> 
> on 3/2/10 4:01 PM, Jim West at mcbop@... wrote:
> 
> > Toby,
> > 
> > Good discussion, but maybe we should move it to the "acoustics" section of the
> > other
> > forum so as to not annoy some here.
> > 
> > Concerning Nederveen fig 27.5, r0 is the distance from the missing apex to the
> > closed end
> > of the sax. The end of the neck is not closed.
> > 
> > jim
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: kymarto123@. ..
> > To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 7:17 AM
> > Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Jim, with all due respect, this is absolutely incorrect. Check Nederveen pg
> > 39. Look at fig. 27.5. r0 is the truncated part of the cone, r1 is the full
> > cone. The truncation ratio isr0/r1. And you are wrong, the geometric top of
> > the instrument is the end of the neck, the mpc is the substitution for the
> > missing conic apex. It would not make a lick of sense if the substitution for
> > the missing apex were part of the missing apex.
> > 
> > This quote discusses the effect of truncation ratio on the reed cycle, and
> > perhaps the language is clearer:
> > 
> > An analogous Helmholtz motion can be found in conical reed instruments. The
> > reed alternately closes the reed channel and, similarly to the string, two
> > phases alternate: a long phase, during which the reed channel is open, and a
> > shorter phase, during which the reed closes the reed channel. The ratio N of
> > the time duration of the two episodes is equal to the ratio of the length of
> > the cone (which is truncated because of the reed) to the length of the missing
> > part of the cone. This specific oscillation of the reed has a direct
> > consequence on the spectrum: harmonics whose frequencies are close to N
> > multiplied by the fundamental frequencies are weak. In other words, there is
> > an anti-formant whose frequency is Nf1, where f1 is the fundamental frequency.
> > This frequency does not depend on the played note and is inversely
> > proportional to the length of the missing part of the cone.
> > 
> > Scavone is discussing something completely different.
> > 
> > Toby
> > 
> > Jim West mcbop@... wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > Toby,
> > 
> > I don't think so.
> > 
> > Nederveen, page 69: "For conical reed instruments ............ the truncation,
> > i.e., the distance
> > between the top of the extrapolated cone and the geometric top the
> > instrument."
> > 
> > The GEOMETRIC TOP of the sax is the mouthpiece tip. The truncation ratio
> > (Scavone's beta}
> > = Xo/L, Where Xo is the distance from the missing cone apex to the MP. L is
> > the length of
> > the air column measured from the apex. On page 23 of his dissertation,
> > Scavone shows 
> > a graph of the partials as they are affected by beta. The greater beta, the
> > more spread are
> > the partials. This makes sense because higher beta makes the sax more like a
> > clarinet.
> > 
> > The junctions we use to make calculations about the missing apex are imaginary
> > and do
> > not constitute a truncation in the played sax. We need a different word for
> > these places.
> > {body/neck junction, neck/mp junction} Any suggestions?
> > 
> > jim
> > ----- Original Messag
> > From: kymarto123@. ..
> > To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> > Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 4:49 PM
> > Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Jim,
> > 
> > The truncation ratio is the ratio of the missing part of the cone to the full
> > cone. The missing part of the cone is determined by extrapolating from the end
> > of the neck to the virtual conic apex by extending out using the cone angle of
> > the tube. Obviously this missing conic apex is the same no matter what the
> > length of the conic frustum (the body of the sax), and depends entirely on the
> > diameter of the base and the cone angle.
> > 
> > However, if you change the length of the frustum by opening keys, so that the
> > air column does not reach the end of the bell, you have altered the ratio.
> > 
> > Toby
> > 
> > Jim West mcbop@... wrote:
> > 
> > ?? 
> > Toby wrote: "Changing mpc position does not alter the truncation
> > ratio".
> > 
> > Toby,
> > 
> > What is the definition of "truncation ratio"?
> > 
> > Your friend,
> > 
> > jim
> > 
> > 
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: MartinMods 
> > To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> > Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 8:49 AM
> > Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > A series of closed tone holes acts as an enlargement of the bore. If the
> > designer started with a cone of x degree taper and added tone holes, then in
> > effect, the taper would become wider. If however, the designer reduced the
> > initial taper x slightly, in order to compensate for the added compliance of
> > the tone holes or left the end diameter unchanged but changed the position of
> > the tone holes (length), thus narrowing the taper, then your observation would
> > be invalid. 
> > 
> > The thing is, you don't know for sure what any manufacturer' s initial design
> > is or what compensations are made. I can follow your and John's logic, but
> > your postulation is not based upon anything solid, not mathematics, not any
> > scientific procedure, nor any empirical trial and error testing. It is mere
> > supposition which you are stating as fact more or less. Something which you
> > usually come down hard on others for.
> > 
> > I suggest, since non of the as yet published works on acoustics (save Ferron,
> > which many have more or less thrown out the window in many regards)
> > substantiate John's premise, that he submit a comprehensive study for review
> > by the interested acoustical society, in which he also responds convincingly
> > to every heretofore published study stating the contrary view.
> > 
> > 1. 
> > 
> > --- On Mon, 3/1/10, kymarto123@. .. kymarto123@. .. wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > From: kymarto123@. .. kymarto123@. ..
> > Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
> > To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> > Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 7:20 AM
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Cone length and cone angle are two different things. Actually, I wonder if the
> > extra compliance of the closed tone holes actually changes the effective cone
> > angle, or just act as an extra tube length. Do you know?
> > 
> > Toby
> > 
> > MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:
> > 
> > "...OTOH you are quite right that the main body of the sax is essentially a
> > wider cone than it appears because of the extra compliance of the tone holes."
> > 
> > You speak as if no compensations are made in open tone hole placement/size
> > (equivalent to tube length) for the effects of the extra compliance of closed
> > tone holes.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >
>




      

The point that Steve Goodson designs and makes saxophones and others do not has been made time and time and time again.  We all get it.  Can we please give that a rest for a while and just discuss those topics that are of personal interest and just ignore the rest?

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "STEVE GOODSON" <saxgourmet@...> wrote:
>
> Maybe everybody is NOT satisfied, as you say, Lance. I know I’m not……why don’t you guys build some horns and submit them to manufacturers? Believe me, they’e ALWAYS looking for new ideas and ways to improve their products…..I got started in the design consulting business many years ago by building a better product and taking it to the NAMM show and letting the manufacturers play it and see that it was better. At the time, none of the factory owners knew me from Adam. You have to prove to them you know what you are talking about, have original ideas, and the chops to implement the ideas and demonstrate that they are a clear improvement. I think they recognize that there is a huge difference between actually doing it and just talking about it……at least that’s been my experience
> 
>  
> 
> From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of MartinMods
> Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 12:20 AM
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
> 
>  
> 
>   
> 
> 
> "I do think you guys are doing the saxophone community a great disservice through the implication that this is how the saxophone design process works. It isn’t. Not even close. I’m not just speaking of my own process, but also about the process employed by everyone I know who builds horns for a living."
> 
> Maybe not everyone is satisfied with those horns.......
>

"Maybe everybody is NOT satisfied, as you say, Lance."

I have not tried any new horns of late myself, but I do have a client who just sent me his Zephyr alto.  He emailed me that he had been to the Namm show, and tried every horn available, and decided he would be happier investing more money in his King.  FWIW.

At this point, I make key-work, conical tenons, and do various other modifications to mostly vintage horns.  I plan to start making mouthpieces and necks very soon.   Designing an entire horn is still a few forum discussions away I think.  

As you can see from John's work on cone volume, we're still trying to agree on how to measure and calculate things so we can compare notes intelligently.  That still has some value I think.

Lance







      

"In your "shoot from the hip" response to try to discredit the
measurements and findings of my study, you obviously overlooked an
important detail."

Hi John,

I've been over your document a number of times.  Let's address one issue at a time - Measured Neck Volume.   You don't explain how you measured the neck volume.  Calculations from the measurements you give for your neck (diameters and lengths) do not produce your results, neither the 173mm section nor that section with the tenon volume nor tenon and gap volume added.

The only other explanation is, you measured the actual volume of the neck/tenon (I assume) with water.  Fine.  That would be the actual physical volume of the neck then.  There is one problem with consistency then, if that is the case..  

If your measured and diagrammed neck illustration data, produces an inaccurate neck volume calculation, because of the bend and shape of the actual physical neck - i.e., you must resort to actual physical water volume measurements to get an accurate volume measurement, why would you consider the calculated results for the neck's taper and the resultant missing cone length, which are based on the same insufficient illustrated shapes and measurements, to be accurate?

I think a mm by mm plot of the neck diameter would be revealing.

Lance







      

Hi John,

One clear calculation error:

Volume of the body taper determined missing cone.

Your measurements:  

cone base radius = 11.54mm (23.8mm diameter)
cone length = 457.63mm

Your volume calculation = 67.86cl
My calculation (4 different online cone calculators and excel) = 63.82cl

How do you explain the 4cl difference?

Lance




      

We have had a few reports of calculation errors for facing curves and volumes, etc.  When you build or modify a spreadsheet, you should try to check your work by inserting some input numbers that you know the answer to.  Try some whole numbers and/or zeros to see if the formulas behave in the way they should.  Plug in some numbers from a book or the web or some hand calculations.  The group can check your work.  But I'm just sayin'...


      

Sure……..not a problem………I think there’s an old saying that applies here: Those who can, do…………

 

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 10:50 AM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone

 

  



The point that Steve Goodson designs and makes saxophones and others do not has been made time and time and time again. We all get it. Can we please give that a rest for a while and just discuss those topics that are of personal interest and just ignore the rest?

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> , "STEVE GOODSON" <saxgourmet@...> wrote:
>
> Maybe everybody is NOT satisfied, as you say, Lance. I know I’m not……why don’t you guys build some horns and submit them to manufacturers? Believe me, they’e ALWAYS looking for new ideas and ways to improve their products…..I got started in the design consulting business many years ago by building a better product and taking it to the NAMM show and letting the manufacturers play it and see that it was better. At the time, none of the factory owners knew me from Adam. You have to prove to them you know what you are talking about, have original ideas, and the chops to implement the ideas and demonstrate that they are a clear improvement. I think they recognize that there is a huge difference between actually doing it and just talking about it……at least that’s been my experience
> 
> 
> 
> From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>  [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of MartinMods
> Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 12:20 AM
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> 
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "I do think you guys are doing the saxophone community a great disservice through the implication that this is how the saxophone design process works. It isn’t. Not even close. I’m not just speaking of my own process, but also about the process employed by everyone I know who builds horns for a living."
> 
> Maybe not everyone is satisfied with those horns.......
>

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
wrote:
>
> Hi John,
>
> One clear calculation error:
>
> Volume of the body taper determined missing cone.
>
> Your measurements:
>
> cone base radius = 11.54mm (23.8mm diameter)
> cone length = 457.63mm
>
> Your volume calculation = 67.86cl
> My calculation (4 different online cone calculators and excel) 63.82cl
>
> How do you explain the 4cl difference?
>
> Lance

To begin with, one half of 23.8 is 11.9 . . . .

Here is my response to the earlier post about the missing cone volume
study.

The volume of the neck taper missing cone based upon your neck radius
(6.3mm) and missing cone length (213.7mm) is the same ( 8.88cl).

So far so good.

You claim your neck has a volume of 49cl, however calculating the cone
from the large end of the neck radius (11.4mm) to the apex (386.7mm) and
subtracting the missing cone 8.88cl from that gives me a neck volume of
43.54cl.

A careful reading of my study shows that the neck has a measured volume
of 49 ml.  This was a conservative reading using a syringe to fill the
neck with water.  Checking the measured volume today using a graduated
cylinder borrowed from work, the measured volume is closer to 50 ml. 
Substituting that figure would not significantly change the results.

The volume of the cylindrical tenon section (without the gap) is 8.72cl,
and I estimate the 1mm gap at the base of the tenon to be .452cl, for a
mystery volume of 9.17ml.  I say mystery, since you don't include it in
any of your calculations or explanations.

That is correct for the calculated volume of the cylindrical tenon at
the base of the neck.  That volume is obviously included in the 49 ml
measured volume of the neck.  A "gap" is not a part of the neck
of the saxophone and as such was not included in my calculations of the
missing cone extrapolated from the taper of the neck.

Taking your body measurements, you claim that the missing cone based
upon the length (453.63mm) and the body small end radius (11.54mm) has
total volume of 67.86cl, from which you subtract your neck volume of
49cl to get your final 18.86cl, excessively large body taper based
mouthpiece volume.

Actually the radius is 11.9 mm not 11.54, but the rest is correct.

My cone calculator says a cone with a base radius of 11.54mm and a
length of 457.63mm has a volume of 63.82cl,

My calculations as follows are correct using 11.9 mm as the radius, and
by the way the 456.73 mm length includes the notorious 1mm gap.

11.9 sq = 141.61,
141.61 x 3.1416 = 444.88,
444.88  x 457.63 = 203,590.43
203,590.43 divided by 3000 = 67.86 ml

. . .from which we subtract my neck volume of 43.54cl, and also the
mystery volume of  9.17cl (since your diagram indicates this volume's
length is part of the missing cone, and as such it's volume belongs to
the neck.), so the total body based mouthpiece volume should be 10.9cl.
Still, that is not accurate since there are obviously mistakes in your
figures.

These remaining arguments carry no weight since the actual measured
volume of the neck was used throughout, there is no "mystery
volume",  and there are no mistakes in my figures.

Let's look at why there may be a 2 or 3 ml discrepancy between the
calculated volume inside the neck and the actual measured volume.  My
thoughts are:

1. The difficulty of getting an entirely accurate measurement of the
length.  I am working on a string of wooden beads in graduated sizes to
help solve this problem.

2.  The fact that the neck may not be a completely straight sided cone. 
If the sides are slightly concave the volume will be less.  If the walls
are slightly convex the volume will be more.

Let's get it straightened out.

I've done my best to straighten it out.  I look forward to others
doing their own study and having the chance to compare the results.

John

"A careful reading of my study shows that the neck has a measured volume
of 49 ml.  This was a conservative reading using a syringe to fill the
neck with water.  Checking the measured volume today using a graduated cylinder
borrowed from work, the measured volume is closer to 50 ml. 
Substituting that figure would not significantly change the results."

Thanks for clearing that up John.  It was late last night.  

Since you are using actual volume measurement, and the radii of the conical neck section are fixed,  determining the actual effective length is simply a matter of calculating the missing variable from the known volume and the known radii.  If we go with 49cl volume, and subtract the known cylindrical volume of ca. 9cl, then the actual conical neck volume is 40cl, the effective neck length is around 158mm, instead of 173mm, which makes your taper more acute, your missing cone shorter (195mm, instead of 217mm) and the missing cone volume smaller (8.11cl, instead of 8.88cl)




      

Hi Lance,

There is no such thing as the "effective length" of the neck.  It's
measured geometric length is its length. It is that length that is
transversed by the soundwave as it passes through the neck. It would be
the length of an imaginary string suspended in the exact center of the
tapered-bent tube from top to bottom.   Hopefully my beaded string will
come close to measuring it that way.

You are going by the assumption that the radii and volume will give the
the exact height (length)  of the ideal straight walled truncated cone. 
That is true, but the neck is most probably not an ideal straight
walled/even tapered cone.  To paraphrase Popeye, "It is  what it is" and
needs to be treated as such in the measurements and calculations.  You
are probably thinking "then how can we trust Ferron's  taper formula to
give us an accurate missing cone?"  One way to check would be to use
Nederveen's measurements of the saxophone "crooks" as he calls them. 
One could calculate the taper from  each measurement point, average them
all, and then compare to the taper calculated using the top and bottom
measurements.  It wouldn't be that hard since he has done the work
already.

The mouthpiece is another story altogether, since its total effective or
equivalent volume or effective length for that matter bears little
resemblance to its geometric proportions.

John


--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
wrote:
>
> "A careful reading of my study shows that the neck has a measured
volume
> of 49 ml.  This was a conservative reading using a syringe to fill the
> neck with water.  Checking the measured volume today using a graduated
cylinder
> borrowed from work, the measured volume is closer to 50 ml.
> Substituting that figure would not significantly change the results."
>
> Thanks for clearing that up John.  It was late last night.
>
> Since you are using actual volume measurement, and the radii of the
conical neck section are fixed,  determining the actual effective length
is simply a matter of calculating the missing variable from the known
volume and the known radii.  If we go with 49cl volume, and subtract the
known cylindrical volume of ca. 9cl, then the actual conical neck volume
is 40cl, the effective neck length is around 158mm, instead of 173mm,
which makes your taper more acute, your missing cone shorter (195mm,
instead of 217mm) and the missing cone volume smaller (8.11cl, instead
of 8.88cl)
>

Hmmm....I don't know how important it is, but don't forget
that a bend makes the air column appear shorter and wider.
I'm guessing it doesn't make a large difference in the
bend of a sax neck for our purposes.

BTW, do either of you remember the source of article about
cutting a groove just behind the tip rail of a mpc to
change the Bernoulli forces and improve response? I'm
thinking it was Benade, but I can't find it anywhere. I've
got a Beechler alto piece that I have never really liked,
and I am thinking about sacrificing it to science...

Toby

--- John <jtalcott47@...> wrote:

> Hi Lance,
> 
> There is no such thing as the "effective length" of
> the neck.  It's
> measured geometric length is its length. It is that
> length that is
> transversed by the soundwave as it passes through
> the neck. It would be
> the length of an imaginary string suspended in the
> exact center of the
> tapered-bent tube from top to bottom.   Hopefully my
> beaded string will
> come close to measuring it that way.
> 
> You are going by the assumption that the radii and
> volume will give the
> the exact height (length)  of the ideal straight
> walled truncated cone. 
> That is true, but the neck is most probably not an
> ideal straight
> walled/even tapered cone.  To paraphrase Popeye, "It
> is  what it is" and
> needs to be treated as such in the measurements and
> calculations.  You
> are probably thinking "then how can we trust
> Ferron's  taper formula to
> give us an accurate missing cone?"  One way to check
> would be to use
> Nederveen's measurements of the saxophone "crooks"
> as he calls them. 
> One could calculate the taper from  each measurement
> point, average them
> all, and then compare to the taper calculated using
> the top and bottom
> measurements.  It wouldn't be that hard since he has
> done the work
> already.
> 
> The mouthpiece is another story altogether, since
> its total effective or
> equivalent volume or effective length for that
> matter bears little
> resemblance to its geometric proportions.
> 
> John
> 
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods
> <lancelotburt@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > "A careful reading of my study shows that the neck
> has a measured
> volume
> > of 49 ml.  This was a conservative reading using a
> syringe to fill the
> > neck with water.  Checking the measured volume
> today using a graduated
> cylinder
> > borrowed from work, the measured volume is closer
> to 50 ml.
> > Substituting that figure would not significantly
> change the results."
> >
> > Thanks for clearing that up John.  It was late
> last night.
> >
> > Since you are using actual volume measurement, and
> the radii of the
> conical neck section are fixed,  determining the
> actual effective length
> is simply a matter of calculating the missing
> variable from the known
> volume and the known radii.  If we go with 49cl
> volume, and subtract the
> known cylindrical volume of ca. 9cl, then the actual
> conical neck volume
> is 40cl, the effective neck length is around 158mm,
> instead of 173mm,
> which makes your taper more acute, your missing cone
> shorter (195mm,
> instead of 217mm) and the missing cone volume
> smaller (8.11cl, instead
> of 8.88cl)
> >
> 
> 

Toby,
Sorry to cut in but I too have a Beechler. It is an ordinary hard rubber one. No diamond inlay and it has a constricted throat. I have taken it to 80 thou vintage Meyer 5 as per the groups posts. I thinned the rails near the tip as much as I could without altering the appearance too much.  This piece is my current go to and plays with a lovely sound a bit warmer than a Meyer. It is very consistent right through the range and screams in the harmonics.  It goes from a very small roll over to an even straight baffle down in to the chamber. 
Just today I checked the facing again to make sure that it was true.
It plays just that little bit stuffy and I am at a loss to understand why. I am comparing it to various Meyers that I have.
Do you have the same problem?
cheers
Ross 

Hi Ross,

Mine is a Bellite metal. Very edgy, very thin. When I first bought it I couldn't stop it from squeaking and chirping, no matter how careful I was. After I started working on mpcs I realized that the facing was totally unbalanced. I've got it now so that it plays, but it is still much more
 tempermental than any of my other alto pcs, so it has been sitting in my box for a long time. 

About a year ago I read an article, I think by Benade, where he talks about the fact that cutting a rather deep groove just behind the tip rail is quite beneficial, as it allows Bernoulli forces to act to close the reed tip. I have found that taking down the area just behind the tip rail on other
 mpcs was always helpful to their response, without seriously altering the sound. 

Because this mpc is stainless steel, I have avoided trying any serious routing, as one slip with a diamond bit would mean the end of the tip rail. I'm considering making a cutout jig from metal to act as a stop to keep this from happening: perhaps even plastic would work--it just needs to be in
 the way if the bit slips to absorb the damage.

If and when I do this I'll report back. I'm very interested in just how this mod will change the playing characteristics of the piece (and the sound). If it really does make the response better without changing the timbre too much, it might be a valuable fix for very-high-baffle pieces in general,
 as I find they tend to be more chirpy than more conservative designs.

In terms of stuffiness: Look for any edges in your Beechler: especially at the window cutout and where the chamber becomes the throat. If you round those off you might find your mpc becomes less stuffy. In any case it can't hurt anything.

Toby

FWIW,
Toby

Ross and Helen McIntyre <mk6sax@...> wrote:                                              
Toby,
 Sorry to cut in but I too have a Beechler. It is an  ordinary hard rubber one. No diamond inlay and it has a constricted throat. I  have taken it to 80 thou vintage Meyer 5 as per the groups posts. I thinned the  rails near the tip as much as I could without altering the appearance too  much. 
 This piece is my current go to and plays with a lovely sound a bit  warmer than a Meyer. It is very consistent right through the range and screams  in the harmonics.  It goes from a very small roll over to an even straight  baffle down in to the chamber. 
 Just today I checked the facing again to make sure  that it was true.
 It plays just that little bit stuffy and I am at a  loss to understand why. I am comparing it to various Meyers that I  have.
 Do you have the same problem?
 cheers
 Ross 
 
      
                 
                 
 

The HR Beechler is an underated Meyer Bros-like blank.  Make sure the facing curve compares well to the other Meyer-like mouthpieces you are comparing it to.  Also hold them up side-by-side and compare the baffle roll-overs and slope going  into the throat.  You do not need to make them all clones.  But if you are trying to determine why your Beechler is stuffy, this may show you some differences.

Often a slightly softer reed is all you need to make a stuffy set-up bloom into a vibrant one.  Sometimes you need to get a few bumps off the facing curve.  You can also try adding a dab of baffle with temporary putty to see if that is an adjustment that works.
 
Mojo Mouthpiece Work LLC
2925 Crane St., Vineland, NJ 08361 
Paypal to sabradbury79@... 
Check out: http://www.MojoMouthpieceWork.com
...and: http://www.facebook.com/mojomouthpiecework




________________________________
From: Ross and Helen McIntyre <mk6sax@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, March 4, 2010 3:52:09 AM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone

  
Toby,
Sorry to cut in but I too have a Beechler. It is an ordinary hard rubber one. No diamond inlay and it has a constricted throat. I have taken it to 80 thou vintage Meyer 5 as per the groups posts. I thinned the rails near the tip as much as I could without altering the appearance too much.  This piece is my current go to and plays with a lovely sound a bit warmer than a Meyer. It is very consistent right through the range and screams in the harmonics.  It goes from a very small roll over to an even straight baffle down in to the chamber. 
Just today I checked the facing again to make sure that it was true.
It plays just that little bit stuffy and I am at a loss to understand why. I am comparing it to various Meyers that I have.
Do you have the same problem?
cheers
Ross 



      

> 
> From: <kymarto123@...>
> Reply-To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 17:07:06 +0900 (JST)
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
> 
> BTW, do either of you remember the source of article about
> cutting a groove just behind the tip rail of a mpc to
> change the Bernoulli forces and improve response? I'm
> thinking it was Benade, but I can't find it anywhere. I've
> got a Beechler alto piece that I have never really liked,
> and I am thinking about sacrificing it to science...


It was in this reference:

hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/25/27/96/PDF/ajp-jp4199404C5120.pdf

Which says this:

"when a sharp edged ditch is carved just downstream of the reed channel exit
one can experience an easier attack transient."

In illustration "C", we see a cross section of a mouthpiece with said ditch
carved just behind what I construe as the tip rail.

Barry

By cutting a groove you would actually be lowering the Bernoulli effect.  The velocity would slow down and /or become turbulent depending on the depth cut.  Perhaps the goal was to only keep the Bernoulii effect at the tip rail and have it fall off afterwards.  

I see an advantage of removing or lowering roll-over baffles when mouthpieces are squeaking.  Especially on high baffle mouthpieces.  There is little need for a roll-over AND a high wedge bafffle.  

A few mouthpiece design have a "lake" after the tip rail.  A lot of Bergs have a flat area but a few have a concave "lake".  A few special Lawtons had them.  They have not really caught on since they do not offer a significant advantage and/or are difficult to make.  

Metalites have a fall-off after the tip rail then their high baffle starts.  
 
Mojo Mouthpiece Work LLC
2925 Crane St., Vineland, NJ 08361 
Paypal to sabradbury79@... 
Check out: http://www.MojoMouthpieceWork.com
...and: http://www.facebook.com/mojomouthpiecework



      

This may not be a factor, if you observe the same behavior on all reeds; but
side-to-side balancing of reeds may help eliminate chirps (tilting the
mouthpiece to one side, tooting, and comparing to the other side for
response.

> From: <kymarto123@...>
> Reply-To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 20:56:47 +0900 (JST)
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
> 
> 
>  
> Hi Ross,
> 
> Mine is a Bellite metal. Very edgy, very thin. When I first bought it I
> couldn't stop it from squeaking and chirping, no matter how careful I was.
> After I started working on mpcs I realized that the facing was totally
> unbalanced. I've got it now so that it plays, but it is still much more
> tempermental than any of my other alto pcs, so it has been sitting in my box
> for a long time. 
> 
> About a year ago I read an article, I think by Benade, where he talks about
> the fact that cutting a rather deep groove just behind the tip rail is quite
> beneficial, as it allows Bernoulli forces to act to close the reed tip. I have
> found that taking down the area just behind the tip rail on other mpcs was
> always helpful to their response, without seriously altering the sound.
> 
> Because this mpc is stainless steel, I have avoided trying any serious
> routing, as one slip with a diamond bit would mean the end of the tip rail.
> I'm considering making a cutout jig from metal to act as a stop to keep this
> from happening: perhaps even plastic would work--it just needs to be in the
> way if the bit slips to absorb the damage.
> 
> If and when I do this I'll report back. I'm very interested in just how this
> mod will change the playing characteristics of the piece (and the sound). If
> it really does make the response better without changing the timbre too much,
> it might be a valuable fix for very-high-baffle pieces in general, as I find
> they tend to be more chirpy than more conservative designs.
> 
> In terms of stuffiness: Look for any edges in your Beechler: especially at the
> window cutout and where the chamber becomes the throat. If you round those off
> you might find your mpc becomes less stuffy. In any case it can't hurt
> anything.
> 
> Toby
> 
> FWIW,
> Toby
> 
> Ross and Helen McIntyre <mk6sax@...> wrote:
>                  
>                  
>    
>> Toby,
>>  
>> Sorry to cut in but I too have a Beechler. It is an  ordinary hard rubber
>> one. No diamond inlay and it has a constricted throat. I  have taken it to 80
>> thou vintage Meyer 5 as per the groups posts. I thinned the  rails near the
>> tip as much as I could without altering the appearance too  much.  This piece
>> is my current go to and plays with a lovely sound a bit  warmer than a Meyer.
>> It is very consistent right through the range and screams  in the harmonics.
>> It goes from a very small roll over to an even straight  baffle down in to
>> the chamber. 
>>  
>> Just today I checked the facing again to make sure  that it was true.
>>  
>> It plays just that little bit stuffy and I am at a  loss to understand why. I
>> am comparing it to various Meyers that I  have.
>>  
>> Do you have the same problem?
>>  
>> cheers
>>  
>> Ross 
>>  
>>       
>>                 
>> 
>>  
>> 
> 
> 

You would be correct.  Nederveen writes on page 87

"In two places, tenor and alto saxophones have bends in the bore. The
crook in the upper part of the bore shows very low curvature and does
not exercise any appreciable influence.  The reverse is the case for the
sharp bend in the lower part.  This bend affects only the lowest notes
and does not even come into play for the upper register.  The length of
the bend is about 12% of the acoustical length of the lowest
fundamental.  In Section 37 it was shown that such sharp bends
correspond to a shortening and widening of the equivalent straight tube,
where the differences may be of the order of 5% for the curved parts. 
This means that a perceptible increase of the resonance frequency is not
unlikely."





--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
>
> Hmmm....I don't know how important it is, but don't forget
> that a bend makes the air column appear shorter and wider.
> I'm guessing it doesn't make a large difference in the
> bend of a sax neck for our purposes.
>
> BTW, do either of you remember the source of article about
> cutting a groove just behind the tip rail of a mpc to
> change the Bernoulli forces and improve response? I'm
> thinking it was Benade, but I can't find it anywhere. I've
> got a Beechler alto piece that I have never really liked,
> and I am thinking about sacrificing it to science...
>
> Toby
>
> --- John jtalcott47@... wrote:
>
> > Hi Lance,
> >
> > There is no such thing as the "effective length" of
> > the neck.  It's
> > measured geometric length is its length. It is that
> > length that is
> > transversed by the soundwave as it passes through
> > the neck. It would be
> > the length of an imaginary string suspended in the
> > exact center of the
> > tapered-bent tube from top to bottom.   Hopefully my
> > beaded string will
> > come close to measuring it that way.
> >
> > You are going by the assumption that the radii and
> > volume will give the
> > the exact height (length)  of the ideal straight
> > walled truncated cone.
> > That is true, but the neck is most probably not an
> > ideal straight
> > walled/even tapered cone.  To paraphrase Popeye, "It
> > is  what it is" and
> > needs to be treated as such in the measurements and
> > calculations.  You
> > are probably thinking "then how can we trust
> > Ferron's  taper formula to
> > give us an accurate missing cone?"  One way to check
> > would be to use
> > Nederveen's measurements of the saxophone "crooks"
> > as he calls them.
> > One could calculate the taper from  each measurement
> > point, average them
> > all, and then compare to the taper calculated using
> > the top and bottom
> > measurements.  It wouldn't be that hard since he has
> > done the work
> > already.
> >
> > The mouthpiece is another story altogether, since
> > its total effective or
> > equivalent volume or effective length for that
> > matter bears little
> > resemblance to its geometric proportions.
> >
> > John
> >
> >
> > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods
> > lancelotburt@
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > "A careful reading of my study shows that the neck
> > has a measured
> > volume
> > > of 49 ml.  This was a conservative reading using a
> > syringe to fill the
> > > neck with water.  Checking the measured volume
> > today using a graduated
> > cylinder
> > > borrowed from work, the measured volume is closer
> > to 50 ml.
> > > Substituting that figure would not significantly
> > change the results."
> > >
> > > Thanks for clearing that up John.  It was late
> > last night.
> > >
> > > Since you are using actual volume measurement, and
> > the radii of the
> > conical neck section are fixed,  determining the
> > actual effective length
> > is simply a matter of calculating the missing
> > variable from the known
> > volume and the known radii.  If we go with 49cl
> > volume, and subtract the
> > known cylindrical volume of ca. 9cl, then the actual
> > conical neck volume
> > is 40cl, the effective neck length is around 158mm,
> > instead of 173mm,
> > which makes your taper more acute, your missing cone
> > shorter (195mm,
> > instead of 217mm) and the missing cone volume
> > smaller (8.11cl, instead
> > of 8.88cl)
> > >
> >
> >
>

"It is what it is"

But it's ok to juggle the neck volume?  Can you used a 173mm long, diagrammed neck of 43.74cl volume to determine the neck taper missing cone, though your physical neck counterpart has a volume of only 40cl.  Then, when figuring the body tube missing cone volume, is it correct to subtract the physical neck volume of 40cl (+tenon +gap) instead of the 173mm long, diagrammed neck of 43.74cl (+tenon +gap).   I think your neck volumes should remain constant.

Nederveen, p61, says that slight bends do not require any correction.  His example of a tight bend requiring 4% correction is a ratio of the tube diameter radius, to the bend radius of 0.55.  An alto neck would not require correction then.





      

Thanks Toby,
I had forgotten about the window modification.
cheers
Ross

Thanks Barry,

Unfortunately, the link seems to be gone, which explains I guess why I couldn't find it.

Toby

Barry Levine <barrylevine@...> wrote:                                           
 > 
 > From: <kymarto123@...>
 > Reply-To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
 > Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 17:07:06 +0900 (JST)
 > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
 > Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
 > 
 > BTW, do either of you remember the source of article about
 > cutting a groove just behind the tip rail of a mpc to
 > change the Bernoulli forces and improve response? I'm
 > thinking it was Benade, but I can't find it anywhere. I've
 > got a Beechler alto piece that I have never really liked,
 > and I am thinking about sacrificing it to science...
 
 It was in this reference:
 
 hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/25/27/96/PDF/ajp-jp4199404C5120.pdf
 
 Which says this:
 
 "when a sharp edged ditch is carved just downstream of the reed channel exit
 one can experience an easier attack transient."
 
 In illustration "C", we see a cross section of a mouthpiece with said ditch
 carved just behind what I construe as the tip rail.
 
 Barry
 
 
      
                 
                 
 

Yes. I took great pains to get the rails dead-even, and on other mpcs I have worked on this eliminated chirps quite well. Not on this one.

Toby

Barry Levine <barrylevine@...> wrote:                                              This may not be a factor, if you observe the same behavior on all reeds; but side-to-side balancing of reeds may help eliminate chirps (tilting the mouthpiece to one side, tooting, and comparing to the
 other side for response.
 

 From: <kymarto123@...>
 Reply-To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
 Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 20:56:47 +0900 (JST)
 To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
 Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
 
 
  
 Hi Ross,
 
 Mine is a Bellite metal. Very edgy, very thin. When I first bought it I couldn't stop it from squeaking and chirping, no matter how careful I was. After I started working on mpcs I realized that the facing was totally unbalanced. I've got it now so that it plays, but it is still much more
 tempermental than any of my other alto pcs, so it has been sitting in my box for a long time. 
 
 About a year ago I read an article, I think by Benade, where he talks about the fact that cutting a rather deep groove just behind the tip rail is quite beneficial, as it allows Bernoulli forces to act to close the reed tip. I have found that taking down the area just behind the tip rail on other
 mpcs was always helpful to their response, without seriously altering the sound. 
 
 Because this mpc is stainless steel, I have avoided trying any serious routing, as one slip with a diamond bit would mean the end of the tip rail. I'm considering making a cutout jig from metal to act as a stop to keep this from happening: perhaps even plastic would work--it just needs to be in
 the way if the bit slips to absorb the damage.
 
 If and when I do this I'll report back. I'm very interested in just how this mod will change the playing characteristics of the piece (and the sound). If it really does make the response better without changing the timbre too much, it might be a valuable fix for very-high-baffle pieces in
 general, as I find they tend to be more chirpy than more conservative designs.
 
 In terms of stuffiness: Look for any edges in your Beechler: especially at the window cutout and where the chamber becomes the throat. If you round those off you might find your mpc becomes less stuffy. In any case it can't hurt anything.
 
 Toby
 
 FWIW,
 Toby
 
 Ross and Helen McIntyre <mk6sax@...> wrote:
                  
                      
    
 Toby,
  
 Sorry to cut in but I too have a Beechler. It is an  ordinary hard rubber one. No diamond inlay and it has a constricted throat. I  have taken it to 80 thou vintage Meyer 5 as per the groups posts. I thinned the  rails near the tip as much as I could without altering the appearance too  much. 
 This piece is my current go to and plays with a lovely sound a bit  warmer than a Meyer. It is very consistent right through the range and screams  in the harmonics.  It goes from a very small roll over to an even straight  baffle down in to the chamber. 
  
 Just today I checked the facing again to make sure  that it was true.
  
 It plays just that little bit stuffy and I am at a  loss to understand why. I am comparing it to various Meyers that I  have.
  
 Do you have the same problem?
  
 cheers
  
 Ross 
  
       
                  
 
  
 
 
 
     
      
                 
                 
 

Thanks Keith,
I have a drawer full of no3 reeds and tried a 2 1/2 that I borrowed from a student the other day.   It did ,in fact, play much better. Looks like that's the solution. 

cheers
Ross

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

But it's ok to juggle the neck volume?  Can you used a 173mm long,
diagrammed neck of 43.74cl volume to determine the neck taper missing
cone, though your physical neck counterpart has a volume of only 40cl.

No one is juggling the neck volume but you.  The actual measured volume
of the neck including the tenon section used in my study was 49 ml.  In
the first part of the study the virtual missing cone was calculated from
the end of the neck using the taper of the neck.  The volume of that
imaginary missing cone to its apex was then added to the physical real
world volume of the neck including the tenon to get a total to be
compared to the second part of the study which calculated a "missing
cone" from the body of the saxophone---specifically from the bottom of
the tenon receiver.

Then, when figuring the body tube missing cone volume, is it correct to
subtract the physical neck volume of 40cl (+tenon +gap) instead of the
173mm long, diagrammed neck of 43.74cl (+tenon +gap).   I think your
neck volumes should remain constant.

Again, the measured neck volume including the tenon is 49 ml.  It is
this volume that gives the neck's portion of the virtual missing cone
derived by extending the body taper.   The same real world measured neck
volume was used throughout the study. There was no "juggling" of the
neck volume as suggested, and in fact the neck volume remained constant.

The part that I think is most important to understand is that if the
volume of the missing cone derived by extending the taper of the main
body to its apex is larger in its first 197 mm (the measured length of
the neck including the tenon) than the real world measured physical
volume of the neck, then the remainder of the missing cone that the
mouthpiece substitutes for must be even larger to make up the
difference.  This is in fact what was found in this study that made the
missing cone extrapolated from the body taper unpractical.

If you take the spaces out you can find it:

http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/25/27/96/PDF/ajp-jp4199404C5120.pdf
 
Mojo Mouthpiece Work LLC
2925 Crane St., Vineland, NJ 08361 
Paypal to sabradbury79@... 
Check out: http://www.MojoMouthpieceWork.com
...and: http://www.facebook.com/mojomouthpiecework




________________________________
From: "kymarto123@..." <kymarto123@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, March 4, 2010 7:16:19 PM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone

  
Thanks Barry,

Unfortunately, the link seems to be gone, which explains I guess why I couldn't find it.

Toby

Barry Levine <barrylevine@ norwoodlight. com> wrote: 
  
>
>> 
>> From: <kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp>
>> Reply-To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
>> Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 17:07:06 +0900 (JST)
>> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
>> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
>> 
>> BTW, do either of you remember the source of article about
>> cutting a groove just behind the tip rail of a mpc to
>> change the Bernoulli forces and improve response? I'm
>> thinking it was Benade, but I can't find it anywhere. I've
>> got a Beechler alto piece that I have never really liked,
>> and I am thinking about sacrificing it to science...
>
>It was in this reference:
>
>hal.archives- ouvertes. fr/docs/00/ 25/27/96/ PDF/ajp-jp419940 4C5120.pdf
>
>Which says this:
>
>"when a sharp edged ditch is carved just downstream of the reed channel exit
>one can experience an easier attack transient."
>
>In illustration "C", we see a cross section of a mouthpiece with said ditch
>carved just behind what I construe as the tip rail.
>
>Barry
>
>





      

Sorry, but I'm still confused.  Humor me please.

You used the dimensions of your physical neck (length 173mm, radii of  11.4mm and 6.3mm), without the tenon, to calculate the taper and the missing cone's first instance.  Correct?

Though you did not do it, I feel compelled to compare the actual volume of the physical neck section you used for your measurements (without tenon) with the calculated volume of the model, Ferron neck (without tenon).

The tenon and gap have a volume of just over 9cl.  Subtracting that from your 49cl neck + tenon+ gap volume, leave 40cl volume for your curved neck tube  (length 173mm, radii of  11.4mm and 6.3mm).  Your model, Ferron neck, of the same dimensions, has a volume of 43.74cl.  

So, 3.74cl, a 9.35% difference.  You and Toby felt that the extra actual volume added by the tone holes, would make the body tube taper model measurements inaccurate.  Do you think that having 9.35% less actual neck volume than your model, Ferron neck tube does the same thing?  I'm certain that the additional volume added by the tone holes (flow entering the tone hole only up to 10% of the hole's diameter) to the body tube would be far, far, far less than 9.35%.




      

Back to mouthpieces for just a moment...

I went ahead and modded my Beechler Bellite alto piece. I bought this many years ago, with a 9 tip opening--a suicidal choice. At first it was impossible to play--squeaked no matter what I tried. 

Some years ago when I started refacing, I took it back out and cut it down to around a 7, took down the back of the baffle a bit and most importantly evened out the very unbalanced rails. 

This helped quite a bit, but I could never get it too chirp-resistant; it was always a bit edgy. A pity, because it really screams, and is useful in those too-loud bands. It has extremely thin side rails, and I thought this in a high baffle piece might explain its behavior.

As I mentioned, I thought it might be worthwhile (since it just sat in a box), to try to cut a ridge behind the tip rail, as suggested in that paper (unfortunately no longer online).

So today I took out my Dremel (with the flexible shaft attachment). It ain't a micromotor but with the shaft it is decent for fine work in tight places. I have a set of thirty diamond stonecutter's bits, and I found it relatively easy to control the cut--actually the hardness of the SS made it
 much easier to work with than had it been a softer material, although it took a bit longer. I've posted a pic. It ain't beautiful, as it is hard to get it even with a 1 mm diamond ball, but it works. I cut behind the tip rail and around a bit down the side rails.

I also decided to get rid of all the edges in the mpc. I rounded the bottom of the window and took the edge off the inside of the side rails and around the window cutout--not much, jut enough to take off the sharp edge.

I'm very happy with the result. Before it was all I could do to keep it from chirping, or at least approaching a chirp--you know that feeling that the reed is blocked up and getting ready to complain. Now I cannot get it to chirp, or even get near. Response is better overall, and the sound
 smoother at higher dynamics. Timbre may be just a bit rounder but still sounds like a buzzsaw cutting through tin.

I also decided to take down the side walls where they made an abrupt transition into the throat. I cut down the straight walls so that they make an (almost) smooth transition to the throat, and added a bit of a chamber, taking that also down to the level of the throat. 

It's a bit hard to tell what effect this had on the sound (perhaps a bit more free-blowing), but it seems to have helped with a sharp second octave, taking that down (it appears) 5-10 cents now at normal playing position for AD0. That's on the right in the pic. Again, the diamond bits left
 things a bit rough, and I will probably try to smooth out the walls a bit, but OTOH nobody can see it and it works, so I may not try to make it perfect.

All in all a couple of hours very well spent. Worth exploring this kind of mod (basically the ridge behind the tip) if you have a mpc on which you don't mind experimenting.

Toby



 

Actually I'm not sure exactly what the effect the volume under tone holes would have on the calculation. Probably it would only make the bore appear lumpy, and would not change the effective cone angle. In that case you could probably treat it the same as a cone without tone holes.

MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:                                           Sorry, but I'm still confused.  Humor me please.

You used the dimensions of your physical neck (length 173mm, radii of  11.4mm and 6.3mm), without the tenon, to calculate the taper and the missing cone's first instance.  Correct?

Though you did not do it, I feel compelled to compare the actual volume of the physical neck section you used for your measurements (without tenon) with the calculated volume of the model, Ferron neck (without tenon).

The tenon and gap have a volume of just over 9cl.  Subtracting that from your 49cl neck + tenon+ gap volume, leave 40cl volume for your curved neck tube  (length 173mm, radii of  11.4mm and 6.3mm).  Your model, Ferron neck, of the same dimensions, has a volume of 43.74cl.  

So, 3.74cl, a 9.35% difference.   You and Toby felt that the extra actual volume added by the tone holes, would make the body tube taper model measurements inaccurate.  Do you think that having 9.35% less actual neck volume than your model, Ferron neck tube does the same thing?  I'm certain that
 the additional volume added by the tone holes (flow entering the tone hole only up to 10% of the hole's diameter) to the body tube would be far, far, far less than 9.35%.


        
      
                 
                 
 

After a longer practice session, I do find that this mpc still has more of a tendency to chirp than some of my more conservative mpcs. I do believe that there has been some improvement. It seems to me that these very-high-baffle pieces are always more nervous than lower-baffle ones, but maybe
 that's just my playing.

Toby

kymarto123@... wrote:                                                     [Attachment(s) from kymarto123@... included below]                       Back to mouthpieces for just a moment...
 
 I went ahead and modded my Beechler Bellite alto piece. I bought this many years ago, with a 9 tip opening--a suicidal choice. At first it was impossible to play--squeaked no matter what I tried. 
 
 Some years ago when I started refacing, I took it back out and cut it down to around a 7, took down the back of the baffle a bit and most importantly evened out the very unbalanced rails. 
 
 This helped quite a bit, but I could never get it too chirp-resistant; it was always a bit edgy. A pity, because it really screams, and is useful in those too-loud bands. It has extremely thin side rails, and I thought this in a high baffle piece might explain its behavior.
 
 As I mentioned, I thought it might be worthwhile (since it just sat in a box), to try to cut a ridge behind the tip rail, as suggested in that paper (unfortunately no longer online).
 
 So today I took out my Dremel (with the flexible shaft attachment). It ain't a micromotor but with the shaft it is decent for fine work in tight places. I have a set of thirty diamond stonecutter's bits, and I found it relatively easy to control the cut--actually the hardness of the SS made it 
 much easier to work with than had it been a softer material, although it took a bit longer. I've posted a pic. It ain't beautiful, as it is hard to get it even with a 1 mm diamond ball, but it works. I cut behind the tip rail and around a bit down the side rails.
 
 I also decided to get rid of all the edges in the mpc. I rounded the bottom of the window and took the edge off the inside of the side rails and around the window cutout--not much, jut enough to take off the sharp edge.
 
 I'm very happy with the result. Before it was all I could do to keep it from chirping, or at least approaching a chirp--you know that feeling that the reed is blocked up and getting ready to complain. Now I cannot get it to chirp, or even get near. Response is better overall, and the sound 
 smoother at higher dynamics. Timbre may be just a bit rounder but still sounds like a buzzsaw cutting through tin.
 
 I also decided to take down the side walls where they made an abrupt transition into the throat. I cut down the straight walls so that they make an (almost) smooth transition to the throat, and added a bit of a chamber, taking that also down to the level of the throat. 
 
 It's a bit hard to tell what effect this had on the sound (perhaps a bit more free-blowing), but it seems to have helped with a sharp second octave, taking that down (it appears) 5-10 cents now at normal playing position for AD0. That's on the right in the pic. Again, the diamond bits left 
 things a bit rough, and I will probably try to smooth out the walls a bit, but OTOH nobody can see it and it works, so I may not try to make it perfect.
 
 All in all a couple of hours very well spent. Worth exploring this kind of mod (basically the ridge behind the tip) if you have a mpc on which you don't mind experimenting.
 
 Toby
 
 
 
  
 
 
      
                 
                 
 

"Actually I'm not sure exactly what the effect the volume under tone
holes would have on the calculation. Probably it would only make the
bore appear lumpy, and would not change the effective cone angle. In
that case you could probably treat it the same as a cone without tone
holes."

Benade and Nederveen, amongst others, have described both mathematically and theoretically - a sequence of closed tone holes is equivalent to a general enlargement of the bore.   If we accept Nederveen's claim that flow enters a closed tone hole up to 10% of the diameter of the tone hole, then calculating the effective enlargement is not impossible (my next project). Based on my previous volume calculations of thick resonators (they displaced an average of 18% or the tone hole chimney volume.) I estimate an effective bore volume enlargement of less than 1%.



      

Check Benade p. 449.  Remember too the effect is cumulative as the soundwave travels down the bore.  A 1% enlargement is not even close for the closed tone holes of a complete saxophone bore.

John

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
>
> "Actually I'm not sure exactly what the effect the volume under tone
> holes would have on the calculation. Probably it would only make the
> bore appear lumpy, and would not change the effective cone angle. In
> that case you could probably treat it the same as a cone without tone
> holes."
> 
> Benade and Nederveen, amongst others, have described both mathematically and theoretically - a sequence of closed tone holes is equivalent to a general enlargement of the bore.   If we accept Nederveen's claim that flow enters a closed tone hole up to 10% of the diameter of the tone hole, then calculating the effective enlargement is not impossible (my next project). Based on my previous volume calculations of thick resonators (they displaced an average of 18% or the tone hole chimney volume.) I estimate an effective bore volume enlargement of less than 1%.
>

"Check Benade p. 449. "

Yes, it enlarges and lengthens the bore effectively, for which the manufacturer already compensated by placing the tone holes accordingly (reducing the length).  Double compensation should not be necessary. 




      

Compensating for the closed tone holes is not the point.  The point is whether using the geometric measurements of the body tube (which are not the same as the acoustic measurements due to the closed tone hole lattice) would produce an accurate "missing cone".  I believe that my study shows that it does not.  

John 

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
>
> "Check Benade p. 449. "
> 
> Yes, it enlarges and lengthens the bore effectively, for which the manufacturer already compensated by placing the tone holes accordingly (reducing the length).  Double compensation should not be necessary.
>

"I believe that my
study shows........"

Your study is an impressive work, but it also shows me that your physical neck tube has 9.35% less volume than your model, Ferron theoretical tube, of the same dimensions, from which you made your conclusions.  That discrepancy, plus your unwillingness to address it, claiming that your results are within 1% accurate, outweighs everything else in my mind.  That's just me though.  

In future similar studies, I think a great deal more needs to be made of how measurements are taken.  A caliper won't fit inside the tenon to measure the neck, so how did you measure the neck tube diameter exactly?  Did you take the tenon off?  Measure from the outside?  How far does the neck tube protrude into the tenon ring?  If you didn't take the tenon off, how did you measure the tube length?  All these things apply to the receiver and body tube, and the body/bow coupling as well.  Did you clean all residue solder from all the measuring surfaces?  If you used water to measure neck volume, describe how you stopped the end.  There's a lot of room for error there.  

Is close enough for Jazz, good enough for science?





      

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

  Sorry, but I'm still confused.  Humor me please.

I agree with the above statement and therein lies the humor.

You used the dimensions of your physical neck (length 173mm, radii of 
11.4mm and 6.3mm), without the tenon, to calculate the taper and the
missing cone's first instance.  Correct?

That is correct.  The formula given in Ferron's book was used to
determine the taper of the neck as 1.689 degrees.  That in turn was used
to extrapolate the length of the imaginary cone extended from the end of
the neck to its apex.  That figure was found to be 213.7 mm.

Though you did not do it, I feel compelled to compare the actual volume
of the physical neck section you used for your measurements (without
tenon) with the calculated volume of the model, Ferron neck (without
tenon).

It is true that the measured physical volume of the neck differs from
the volume of the imaginary cone calculated using that taper and base
radius minus the calculated smaller missing cone from the end of the
neck.   The reason for this is that the neck is not a perfect cone with
straight sides and an even taper throughout its length.  If you have a
better way to determine the taper of the "imperfect cone" we call a
neck, I would be interested to hear it.

The tenon and gap have a volume of just over 9cl.

A 1 mm gap between the bottom of the neck tenon and the end of its
receiver is not part of the neck.  It is a gap!

Subtracting that from your 49cl neck + tenon+ gap volume, leave
40clvolume for your curved neck tube (length 173mm, radii of  11.4mm
and6.3mm).  Your model, Ferron neck, of the same dimensions, has a
volumeof 43.74cl.  So, 3.74cl, a 9.35% difference.

Forgetting about the 1mm gap, my calculations show a difference between
the measured physical volume of the neck without the tenon (43.33 m),
and the calculated volume of the imaginary perfect truncated cone neck
(40.275 ml) to be 3.055 ml.   The volume of the neck either real or
imagined carries no significance on the outcome of finding the missing
cone, unless the neck is considered to be part of the "missing cone". 
Since it is not actually missing, but a physical part of the instrument,
I think it is a waste of time to haggle over a 3 ml difference.

You and Toby felt that the extra actual volume added by the tone holes,
would make the body tube taper model measurements inaccurate.  Do you
think that having 9.35% less actual neck volume than your model, Ferron
neck tube does the same thing?

Certainly not.  The missing cone volume derived from the body of the
saxophone was so large that the effective mouthpiece volume was still
short even when the mouthpiece was pulled completely off the cork.

There is another proof that can be linked to the findings of the study
that bears repeating.

Benade's second condition for the missing cone is that the Frequency of
the mouthpiece on its neck must be equal to the natural resonant 
frequency of the neck plus the missing cone.   Using measurements from
the study the following statements are true:

-The length of the missing cone calculated using the taper of the neck
was found to be 213.7 mm.

-The missing cone, plus the neck, plus its tenon total  407.7 mm

-On the saxophone the wavelength of a given note is 2x the physical
length of the instrument plus its end correction (.6 x radius)

-The missing cone, plus the neck, plus the tenon, plus the end
correction is  414.6.  That length times 2 = 829.2 hz

-The wavelength of Ab concert at speed of sound 345 = 831 hz

-This is the exact pitch produced on the mouthpiece and neck alone with
the mouthpiece in that position.

I would certainly welcome other studies done on this topic and would be
happy to share notes and/or measurements with anyone who is interested.

Definitely some more studies are needed in order to determine just how to best calculate the missing cone, whether from the neck taper angle, averaged neck taper angle, body taper angle, or length-proportionally averaged neck/body taper.  

I don't wish to go into a discussion of which method I think is closest to correct, however, there is one observation I want to make about John's conclusion, which directly relates to mouthpiece design. 

John stated that in order to get the proper mouthpiece chamber volume with his classical mouthpiece, according to the body taper requirements, he would have to pull the mouthpiece 3mm (if I recall correctly) off the neck.  Maybe I am mistaken, but I don't believe that one should adjust mouthpiece volume in that manner.  Pushing in and pulling out are pitch adjustments exclusively.  Though doing so does change the mouthpiece chamber volume, that fact is secondary.  If one needs more mouthpiece chamber volume, one simply changes the mouthpiece design - for a wider, fatter chamber and chamber length/throat dimensions which balance the volume requirement with the Frs pitch requirement.  Then the volume requirement can be satisfied, and the mouthpiece will play in tune and stay on the cork.



      

Yes, According to Benade speaking about oboes (and he says that it basically applies to saxes), changing length affects all modes more or less equally, whereas changing volume affects the mode spacing.

Toby

MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:                                           Definitely some more studies are needed in order to determine just how to best calculate the missing cone, whether from the neck taper angle, averaged neck taper angle, body taper angle, or length-proportionally
 averaged neck/body taper.  

I don't wish to go into a discussion of which method I think is closest to correct, however, there is one observation I want to make about John's conclusion, which directly relates to mouthpiece design. 

John stated that in order to get the proper mouthpiece chamber volume with his classical mouthpiece, according to the body taper requirements, he would have to pull the mouthpiece 3mm (if I recall correctly) off the neck.  Maybe I am mistaken, but I don't believe that one should adjust mouthpiece
 volume in that manner.  Pushing in and pulling out are pitch adjustments exclusively.  Though  doing so does change the mouthpiece chamber volume, that fact is secondary.  If one needs more mouthpiece chamber volume, one simply changes the mouthpiece design - for a wider, fatter chamber and
 chamber length/throat dimensions which balance the volume requirement with the Frs pitch requirement.  Then the volume requirement can be satisfied, and the mouthpiece will play in tune and stay on the cork.

        
      
                 
                 
 

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:

Yes, According to Benade speaking about oboes (and he says that it
basically applies to saxes), changing length affects all modes more or
less equally, whereas changing volume affects the mode spacing.

What I feel is important to remember is that whenever the saxophone
mouthpiece is pulled farther off the neck both the length and the volume
change simultaneously.   Benade makes the comparison of a saxophone
mouthpiece on its neck to the oboe reed on its staple to illustrate the
requirement that the resonant frequency of the "reed on its staple" or
Frs  needs to match the natural resonant frequency of the "extended"
missing cone defined as the reed on its staple or in the case of the
saxophone the mouthpiece on its neck.

There are some important differences to consider:

-The oboe reed cannot be moved forward and back on its staple in
ordinary conditions like the sax mouthpiece on its neck, because it is
bound to the staple with string.

-The blades of the oboe reed can be made more narrow by squeezing the
sides and/or tightening a wire around the base of the blades.  The same
saxophone mouthpiece cannot be made more narrow.

-The oboe reed's staple can be cut off and shortened.  The saxophone
neck cannot be cut without injuring the instrument.

My point is that Benade's pitch statement about oboe reeds applies only
when the length and volume can be adjusted independent of one another.  
I have a hard time accepting the application of this principle to
saxophone mouthpieces, since in practice changes in length and volume
are interdependent and occur simultaneously.


The findings of the Mouthpiece Insert Pitch Study 
<http://jbtsaxmusic.homestead.com/Neck_insert_study_text_2.pdf>  are on
point to this discussion.

I believe that the results suggest that when the effective mouthpiece
volume is smaller than that of the missing cone the overall pitch is
sharp and the octaves are too wide.

The reverse of that is also true that when the equivalent mouthpiece
volume is larger than that of the missing cone, the overall pitch is
flat and the octaves are too narrow.

In this view, the length of the instrument to the tip of the mouthpiece
has no significance other than its effect to raise or lower the volume
inside the mouthpiece.   In other words the tuning and relationships of
the harmonics have everything to do with the effective volume of the
mouthpiece, and that effective volume is controlled to a large degree by
the placement of the mouthpiece on the cork.

John

What you say is not necessarily true. The oboe reed staple is never shortened, although a shorter staple can be used. But note that Benade specifies either a change in staple length *or a change in reed length* has the same effect: to change the pitch overall of all registers more or less equally.
 Changing the reed length (making the blades shorter or longer) is equivalent to moving the mpc on the neck of the sax.

Squeezing the reed is equivalent to changing the internal volume of the sax mpc, and this changes mode relationships.

So actually it is possible to change length and volume independent of each other on the oboe, just not in the same reed. This does not change the fundamental concepts involved.

Toby

John <jtalcott47@...> wrote:                                              --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:

Yes, According to Benade speaking about oboes (and he says that it basically applies to saxes), changing length affects all modes more or less equally, whereas changing volume affects the mode spacing.

What I feel is important to remember is that whenever the saxophone mouthpiece is pulled farther off the neck both the length and the volume change simultaneously.   Benade makes the comparison of a saxophone mouthpiece on its neck to the oboe reed on its staple to illustrate the requirement that
 the resonant frequency of the "reed on its staple" or Frs  needs to match the natural resonant frequency of the "extended" missing cone defined as the reed on its staple or in the case of the saxophone the mouthpiece on its neck.

There are some important differences to consider:  

-The oboe reed cannot be moved forward and back on its staple in ordinary conditions like the sax mouthpiece on its neck, because it is bound to the staple with string.  

-The blades of the oboe reed can be made more narrow by squeezing the sides and/or tightening a wire around the base of the blades.  The same saxophone mouthpiece cannot be made more narrow.  

-The oboe reed's staple can be cut off and shortened.  The saxophone neck cannot be cut without injuring the instrument.  

My point is that Benade's pitch statement about oboe reeds applies only when the length and volume can be adjusted independent of one another.   I have a hard time accepting the application of this principle to saxophone mouthpieces, since in practice changes in length and volume are
 interdependent and occur simultaneously.


The findings of the Mouthpiece Insert Pitch Study  are on point to this discussion. 

I believe that the results suggest that when the effective mouthpiece volume is smaller than that of the missing cone the overall pitch is sharp and the octaves are too wide.  

The reverse of that is also true that when the equivalent mouthpiece volume is larger than that of the missing cone, the overall pitch is flat and the octaves are too narrow.  

In this view, the length of the instrument to the tip of the mouthpiece has no significance other than its effect to raise or lower the volume inside the mouthpiece.   In other words the tuning and relationships of the harmonics have everything to do with the effective volume of the mouthpiece,
 and that effective volume is controlled to a large degree by the placement of the mouthpiece on the cork.  

John




 
      
                 
                 
 

Stop the presses.

I have thought of a way that we increase the effective volume inside the
mouthpiece without moving it on or off the cork. That is by increasing
or decreasing embouchure pressure on the reed.

Dr. Ray Smith at BYU who is an accomplished saxophonist in both jazz and
classical playing teaches that if your high notes are sharp---push the
mouthpiece in.  What he means of course is that often inexperienced
players play too high on the mouthpiece pitch.  As a result they pull
the mouthpiece out to get the high octave in tune.  This produces a
volume inside the mouthpiece larger than that of the missing cone and
the low register plays flat meaning the octaves are too wide.

When the mouthpiece is put farther on to the cork, it takes away the
excess volume inside the mouthpiece and then some.  The player then
adjusts by dropping the jaw, opening the oral cavity, and playing lower
on the mouthpiece pitch to get back down to AD0.   This dials in the
effective mouthpiece volume so it matches that of the missing cone, and
brings the Frs of the neck and mouthpiece down to the required frequency
and the saxophone plays in pitch and in tune with itself.

The same effects to a lesser degree occur when a harder or softer reed
is used.  Dr. Wolfe writes that going from a hard to a soft reed on the
tenor sax can increase the effective volume of the mouthpiece a couple
of milliliters.   It is beginning to make sense to me how all these
relationships work together as they apply to the saxophone.

Of course you are right about the staple.  It would never be shortened
on the cork end.  One would just wrap the reed on a shorter staple just
as a bassoonist would use a different length bocal.

I'm still trying to grasp Benade's statement that:

"Enlarging or shortening the staple enlarges V total and raises Frs".  I
suppose that the only way to test this would be solder an extension on
to the end of a saxophone neck and then remove it, keeping the
mouthpiece in the same position on the cork.  Or one could use a junk
neck and cut the end off with a hacksaw.

John


--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
>
> What you say is not necessarily true. The oboe reed staple is never
shortened, although a shorter staple can be used. But note that Benade
specifies either a change in staple length *or a change in reed length*
has the same effect: to change the pitch overall of all registers more
or less equally.
>  Changing the reed length (making the blades shorter or longer) is
equivalent to moving the mpc on the neck of the sax.
>
> Squeezing the reed is equivalent to changing the internal volume of
the sax mpc, and this changes mode relationships.
>
> So actually it is possible to change length and volume independent of
each other on the oboe, just not in the same reed. This does not change
the fundamental concepts involved.
>
> Toby
>
> John jtalcott47@... wrote:
--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, kymarto123@ wrote:
>
> Yes, According to Benade speaking about oboes (and he says that it
basically applies to saxes), changing length affects all modes more or
less equally, whereas changing volume affects the mode spacing.
>
> What I feel is important to remember is that whenever the saxophone
mouthpiece is pulled farther off the neck both the length and the volume
change simultaneously.   Benade makes the comparison of a saxophone
mouthpiece on its neck to the oboe reed on its staple to illustrate the
requirement that
>  the resonant frequency of the "reed on its staple" or Frs  needs to
match the natural resonant frequency of the "extended" missing cone
defined as the reed on its staple or in the case of the saxophone the
mouthpiece on its neck.
>
> There are some important differences to consider:
>
> -The oboe reed cannot be moved forward and back on its staple in
ordinary conditions like the sax mouthpiece on its neck, because it is
bound to the staple with string.
>
> -The blades of the oboe reed can be made more narrow by squeezing the
sides and/or tightening a wire around the base of the blades.  The same
saxophone mouthpiece cannot be made more narrow.
>
> -The oboe reed's staple can be cut off and shortened.  The saxophone
neck cannot be cut without injuring the instrument.
>
> My point is that Benade's pitch statement about oboe reeds applies
only when the length and volume can be adjusted independent of one
another.   I have a hard time accepting the application of this
principle to saxophone mouthpieces, since in practice changes in length
and volume are
>  interdependent and occur simultaneously.
>
>
> The findings of the Mouthpiece Insert Pitch Study  are on point to
this discussion.
>
> I believe that the results suggest that when the effective mouthpiece
volume is smaller than that of the missing cone the overall pitch is
sharp and the octaves are too wide.
>
> The reverse of that is also true that when the equivalent mouthpiece
volume is larger than that of the missing cone, the overall pitch is
flat and the octaves are too narrow.
>
> In this view, the length of the instrument to the tip of the
mouthpiece has no significance other than its effect to raise or lower
the volume inside the mouthpiece.   In other words the tuning and
relationships of the harmonics have everything to do with the effective
volume of the mouthpiece,
>  and that effective volume is controlled to a large degree by the
placement of the mouthpiece on the cork.
>
> John
>

You are having a revelation about "lipping" notes in tune?




________________________________
From: John <jtalcott47@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, March 9, 2010 10:06:36 AM
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone

  
Stop the presses.  

I have thought of a way that we increase the effective volume inside the mouthpiece without moving it on or off the cork. That is by increasing or decreasing embouchure pressure on the reed.


      

Ok you got me.  :)  

Seriously, I had not linked lipping notes conceptually to the changes in mouthpiece volume before now.  Seeing the lipped pitch bending from this somewhat different perspective of changes in mouthpiece volume ties a lot of what Benade writes together in my mind.

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:
>
> You are having a revelation about "lipping" notes in tune?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: John <jtalcott47@...>
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tue, March 9, 2010 10:06:36 AM
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
> 
>   
> Stop the presses.  
> 
> I have thought of a way that we increase the effective volume inside the mouthpiece without moving it on or off the cork. That is by increasing or decreasing embouchure pressure on the reed.
>

"My point is that Benade's pitch statement
about oboe reeds applies only when the length and volume can be
adjusted independent of one another.   I have a hard time accepting the
application of this principle to saxophone mouthpieces, since in practice changes in length and volume are interdependent and occur simultaneously."

On the saxophone, you ream out the mouthpiece chamber or change mouthpieces for a fatter chamber, in order to change volume independently (to some extent) of length..



      

John,

Players tune dynamically all the time by changing embouchure pressure, which changes the Vtotal (although other effects are involved as well in 'lipping' notes). The idea is to get the mode relationships as close as possible so that the player doesn't have to do wild mouth calisthenics to stay in
 tune.

Baroque flutes were notoriously out of tune, and players had to continuously roll the flute in and out while playing to stay on pitch. Of course this developed into an art form, but was not universally appreciated. Mozart is reported to have said that the only thing worse than a flute in the
 orchestra was two flutes in the orchestra.

Frs is going to depend on two things, the volume enclosed in the tube and the end diameter of the tube. If you shorten the tube it clearly raises Frs, as does making the end of the tube wider. 

Just as a clarification, if the cone were complete, changing the end diameter would not have that effect--no matter what the length of the cone, but since the staple (or the neck) is like a mini-conical woodwind in itself (truncated cone, not complete cone), changing the cone angle will change the
 volume requirement for the substitution (reed or mpc), and since that doesn't change the frequency of the entire system (reed/staple or mpc/neck) will change with a change in cone angle (such as enlarging the end of the staple in Benade's example).



John <jtalcott47@...> wrote:                                              Stop the presses.  

I have thought of a way that we increase the effective volume inside the mouthpiece without moving it on or off the cork. That is by increasing or decreasing embouchure pressure on the reed.

Dr. Ray Smith at BYU who is an accomplished saxophonist in both jazz and classical playing teaches that if your high notes are sharp---push the mouthpiece in.  What he means of course is that often inexperienced players play too high on the mouthpiece pitch.  As a result they pull the mouthpiece
 out to get the high octave in tune.  This produces a volume inside the mouthpiece larger than that of the missing cone and the low register plays flat meaning the octaves are too wide.

When the mouthpiece is put farther on to the cork, it takes away the excess volume inside the mouthpiece and then some.  The player then adjusts by dropping the jaw, opening the oral cavity, and playing lower on the mouthpiece pitch to get back down to AD0.   This dials in the effective
 mouthpiece volume so it matches that of the missing cone, and brings the Frs of the neck and mouthpiece down to the required frequency and the saxophone plays in pitch and in tune with itself.

The same effects to a lesser degree occur when a harder or softer reed is used.  Dr. Wolfe writes that going from a hard to a soft reed on the tenor sax can increase the effective volume of the mouthpiece a couple of milliliters.   It is beginning to make sense to me how all these relationships
 work together as they apply to the saxophone.

Of course you are right about the staple.  It would never be shortened on the cork end.  One would just wrap the reed on a shorter staple just as a bassoonist would use a different length bocal.

I'm still trying to grasp Benade's statement that:

"Enlarging or shortening the staple enlarges V total and raises Frs".  I suppose that the only way to test this would be solder an extension on to the end of a saxophone neck and then remove it, keeping the mouthpiece in the same position on the cork.  Or one could use a junk neck and cut the end
 off with a hacksaw.  

John


--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
>
> What you say is not necessarily true. The oboe reed staple is never shortened, although a shorter staple can be used. But note that Benade specifies either a change in staple length *or a change in reed length* has the same effect: to change the pitch overall of all registers more or less
 equally.
>  Changing the reed length (making the blades shorter or longer) is equivalent to moving the mpc on the neck of the sax.
> 
> Squeezing the reed is equivalent to changing the internal volume of the sax mpc, and this changes mode relationships.
> 
> So actually it is possible to change length and volume independent of each other on the oboe, just not in the same reed. This does not change the fundamental concepts involved.
> 
> Toby
> 
> John jtalcott47@... wrote:                                              --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, kymarto123@ wrote:
> 
> Yes, According to Benade speaking about oboes (and he says that it basically applies to saxes), changing length affects all modes more or less equally, whereas changing volume affects the mode spacing.
> 
> What I feel is important to remember is that whenever the saxophone mouthpiece is pulled farther off the neck both the length and the volume change simultaneously.   Benade makes the comparison of a saxophone mouthpiece on its neck to the oboe reed on its staple to illustrate the requirement that
>  the resonant frequency of the "reed on its staple" or Frs  needs to match the natural resonant frequency of the "extended" missing cone defined as the reed on its staple or in the case of the saxophone the mouthpiece on its neck.
> 
> There are some important differences to consider:  
> 
> -The oboe reed cannot be moved forward and back on its staple in ordinary conditions like the sax mouthpiece on its neck, because it is bound to the staple with string.  
> 
> -The blades of the oboe reed can be made more narrow by squeezing the sides and/or tightening a wire around the base of the blades.  The same saxophone mouthpiece cannot be made more narrow.  
> 
> -The oboe reed's staple can be cut off and shortened.  The saxophone neck cannot be cut without injuring the instrument.  
> 
> My point is that Benade's pitch statement about oboe reeds applies only when the length and volume can be adjusted independent of one another.   I have a hard time accepting the application of this principle to saxophone mouthpieces, since in practice changes in length and volume are
>  interdependent and occur simultaneously.
> 
> 
> The findings of the Mouthpiece Insert Pitch Study  are on point to this discussion. 
> 
> I believe that the results suggest that when the effective mouthpiece volume is smaller than that of the missing cone the overall pitch is sharp and the octaves are too wide.  
> 
> The reverse of that is also true that when the equivalent mouthpiece volume is larger than that of the missing cone, the overall pitch is flat and the octaves are too narrow.  
> 
> In this view, the length of the instrument to the tip of the mouthpiece has no significance other than its effect to raise or lower the volume inside the mouthpiece.   In other words the tuning and relationships of the harmonics have everything to do with the effective volume of the mouthpiece,
>  and that effective volume is controlled to a large degree by the placement of the mouthpiece on the cork.  
> 
> John
>
  
      
                 
                 
 

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

On the saxophone, you ream out the mouthpiece chamber or change
mouthpieces for a fatter chamber, in order to change volume
independently (to some extent) of length..

1.  This is never done "on the fly" while playing like moving the
mouthpiece on or off the cork.

2.  Once this volume change is made, that mouthpiece will need to be set
at a different location on the cork to play in tune.

I am referring more to playing at a given mouthpiece pitch rather than
lipping specific notes up or down.  If I may, I would like to bring the
discussion back to reality rather than theoretical constructs like
completed cones and what happens when you expand the end of the neck
tube.

What I would like to discuss is what conditions would meet one of
Benade's two requirements, but not the other and what the effects might
be.

For example, if the mouthpiece effective volume matched that of the
missing cone, but the Frs of the mouthpiece and neck did not match the
natural resonant frequency of the missing cone plus the neck.  Under
what circumstances might this be the case, and what would the effects
be.

Also, if the Frs of the mouthpiece and neck matched the natural resonant
frequency of the missing cone plus the neck, but the volume inside the
mouthpiece was larger or smaller than that of the missing cone.   How
would this be a possibility, and what would the effect be upon the
playing characteristics of that set up?

John





--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
>
> John,
>
> Players tune dynamically all the time by changing embouchure pressure,
which changes the Vtotal (although other effects are involved as well in
'lipping' notes). The idea is to get the mode relationships as close as
possible so that the player doesn't have to do wild mouth calisthenics
to stay in
>  tune.
>
> Baroque flutes were notoriously out of tune, and players had to
continuously roll the flute in and out while playing to stay on pitch.
Of course this developed into an art form, but was not universally
appreciated. Mozart is reported to have said that the only thing worse
than a flute in the
>  orchestra was two flutes in the orchestra.
>
> Frs is going to depend on two things, the volume enclosed in the tube
and the end diameter of the tube. If you shorten the tube it clearly
raises Frs, as does making the end of the tube wider.
>
> Just as a clarification, if the cone were complete, changing the end
diameter would not have that effect--no matter what the length of the
cone, but since the staple (or the neck) is like a mini-conical woodwind
in itself (truncated cone, not complete cone), changing the cone angle
will change the
>  volume requirement for the substitution (reed or mpc), and since that
doesn't change the frequency of the entire system (reed/staple or
mpc/neck) will change with a change in cone angle (such as enlarging the
end of the staple in Benade's example).
>
>
>
> John jtalcott47@... wrote:
Stop the presses.
>
> I have thought of a way that we increase the effective volume inside
the mouthpiece without moving it on or off the cork. That is by
increasing or decreasing embouchure pressure on the reed.
>
> Dr. Ray Smith at BYU who is an accomplished saxophonist in both jazz
and classical playing teaches that if your high notes are sharp---push
the mouthpiece in.  What he means of course is that often inexperienced
players play too high on the mouthpiece pitch.  As a result they pull
the mouthpiece
>  out to get the high octave in tune.  This produces a volume inside
the mouthpiece larger than that of the missing cone and the low register
plays flat meaning the octaves are too wide.
>
> When the mouthpiece is put farther on to the cork, it takes away the
excess volume inside the mouthpiece and then some.  The player then
adjusts by dropping the jaw, opening the oral cavity, and playing lower
on the mouthpiece pitch to get back down to AD0.   This dials in the
effective
>  mouthpiece volume so it matches that of the missing cone, and brings
the Frs of the neck and mouthpiece down to the required frequency and
the saxophone plays in pitch and in tune with itself.
>
> The same effects to a lesser degree occur when a harder or softer reed
is used.  Dr. Wolfe writes that going from a hard to a soft reed on the
tenor sax can increase the effective volume of the mouthpiece a couple
of milliliters.   It is beginning to make sense to me how all these
relationships
>  work together as they apply to the saxophone.
>
> Of course you are right about the staple.  It would never be shortened
on the cork end.  One would just wrap the reed on a shorter staple just
as a bassoonist would use a different length bocal.
>
> I'm still trying to grasp Benade's statement that:
>
> "Enlarging or shortening the staple enlarges V total and raises Frs". 
I suppose that the only way to test this would be solder an extension on
to the end of a saxophone neck and then remove it, keeping the
mouthpiece in the same position on the cork.  Or one could use a junk
neck and cut the end
>  off with a hacksaw.
>
> John
>
>
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, kymarto123@ wrote:
> >
> > What you say is not necessarily true. The oboe reed staple is never
shortened, although a shorter staple can be used. But note that Benade
specifies either a change in staple length *or a change in reed length*
has the same effect: to change the pitch overall of all registers more
or less
>  equally.
> >  Changing the reed length (making the blades shorter or longer) is
equivalent to moving the mpc on the neck of the sax.
> >
> > Squeezing the reed is equivalent to changing the internal volume of
the sax mpc, and this changes mode relationships.
> >
> > So actually it is possible to change length and volume independent
of each other on the oboe, just not in the same reed. This does not
change the fundamental concepts involved.
> >
> > Toby
> >
> > John jtalcott47@ wrote:                                             
--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, kymarto123@ wrote:
> >
> > Yes, According to Benade speaking about oboes (and he says that it
basically applies to saxes), changing length affects all modes more or
less equally, whereas changing volume affects the mode spacing.
> >
> > What I feel is important to remember is that whenever the saxophone
mouthpiece is pulled farther off the neck both the length and the volume
change simultaneously.   Benade makes the comparison of a saxophone
mouthpiece on its neck to the oboe reed on its staple to illustrate the
requirement that
> >  the resonant frequency of the "reed on its staple" or Frs  needs to
match the natural resonant frequency of the "extended" missing cone
defined as the reed on its staple or in the case of the saxophone the
mouthpiece on its neck.
> >
> > There are some important differences to consider:
> >
> > -The oboe reed cannot be moved forward and back on its staple in
ordinary conditions like the sax mouthpiece on its neck, because it is
bound to the staple with string.
> >
> > -The blades of the oboe reed can be made more narrow by squeezing
the sides and/or tightening a wire around the base of the blades.  The
same saxophone mouthpiece cannot be made more narrow.
> >
> > -The oboe reed's staple can be cut off and shortened.  The saxophone
neck cannot be cut without injuring the instrument.
> >
> > My point is that Benade's pitch statement about oboe reeds applies
only when the length and volume can be adjusted independent of one
another.   I have a hard time accepting the application of this
principle to saxophone mouthpieces, since in practice changes in length
and volume are
> >  interdependent and occur simultaneously.
> >
> >
> > The findings of the Mouthpiece Insert Pitch Study  are on point to
this discussion.
> >
> > I believe that the results suggest that when the effective
mouthpiece volume is smaller than that of the missing cone the overall
pitch is sharp and the octaves are too wide.
> >
> > The reverse of that is also true that when the equivalent mouthpiece
volume is larger than that of the missing cone, the overall pitch is
flat and the octaves are too narrow.
> >
> > In this view, the length of the instrument to the tip of the
mouthpiece has no significance other than its effect to raise or lower
the volume inside the mouthpiece.   In other words the tuning and
relationships of the harmonics have everything to do with the effective
volume of the mouthpiece,
> >  and that effective volume is controlled to a large degree by the
placement of the mouthpiece on the cork.
> >
> > John
> >
>

As far as I understand it, if the Frs is too high you end up with intonation problems at high frequencies, i.e, the top of the second register and the palm notes. This seems to depend somewhat on the shape of the mpc. Fletcher and Rossing specify that to satisfy the condition of the correct
 Helmholtz resonance, the chamber of the mpc should be "somewhat bulbous" in shape, much like older mpcs. I had a look recently at an old Cmel mpc I have and found that the chamber was significantly larger than the throat. No modern mpc is like that. 

It would be eminently possible to make a high-baffle, larger chamber piece, but this seems never to be done today. It looks to me like most modern mpcs simply have a drill bit stuck up the shank to a certain depth to form the throat, leaving a sharp edge where the thick side walls and high baffle
 end. It would be much more work (especially with metal) to do this correctly, and have a chamber that was larger than the throat, since this is a reverse profile and could not be simply drilled out. Perhaps what is needed is to weld two parts together, or to make the shank oversize, drill it
 large, and then put in an insert to fit on the neck. Neither of these would look too cool, and thus would probably hurt sales...

Toby

John <jtalcott47@...> wrote:                                              I am referring more to playing at a given mouthpiece pitch rather than lipping specific notes up or down.  If I may, I would like to bring the discussion back to reality rather than theoretical constructs like completed
 cones and what happens when you expand the end of the neck tube.

What I would like to discuss is what conditions would meet one of Benade's two requirements, but not the other and what the effects might be.

For example, if the mouthpiece effective volume matched that of the missing cone, but the Frs of the mouthpiece and neck did not match the natural resonant frequency of the missing cone plus the neck.  Under what circumstances might this be the case, and what would the effects be.

Also, if the Frs of the mouthpiece and neck matched the natural resonant frequency of the missing cone plus the neck, but the volume inside the mouthpiece was larger or smaller than that of the missing cone.   How would this be a possibility, and what would the effect be upon the playing
 characteristics of that set up?

John





--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
>
> John,
> 
> Players tune dynamically all the time by changing embouchure pressure, which changes the Vtotal (although other effects are involved as well in 'lipping' notes). The idea is to get the mode relationships as close as possible so that the player doesn't have to do wild mouth calisthenics to stay in
>  tune.
> 
> Baroque flutes were notoriously out of tune, and players had to continuously roll the flute in and out while playing to stay on pitch. Of course this developed into an art form, but was not universally appreciated. Mozart is reported to have said that the only thing worse than a flute in the
>  orchestra was two flutes in the orchestra.
> 
> Frs is going to depend on two things, the volume enclosed in the tube and the end diameter of the tube. If you shorten the tube it clearly raises Frs, as does making the end of the tube wider. 
> 
> Just as a clarification, if the cone were complete, changing the end diameter would not have that effect--no matter what the length of the cone, but since the staple (or the neck) is like a mini-conical woodwind in itself (truncated cone, not complete cone), changing the cone angle will change
 the
>  volume requirement for the substitution (reed or mpc), and since that doesn't change the frequency of the entire system (reed/staple or mpc/neck) will change with a change in cone angle (such as enlarging the end of the staple in Benade's example).
> 
> 
> 
> John jtalcott47@... wrote:                                              Stop the presses.  
> 
> I have thought of a way that we increase the effective volume inside the mouthpiece without moving it on or off the cork. That is by increasing or decreasing embouchure pressure on the reed.
> 
> Dr. Ray Smith at BYU who is an accomplished saxophonist in both jazz and classical playing teaches that if your high notes are sharp---push the mouthpiece in.  What he means of course is that often inexperienced players play too high on the mouthpiece pitch.  As a result they pull the mouthpiece
>  out to get the high octave in tune.  This produces a volume inside the mouthpiece larger than that of the missing cone and the low register plays flat meaning the octaves are too wide.
> 
> When the mouthpiece is put farther on to the cork, it takes away the excess volume inside the mouthpiece and then some.  The player then adjusts by dropping the jaw, opening the oral cavity, and playing lower on the mouthpiece pitch to get back down to AD0.   This dials in the effective
>  mouthpiece volume so it matches that of the missing cone, and brings the Frs of the neck and mouthpiece down to the required frequency and the saxophone plays in pitch and in tune with itself.
> 
> The same effects to a lesser degree occur when a harder or softer reed is used.  Dr. Wolfe writes that going from a hard to a soft reed on the tenor sax can increase the effective volume of the mouthpiece a couple of milliliters.   It is beginning to make sense to me how all these relationships
>  work together as they apply to the saxophone.
> 
> Of course you are right about the staple.  It would never be shortened on the cork end.  One would just wrap the reed on a shorter staple just as a bassoonist would use a different length bocal.
> 
> I'm still trying to grasp Benade's statement that:
> 
> "Enlarging or shortening the staple enlarges V total and raises Frs".  I suppose that the only way to test this would be solder an extension on to the end of a saxophone neck and then remove it, keeping the mouthpiece in the same position on the cork.  Or one could use a junk neck and cut the end
>  off with a hacksaw.  
> 
> John
> 
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, kymarto123@ wrote:
> >
> > What you say is not necessarily true. The oboe reed staple is never shortened, although a shorter staple can be used. But note that Benade specifies either a change in staple length *or a change in reed length* has the same effect: to change the pitch overall of all registers more or less
>  equally.
> >  Changing the reed length (making the blades shorter or longer) is equivalent to moving the mpc on the neck of the sax.
> > 
> > Squeezing the reed is equivalent to changing the internal volume of the sax mpc, and this changes mode relationships.
> > 
> > So actually it is possible to change length and volume independent of each other on the oboe, just not in the same reed. This does not change the fundamental concepts involved.
> > 
> > Toby
> > 
> > John jtalcott47@ wrote:                                              --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, kymarto123@ wrote:
> > 
> > Yes, According to Benade speaking about oboes (and he says that it basically applies to saxes), changing length affects all modes more or less equally, whereas changing volume affects the mode spacing.
> > 
> > What I feel is important to remember is that whenever the saxophone mouthpiece is pulled farther off the neck both the length and the volume change simultaneously.   Benade makes the comparison of a saxophone mouthpiece on its neck to the oboe reed on its staple to illustrate the requirement
 that
> >  the resonant frequency of the "reed on its staple" or Frs  needs to match the natural resonant frequency of the "extended" missing cone defined as the reed on its staple or in the case of the saxophone the mouthpiece on its neck.
> > 
> > There are some important differences to consider:  
> > 
> > -The oboe reed cannot be moved forward and back on its staple in ordinary conditions like the sax mouthpiece on its neck, because it is bound to the staple with string.  
> > 
> > -The blades of the oboe reed can be made more narrow by squeezing the sides and/or tightening a wire around the base of the blades.  The same saxophone mouthpiece cannot be made more narrow.  
> > 
> > -The oboe reed's staple can be cut off and shortened.  The saxophone neck cannot be cut without injuring the instrument.  
> > 
> > My point is that Benade's pitch statement about oboe reeds applies only when the length and volume can be adjusted independent of one another.   I have a hard time accepting the application of this principle to saxophone mouthpieces, since in practice changes in length and volume are
> >  interdependent and occur simultaneously.
> > 
> > 
> > The findings of the Mouthpiece Insert Pitch Study  are on point to this discussion. 
> > 
> > I believe that the results suggest that when the effective mouthpiece volume is smaller than that of the missing cone the overall pitch is sharp and the octaves are too wide.  
> > 
> > The reverse of that is also true that when the equivalent mouthpiece volume is larger than that of the missing cone, the overall pitch is flat and the octaves are too narrow.  
> > 
> > In this view, the length of the instrument to the tip of the mouthpiece has no significance other than its effect to raise or lower the volume inside the mouthpiece.   In other words the tuning and relationships of the harmonics have everything to do with the effective volume of the mouthpiece,
> >  and that effective volume is controlled to a large degree by the placement of the mouthpiece on the cork.  
> > 
> > John
> >
>
  
      
                 
                 
 

John,

I recently did major surgery on an alto piece because it was playing the second register sharp on my horn. I took quite a lot of metal off the bottom end of the baffle and smoothed out the abrupt transition between the side walls and the throat. You are quite right that the mpc position to tune to
 A = 440 changed (I had to push the mpc on much further), but at that position the second register no longer played sharp.

Toby

John <jtalcott47@...> wrote:                                            
--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:

On the saxophone, you ream out the mouthpiece chamber or change mouthpieces for a fatter chamber, in order to change volume independently (to some extent) of length..

1.  This is never done "on the fly" while playing like moving the mouthpiece on or off the cork.

2.  Once this volume change is made, that mouthpiece will need to be set at a different location on the cork to play in tune.

  
      
                 
                 
 

Your hands on experiment appears to prove this statement by Benade, FMA
p.471

"10.  On a conical air column with only a small missing apical part, an
alteration of the reed cavity effective volume which changes the mode -1
frequency by a small percentage will produce four times as much change
in the mode-2 frequency, and nine times as much in the mode-3.  Thus a
reduction in the reed cavity volume produces a widening of the resonance
frequency ratios, while an increase in the cavity volume narrows these
ratios.  On less completer cones, the effect on the frequency ratios is
less."

And this statement by Benade, Acoustic Evolution of Wind Instruments p.
26

"As little as 3 mm shortening  [the oboe reed] will raise the overall
playing pitch of essentially the whole scale by 15 to 20 cents on a oboe
if the cooperations are in reasonably good order."


So essentially you increased the volume inside the mouthpiece which
lowered the frequency of mode 1 by x cents, and mode 2 by 4x cents which
made the mouthpiece play x cents flat at the same position on the cork,
but made the relationship of modes one and 2 better in tune.  Then you
pushed the mouthpiece farther on to the cork (shortening the reed) to
bring mode 1 back up to AD0.

The only part that is still confusing to me is that pushing the
mouthpiece in not only shortens the "length of the reed" but it also
reduces the volume in the mouthpiece cavity which according to Benade's
first quote should widen the frequency ratios making the upper register
sharp again.  Can you explain the discrepancy.



--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
>
> John,
>
> I recently did major surgery on an alto piece because it was playing
the second register sharp on my horn. I took quite a lot of metal off
the bottom end of the baffle and smoothed out the abrupt transition
between the side walls and the throat. You are quite right that the mpc
position to tune to
>  A = 440 changed (I had to push the mpc on much further), but at that
position the second register no longer played sharp.
>
> Toby
>
> John jtalcott47@... wrote:
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods lancelotburt@ wrote:
>
> On the saxophone, you ream out the mouthpiece chamber or change
mouthpieces for a fatter chamber, in order to change volume
independently (to some extent) of length..
>
> 1.  This is never done "on the fly" while playing like moving the
mouthpiece on or off the cork.
>
> 2.  Once this volume change is made, that mouthpiece will need to be
set at a different location on the cork to play in tune.
>

John, 

Nederveen gives the math involved around pg 40. It is way beyond me. Anyway, it involves spherical wave timing. Wolfe explained it simply as follows: when the reflected wave reaches the mpc it slows down in the presence of an enlarged cavity. It is as though the compression wave takes extra time
 to bring the larger cavity to the correct pressure so that the wave can continue on to the top of the mpc. The trick is to retard the wavefront enough so that it reaches the tip of the mpc at exactly the time that wavefront would have reached the apex of the cone if the cone were complete.

Obviously this must be frequency dependent. Nederveen says: "Deviations from the preferred value of V strongly influence the high register and the upper part of the low register, whereas the lowest notes are altered less."

This seems to indicate that the mpc should initially be set for correct tuning of the lowest notes, and then taken from there. However this assumes that the lower notes on a given instrument are correctly intonated, which is hardly always the case. If the maker has "adjusted" the low notes (based
 on a given scale or mpc or style of mpc or playing) then this is hardly a good idea.

I digress...

This much is clear. The problem is that Benade does not make exactly clear the relationship between the effect of length and the effect of volume. He says that either shortening the staple OR shortening the reed itself will result in raising the frequencies more or less equally, but as you point
 out, these involve two different things. Shortening the reed lessens cavity volume as well as overall length, while shortening the staple leaves the cavity volume the same while shortening the truncated cone. 

My guess is that shortening the staple and shortening the reed by the same amount would not result in exactly the same intonation effect, but it appears that the most important factor is shortening the overall length of the instrument, and that the specific effects of shortening either the cone or
 the reed are small enough that Benade ignores the distinction.

In isolation, then, it appears that simply shortening the length without changing the volume would result in the first mode rising in pitch more than the second.

Back to my experiment: The first step is enlarging the mpc volume. This drops the second register more than the first, but both are lowered when the mpc is at the same position on the cork. 

The important point here is that I take out enough metal so that the second mode is now significantly flatter than the first mode, although now both are flat at the original mpc position  

Now we inch the mpc more onto the neck, shortening the instrument. This has two effects. First it raises both modes more or less equally because the length is being shortened. Second, since the volume is also decreasing, the second mode is rising faster than the first. 

The trick is to have flattened the second mode enough that although it is rising faster than the first, a point of coincidence is reached when the first mode reaches concert pitch.

So we have to balance volume (less volume makes the second mode sharper than the first) with length (less length makes the second mode flatter than the first).

That's my guess as to how it works, based on Benade's statements and my own experience (which is hardly a rigorous proof, however).

But there is a huge fly in the ointment here, as regards what I think I observed. 

I just spent some time trying to get some accurate measurements of length and volume as relate to intonation. The fact is that this seems near impossible due to the great variations in intonation possible with very small shifts in embouchure position and lip pressure.

I found that I could tune first octave G within a range of about 4 mm on the neck with slightly different emboucure parameters, but this had a large effect on the tuning of second octave G. Beyond that, slight changes in embouchre affected second octave G tuning much more than first octave G.

Of course we know all that, but it has profound consequences in trying to get a handle on all this, and I don't want to mislead you. It is possible that at least some of the effect that I reported in my experiment has to do with changes in my embouchure position. Unfortunately I did not measure
 the internal volume or length before the modification of the Runyon, so I can't post A/B results,.

For instance, I tried to carefully measure the tuning of two different alto mpcs, a Beechler Bellite and a Vandoren A35. The Bellite is high baffle, whereas the Vandoren is more or less classical with a rather low baffle. 

The tip openings are quite similar. I found that the Beechler tuned at a length of about 66 mm from end of neck to tip rail while the Vandoren tuned at 61 mm. The measured volumes were different: the Beechler (at that position) had an internal volume around 8.5 ml, while the Vandoren was around
 9.5 ml. I stress that all these measurements are approximate, and the average of a number of different tries, in which I found the correct position to vary +-2 mm or so. In any case the same reed was used and because the tip openings are similar no great embouchure variations were needed to blow
 both comfortably.

But the trend seems to be that the longer mpc needed less internal volume to tune to concert pitch, but with a caveat: the Beechler consistently played the second octave G significantly sharper than the Vandoren, by 10-15 cents. 

This seems to bear out the thought that a shorter, fatter mpc will bring the higher modes down somewhat, and would then explain why by reaming out the chamber of my Runyon, it brought the octaves into line even though the mpc was pushed further on the neck, reducing the internal volume somewhat
 (if my observations are correct).

Although it is hard to quantify this, because of wide variations due to temperature variations and embouchure and blowing factors, it does seem to bear out Benade's points as concern length vs. volume in conical instruments.

A good further step, to really control factors here, would be to take two identical mpcs and significantly change the chamber volume on one, leaving the other alone. Then do A/B comparisons of correct tuning length from tip to end of the neck, corresponding internal volumes and mode relationships
 when the lower mode is in tune.

Bear in mind that since small embouchure variations can make a big difference, you would either have to use an artificial embouchure or do a wide number of trials to get decent statistical results.

Toby
 

"A good further step, to really control factors here, would be to take two identical mpcs....."

That would be a cool trick.



      

Keith,

I would submit that what John is mentioning is not what most guys mean or are doing when they talking about "lipping" notes in tune. "Lipping" is often a fairly large embouchure adjustment in order to fix intonation on individual notes. However, players who do this very much have general trouble with intonation. One has less trouble with intonation when the embouchure is generally quite relaxed, and the oral tract does the adjusting by way of "voicing" the notes. This approach to playing works well with the recommendation that John cites: a mpc that is pushed fairly far onto the cork, and a relaxed embouchure that plays "down" to pitch. This is not the equivalent of "lipping" on individual notes, which often means "lipping up", i.e. biting.

JT




--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:
>
> You are having a revelation about "lipping" notes in tune?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: John <jtalcott47@...>
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tue, March 9, 2010 10:06:36 AM
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
> 
>   
> Stop the presses.  
> 
> I have thought of a way that we increase the effective volume inside the mouthpiece without moving it on or off the cork. That is by increasing or decreasing embouchure pressure on the reed.
>

Actually it doesn't appear that the vocal tract can do anything about intonation at all. There was speculation that since the vocal tract is an upstream resonator it might be possible to "tune" it to a significant frequency of a note being played and affect the way the reed vibrates, but recent
 research has shown that this does not happen until the altissimo notes. Wolfe et al. at UNSW did a well-received study on this and found that neither professional players nor amateurs alter the vocal tract in any consistent way UNTIL the altissimo range, where it is absolutely essential to shape
 the vocal tract in such a way that it has a resonant frequency equal to a significant frequency of the altissimo note in question. All the pro players did this kind of shaping; amateurs unable to do so could not play altissimo.

I can give you the link if you are interested--or it is pretty obviously available on the UNSW site.

As I mentioned in my mpc experiment, I was surprised at how much I could lip notes with only very minor embouchure changes. Not so much in the first octave, and especially not so much at the low end of the first octave, but in the middle of the second octave I could, with minor embouchure changes,
 lip a note up or down 40 cents.

The big problem with lipping notes is that you can't lip all the notes equally;  it's easier to lip both higher and shorter-tube notes (generally, and at least within the first two octaves). This means that you want to generally be in tune for the notes harder to lip, and not have to do much for
 the notes easier to lip (but at least you can if necessary).

The big problem comes when you have a mouthpiece whose specs are out of whack, or if your general embouchure tension (either too tight or too loose) throws those octaves out. In either case, there is no way to get all the notes in tune with generally the same embouchure. Of course if you have a
 horn that is also out of tune with itself the same applies.

This is why beginning players sound so horrible in terms of intonation--they are playing each note with a fixed embouchure, having not acquired the skill to vary the pitch dynamically according to need. This is similar to beginning violin players, who don't yet know exactly the  finger positions
 needed to achieve correct pitch on various notes. Violin players, with long practice, gain the skill to know generally where to put their fingers, and--importantly--how to get spot on quickly when they are in the neighborhood. Sax players, with long practice, learn the best general embouchure to
 achieve a good sound, and how to quickly and seamlessly adjust their bite on the reed to center the pitch of each note.

You have been doing this so long that it is unconscious, and you probably think that you are adjusting you vocal tract, but what you are really doing is transposing your feeling of singing with the horn into an incredibly complex series of fine adjustments of lip tension and shape and bite on the
 mpc, coupled with synchronous modulation of breath pressure, to play a note with a certain color, a certain dynamic and a certain pitch, not to mention that you are varying all of these all the time in the name of artistry and expression.

/Toby

jdtoddjazz <jdtoddjazz@...> wrote:                                           Keith,
 
 I would submit that what John is mentioning is not what most guys mean or are doing when they talking about "lipping" notes in tune. "Lipping" is often a fairly large embouchure adjustment in order to fix intonation on individual notes. However, players who do this very much have general trouble
 with intonation. One has less trouble with intonation when the embouchure is generally quite relaxed, and the oral tract does the adjusting by way of "voicing" the notes. This approach to playing works well with the recommendation that John cites: a mpc that is pushed fairly far onto the cork,
 and a relaxed embouchure that plays "down" to pitch. This is not the equivalent of "lipping" on individual notes, which often means "lipping up", i.e. biting.
 
 JT
 
 --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:
 >
 > You are having a revelation about "lipping" notes in tune?
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > ________________________________
 > From: John <jtalcott47@...>
 > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
 > Sent: Tue, March 9, 2010 10:06:36 AM
 > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
 > 
 >   
 > Stop the presses.  
 > 
 > I have thought of a way that we increase the effective volume inside the mouthpiece without moving it on or off the cork. That is by increasing or decreasing embouchure pressure on the reed.
 >
 
 
      
                 
                 
 

"Actually it doesn't appear that the vocal tract can do anything about
intonation at all. There was speculation that since the vocal tract is
an upstream resonator it might be possible to "tune" it to a
significant frequency of a note being played and affect the way the
reed vibrates, but recent research has shown that this does not happen
until the altissimo notes. Wolfe et al. at UNSW did a well-received
study on this and found that neither professional players nor amateurs
alter the vocal tract in any consistent way UNTIL the altissimo range....."

I submit that the ever-present, tube resonance of the mouthpiece + constriction (I'll call it the mc resonance), which creates the hole in the saxophone spectrum, giving the saxophone it's characteristic sound, (see, http://www.acoustics.org/press/151st/Dalmont.html) plays an important roll in "voicing" notes.  Having a short wavelength, ("e.g. the second mode frequency of the shortest used tube." - Benade),  it would be more influenced by the effective volume manipulations of the vocal tract than a good portion of the regime forming resonances of the normal range.  It's conceivable, that most regimes would have at least one resonance with a node in the vicinity of .the mc resonance's displacement anti-node (just inside the neck opening), and the unsuspecting regime resonance would suffer pitch and perhaps amplitude altering interference from mc (thus the spectrum hole).  Vocal tract manipulation is used to move the position of mc's displacement
 anti-node far enough away from the regime's resonance in order avoid it's interference with the sounding regime.

Vocal tract manipulations don't alter pitch per se.  They alter modal alignment (frequency) in the higher frequencies which result in amplitude ratio changes in the regime and perhaps very minor pitch changes in the fundamental as a result of the regime adjusting to maximize acoustic energy.





      

OK, OK. But the point is that you can probably find two same brand, same opening mpcs that play the same frequency when they are at the same point on the neck, and whose mode relations are generally the same within a few cents. That is certainly close enough to have a control for comparison when
 you alter one.

Toby

MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:                                           "A good further step, to really control factors here, would be to take two identical mpcs....."

That would be a cool trick.

        
      
                 
                 
 

I can see no reason why vocal tract alterations would affect the timing of the reed, which is a function of the truncation ratio. Anyway, where do you get the information that vocal tract alterations affect mode alignments in the higher frequencies?

Wolfe was rather unequivocal on this point (Zt is vocal tract impedance and Zb is bore impedance): 

"Over the lower range of the instrument, the peaks in Zb are much greater than those in Zt. In this range, the peaks in Zt
varied greatly among players, and showed no consistent
relation to the note played. In the high ($B!H(Baltissimo$B!I(B) range, however, the professional players consistently tuned a strong peak in Zt near to or slightly above the fundamental of the note played ."

Toby

MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:                                           "Actually it doesn't appear that the vocal tract can do anything about intonation at all. There was speculation that since the vocal tract is an upstream resonator it might be possible to "tune" it to a
 significant frequency of a note being played and affect the way the reed vibrates, but recent research has shown that this does not happen until the altissimo notes. Wolfe et al. at UNSW did a well-received study on this and found that neither professional players nor amateurs alter the vocal
 tract in any consistent way UNTIL the altissimo range....."

I submit that the ever-present, tube resonance of the mouthpiece + constriction (I'll call it the mc resonance), which creates the hole in the saxophone spectrum, giving the saxophone it's characteristic sound, (see, http://www.acoustics.org/press/151st/Dalmont.html) plays an important roll in
 "voicing" notes.  Having a short wavelength, ("e.g. the second mode frequency of the shortest used tube." - Benade),  it would be more influenced by the effective volume manipulations of the vocal tract than a good portion of the regime forming resonances of the normal range.  It's conceivable,
 that most regimes would have at least one resonance with a node in the vicinity of .the mc resonance's displacement anti-node (just inside the neck opening), and the unsuspecting regime resonance would suffer pitch  and perhaps amplitude altering interference from mc (thus the spectrum hole). 
 Vocal tract manipulation is used to move the position of mc's displacement anti-node far enough away from the regime's resonance in order avoid it's interference with the sounding regime.

Vocal tract manipulations don't alter pitch per se.  They alter modal alignment (frequency) in the higher frequencies which result in amplitude ratio changes in the regime and perhaps very minor pitch changes in the fundamental as a result of the regime adjusting to maximize acoustic energy.



        
      
                 
                 
 

I would recommend using a single large chamber mouthpiece with a removable baffle insert.  This gives you two test points that are fairly repeatable and identical except for chamber volume and baffle.

 



________________________________
From: "kymarto123@..." <kymarto123@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, March 11, 2010 2:27:21 AM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone--mpc volume vs length for tuning

  
OK, OK. But the point is that you can probably find two same brand, same opening mpcs that play the same frequency when they are at the same point on the neck, and whose mode relations are generally the same within a few cents. That is certainly close enough to have a control for comparison when you alter one.

Toby

MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote: 
  
>"A good further step, to really control factors here, would be to take two identical mpcs....."
>
>That would be a cool trick.
> 
>






      

This is fascinating reading.  Can you cite a source for more information
about the "hole in the saxophone spectrum" that is created inside the
mouthpiece.  Is this what Dalmont calls the "anti-formant" Do you know
if this "hole in the spectrum" can actually be identified in any of
graphs of the saxophone sound spectrum at the UNSW Saxophone Acoustics 
<http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/music/saxophone/>  site?  Thanks.

John


--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
wrote:
>
> "Actually it doesn't appear that the vocal tract can do anything about
> intonation at all. There was speculation that since the vocal tract is
> an upstream resonator it might be possible to "tune" it to a
> significant frequency of a note being played and affect the way the
> reed vibrates, but recent research has shown that this does not happen
> until the altissimo notes. Wolfe et al. at UNSW did a well-received
> study on this and found that neither professional players nor amateurs
> alter the vocal tract in any consistent way UNTIL the altissimo
range....."
>
> I submit that the ever-present, tube resonance of the mouthpiece +
constriction (I'll call it the mc resonance), which creates the hole in
the saxophone spectrum, giving the saxophone it's characteristic sound,
(see, http://www.acoustics.org/press/151st/Dalmont.html) plays an
important roll in "voicing" notes.  Having a short wavelength, ("e.g.
the second mode frequency of the shortest used tube." - Benade),  it
would be more influenced by the effective volume manipulations of the
vocal tract than a good portion of the regime forming resonances of the
normal range.  It's conceivable, that most regimes would have at least
one resonance with a node in the vicinity of .the mc resonance's
displacement anti-node (just inside the neck opening), and the
unsuspecting regime resonance would suffer pitch and perhaps amplitude
altering interference from mc (thus the spectrum hole).  Vocal tract
manipulation is used to move the position of mc's displacement
>  anti-node far enough away from the regime's resonance in order avoid
it's interference with the sounding regime.
>
> Vocal tract manipulations don't alter pitch per se.  They alter modal
alignment (frequency) in the higher frequencies which result in
amplitude ratio changes in the regime and perhaps very minor pitch
changes in the fundamental as a result of the regime adjusting to
maximize acoustic energy.
>

I have a much different view based upon my experience.  I think Dr.
Wolfe's finding that players don't adjust their vocal tracts in any
consistent way when playing below the altissimo range, should not be
interpreted to mean that they don't use vocal tract settings or
adjustments when they play the normal range of the saxophone.

Some examples come to mind:

-First there is the well known mouthpiece exercise in which the goal is
to master a complete scale on the mouthpiece alone without making
significant changes with the lip pressure.  This involves changing the
pitch using the vocal tract almost exclusively.  Once this technique is
mastered it of course facilitates the mastery of playing overtones and
notes in the altissimo range, but just as important it allows the player
to "voice" notes in the normal playing range of the instrument.  This
voicing has both the purpose of changing the "timbre" of any given note,
but also it's pitch.

An exercise I have successfully used with my students is to have them
drop the pitch of a very sharp 4th line D to where it is way too flat by
dropping the jaw and opening the oral cavity and then bring the pitch
back up to be in tune by re-tightening the lips and keeping the jaw and
oral cavity the same.  Sharp notes just "lipped" down often have a
"flabby" tone.  By lowering the pitch "vocally" instead, the tone
quality is maintained.

-Another pedagogical tool also applies, and that is "tuning the
airstream" using the shape of the mouth and throat.  This works
especially well when teaching brass and flute tone production, but it is
also effective on sax and clarinet.  The process is simply to hum the
pitch of the note you are going to play and then blow that pitch on an
airstream.  It sounds like an airy whistle.  Then when the note is
played using that air velocity and shape of the oral cavity, the pitch
and focus of the tone are excellent.  It produces what is referred to as
a "well centered tone".

It is true that a player does not have time to make this focus
adjustment for each note when the notes change rapidly,  but when
playing a slow sustained passage  it is an effective means of
controlling the quality of the tone and intonation.

My last point is that young saxophone players when equipped with a
saxophone that plays well in tune like the YAS 23 and taught to play the
correct pitch on the mouthpiece and neck (Ab concert for the alto) will
have very good intonation the range of the saxophone using the same
embouchure pressure throughout.

John





--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
>
> Actually it doesn't appear that the vocal tract can do anything about
intonation at all. There was speculation that since the vocal tract is
an upstream resonator it might be possible to "tune" it to a significant
frequency of a note being played and affect the way the reed vibrates,
but recent
>  research has shown that this does not happen until the altissimo
notes. Wolfe et al. at UNSW did a well-received study on this and found
that neither professional players nor amateurs alter the vocal tract in
any consistent way UNTIL the altissimo range, where it is absolutely
essential to shape
>  the vocal tract in such a way that it has a resonant frequency equal
to a significant frequency of the altissimo note in question. All the
pro players did this kind of shaping; amateurs unable to do so could not
play altissimo.
>
> I can give you the link if you are interested--or it is pretty
obviously available on the UNSW site.
>
> As I mentioned in my mpc experiment, I was surprised at how much I
could lip notes with only very minor embouchure changes. Not so much in
the first octave, and especially not so much at the low end of the first
octave, but in the middle of the second octave I could, with minor
embouchure changes,
>  lip a note up or down 40 cents.
>
> The big problem with lipping notes is that you can't lip all the notes
equally;  it's easier to lip both higher and shorter-tube notes
(generally, and at least within the first two octaves). This means that
you want to generally be in tune for the notes harder to lip, and not
have to do much for
>  the notes easier to lip (but at least you can if necessary).
>
> The big problem comes when you have a mouthpiece whose specs are out
of whack, or if your general embouchure tension (either too tight or too
loose) throws those octaves out. In either case, there is no way to get
all the notes in tune with generally the same embouchure. Of course if
you have a
>  horn that is also out of tune with itself the same applies.
>
> This is why beginning players sound so horrible in terms of
intonation--they are playing each note with a fixed embouchure, having
not acquired the skill to vary the pitch dynamically according to need.
This is similar to beginning violin players, who don't yet know exactly
the  finger positions
>  needed to achieve correct pitch on various notes. Violin players,
with long practice, gain the skill to know generally where to put their
fingers, and--importantly--how to get spot on quickly when they are in
the neighborhood. Sax players, with long practice, learn the best
general embouchure to
>  achieve a good sound, and how to quickly and seamlessly adjust their
bite on the reed to center the pitch of each note.
>
> You have been doing this so long that it is unconscious, and you
probably think that you are adjusting you vocal tract, but what you are
really doing is transposing your feeling of singing with the horn into
an incredibly complex series of fine adjustments of lip tension and
shape and bite on the
>  mpc, coupled with synchronous modulation of breath pressure, to play
a note with a certain color, a certain dynamic and a certain pitch, not
to mention that you are varying all of these all the time in the name of
artistry and expression.
>
> /Toby
>
> jdtoddjazz jdtoddjazz@... wrote:
Keith,
>
>  I would submit that what John is mentioning is not what most guys
mean or are doing when they talking about "lipping" notes in tune.
"Lipping" is often a fairly large embouchure adjustment in order to fix
intonation on individual notes. However, players who do this very much
have general trouble
>  with intonation. One has less trouble with intonation when the
embouchure is generally quite relaxed, and the oral tract does the
adjusting by way of "voicing" the notes. This approach to playing works
well with the recommendation that John cites: a mpc that is pushed
fairly far onto the cork,
>  and a relaxed embouchure that plays "down" to pitch. This is not the
equivalent of "lipping" on individual notes, which often means "lipping
up", i.e. biting.
>
>  JT
>
>  --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Keith Bradbury kwbradbury@
wrote:
>  >
>  > You are having a revelation about "lipping" notes in tune?
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > ________________________________
>  > From: John jtalcott47@
>  > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>  > Sent: Tue, March 9, 2010 10:06:36 AM
>  > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
>  >
>  >
>  > Stop the presses.
>  >
>  > I have thought of a way that we increase the effective volume
inside the mouthpiece without moving it on or off the cork. That is by
increasing or decreasing embouchure pressure on the reed.
>  >
>

Toby,

You have given far too much information for me to digest in one sitting so I'll have to wait to respond to some of your points.

That said, I have access to literally scores of identical mouthpieces that have been replaced due to bite marks etc. but are in otherwise excellent playing condition.

Measuring the effects of mouthpiece volume changes will be one of the first tests done with the artificial embouchure device, affectionately named "deep throat" following a suggestion by one of Keith's forum members.

John

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
>
> John, 
> 
> Nederveen gives the math involved around pg 40. It is way beyond me. Anyway, it involves spherical wave timing. Wolfe explained it simply as follows: when the reflected wave reaches the mpc it slows down in the presence of an enlarged cavity. It is as though the compression wave takes extra time
>  to bring the larger cavity to the correct pressure so that the wave can continue on to the top of the mpc. The trick is to retard the wavefront enough so that it reaches the tip of the mpc at exactly the time that wavefront would have reached the apex of the cone if the cone were complete.
> 
> Obviously this must be frequency dependent. Nederveen says: "Deviations from the preferred value of V strongly influence the high register and the upper part of the low register, whereas the lowest notes are altered less."
> 
> This seems to indicate that the mpc should initially be set for correct tuning of the lowest notes, and then taken from there. However this assumes that the lower notes on a given instrument are correctly intonated, which is hardly always the case. If the maker has "adjusted" the low notes (based
>  on a given scale or mpc or style of mpc or playing) then this is hardly a good idea.
> 
> I digress...
> 
> This much is clear. The problem is that Benade does not make exactly clear the relationship between the effect of length and the effect of volume. He says that either shortening the staple OR shortening the reed itself will result in raising the frequencies more or less equally, but as you point
>  out, these involve two different things. Shortening the reed lessens cavity volume as well as overall length, while shortening the staple leaves the cavity volume the same while shortening the truncated cone. 
> 
> My guess is that shortening the staple and shortening the reed by the same amount would not result in exactly the same intonation effect, but it appears that the most important factor is shortening the overall length of the instrument, and that the specific effects of shortening either the cone or
>  the reed are small enough that Benade ignores the distinction.
> 
> In isolation, then, it appears that simply shortening the length without changing the volume would result in the first mode rising in pitch more than the second.
> 
> Back to my experiment: The first step is enlarging the mpc volume. This drops the second register more than the first, but both are lowered when the mpc is at the same position on the cork. 
> 
> The important point here is that I take out enough metal so that the second mode is now significantly flatter than the first mode, although now both are flat at the original mpc position  
> 
> Now we inch the mpc more onto the neck, shortening the instrument. This has two effects. First it raises both modes more or less equally because the length is being shortened. Second, since the volume is also decreasing, the second mode is rising faster than the first. 
> 
> The trick is to have flattened the second mode enough that although it is rising faster than the first, a point of coincidence is reached when the first mode reaches concert pitch.
> 
> So we have to balance volume (less volume makes the second mode sharper than the first) with length (less length makes the second mode flatter than the first).
> 
> That's my guess as to how it works, based on Benade's statements and my own experience (which is hardly a rigorous proof, however).
> 
> But there is a huge fly in the ointment here, as regards what I think I observed. 
> 
> I just spent some time trying to get some accurate measurements of length and volume as relate to intonation. The fact is that this seems near impossible due to the great variations in intonation possible with very small shifts in embouchure position and lip pressure.
> 
> I found that I could tune first octave G within a range of about 4 mm on the neck with slightly different emboucure parameters, but this had a large effect on the tuning of second octave G. Beyond that, slight changes in embouchre affected second octave G tuning much more than first octave G.
> 
> Of course we know all that, but it has profound consequences in trying to get a handle on all this, and I don't want to mislead you. It is possible that at least some of the effect that I reported in my experiment has to do with changes in my embouchure position. Unfortunately I did not measure
>  the internal volume or length before the modification of the Runyon, so I can't post A/B results,.
> 
> For instance, I tried to carefully measure the tuning of two different alto mpcs, a Beechler Bellite and a Vandoren A35. The Bellite is high baffle, whereas the Vandoren is more or less classical with a rather low baffle. 
> 
> The tip openings are quite similar. I found that the Beechler tuned at a length of about 66 mm from end of neck to tip rail while the Vandoren tuned at 61 mm. The measured volumes were different: the Beechler (at that position) had an internal volume around 8.5 ml, while the Vandoren was around
>  9.5 ml. I stress that all these measurements are approximate, and the average of a number of different tries, in which I found the correct position to vary +-2 mm or so. In any case the same reed was used and because the tip openings are similar no great embouchure variations were needed to blow
>  both comfortably.
> 
> But the trend seems to be that the longer mpc needed less internal volume to tune to concert pitch, but with a caveat: the Beechler consistently played the second octave G significantly sharper than the Vandoren, by 10-15 cents. 
> 
> This seems to bear out the thought that a shorter, fatter mpc will bring the higher modes down somewhat, and would then explain why by reaming out the chamber of my Runyon, it brought the octaves into line even though the mpc was pushed further on the neck, reducing the internal volume somewhat
>  (if my observations are correct).
> 
> Although it is hard to quantify this, because of wide variations due to temperature variations and embouchure and blowing factors, it does seem to bear out Benade's points as concern length vs. volume in conical instruments.
> 
> A good further step, to really control factors here, would be to take two identical mpcs and significantly change the chamber volume on one, leaving the other alone. Then do A/B comparisons of correct tuning length from tip to end of the neck, corresponding internal volumes and mode relationships
>  when the lower mode is in tune.
> 
> Bear in mind that since small embouchure variations can make a big difference, you would either have to use an artificial embouchure or do a wide number of trials to get decent statistical results.
> 
> Toby
>

"....where
do you get the information that vocal tract alterations affect mode
alignments in the higher frequencies?"

Logic.   

If these statements are true:

1. The effective volume of the mouthpiece chamber includes a portion of the vocal tract.
2. Length remaining unaltered, changes in mouthpiece volume affect the frs of the mouthpiece/constriction resonance.
3. Frs is an adjustment for the alignment of higher frequency resonances.

- then, vocal tract alterations will alter mode alignment of higher frequency resonances.

"I can see no reason why vocal tract alterations would affect the timing
of the reed, which is a function of the truncation ratio."

Close, but not exactly so.  The truncation ratio is a mechanical absolute. Reed closed  timing is controlled by the mouthpiece/constriction resonance frs. The frs of the mouthpiece/constriction resonance is a function of the mouthpiece effective volume and length, and the constriction length and diameter, which for optimal acoustical results, should match the frequency of the theoretical missing cone.  







      

"Can you cite a source for more
information about the "hole in the saxophone spectrum" that is created
inside the mouthpiece.  Is this what Dalmont calls the "anti-formant"
Do you know if this "hole in the spectrum" can actually be identified
in any of graphs of the saxophone sound spectrum at the UNSW Saxophone Acoustics  site? "

I have not done an exhaustive search yet.  Fletcher touched on it somewhere, as have a few others.  Nederveen explains the reed closure period and resultant acoustical power differences compared to cylindrical instruments.  It is what Dalmont calls the "anti-formant" and if the mouthpiece/constriction frs were correct, would be found at the neck opening, where the bore starts to expand, I would say.  

I have gone over with Toby without resolution, the idea that it is exactly this resonance that Benade refers to when discussing the frs of the substitution - ( paraphrased) the body will see a something that acoustically resembles the missing cone.  There will be a pressure node (the mouthpiece/constriction resonance's displacement anti-node) at or slightly inside the mouthpiece shank (he actually refers to an oboe staple) for played tones above frs, and moving slightly inside the neck (oboe body) for played tones below frs.  Though Dalmont states that the anti-formant freq. exists independent of the note played, Benade states that the mc resonance disp, anti-node affects played resonances with nodes in it's area.  I surmise that the reverse is also true to some extent, which would explain the nodes movement from just inside the shank to just inside the neck.

I have not done a thorough search of the UNSW site.





      

"I have gone over with Toby without resolution,...."

And I see Toby's point clearly, and in the end, it doesn't matter, as the results of matching the mc resonance frs or the mouthpiece + neck frs, are for our purposes about the same.



      

Excellent idea! And the volume of the baffle insert is easily measurable! I'll try to do this, but it's doubtful I'll have a chance before I have to go back to China.

Toby

Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:                                           

 I would recommend using a single large chamber mouthpiece with a removable baffle insert.  This gives you two test points that are fairly repeatable and identical except for chamber volume and baffle.
 
 
 
  
---------------------------------
 From: "kymarto123@..." <kymarto123@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, March 11, 2010 2:27:21 AM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone--mpc volume vs length for tuning

    OK, OK. But the point is that you can probably find two same brand, same opening mpcs that play the same frequency when they are at the same point on the neck, and whose mode relations are generally the same within a few cents. That is certainly close enough to have a control for comparison
 when you alter one.

Toby

MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:  
        "A good further step, to really control factors here, would be to take two identical mpcs....."

That would be a cool trick.




  

 
  




          
      
                 
                 
 

To make life even more interesting, the truncation ratio, and thus the multiplier for the antiformant, varies with each note.

Toby

John <jtalcott47@...> wrote:                                            This is fascinating reading.  Can you cite a source for more information about the "hole in the saxophone spectrum" that is created inside the mouthpiece.  Is this what Dalmont calls the "anti-formant" Do you know if this
 "hole in the spectrum" can actually be identified in any of graphs of the saxophone sound spectrum at the UNSW Saxophone Acoustics  site?  Thanks.

John


--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
>
> "Actually it doesn't appear that the vocal tract can do anything about
> intonation at all. There was speculation that since the vocal tract is
> an upstream resonator it might be possible to "tune" it to a
> significant frequency of a note being played and affect the way the
> reed vibrates, but recent research has shown that this does not happen
> until the altissimo notes. Wolfe et al. at UNSW did a well-received
> study on this and found that neither professional players nor amateurs
> alter the vocal tract in any consistent way UNTIL the altissimo range....."
> 
> I submit that the ever-present, tube resonance of the mouthpiece + constriction (I'll call it the mc resonance), which creates the hole in the saxophone spectrum, giving the saxophone it's characteristic sound, (see, http://www.acoustics.org/press/151st/Dalmont.html) plays an important roll in
 "voicing" notes.  Having a short wavelength, ("e.g. the second mode frequency of the shortest used tube." - Benade),  it would be more influenced by the effective volume manipulations of the vocal tract than a good portion of the regime forming resonances of the normal range.  It's conceivable,
 that most regimes would have at least one resonance with a node in the vicinity of .the mc resonance's displacement anti-node (just inside the neck opening), and the unsuspecting regime resonance would suffer pitch and perhaps amplitude altering interference from mc (thus the spectrum hole). 
 Vocal tract manipulation is used to move the position of mc's displacement
>  anti-node far enough away from the regime's resonance in order avoid it's interference with the sounding regime.
> 
> Vocal tract manipulations don't alter pitch per se.  They alter modal alignment (frequency) in the higher frequencies which result in amplitude ratio changes in the regime and perhaps very minor pitch changes in the fundamental as a result of the regime adjusting to maximize acoustic energy.
>
  
      
                 
                 
 

John,

This is mostly apples and oranges. If you look at was Wolfe is saying, it is that the impedance of the bore is so much more powerful than the impedance of the vocal tract in the normal range, that the latter can barely influence the former. If you take the mpc off the horn there is no more bore
 impedance and of course the vocal tract has a much larger effect.

The pedagogical tools are just that: a way of visualizing something that is actually something else. I've done some personal experiments and find that vocal tract manipulations have near zero (if not zero) effect on the tone *if I keep my embouchure the same*. However changing the vocal tract by
 visualizing the note, or even "singing" the note to align the resonance, has a lot to do about fine optimization of the embouchure and almost nothing to do with the upstream resonator contributing anything to the sound, at least in woodwinds. The different kind of reed in brasses make it a
 different proposition in that case, as the vocal tract can influence vibration of the lips. A hard cane reed is a different matter.

Toby

John <jtalcott47@...> wrote:                                              I have a much different view based upon my experience.  I think Dr. Wolfe's finding that players don't adjust their vocal tracts in any consistent way when playing below the altissimo range, should not be interpreted to
 mean that they don't use vocal tract settings or adjustments when they play the normal range of the saxophone.

Some examples come to mind:  

-First there is the well known mouthpiece exercise in which the goal is to master a complete scale on the mouthpiece alone without making significant changes with the lip pressure.  This involves changing the pitch using the vocal tract almost exclusively.  Once this technique is mastered it of
 course facilitates the mastery of playing overtones and notes in the altissimo range, but just as important it allows the player to "voice" notes in the normal playing range of the instrument.  This voicing has both the purpose of changing the "timbre" of any given note, but also it's pitch.   

An exercise I have successfully used with my students is to have them drop the pitch of a very sharp 4th line D to where it is way too flat by dropping the jaw and opening the oral cavity and then bring the pitch back up to be in tune by re-tightening the lips and keeping the jaw and oral cavity
 the same.  Sharp notes just "lipped" down often have a "flabby" tone.  By lowering the pitch "vocally" instead, the tone quality is maintained.

-Another pedagogical tool also applies, and that is "tuning the airstream" using the shape of the mouth and throat.  This works especially well when teaching brass and flute tone production, but it is also effective on sax and clarinet.  The process is simply to hum the pitch of the note you are
 going to play and then blow that pitch on an airstream.  It sounds like an airy whistle.  Then when the note is played using that air velocity and shape of the oral cavity, the pitch and focus of the tone are excellent.  It produces what is referred to as a "well centered tone".

It is true that a player does not have time to make this focus adjustment for each note when the notes change rapidly,  but when playing a slow sustained passage  it is an effective means of controlling the quality of the tone and intonation.

My last point is that young saxophone players when equipped with a saxophone that plays well in tune like the YAS 23 and taught to play the correct pitch on the mouthpiece and neck (Ab concert for the alto) will have very good intonation the range of the saxophone using the same embouchure
 pressure throughout.
 
 John





--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
>
> Actually it doesn't appear that the vocal tract can do anything about intonation at all. There was speculation that since the vocal tract is an upstream resonator it might be possible to "tune" it to a significant frequency of a note being played and affect the way the reed vibrates, but recent
>  research has shown that this does not happen until the altissimo notes. Wolfe et al. at UNSW did a well-received study on this and found that neither professional players nor amateurs alter the vocal tract in any consistent way UNTIL the altissimo range, where it is absolutely essential to shape
>  the vocal tract in such a way that it has a resonant frequency equal to a significant frequency of the altissimo note in question. All the pro players did this kind of shaping; amateurs unable to do so could not play altissimo.
> 
> I can give you the link if you are interested--or it is pretty obviously available on the UNSW site.
> 
> As I mentioned in my mpc experiment, I was surprised at how much I could lip notes with only very minor embouchure changes. Not so much in the first octave, and especially not so much at the low end of the first octave, but in the middle of the second octave I could, with minor embouchure
 changes,
>  lip a note up or down 40 cents.
> 
> The big problem with lipping notes is that you can't lip all the notes equally;  it's easier to lip both higher and shorter-tube notes (generally, and at least within the first two octaves). This means that you want to generally be in tune for the notes harder to lip, and not have to do much for
>  the notes easier to lip (but at least you can if necessary).
> 
> The big problem comes when you have a mouthpiece whose specs are out of whack, or if your general embouchure tension (either too tight or too loose) throws those octaves out. In either case, there is no way to get all the notes in tune with generally the same embouchure. Of course if you have a
>  horn that is also out of tune with itself the same applies.
> 
> This is why beginning players sound so horrible in terms of intonation--they are playing each note with a fixed embouchure, having not acquired the skill to vary the pitch dynamically according to need. This is similar to beginning violin players, who don't yet know exactly the  finger positions
>  needed to achieve correct pitch on various notes. Violin players, with long practice, gain the skill to know generally where to put their fingers, and--importantly--how to get spot on quickly when they are in the neighborhood. Sax players, with long practice, learn the best general embouchure to
>  achieve a good sound, and how to quickly and seamlessly adjust their bite on the reed to center the pitch of each note.
> 
> You have been doing this so long that it is unconscious, and you probably think that you are adjusting you vocal tract, but what you are really doing is transposing your feeling of singing with the horn into an incredibly complex series of fine adjustments of lip tension and shape and bite on the
>  mpc, coupled with synchronous modulation of breath pressure, to play a note with a certain color, a certain dynamic and a certain pitch, not to mention that you are varying all of these all the time in the name of artistry and expression.
> 
> /Toby
> 
> jdtoddjazz jdtoddjazz@... wrote:                                           Keith,
>  
>  I would submit that what John is mentioning is not what most guys mean or are doing when they talking about "lipping" notes in tune. "Lipping" is often a fairly large embouchure adjustment in order to fix intonation on individual notes. However, players who do this very much have general trouble
>  with intonation. One has less trouble with intonation when the embouchure is generally quite relaxed, and the oral tract does the adjusting by way of "voicing" the notes. This approach to playing works well with the recommendation that John cites: a mpc that is pushed fairly far onto the cork,
>  and a relaxed embouchure that plays "down" to pitch. This is not the equivalent of "lipping" on individual notes, which often means "lipping up", i.e. biting.
>  
>  JT
>  
>  --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Keith Bradbury kwbradbury@ wrote:
>  >
>  > You are having a revelation about "lipping" notes in tune?
>  > 
>  > 
>  > 
>  > 
>  > ________________________________
>  > From: John jtalcott47@
>  > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>  > Sent: Tue, March 9, 2010 10:06:36 AM
>  > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
>  > 
>  >   
>  > Stop the presses.  
>  > 
>  > I have thought of a way that we increase the effective volume inside the mouthpiece without moving it on or off the cork. That is by increasing or decreasing embouchure pressure on the reed.
>  >
>
  
      
                 
                 
 

Yes, and wall materials have an effect on the sound; the question is, "how much"?

I think it is true that vocal tract resonances can somewhat change the timbre of played notes, if they are aligned with a specific strong peak in the note, but that is something different from changing the actual pitch.

Here is Wolfe's conclusion:

"We conclude that the vocal tract resonances have only modest effects on the sounding pitch over much of the instrument$B!G(Bs range. However, to play notes in the altissimo range, players learn to tune a resonance of the tract near to the note to be played."

OK, modest effects are still effects, but his research showed that professional players are all over the map, and do not tune their vocal tract resonances to the playing frequencies except in altissimos.



MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:                                           "....where do you get the information that vocal tract alterations affect mode alignments in the higher frequencies?"

Logic.   

If these statements are true:

1. The effective volume of the mouthpiece chamber includes a portion of the vocal tract.
2. Length remaining unaltered, changes in mouthpiece volume affect the frs of the mouthpiece/constriction resonance.
3. Frs is an adjustment for the alignment of higher frequency resonances.

- then, vocal tract alterations will alter mode alignment of higher frequency resonances.

"I can see no reason why vocal tract alterations would affect the timing of the reed, which is a function of the truncation ratio."

Close, but not exactly so.  The truncation ratio is a mechanical absolute. Reed closed  timing is controlled by the mouthpiece/constriction resonance frs. The frs of the mouthpiece/constriction resonance is a function of the mouthpiece effective volume and length, and the constriction length and
 diameter, which for optimal acoustical results, should match the frequency of the theoretical missing cone.  



 
        
      
                 
                 
 

"To make life even more interesting, the truncation ratio, and thus the multiplier for the antiformant, varies with each note."


....as regards the reed closed period, and Dr. Wolf informed me that the the duration of the reed closed period would prove to be a matter of little interest for anyone attempting to improve the saxophone's sound or power.  The effect of the mc resonance upon the nodes of the regime resonances though, may be an entirely different matter.




      

I don't want to exhume corpses, but Dalmont's statement clearly says that the antiformant is at Nf1, where N is the inverse of the truncation ratio and is independent of the played note. This is totally different from what Benade is talking about.

In terms of Benade's node and its movement--this is clear, I think, if you consider the following: Playing the substitution and constriction apart from the main body of the instrument--let's say the oboe reed on its staple--results in a pressure node at the end of the staple tube. This should be
 obvious, because the oboe reed and staple is a mini-woodwind in its own right, and the end of the staple is the end of the mini-body tube. So the tube has a certain length and with the reed beating (ignoring reed effects for the moment) that has a certain frequency. This is Frs. I'm pretty sure
 we are all on the same page here.

Now let's look at what Benade is saying:

"We can continue our search for a useful imitation of the missing part of the cone by trying the effect of matching Frs for the reed system to the first-mode natural frequency of the cone apex itself."

--So the point of the exercise is to make sure that the resonance frequency of the reed/staple (or mpc/neck) is the same as that of the missing part of the cone. One thing that it is vital to understand is that if we are measuring the Frs of the mpc plus the neck, the missing cone consists of
 everything from the tenon up, NOT just from the end of the neck. This, I believe is the source of confusion, and stems from a misunderstanding about oboe reeds. The staple is analogous to the neck of the sax; it is not analogous to the mpc chamber. If this is understood the rest becomes clear.
 Benade continues:

"In the general frequency neighborhood of Frs the oboe will then 'see' an object at its upper end whose acoustical behavior is quite similar to the missing apical cone."

--Translated for sax, this becomes the main body tube seeing an object (mpc + neck) looking like the apical tip. Remember that the analog of the oboe reed + staple is the mpc + neck, not just the mpc.

"In particular, there will be a pressure node in the neighborhood of the junction of the main bore with the reed staple [same as sax neck-toby], lying a little inside the staple at frequencies somewhat above Frs and moving down below the junction at oboe playing frequencies below Frs--behavior
 that is identical with that found in an ideal cone. "[my emphasis]

--He is talking about the oboe playing the actual oboe note with the same frequency as Frs. Now since the oboe reed plus staple is much shorter than the tube length of any note in the first mode, this has to be the oboe playing a note and using the octave key. This means that the player plays
 whatever note at which the air column is twice the length of the reed + staple, and then cuts the frequency in half with the octave key. In f1 mode, there is a pressure node for this note (as with any note) at the first open hole. But this note is chosen so that the air column is twice the length
 of reed/staple.  And thus in f2 there is a second pressure node exactly halfway, right? That is exactly at the point where the staple meets the body--and that is why he specifies that this behavior is identical with that found in an ideal cone. Then, when the oboe plays higher and the wave is
 shorter, it moves up a bit into the staple, and why when the oboe plays lower and the wave is longer, it moves down into the body. This is nothing more nor less than the normal tube-midpoint pressure node in any f2 note. The whole point of the exercise is only to show that the mpc+neck, if
 correctly designed, should act exactly as the complete cone, in that the wave should have nodes at the correct points in the air column when the piece for which we measured Frs is joined to the whole air column (or at least for the second mode, so that the octaves are in tune. We don't overblow
 the third octave directly so it can do what it likes).

So translating for sax, this means that the sax playing note which is the same as the note sounding with mpc/neck blown off the body (Frs), should have a pressure node exactly at the bottom of the tenon, and it will move up into the neck as the sax plays higher and the waves get shorter, and vice
 versa. It NEVER gets anywhere near the shank of the mpc at any playing frequency, except perhaps in the highest altissimos.

Here is an example. My mpc frequency alone is Bb4, with neck around Ab3. That latter corresponds to fingered F with octave key. So according to Benade--if the mpc/neck is acting correctly--this would mean that the pressure node would not get up to the end of the neck until I was playing an
 altissimo G, and would not actually get into the shank of the mpc until altissimo Bb or so.

I hope this is finally clear.

Toby





MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:                                           "Can you cite a source for more information about the "hole in the saxophone spectrum" that is created inside the mouthpiece.  Is this what Dalmont calls the "anti-formant" Do you know if this "hole in the
 spectrum" can actually be identified in any of graphs of the saxophone sound spectrum at the UNSW Saxophone Acoustics  site? "

I have not done an exhaustive search yet.  Fletcher touched on it somewhere, as have a few others.  Nederveen explains the reed closure period and resultant acoustical power differences compared to cylindrical instruments.  It is what Dalmont calls the "anti-formant" and if the
 mouthpiece/constriction frs were correct, would be found at the neck opening, where the bore starts to expand, I would say.  

I have gone over with Toby without resolution, the idea that it is exactly this resonance that Benade refers to when discussing the frs of the substitution - ( paraphrased) the body will see a something that acoustically resembles the missing cone.  There will be a pressure node (the
 mouthpiece/constriction resonance's displacement  anti-node) at or slightly inside the mouthpiece shank (he actually refers to an oboe staple) for played tones above frs, and moving slightly inside the neck (oboe body) for played tones below frs.  Though Dalmont states that the anti-formant freq.
 exists independent of the note played, Benade states that the mc resonance disp, anti-node affects played resonances with nodes in it's area.  I surmise that the reverse is also true to some extent, which would explain the nodes movement from just inside the shank to just inside the neck.

I have not done a thorough search of the UNSW site.



        
      
                 
                 
 

"I think it is true that vocal tract resonances can somewhat change the timbre of played notes,....."

I agree that VT changes are generally not effective as pitch adjustments.   Timbral and response adjustments are a different matter however, and the degree that they become evident to the player, is directly related to his/her level of artistic development.  From the school of fine clarinet playing, saxophonist have adopted the practice of lowering and extending the jaw, until the joints "pop" out of their socket, maximizing the volume of the mouth cavity and opening the soft pallet, to incorporate the sinuses.  The results are clearly heard and felt, and can not be attributed to any slight change in embouchure.

One must arch the tongue in the back of the mouth in order to get optimal tone and response in the upper (normal) register.

The same can be said for low register playing, especially tenor and baritone.  There are just certain things that one must do in the vocal tract, which are not a result of embouchure changes, to get each note to respond, and sound, optimally.   For me, there's almost nothing worse than the sound of someone playing a low C on tenor, who doesn't know where to put his tongue after articulating the note.

In this multi-part sax clinic, Frank Catalano, demonstrates some impressive things one can do by.manipulating the vocal tract:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImqmoaSt--s



      

This is certainly abundantly true as concerns the flute. All side-blown flutes have a cavity above the embouchure hole for tuning the high notes (and this is actually analogous in many ways to the whole concept of getting the Frs of a mpc correct to tune the high register of the sax). The
 Helmholtz resonance of this little chamber acts the same as the sax antiformant, almost cancelling paritals in its neighborhood.

The import of this did not become clear to me until I picked up my Okuralo, which is really a standard metal Boehm flute with a shakuhachi-type, endblown head. This instrument came with a standard Boehm head as well, and the difference in timbre is extremely marked. The normal flute sounds
 "hollow" compared to the end-blown version. And it is NOT a subtle difference.

However without the tuning chamber, the Okuralo, like all endblown flutes, becomes hopelessly sharp in the third octave....sigh....

Toby

MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:                                           "To make life even more interesting, the truncation ratio, and thus the multiplier for the antiformant, varies with each note."


....as regards the reed closed period, and Dr. Wolf informed me that the the duration of the reed closed period would prove to be a matter of little interest for anyone attempting to improve the saxophone's sound or power.  The effect of the mc resonance upon the nodes of the regime resonances
 though, may be an entirely different matter.
 
          
      
                 
                 
 

As I posted,  Your statements are clear.

Dalmont's statement of the mouthpiece/constriction resonance's independence is accurate in the big picture, but, as Benade states that the same resonance affects the equally independent resonances of the sounding regime, one can only assume that the reverse would also true, to some extent.  Clearly however, the gross frs of the mc resonance is not dependent upon the note being played.




--- On Fri, 3/12/10, kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...> wrote:

From: kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, March 12, 2010, 1:24 AM







 



  


    
      
      
      I don't want to exhume corpses, but Dalmont's statement clearly says that the antiformant is at Nf1, where N is the inverse of the truncation ratio and is independent of the played note. This is totally different from what Benade is talking about.



In terms of Benade's node and its movement--this is clear, I think, if you consider the following: Playing the substitution and constriction apart from the main body of the instrument-- let's say the oboe reed on its staple--results in a pressure node at the end of the staple tube. This should be
 obvious, because the oboe reed and staple is a mini-woodwind in its own right, and the end of the staple is the end of the mini-body tube. So the tube has a certain length and with the reed beating (ignoring reed effects for the moment) that has a certain frequency. This is Frs. I'm pretty sure
 we are all on the same page here.



Now let's look at what Benade is saying:



"We can continue our search for a useful imitation of the missing part of the cone by trying the effect of matching Frs for the reed system to the first-mode natural frequency of the cone apex itself."



--So the point of the exercise is to make sure that the resonance frequency of the reed/staple (or mpc/neck) is the same as that of the missing part of the cone. One thing that it is vital to understand is that if we are measuring the Frs of the mpc plus the neck, the missing cone consists of
 everything from the tenon up, NOT just from the end of the neck. This, I believe is the source of confusion, and stems from a misunderstanding about oboe reeds. The staple is analogous to the neck of the sax; it is not analogous to the mpc chamber. If this is understood the rest becomes clear.
 Benade continues:



"In the general frequency neighborhood of Frs the oboe will then 'see' an object at its upper end whose acoustical behavior is quite similar to the missing apical cone."



--Translated for sax, this becomes the main body tube seeing an object (mpc + neck) looking like the apical tip. Remember that the analog of the oboe reed + staple is the mpc + neck, not just the mpc.



"In particular, there will be a pressure node in the neighborhood of the junction of the main bore with the reed staple [same as sax neck-toby], lying a little inside the staple at frequencies somewhat above Frs and moving down below the junction at oboe playing frequencies below Frs--behavior that is identical with that found in an ideal cone. "[my emphasis]



--He is talking about the oboe playing the actual oboe note with the same frequency as Frs. Now since the oboe reed plus staple is much shorter than the tube length of any note in the first mode, this has to be the oboe playing a note and using the octave key. This means that the player plays
 whatever note at which the air column is twice the length of the reed + staple, and then cuts the frequency in half with the octave key. In f1 mode, there is a pressure node for this note (as with any note) at the first open hole. But this note is chosen so that the air column is twice the length
 of reed/staple.  And thus in f2 there is a second pressure node exactly halfway, right? That is exactly at the point where the staple meets the body--and that is why he specifies that this behavior is identical with that found in an ideal
 cone. Then, when the oboe plays higher and the wave is shorter, it moves up a bit into the staple, and why when the oboe plays lower and the wave is longer, it moves down into the body. This is nothing more nor less than the normal tube-midpoint pressure node in any f2 note. The whole point of
 the exercise is only to show that the mpc+neck, if correctly designed, should act exactly as the complete cone, in that the wave should have nodes at the correct points in the air column when the piece for which we measured Frs is joined to the whole air column (or at least for the second mode,
 so that the octaves are in tune. We don't overblow the third octave directly so it can do what it likes).



So translating for sax, this means that the sax playing note which is the same as the note sounding with mpc/neck blown off the body (Frs), should have a pressure node exactly at the bottom of the tenon, and it will move up into the neck as the sax plays higher and the waves get shorter, and vice
 versa. It NEVER gets anywhere near the shank of the mpc at any playing frequency, except perhaps in the highest altissimos.



Here is an example. My mpc frequency alone is Bb4, with neck around Ab3. That latter corresponds to fingered F with octave key. So according to Benade--if the mpc/neck is acting correctly--this would mean that the pressure node would not get up to the end of the neck until I was playing an
 altissimo G, and would not actually get into the shank of the mpc until altissimo Bb or so.



I hope this is finally clear.



Toby











MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:                                      "Can you cite a source for more information about the "hole in the saxophone spectrum" that is created inside the mouthpiece.  Is this what Dalmont calls
 the "anti-formant" Do you know if this "hole in the spectrum" can actually be identified in any of graphs of the saxophone sound spectrum at the UNSW Saxophone Acoustics  site? "



I have not done an exhaustive search yet.  Fletcher touched on it somewhere, as have a few others.  Nederveen explains the reed closure period and resultant acoustical power differences compared to cylindrical instruments.  It is what Dalmont calls the "anti-formant" and if the
 mouthpiece/constric tion frs were correct, would be found at the neck opening, where the bore starts to expand, I would say.  



I have gone over with Toby without resolution, the idea that it is exactly this resonance that Benade refers to when discussing the frs of the substitution - ( paraphrased) the body will see a something that acoustically resembles the missing cone.  There will be a pressure node (the
 mouthpiece/constric tion resonance's displacement  anti-node) at or slightly inside the mouthpiece shank (he actually refers to an oboe staple) for played tones above frs, and moving slightly inside the neck (oboe body) for played tones below frs.  Though Dalmont states that the
 anti-formant freq. exists independent of the note played, Benade states that the mc resonance disp, anti-node affects played resonances with nodes in it's area.  I surmise that the reverse is also true to some extent, which would explain the nodes movement from just inside the shank to just
 inside the neck.



I have not done a thorough search of the UNSW site.







                               


 


    
     

    
    


 



  






      

Yes--IF the neck is well designed ;-)

Toby

MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:                                           "I have gone over with Toby without resolution,...."

And I see Toby's point clearly, and in the end, it doesn't matter, as the results of matching the mc resonance frs or the mouthpiece + neck frs, are for our purposes about the same.

          
      
                 
                 
 

Great playing. It is certainly interesting that in Wolfe's experiment there was no consistent optimization of the vocal tract resonances among the pro players he tested. Perhaps that is part of the difference in sound between different players.

Toby

MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:                                           "I think it is true that vocal tract resonances can somewhat change the timbre of played notes,....."

I agree that VT changes are generally not effective as pitch adjustments.   Timbral and response adjustments are a different matter however, and the degree that they become evident to the player, is directly related to his/her level of artistic development.  From the school of fine clarinet
 playing, saxophonist have adopted the practice of lowering and extending the jaw, until the joints "pop" out of their socket, maximizing the volume of the mouth cavity and opening  the soft pallet, to incorporate the sinuses.  The results are clearly heard and felt, and can not be attributed to
 any slight change in embouchure.

One must arch the tongue in the back of the mouth in order to get optimal tone and response in the upper (normal) register.

The same can be said for low register playing, especially tenor and baritone.  There are just certain things that one must do in the vocal tract, which are not a result of embouchure changes, to get each note to respond, and sound, optimally.   For me, there's almost nothing worse than the sound
 of someone playing a low C on tenor, who doesn't know where to put his tongue after articulating the note.

In this multi-part sax clinic, Frank Catalano, demonstrates some impressive things one can do by.manipulating the vocal tract:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImqmoaSt--s

        
      
                 
                 
 

Sorry, I answered the first post before looking at the second. 

It appears that the whole point of getting the resonance correct is so that this exerts some influence on higher partials which would otherwise be mistimed and therefore out of tune due to the shape of the mpc. I'm not sure just how much this actually changes the height of the peaks.

BTW--as to vocal tract manipulations--I find it impossible to keep the same embouchure if I change my jaw position or throat shape (which also involves the jaw). This might really be an excellent experiment for John's "deep lips" artificial embouchure. You could put very different shapes upstream
 of the embouchure itself while keeping the position and tension on the reed absolutely stable. Thus it would be easy to isolate the effects that are always interdependent with human players.

Toby

MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:                                           As I posted,  Your statements are clear.

Dalmont's statement of the mouthpiece/constriction resonance's independence is accurate in the big picture, but, as Benade states that the same resonance affects the equally independent resonances of the sounding regime, one can only assume that the reverse would also true, to some extent. 
 Clearly however, the gross frs of the mc resonance is not dependent upon the note being played.




--- On Fri, 3/12/10, kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...> wrote:

From: kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, March 12, 2010, 1:24 AM

                                    I don't want to exhume corpses, but Dalmont's statement clearly says that the antiformant is at Nf1, where N is the inverse of the truncation ratio and is independent of the played note. This is totally different from what Benade is talking about.
 
 In terms of Benade's node and its movement--this is clear, I think, if you consider the following: Playing the substitution and constriction apart from the main body of the instrument-- let's say the oboe reed on its staple--results in a pressure node at the end of the staple tube. This should be
  obvious, because the oboe reed and staple is a mini-woodwind in its own right, and the end of the staple is the end of the mini-body tube. So the tube has a certain length and with the reed beating (ignoring reed effects for the moment) that has a certain frequency. This is Frs. I'm pretty sure 
 we are all on the same page here.
 
 Now let's look at what Benade is saying:
 
 "We can continue our search for a useful imitation of the missing part of the cone by trying the effect of matching Frs for the reed system to the first-mode natural frequency of the cone apex itself."
 
 --So the point of the exercise is to make sure that the resonance frequency of the reed/staple (or mpc/neck) is the same as that of the missing part of the cone. One thing that it is vital to understand is that if we are measuring the Frs of the mpc plus the neck, the missing cone consists of 
 everything from the tenon up, NOT just from the end of the neck. This, I believe is the source of confusion, and stems from a misunderstanding about oboe reeds. The staple is analogous to the neck of the sax; it is not analogous to the mpc chamber. If this is understood the rest becomes clear. 
 Benade continues:
 
 "In the general frequency neighborhood of Frs the oboe will then 'see' an object at its upper end whose acoustical behavior is quite similar to the missing apical cone."
 
 --Translated for sax, this becomes the main body tube seeing an object (mpc + neck) looking like the apical tip. Remember that the analog of the oboe reed + staple is the mpc + neck, not just the mpc.
 
 "In particular, there will be a pressure node in the neighborhood of the junction of the main bore with the reed staple [same as sax neck-toby], lying a little inside the staple at frequencies somewhat above Frs and moving down below the junction at oboe playing frequencies below Frs--behavior
 that is identical with that found in an ideal cone. "[my emphasis]
 
 --He is talking about the oboe playing the actual oboe note with the same frequency as Frs. Now since the oboe reed plus staple is much shorter than the tube length of any note in the first mode, this has to be the oboe playing a note and using the octave key. This means that the player plays 
 whatever note at which the air column is twice the length of the reed + staple, and then cuts the frequency in half with the octave key. In f1 mode, there is a pressure node for this note (as with any note) at the first open hole. But this note is chosen so that the air column is twice the length
  of reed/staple.  And thus in f2 there is a second pressure node exactly halfway, right? That is exactly at the point where the staple meets the body--and that is why he specifies that this behavior is identical with that found in an ideal  cone. Then, when the oboe plays higher and the wave is
 shorter, it moves up a bit into the staple, and why when the oboe plays lower and the wave is longer, it moves down into the body. This is nothing more nor less than the normal tube-midpoint pressure node in any f2 note. The whole point of  the exercise is only to show that the mpc+neck, if
 correctly designed, should act exactly as the complete cone, in that the wave should have nodes at the correct points in the air column when the piece for which we measured Frs is joined to the whole air column (or at least for the second mode,  so that the octaves are in tune. We don't overblow
 the third octave directly so it can do what it likes).
 
 So translating for sax, this means that the sax playing note which is the same as the note sounding with mpc/neck blown off the body (Frs), should have a pressure node exactly at the bottom of the tenon, and it will move up into the neck as the sax plays higher and the waves get shorter, and vice
  versa. It NEVER gets anywhere near the shank of the mpc at any playing frequency, except perhaps in the highest altissimos.
 
 Here is an example. My mpc frequency alone is Bb4, with neck around Ab3. That latter corresponds to fingered F with octave key. So according to Benade--if the mpc/neck is acting correctly--this would mean that the pressure node would not get up to the end of the neck until I was playing an 
 altissimo G, and would not actually get into the shank of the mpc until altissimo Bb or so.
 
 I hope this is finally clear.
 
 Toby
 
 
 
 
 
 MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote:
                                      "Can you cite a source for more information about the "hole in the saxophone spectrum" that is created inside the mouthpiece.  Is this what Dalmont calls  the "anti-formant" Do you know if this "hole in the spectrum" can actually be identified in any of graphs
 of the saxophone sound spectrum at the UNSW Saxophone Acoustics  site? "
 
 I have not done an exhaustive search yet.  Fletcher touched on it somewhere, as have a few others.  Nederveen explains the reed closure period and resultant acoustical power differences compared to cylindrical instruments.  It is what Dalmont calls the "anti-formant" and if the 
 mouthpiece/constric tion frs were correct, would be found at the neck opening, where the bore starts to expand, I would say.  
 
 I have gone over with Toby without resolution, the idea that it is exactly this resonance that Benade refers to when discussing the frs of the substitution - ( paraphrased) the body will see a something that acoustically resembles the missing cone.  There will be a pressure node (the 
 mouthpiece/constric tion resonance's displacement  anti-node) at or slightly inside the mouthpiece shank (he actually refers to an oboe staple) for played tones above frs, and moving slightly inside the neck (oboe body) for played tones below frs.  Though Dalmont states that the  anti-formant
 freq. exists independent of the note played, Benade states that the mc resonance disp, anti-node affects played resonances with nodes in it's area.  I surmise that the reverse is also true to some extent, which would explain the nodes movement from just inside the shank to just  inside the neck.
 
 I have not done a thorough search of the UNSW site.
 
 
 
         
      
                 
   
       
              

        
      
                 
                 
 

Lance,

By your comments in this post, I'm beginning to understand more clearly
your misinterpretation of Benade's Frs statements.  Please bear with me.
On page 470 FMA Benade writes:

"We can continue our search for a useful imitation of the missing part
of the cone by trying the effect of matching Frs for the reed system to
the first-mode natural frequency of the cone apex itself.  In the
general frequency neighborhood of Frs the oboe will then "see" an object
at its upper end whose acoustical behavior is quite similar to that of
the missing apical cone."

"In particular, there will be a pressure node in the neighborhood of the
junction of the main bore with the reed staple, lying a little inside
the staple at frequencies somewhat above Frs and moving down below the
junction at oboe playing frequencies below Frs---behavior that is
identical with that found in an ideal cone."

The junction of the main bore (of the oboe) with the reed staple is at
the bottom of the staple the reed is attached to---not the top. 
Therefore the pressure node of the frequencies just above Frs (the
frequency of the reed combined with its staple) will still be just
inside the cork end of the staple.  The frequencies just below Frs will
go just beyond that down into the body of the oboe itself.

The counterpart in an alto sax is the frequency produced by the
mouthpiece and neck apart from the body of the saxophone  which is very
close to Ab concert (written F).  The pressure node of the frequency
just above that pitch, F# for example, when played on the complete sax
will be found just up inside the neck tenon.  The pressure node of the
frequency just below that pitch, an E natural will be slightly past the
bottom of the neck receiver into the body of the sax.

This Ab concert would be the note sounded if the cone to its apex added
to the complete neck could produce its resonant frequency.  When the
mouthpiece substitutes for the missing cone by matching its volume, the
mouthpiece plus the complete neck produces this frequency.  When the Frs
- frequency of the reed on its staple or frequency of the sax mouthpiece
on its neck is the same as the pitch that would be produced by the
missing cone, if it could---the body of the instrument is "fooled" into
thinking the cone is complete and behaves accordingly.  This is exactly
the effect Benade describes in all of his writings on this topic.  On
this point he is very clear.

Benade also uses the term "constricted tube" to describe the staple,
bocal, and sax neck as well as the term "constriction".  There is also a
"point of constriction" at the opening of each of these that as you know
has a strong effect upon the production of the soundwave inside the
mouthpiece.  But when Benade uses the term "cavity plus constriction",
he is clearly referring to the mouthpiece and the entire neck.

I hope this helps to clarify these topics in our discussions, in order
to move forward instead of just going around in the same circles and
getting nowhere.

John






--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
wrote:
>
> "Can you cite a source for more
> information about the "hole in the saxophone spectrum" that is created
> inside the mouthpiece.  Is this what Dalmont calls the "anti-formant"
> Do you know if this "hole in the spectrum" can actually be identified
> in any of graphs of the saxophone sound spectrum at the UNSW Saxophone
Acoustics  site? "
>
> I have not done an exhaustive search yet.  Fletcher touched on it
somewhere, as have a few others.  Nederveen explains the reed closure
period and resultant acoustical power differences compared to
cylindrical instruments.  It is what Dalmont calls the "anti-formant"
and if the mouthpiece/constriction frs were correct, would be found at
the neck opening, where the bore starts to expand, I would say.
>
> I have gone over with Toby without resolution, the idea that it is
exactly this resonance that Benade refers to when discussing the frs of
the substitution - ( paraphrased) the body will see a something that
acoustically resembles the missing cone.  There will be a pressure node
(the mouthpiece/constriction resonance's displacement anti-node) at or
slightly inside the mouthpiece shank (he actually refers to an oboe
staple) for played tones above frs, and moving slightly inside the neck
(oboe body) for played tones below frs.  Though Dalmont states that the
anti-formant freq. exists independent of the note played, Benade states
that the mc resonance disp, anti-node affects played resonances with
nodes in it's area.  I surmise that the reverse is also true to some
extent, which would explain the nodes movement from just inside the
shank to just inside the neck.
>
> I have not done a thorough search of the UNSW site.
>

Toby,

I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree on this point.  Have you ever tried playing your saxophone using different vowel sound shapes with the mouth and tongue keeping the lips the same?  You can tongue DAE DEE DIE DOH DOO and get five different colors of sound.  Another test is to take the same reed, mouthpiece, and saxophone and have several advanced players play on the same set-up.  They will each sound different due to the natural differences in the size and shape of their vocal tracts and how they use shape that space when they play.

It is also important to remember that the working part of the mouthpiece is inside the mouth in the "upstream" as they call it. 

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
>
> John,
> 
> This is mostly apples and oranges. If you look at was Wolfe is saying, it is that the impedance of the bore is so much more powerful than the impedance of the vocal tract in the normal range, that the latter can barely influence the former. If you take the mpc off the horn there is no more bore
>  impedance and of course the vocal tract has a much larger effect.
> 
> The pedagogical tools are just that: a way of visualizing something that is actually something else. I've done some personal experiments and find that vocal tract manipulations have near zero (if not zero) effect on the tone *if I keep my embouchure the same*. However changing the vocal tract by
>  visualizing the note, or even "singing" the note to align the resonance, has a lot to do about fine optimization of the embouchure and almost nothing to do with the upstream resonator contributing anything to the sound, at least in woodwinds. The different kind of reed in brasses make it a
>  different proposition in that case, as the vocal tract can influence vibration of the lips. A hard cane reed is a different matter.
> 
> Toby
> 
> John <jtalcott47@...> wrote:                                              I have a much different view based upon my experience.  I think Dr. Wolfe's finding that players don't adjust their vocal tracts in any consistent way when playing below the altissimo range, should not be interpreted to
>  mean that they don't use vocal tract settings or adjustments when they play the normal range of the saxophone.
> 
> Some examples come to mind:  
> 
> -First there is the well known mouthpiece exercise in which the goal is to master a complete scale on the mouthpiece alone without making significant changes with the lip pressure.  This involves changing the pitch using the vocal tract almost exclusively.  Once this technique is mastered it of
>  course facilitates the mastery of playing overtones and notes in the altissimo range, but just as important it allows the player to "voice" notes in the normal playing range of the instrument.  This voicing has both the purpose of changing the "timbre" of any given note, but also it's pitch.   
> 
> An exercise I have successfully used with my students is to have them drop the pitch of a very sharp 4th line D to where it is way too flat by dropping the jaw and opening the oral cavity and then bring the pitch back up to be in tune by re-tightening the lips and keeping the jaw and oral cavity
>  the same.  Sharp notes just "lipped" down often have a "flabby" tone.  By lowering the pitch "vocally" instead, the tone quality is maintained.
> 
> -Another pedagogical tool also applies, and that is "tuning the airstream" using the shape of the mouth and throat.  This works especially well when teaching brass and flute tone production, but it is also effective on sax and clarinet.  The process is simply to hum the pitch of the note you are
>  going to play and then blow that pitch on an airstream.  It sounds like an airy whistle.  Then when the note is played using that air velocity and shape of the oral cavity, the pitch and focus of the tone are excellent.  It produces what is referred to as a "well centered tone".
> 
> It is true that a player does not have time to make this focus adjustment for each note when the notes change rapidly,  but when playing a slow sustained passage  it is an effective means of controlling the quality of the tone and intonation.
> 
> My last point is that young saxophone players when equipped with a saxophone that plays well in tune like the YAS 23 and taught to play the correct pitch on the mouthpiece and neck (Ab concert for the alto) will have very good intonation the range of the saxophone using the same embouchure
>  pressure throughout.
>  
>  John
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@> wrote:
> >
> > Actually it doesn't appear that the vocal tract can do anything about intonation at all. There was speculation that since the vocal tract is an upstream resonator it might be possible to "tune" it to a significant frequency of a note being played and affect the way the reed vibrates, but recent
> >  research has shown that this does not happen until the altissimo notes. Wolfe et al. at UNSW did a well-received study on this and found that neither professional players nor amateurs alter the vocal tract in any consistent way UNTIL the altissimo range, where it is absolutely essential to shape
> >  the vocal tract in such a way that it has a resonant frequency equal to a significant frequency of the altissimo note in question. All the pro players did this kind of shaping; amateurs unable to do so could not play altissimo.
> > 
> > I can give you the link if you are interested--or it is pretty obviously available on the UNSW site.
> > 
> > As I mentioned in my mpc experiment, I was surprised at how much I could lip notes with only very minor embouchure changes. Not so much in the first octave, and especially not so much at the low end of the first octave, but in the middle of the second octave I could, with minor embouchure
>  changes,
> >  lip a note up or down 40 cents.
> > 
> > The big problem with lipping notes is that you can't lip all the notes equally;  it's easier to lip both higher and shorter-tube notes (generally, and at least within the first two octaves). This means that you want to generally be in tune for the notes harder to lip, and not have to do much for
> >  the notes easier to lip (but at least you can if necessary).
> > 
> > The big problem comes when you have a mouthpiece whose specs are out of whack, or if your general embouchure tension (either too tight or too loose) throws those octaves out. In either case, there is no way to get all the notes in tune with generally the same embouchure. Of course if you have a
> >  horn that is also out of tune with itself the same applies.
> > 
> > This is why beginning players sound so horrible in terms of intonation--they are playing each note with a fixed embouchure, having not acquired the skill to vary the pitch dynamically according to need. This is similar to beginning violin players, who don't yet know exactly the  finger positions
> >  needed to achieve correct pitch on various notes. Violin players, with long practice, gain the skill to know generally where to put their fingers, and--importantly--how to get spot on quickly when they are in the neighborhood. Sax players, with long practice, learn the best general embouchure to
> >  achieve a good sound, and how to quickly and seamlessly adjust their bite on the reed to center the pitch of each note.
> > 
> > You have been doing this so long that it is unconscious, and you probably think that you are adjusting you vocal tract, but what you are really doing is transposing your feeling of singing with the horn into an incredibly complex series of fine adjustments of lip tension and shape and bite on the
> >  mpc, coupled with synchronous modulation of breath pressure, to play a note with a certain color, a certain dynamic and a certain pitch, not to mention that you are varying all of these all the time in the name of artistry and expression.
> > 
> > /Toby
> > 
> > jdtoddjazz jdtoddjazz@ wrote:                                           Keith,
> >  
> >  I would submit that what John is mentioning is not what most guys mean or are doing when they talking about "lipping" notes in tune. "Lipping" is often a fairly large embouchure adjustment in order to fix intonation on individual notes. However, players who do this very much have general trouble
> >  with intonation. One has less trouble with intonation when the embouchure is generally quite relaxed, and the oral tract does the adjusting by way of "voicing" the notes. This approach to playing works well with the recommendation that John cites: a mpc that is pushed fairly far onto the cork,
> >  and a relaxed embouchure that plays "down" to pitch. This is not the equivalent of "lipping" on individual notes, which often means "lipping up", i.e. biting.
> >  
> >  JT
> >  
> >  --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Keith Bradbury kwbradbury@ wrote:
> >  >
> >  > You are having a revelation about "lipping" notes in tune?
> >  > 
> >  > 
> >  > 
> >  > 
> >  > ________________________________
> >  > From: John jtalcott47@
> >  > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> >  > Sent: Tue, March 9, 2010 10:06:36 AM
> >  > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
> >  > 
> >  >   
> >  > Stop the presses.  
> >  > 
> >  > I have thought of a way that we increase the effective volume inside the mouthpiece without moving it on or off the cork. That is by increasing or decreasing embouchure pressure on the reed.
> >  >
> >
>

This instructional video by Cannonball employee Ryan Lillywhite  gives a
good demonstration of how the vocal tract can be used to alter the tone
quality of the sound.  Matching Overtones.
<http://www.cannonballmusic.com/overtone.php>

An example of the great sound Ryan gets on tenor sax can be heard  at
Don't Look Now  <http://www.cannonballmusic.com/dontlook.php>    
beginning ar 3:40.




--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
>
> Great playing. It is certainly interesting that in Wolfe's experiment
there was no consistent optimization of the vocal tract resonances among
the pro players he tested. Perhaps that is part of the difference in
sound between different players.
>
> Toby
>
> MartinMods lancelotburt@... wrote:
"I think it is true that vocal tract resonances can somewhat change the
timbre of played notes,....."
>
> I agree that VT changes are generally not effective as pitch
adjustments.   Timbral and response adjustments are a different matter
however, and the degree that they become evident to the player, is
directly related to his/her level of artistic development.  From the
school of fine clarinet
>  playing, saxophonist have adopted the practice of lowering and
extending the jaw, until the joints "pop" out of their socket,
maximizing the volume of the mouth cavity and opening  the soft pallet,
to incorporate the sinuses.  The results are clearly heard and felt, and
can not be attributed to
>  any slight change in embouchure.
>
> One must arch the tongue in the back of the mouth in order to get
optimal tone and response in the upper (normal) register.
>
> The same can be said for low register playing, especially tenor and
baritone.  There are just certain things that one must do in the vocal
tract, which are not a result of embouchure changes, to get each note to
respond, and sound, optimally.   For me, there's almost nothing worse
than the sound
>  of someone playing a low C on tenor, who doesn't know where to put
his tongue after articulating the note.
>
> In this multi-part sax clinic, Frank Catalano, demonstrates some
impressive things one can do by.manipulating the vocal tract:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImqmoaSt--s
>

Hi John,

As I wrote to Lance, it may well be that the timbre can be altered significantly, though not the pitch. I find it impossible to change vowel sounds in my throat without moving my jaw, and this will change all the embouchure parameters for sure. As I wrote, I think this is the perfect experiment
 for your artificial embouchure. You could have chambers of different shapes and sizes attached to the mechanical lips, or even something like a rubber ball that could be squeezed to change the shape, without affecting the tension on the reed one whit. This would very effectively isolate what is
 happening because of the resonator from what is happening because of the lips and teeth.

Toby

John <jtalcott47@...> wrote:                                           Toby,
 
 I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree on this point.  Have you ever tried playing your saxophone using different vowel sound shapes with the mouth and tongue keeping the lips the same?  You can tongue DAE DEE DIE DOH DOO and get five different colors of sound.  Another test is to take
 the same reed, mouthpiece, and saxophone and have several advanced players play on the same set-up.  They will each sound different due to the natural differences in the size and shape of their vocal tracts and how they use shape that space when they play.
 
 It is also important to remember that the working part of the mouthpiece is inside the mouth in the "upstream" as they call it. 
 
 --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
 >
 > John,
 > 
 > This is mostly apples and oranges. If you look at was Wolfe is saying, it is that the impedance of the bore is so much more powerful than the impedance of the vocal tract in the normal range, that the latter can barely influence the former. If you take the mpc off the horn there is no more bore
 >  impedance and of course the vocal tract has a much larger effect.
 > 
 > The pedagogical tools are just that: a way of visualizing something that is actually something else. I've done some personal experiments and find that vocal tract manipulations have near zero (if not zero) effect on the tone *if I keep my embouchure the same*. However changing the vocal tract by
 >  visualizing the note, or even "singing" the note to align the resonance, has a lot to do about fine optimization of the embouchure and almost nothing to do with the upstream resonator contributing anything to the sound, at least in woodwinds. The different kind of reed in brasses make it a
 >  different proposition in that case, as the vocal tract can influence vibration of the lips. A hard cane reed is a different matter.
 > 
 > Toby
 > 
 > John <jtalcott47@...> wrote:                                              I have a much different view based upon my experience.  I think Dr. Wolfe's finding that players don't adjust their vocal tracts in any consistent way when playing below the altissimo range, should not be interpreted to
 >  mean that they don't use vocal tract settings or adjustments when they play the normal range of the saxophone.
 > 
 > Some examples come to mind:  
 > 
 > -First there is the well known mouthpiece exercise in which the goal is to master a complete scale on the mouthpiece alone without making significant changes with the lip pressure.  This involves changing the pitch using the vocal tract almost exclusively.  Once this technique is mastered it of
 >  course facilitates the mastery of playing overtones and notes in the altissimo range, but just as important it allows the player to "voice" notes in the normal playing range of the instrument.  This voicing has both the purpose of changing the "timbre" of any given note, but also it's pitch.   
 > 
 > An exercise I have successfully used with my students is to have them drop the pitch of a very sharp 4th line D to where it is way too flat by dropping the jaw and opening the oral cavity and then bring the pitch back up to be in tune by re-tightening the lips and keeping the jaw and oral cavity
 >  the same.  Sharp notes just "lipped" down often have a "flabby" tone.  By lowering the pitch "vocally" instead, the tone quality is maintained.
 > 
 > -Another pedagogical tool also applies, and that is "tuning the airstream" using the shape of the mouth and throat.  This works especially well when teaching brass and flute tone production, but it is also effective on sax and clarinet.  The process is simply to hum the pitch of the note you are
 >  going to play and then blow that pitch on an airstream.  It sounds like an airy whistle.  Then when the note is played using that air velocity and shape of the oral cavity, the pitch and focus of the tone are excellent.  It produces what is referred to as a "well centered tone".
 > 
 > It is true that a player does not have time to make this focus adjustment for each note when the notes change rapidly,  but when playing a slow sustained passage  it is an effective means of controlling the quality of the tone and intonation.
 > 
 > My last point is that young saxophone players when equipped with a saxophone that plays well in tune like the YAS 23 and taught to play the correct pitch on the mouthpiece and neck (Ab concert for the alto) will have very good intonation the range of the saxophone using the same embouchure
 >  pressure throughout.
 >  
 >  John
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@> wrote:
 > >
 > > Actually it doesn't appear that the vocal tract can do anything about intonation at all. There was speculation that since the vocal tract is an upstream resonator it might be possible to "tune" it to a significant frequency of a note being played and affect the way the reed vibrates, but
 recent
 > >  research has shown that this does not happen until the altissimo notes. Wolfe et al. at UNSW did a well-received study on this and found that neither professional players nor amateurs alter the vocal tract in any consistent way UNTIL the altissimo range, where it is absolutely essential to
 shape
 > >  the vocal tract in such a way that it has a resonant frequency equal to a significant frequency of the altissimo note in question. All the pro players did this kind of shaping; amateurs unable to do so could not play altissimo.
 > > 
 > > I can give you the link if you are interested--or it is pretty obviously available on the UNSW site.
 > > 
 > > As I mentioned in my mpc experiment, I was surprised at how much I could lip notes with only very minor embouchure changes. Not so much in the first octave, and especially not so much at the low end of the first octave, but in the middle of the second octave I could, with minor embouchure
 >  changes,
 > >  lip a note up or down 40 cents.
 > > 
 > > The big problem with lipping notes is that you can't lip all the notes equally;  it's easier to lip both higher and shorter-tube notes (generally, and at least within the first two octaves). This means that you want to generally be in tune for the notes harder to lip, and not have to do much
 for
 > >  the notes easier to lip (but at least you can if necessary).
 > > 
 > > The big problem comes when you have a mouthpiece whose specs are out of whack, or if your general embouchure tension (either too tight or too loose) throws those octaves out. In either case, there is no way to get all the notes in tune with generally the same embouchure. Of course if you have
 a
 > >  horn that is also out of tune with itself the same applies.
 > > 
 > > This is why beginning players sound so horrible in terms of intonation--they are playing each note with a fixed embouchure, having not acquired the skill to vary the pitch dynamically according to need. This is similar to beginning violin players, who don't yet know exactly the  finger
 positions
 > >  needed to achieve correct pitch on various notes. Violin players, with long practice, gain the skill to know generally where to put their fingers, and--importantly--how to get spot on quickly when they are in the neighborhood. Sax players, with long practice, learn the best general
 embouchure to
 > >  achieve a good sound, and how to quickly and seamlessly adjust their bite on the reed to center the pitch of each note.
 > > 
 > > You have been doing this so long that it is unconscious, and you probably think that you are adjusting you vocal tract, but what you are really doing is transposing your feeling of singing with the horn into an incredibly complex series of fine adjustments of lip tension and shape and bite on
 the
 > >  mpc, coupled with synchronous modulation of breath pressure, to play a note with a certain color, a certain dynamic and a certain pitch, not to mention that you are varying all of these all the time in the name of artistry and expression.
 > > 
 > > /Toby
 > > 
 > > jdtoddjazz jdtoddjazz@ wrote:                                           Keith,
 > >  
 > >  I would submit that what John is mentioning is not what most guys mean or are doing when they talking about "lipping" notes in tune. "Lipping" is often a fairly large embouchure adjustment in order to fix intonation on individual notes. However, players who do this very much have general
 trouble
 > >  with intonation. One has less trouble with intonation when the embouchure is generally quite relaxed, and the oral tract does the adjusting by way of "voicing" the notes. This approach to playing works well with the recommendation that John cites: a mpc that is pushed fairly far onto the
 cork,
 > >  and a relaxed embouchure that plays "down" to pitch. This is not the equivalent of "lipping" on individual notes, which often means "lipping up", i.e. biting.
 > >  
 > >  JT
 > >  
 > >  --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Keith Bradbury kwbradbury@ wrote:
 > >  >
 > >  > You are having a revelation about "lipping" notes in tune?
 > >  > 
 > >  > 
 > >  > 
 > >  > 
 > >  > ________________________________
 > >  > From: John jtalcott47@
 > >  > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
 > >  > Sent: Tue, March 9, 2010 10:06:36 AM
 > >  > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
 > >  > 
 > >  >   
 > >  > Stop the presses.  
 > >  > 
 > >  > I have thought of a way that we increase the effective volume inside the mouthpiece without moving it on or off the cork. That is by increasing or decreasing embouchure pressure on the reed.
 > >  >
 > >
 >
 
 
      
                 
                 
 

I'm not sure how much of that is vocal tract adjustment and how much is very subtle embouchure and breath pressure movement.

Toby

John <jtalcott47@...> wrote:                                            This instructional video by Cannonball employee Ryan Lillywhite  gives a good demonstration of how the vocal tract can be used to alter the tone quality of the sound.  Matching Overtones.

An example of the great sound Ryan gets on tenor sax can be heard  at Don't Look Now     beginning ar 3:40.


 

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
>
> Great playing. It is certainly interesting that in Wolfe's experiment there was no consistent optimization of the vocal tract resonances among the pro players he tested. Perhaps that is part of the difference in sound between different players.
> 
> Toby
> 
> MartinMods lancelotburt@... wrote:                                           "I think it is true that vocal tract resonances can somewhat change the timbre of played notes,....."
> 
> I agree that VT changes are generally not effective as pitch adjustments.   Timbral and response adjustments are a different matter however, and the degree that they become evident to the player, is directly related to his/her level of artistic development.  From the school of fine clarinet
>  playing, saxophonist have adopted the practice of lowering and extending the jaw, until the joints "pop" out of their socket, maximizing the volume of the mouth cavity and opening  the soft pallet, to incorporate the sinuses.  The results are clearly heard and felt, and can not be attributed to
>  any slight change in embouchure.
> 
> One must arch the tongue in the back of the mouth in order to get optimal tone and response in the upper (normal) register.
> 
> The same can be said for low register playing, especially tenor and baritone.  There are just certain things that one must do in the vocal tract, which are not a result of embouchure changes, to get each note to respond, and sound, optimally.   For me, there's almost nothing worse than the sound
>  of someone playing a low C on tenor, who doesn't know where to put his tongue after articulating the note.
> 
> In this multi-part sax clinic, Frank Catalano, demonstrates some impressive things one can do by.manipulating the vocal tract:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImqmoaSt--s
>
  
      
                 
                 
 

John,

Thanks very much for your explanation.  I understand exactly what you mean - crystal, only I do not agree, bear with me and I'll explain why.

1. Benade's diagram and description of a conical instrument's parts, which we all are familiar with - a truncated tube, and the substitution for the truncation - a cavity and a constriction.  This is perfectly clear and universally applicable.

2. The existence of a one-piece, straight sided, soprano saxophone, which according to Nederveen, would be an acoustically superior saxophone design, were only the truncation ratio reduced somewhat.  With a  cross-sectional view of it's bore, fitted with an Otto Link STM mouthpiece, .we can clearly see each section Benade described in # 1. - the cavity of the Link mouthpiece, the constriction of the mouthpiece's bore caused by the smaller opening of the body's bore. (the fact that it has no measurable length is unimportant. Play your mouthpiece alone, and then constrict the opening by covering 1/4 of it with a sheet of paper.  The pitch will drop noticeably, even though the paper is very, very thin.  The length of the constriction is unimportant.  Only the diameter is important.), and finally, the truncated, one-piece, straight sided body.  The meaning of anything Benade ever wrote about the saxophone is easily understood by applying it to this
 essential model.  Some statements require qualification, but are easy to understand when we remember that he sometimes addressed acoustical issues with mechanical convenience in mind, rather than complete acoustical accuracy, but all of his statements apply to this model, as they must.

3. In order to clarify Benade's nebulous statements, I emailed Dr. Joe Wolfe, and asked him to explain, just what constituted the substitution for the missing cone, the mouthpiece volume, or the mouthpiece volume + the neck volume.  His reply was, mouthpiece + reed compliance.  OK.  That is substantiated by #1 and #2.  So, without question, the neck is not part of the substitution.  The neck is body volume and body length, for those horns with removable necks, regardless of taper.

4. Frs is the playing frequency of the substitution, the mouthpiece + it's constriction.  That's OK by #1, #2, and #3, only it's impossible to measure without ruining the mouthpiece and we need the neck opening diameter reduction for our constriction. So Benade made his sematic and acoustic compromise, and told us to measure frs with the complete neck.  It is an approximation of the real frs, but it works, provided the neck is of the correct design.

5. I don't wish to compare saxophones with oboes or bassoons.  There is no need.  First, the model in #2 encompasses every essential aspect of the saxophone, and second, as Benade wrote, not every aspect of the oboe is applicable to the saxophone.











By your comments in this post, I'm beginning to understand more clearly your misinterpretation of Benade's Frs statements.  Please bear with me.  On page 470 FMA Benade writes:

"We can continue our search for a useful imitation of the missing part of the cone by trying the effect of matching Frs for the reed system to the first-mode natural frequency of the cone apex itself.  In the general frequency neighborhood of Frs the oboe will then "see" an object at its upper end whose acoustical behavior is quite similar to that of the missing apical cone."

"In particular, there will be a pressure node in the neighborhood of the junction of the main bore with the reed staple, lying a little inside the staple at frequencies somewhat above Frs and moving down below the junction at oboe playing frequencies below Frs---behavior that is identical with that found in an ideal cone."

The junction of the main bore (of the oboe) with the reed staple is at the bottom of the staple the reed is attached to---not the top.  Therefore the pressure node of the frequencies just above Frs (the frequency of the reed combined with its staple) will still be just inside the cork end of the staple.  The frequencies just below Frs will go just beyond that down into the body of the oboe itself.  

The counterpart in an alto sax is the frequency produced by the mouthpiece and neck apart from the body of the saxophone  which is very close to Ab concert (written F).  The pressure node of the frequency just above that pitch, F# for example, when played on the complete sax will be found just up inside the neck tenon.  The pressure node of the frequency just below that pitch, an E natural will be slightly past the bottom of the neck receiver into the body of the sax.  

This Ab concert would be the note sounded if the cone to its apex added to the complete neck could produce its resonant frequency.  When the mouthpiece substitutes for the missing cone by matching its volume, the mouthpiece plus the complete neck produces this frequency.  When the Frs - frequency of the reed on its staple or frequency of the sax mouthpiece on its neck is the same as the pitch that would be produced by the missing cone, if it could---the body of the instrument is "fooled" into thinking the cone is complete and behaves accordingly.  This is exactly the effect Benade describes in all of his writings on this topic.  On this point he is very clear.

Benade also uses the term "constricted tube" to describe the staple, bocal, and sax neck as well as the term "constriction" .  There is also a "point of constriction" at the opening of each of these that as you know has a strong effect upon the production of the soundwave inside the mouthpiece.  But when Benade uses the term "cavity plus constriction", he is clearly referring to the mouthpiece and the entire neck.

I hope this helps to clarify these topics in our discussions, in order to move forward instead of just going around in the same circles and getting nowhere.

John






--- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ ...> wrote:
>
> "Can you cite a source for more
> information about the "hole in the saxophone spectrum" that is created
> inside the mouthpiece.  Is this what Dalmont calls the "anti-formant"
> Do you know if this "hole in the spectrum" can actually be identified
> in any of graphs of the saxophone sound spectrum at the UNSW Saxophone Acoustics  site? "
> 
> I have not done an exhaustive search yet.  Fletcher touched on it somewhere, as have a few others.  Nederveen explains the reed closure period and resultant acoustical power differences compared to cylindrical instruments.  It is what Dalmont calls the "anti-formant" and if the mouthpiece/constric tion frs were correct, would be found at the neck opening, where the bore starts to expand, I would say.  
> 
> I have gone over with Toby without resolution, the idea that it is exactly this resonance that Benade refers to when discussing the frs of the substitution - ( paraphrased) the body will see a something that acoustically resembles the missing cone.  There will be a pressure node (the mouthpiece/constric tion resonance's displacement anti-node) at or slightly inside the mouthpiece shank (he actually refers to an oboe staple) for played tones above frs, and moving slightly inside the neck (oboe body) for played tones below frs.  Though Dalmont states that the anti-formant freq. exists independent of the note played, Benade states that the mc resonance disp, anti-node affects played resonances with nodes in it's area.  I surmise that the reverse is also true to some extent, which would explain the nodes movement from just inside the shank to just inside the neck.
> 
> I have not done a thorough search of the UNSW site.
>



    
     

    
    


 



  






      

"I'm not sure how much of that is vocal tract adjustment and how much is very subtle embouchure and breath pressure movement."

Toby,

I think the easiest and simplest demonstration of vocal tract effects, which does not alter the embouchure in the slightest, is to play in the normal upper register on alto, soprano, or clarinet, and notice the difference in sound and articulated response, between the "ahh" tongue position (back of tongue low), and the ""eee" tongue position (back of tongue high).




      

The mpc substitutes for the missing conic apex. We want it to resemble as closely as possible that missing apex, so that the timing of the wavefronts is preserved as it would be in the real apex. 

The Frs is simply the resonant frequency of the substitution and whatever length of cone is attached to it: that should match the resonant frequency of the complete missing apex to the same diameter of the cone as we are measuring. Frs is not the resonant frequency of the substitution; it is the
 resonant frequency of the substitution/constriction combination, and practically that always includes some length of the body cone. For example, the Frs of a complete tenor sax is C3. This includes the substitution and all of the cone. Because the tube is long and its resonance predominates, this
 is not very helpful in finding out how well we are doing in substituting the truncated part of the cone. The purest measure of that, as Lance points out, would be to have the mpc cut to the point where the neck begins and have the mpc sitting on an infinitely thin plane centered on an opening the
 diameter of the end of the neck. 

As soon as we start adding cone length, we get more and more "normalizing" effect from the cone itself, and therefore a less and less accurate picture of what happens in the higher frequencies, where shorter and shorter wavelengths are more affected by irregularities in the substitution (because
 that length becomes a larger and larger fraction of their total wavelength).

Benade has indeed taken the easy road in specifying a convenient"end" to the constriction, but this adds a fairly large "normalizing" factor, in the shape of the neck cone (or oboe reed staple). On sax, it would be much more accurate to use the new Warburton neck system and just use the attachable
 neck end to measure Frs while it is inserted to the correct point in a mpc. This would add only an extremely short length of cone to the mix. Apparently Benade felt that measuring Frs to the end of the neck was good enough, and indeed other factors such as embouchure and reed characteristics and
 temperature and facings (and vocal tract configuration) probably make that about as accurate as it can be before those other factors have too large an effect and overwhelm finer measurements of the necessary volume.

Toby

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

Thanks very much for your explanation.  I understand exactly what you mean - crystal, only I do not agree, bear with me and I'll explain why.

1. Benade's diagram and description of a conical instrument's parts, which we all are familiar with - a truncated tube, and the substitution for the truncation - a cavity and a constriction.  This is perfectly clear and universally applicable.

2. The existence of a one-piece, straight sided, soprano saxophone, which according to Nederveen, would be an acoustically superior saxophone design, were only the truncation ratio reduced somewhat.  With a  cross-sectional view of it's bore, fitted with an Otto Link STM mouthpiece, .we can
 clearly see each section Benade described in # 1. - the cavity of the Link mouthpiece, the constriction of the mouthpiece's bore caused by the  smaller opening of the body's bore. (the fact that it has no measurable length is unimportant. Play your mouthpiece alone, and then constrict the opening
 by covering 1/4 of it with a sheet of paper.  The pitch will drop noticeably, even though the paper is very, very thin.  The length of the constriction is unimportant.  Only the diameter is important.), and finally, the truncated, one-piece, straight sided body.  The meaning of anything Benade
 ever wrote about the saxophone is easily understood by applying it to this essential model.  Some statements require qualification, but are easy to understand when we remember that he sometimes addressed acoustical issues with mechanical convenience in mind, rather than complete acoustical
 accuracy, but all of his statements apply to this model, as they must.

3. In order to clarify Benade's nebulous statements, I emailed Dr. Joe Wolfe, and asked him to explain, just what  constituted the substitution for the missing cone, the mouthpiece volume, or the mouthpiece volume + the neck volume.  His reply was, mouthpiece + reed compliance.  OK.  That is
 substantiated by #1 and #2.  So, without question, the neck is not part of the substitution.  The neck is body volume and body length, for those horns with removable necks, regardless of taper.

4. Frs is the playing frequency of the substitution, the mouthpiece + it's constriction.  That's OK by #1, #2, and #3, only it's impossible to measure without ruining the mouthpiece and we need the neck opening diameter reduction for our constriction. So Benade made his sematic and acoustic
 compromise, and told us to measure frs with the complete neck.  It is an approximation of the real frs, but it works, provided the neck is of the correct design.

5. I don't wish to compare saxophones with oboes or bassoons.  There is no need.   First, the model in #2 encompasses every essential aspect of the saxophone, and second, as Benade wrote, not every aspect of the oboe is applicable to the saxophone.











By your comments in this post, I'm beginning to understand more clearly your misinterpretation of Benade's Frs statements.  Please bear with me.  On page 470 FMA Benade writes:


"We can continue our search for a useful imitation of the missing part of the cone by trying the effect of matching Frs for the reed system to the first-mode natural frequency of the cone apex itself.  In the general frequency neighborhood of Frs the oboe will then "see" an object at its upper end
 whose acoustical behavior is quite  similar to that of the missing apical cone."

"In particular, there will be a pressure node in the neighborhood of the junction of the main bore with the reed staple, lying a little inside the staple at frequencies somewhat above Frs and moving down below the junction at oboe playing frequencies below Frs---behavior that is identical with
 that found in an ideal cone."

The junction of the main bore (of the oboe) with the reed staple is at the bottom of the staple the reed is attached to---not the top.  Therefore the pressure node of the frequencies just above Frs (the frequency of the reed combined with its staple) will still be just inside the cork end of the
 staple.  The frequencies just below Frs will go just beyond that down into the body of the oboe itself.  

The counterpart in an alto sax is the frequency produced by the mouthpiece and neck apart  from the body of the saxophone  which is very close to Ab concert (written F).  The pressure node of the frequency just above that pitch, F# for example, when played on the complete sax will be found just up
 inside the neck tenon.  The pressure node of the frequency just below that pitch, an E natural will be slightly past the bottom of the neck receiver into the body of the sax.  

This Ab concert would be the note sounded if the cone to its apex added to the complete neck could produce its resonant frequency.  When the mouthpiece substitutes for the missing cone by matching its volume, the mouthpiece plus the complete neck produces this frequency.  When the Frs - frequency
 of the reed on its staple or frequency of the sax mouthpiece on its neck is the same as the pitch that would be produced by the missing cone, if it could---the body of the instrument is "fooled" into thinking the cone is complete and  behaves accordingly.  This is exactly the effect Benade
 describes in all of his writings on this topic.  On this point he is very clear.

Benade also uses the term "constricted tube" to describe the staple, bocal, and sax neck as well as the term "constriction" .  There is also a "point of constriction" at the opening of each of these that as you know has a strong effect upon the production of the soundwave inside the mouthpiece. 
 But when Benade uses the term "cavity plus constriction", he is clearly referring to the mouthpiece and the entire neck.

I hope this helps to clarify these topics in our discussions, in order to move forward instead of just going around in the same circles and getting nowhere.

John






--- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ ...> wrote:
>
> "Can you cite a source for more
> information about  the "hole in the saxophone spectrum" that is created
> inside the mouthpiece.  Is this what Dalmont calls the "anti-formant"
> Do you know if this "hole in the spectrum" can actually be identified
> in any of graphs of the saxophone sound spectrum at the UNSW Saxophone Acoustics  site? "
> 
> I have not done an exhaustive search yet.  Fletcher touched on it somewhere, as have a few others.  Nederveen explains the reed closure period and resultant acoustical power differences compared to cylindrical instruments.  It is what Dalmont calls the "anti-formant" and if the
 mouthpiece/constric tion frs were correct, would be found at the neck opening, where the bore starts to expand, I would say.  
> 
> I have gone over with Toby without resolution, the idea that it is exactly this resonance that Benade refers to when discussing the frs of the substitution - ( paraphrased) the body will see  a something that acoustically resembles the missing cone.  There will be a pressure node (the
 mouthpiece/constric tion resonance's displacement anti-node) at or slightly inside the mouthpiece shank (he actually refers to an oboe staple) for played tones above frs, and moving slightly inside the neck (oboe body) for played tones below frs.  Though Dalmont states that the anti-formant freq.
 exists independent of the note played, Benade states that the mc resonance disp, anti-node affects played resonances with nodes in it's area.  I surmise that the reverse is also true to some extent, which would explain the nodes movement from just inside the shank to just inside the neck.
> 
> I have not done a thorough search of the UNSW site.
>
 
      
              



        
      
                 
                 
 

The last words should be "correct resonant frequency" and not "necessary volume"...

kymarto123@... wrote:                                           The mpc substitutes for the missing conic apex. We want it to resemble as closely as possible that missing apex, so that the timing of the wavefronts is preserved as it would be in the real apex. 
 
 The Frs is simply the resonant frequency of the substitution and whatever length of cone is attached to it: that should match the resonant frequency of the complete missing apex to the same diameter of the cone as we are measuring. Frs is not the resonant frequency of the substitution; it is the 
 resonant frequency of the substitution/constriction combination, and practically that always includes some length of the body cone. For example, the Frs of a complete tenor sax is C3. This includes the substitution and all of the cone. Because the tube is long and its resonance predominates, this
  is not very helpful in finding out how well we are doing in substituting the truncated part of the cone. The purest measure of that, as Lance points out, would be to have the mpc cut to the point where the neck begins and have the mpc sitting on an infinitely thin plane centered on an opening
 the  diameter of the end of the neck. 
 
 As soon as we start adding cone length, we get more and more "normalizing" effect from the cone itself, and therefore a less and less accurate picture of what happens in the higher frequencies, where shorter and shorter wavelengths are more affected by irregularities in the substitution (because 
 that length becomes a larger and larger fraction of their total wavelength).
 
 Benade has indeed taken the easy road in specifying a convenient"end" to the constriction, but this adds a fairly large "normalizing" factor, in the shape of the neck cone (or oboe reed staple). On sax, it would be much more accurate to use the new Warburton neck system and just use the
 attachable  neck end to measure Frs while it is inserted to the correct point in a mpc. This would add only an extremely short length of cone to the mix. Apparently Benade felt that measuring Frs to the end of the neck was good enough, and indeed other factors such as embouchure and reed
 characteristics and  temperature and facings (and vocal tract configuration) probably make that about as accurate as it can be before those other factors have too large an effect and overwhelm finer measurements of the necessary volume.
 
 Toby





 

Lance,

I'm sorry you just don't get it.  I've done my best to explain.  You
seem to have all the information, but not the understanding.  You
continue to stubbornly cling to the idea that the constriction Benade
refers to is only the point of constriction inside the mouthpiece where
the soundwave enters the opening of the neck instead of the entire
"constricted tube" which is the neck itself.

The rest of your misunderstanding comes from the term Frs.  This is the
Frequency of the reed on its staple when played apart from the oboe. 
The equivalent on the bassoon is the frequency of the reed on its bocal.
The equivalent on the saxophone is the mouthpiece on its neck.  Benade
did not mean that term to refer to the frequency of the mouthpiece alone
with the part of the shaft that goes on the cork cut off and a thin ring
glued to the end to imitate the smaller diameter opening of the neck. 
If that were the case he would have said so.

You have now called Dr. Benade's writings among other things "vague",
"nebulous", and a "semantic and acoustic compromise".
He in fact is one of the few writers of acoustic texts that are in large
part accessible to a lay person without a scientific background because
he writes, thinks, and explains things so clearly.   It is clearly an
exercise in futility to try to reason with you on this topic since your
mind is fixed on what you imagine to be true.  Unfortunately any further
discussion of topics related to the "missing cone" with such opposite
views of the basic terminology will not be any more productive than this
one.


--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
wrote:
>
>
> John,
>
> Thanks very much for your explanation.  I understand exactly what
you mean - crystal, only I do not agree, bear with me and I'll explain
why.
>
> 1. Benade's diagram and description of a conical instrument's parts,
which we all are familiar with - a truncated tube, and the substitution
for the truncation - a cavity and a constriction.  This is perfectly
clear and universally applicable.
>
> 2. The existence of a one-piece, straight sided, soprano saxophone,
which according to Nederveen, would be an acoustically superior
saxophone design, were only the truncation ratio reduced somewhat. 
With a  cross-sectional view of it's bore, fitted with an Otto Link
STM mouthpiece, .we can clearly see each section Benade described in #
1. - the cavity of the Link mouthpiece, the constriction of the
mouthpiece's bore caused by the smaller opening of the body's bore. (the
fact that it has no measurable length is unimportant. Play your
mouthpiece alone, and then constrict the opening by covering 1/4 of it
with a sheet of paper.  The pitch will drop noticeably, even though
the paper is very, very thin.  The length of the constriction is
unimportant.  Only the diameter is important.), and finally, the
truncated, one-piece, straight sided body.  The meaning of anything
Benade ever wrote about the saxophone is easily understood by applying
it to this
>  essential model.  Some statements require qualification, but are
easy to understand when we remember that he sometimes addressed
acoustical issues with mechanical convenience in mind, rather than
complete acoustical accuracy, but all of his statements apply to this
model, as they must.
>
> 3. In order to clarify Benade's nebulous statements, I emailed Dr. Joe
Wolfe, and asked him to explain, just what constituted the substitution
for the missing cone, the mouthpiece volume, or the mouthpiece volume +
the neck volume.  His reply was, mouthpiece + reed compliance. 
OK.  That is substantiated by #1 and #2.  So, without question,
the neck is not part of the substitution.  The neck is body volume
and body length, for those horns with removable necks, regardless of
taper.
>
> 4. Frs is the playing frequency of the substitution, the mouthpiece +
it's constriction.  That's OK by #1, #2, and #3, only it's
impossible to measure without ruining the mouthpiece and we need the
neck opening diameter reduction for our constriction. So Benade made his
sematic and acoustic compromise, and told us to measure frs with the
complete neck.  It is an approximation of the real frs, but it
works, provided the neck is of the correct design.
>
> 5. I don't wish to compare saxophones with oboes or bassoons. 
There is no need.  First, the model in #2 encompasses every
essential aspect of the saxophone, and second, as Benade wrote, not
every aspect of the oboe is applicable to the saxophone.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> By your comments in this post, I'm beginning to understand more
clearly your misinterpretation of Benade's Frs statements.  Please
bear with me.  On page 470 FMA Benade writes:
>
> "We can continue our search for a useful imitation of the missing part
of the cone by trying the effect of matching Frs for the reed system to
the first-mode natural frequency of the cone apex itself.  In the
general frequency neighborhood of Frs the oboe will then "see" an object
at its upper end whose acoustical behavior is quite similar to that of
the missing apical cone."
>
> "In particular, there will be a pressure node in the neighborhood of
the junction of the main bore with the reed staple, lying a little
inside the staple at frequencies somewhat above Frs and moving down
below the junction at oboe playing frequencies below Frs---behavior that
is identical with that found in an ideal cone."
>
> The junction of the main bore (of the oboe) with the reed staple is at
the bottom of the staple the reed is attached to---not the top. 
Therefore the pressure node of the frequencies just above Frs (the
frequency of the reed combined with its staple) will still be just
inside the cork end of the staple.  The frequencies just below Frs
will go just beyond that down into the body of the oboe itself.Â
>
> The counterpart in an alto sax is the frequency produced by the
mouthpiece and neck apart from the body of the saxophone  which is
very close to Ab concert (written F).  The pressure node of the
frequency just above that pitch, F# for example, when played on the
complete sax will be found just up inside the neck tenon.  The
pressure node of the frequency just below that pitch, an E natural will
be slightly past the bottom of the neck receiver into the body of the
sax.Â
>
> This Ab concert would be the note sounded if the cone to its apex
added to the complete neck could produce its resonant frequency. 
When the mouthpiece substitutes for the missing cone by matching its
volume, the mouthpiece plus the complete neck produces this
frequency.  When the Frs - frequency of the reed on its staple or
frequency of the sax mouthpiece on its neck is the same as the pitch
that would be produced by the missing cone, if it could---the body of
the instrument is "fooled" into thinking the cone is complete and
behaves accordingly.  This is exactly the effect Benade describes in
all of his writings on this topic.  On this point he is very clear.
>
> Benade also uses the term "constricted tube" to describe the staple,
bocal, and sax neck as well as the term "constriction" .  There is
also a "point of constriction" at the opening of each of these that as
you know has a strong effect upon the production of the soundwave inside
the mouthpiece.  But when Benade uses the term "cavity plus
constriction", he is clearly referring to the mouthpiece and the entire
neck.
>
> I hope this helps to clarify these topics in our discussions, in order
to move forward instead of just going around in the same circles and
getting nowhere.
>
> John
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@
...> wrote:
> >
> > "Can you cite a source for more
> > information about the "hole in the saxophone spectrum" that is
created
> > inside the mouthpiece.  Is this what Dalmont calls the
"anti-formant"
> > Do you know if this "hole in the spectrum" can actually be
identified
> > in any of graphs of the saxophone sound spectrum at the UNSW
Saxophone Acoustics  site? "
> >
> > I have not done an exhaustive search yet.  Fletcher touched on
it somewhere, as have a few others.  Nederveen explains the reed
closure period and resultant acoustical power differences compared to
cylindrical instruments.  It is what Dalmont calls the
"anti-formant" and if the mouthpiece/constric tion frs were correct,
would be found at the neck opening, where the bore starts to expand, I
would say.Â
> >
> > I have gone over with Toby without resolution, the idea that it is
exactly this resonance that Benade refers to when discussing the frs of
the substitution - ( paraphrased) the body will see a something that
acoustically resembles the missing cone.  There will be a pressure
node (the mouthpiece/constric tion resonance's displacement anti-node)
at or slightly inside the mouthpiece shank (he actually refers to an
oboe staple) for played tones above frs, and moving slightly inside the
neck (oboe body) for played tones below frs.  Though Dalmont states
that the anti-formant freq. exists independent of the note played,
Benade states that the mc resonance disp, anti-node affects played
resonances with nodes in it's area.  I surmise that the reverse is
also true to some extent, which would explain the nodes movement from
just inside the shank to just inside the neck.
> >
> > I have not done a thorough search of the UNSW site.
> >
>

Toby,

You use the word "normalizing" like it is a bad thing.   [:)]

Isn't it more accurate to evaluate the mouthpiece's substitution of the
missing cone in terms of its interaction with a part of the body of the
instrument?  There is no "real world" parallel to playing the mouthpiece
unattached to a longer tube.  Plus playing on the mouthpiece alone is
far more unstable than playing it on the neck.  On the mouthpiece alone,
the pitch can be just about anywhere you want it to be. Just think how
it would be with 20 mm cut off the end of the shank!  How in the world
would you ever find the resonant frequency of such a small short tube
just by playing it?  I know that I couldn't do it.  Give me an oboe reed
on a staple, a bassoon reed on a bocal, or a sax mouthpiece on a neck
and I have a chance.



--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
>
> The mpc substitutes for the missing conic apex. We want it to resemble
as closely as possible that missing apex, so that the timing of the
wavefronts is preserved as it would be in the real apex.
>
> The Frs is simply the resonant frequency of the substitution and
whatever length of cone is attached to it: that should match the
resonant frequency of the complete missing apex to the same diameter of
the cone as we are measuring. Frs is not the resonant frequency of the
substitution; it is the
>  resonant frequency of the substitution/constriction combination, and
practically that always includes some length of the body cone. For
example, the Frs of a complete tenor sax is C3. This includes the
substitution and all of the cone. Because the tube is long and its
resonance predominates, this
>  is not very helpful in finding out how well we are doing in
substituting the truncated part of the cone. The purest measure of that,
as Lance points out, would be to have the mpc cut to the point where the
neck begins and have the mpc sitting on an infinitely thin plane
centered on an opening the
>  diameter of the end of the neck.
>
> As soon as we start adding cone length, we get more and more
"normalizing" effect from the cone itself, and therefore a less and less
accurate picture of what happens in the higher frequencies, where
shorter and shorter wavelengths are more affected by irregularities in
the substitution (because
>  that length becomes a larger and larger fraction of their total
wavelength).
>
> Benade has indeed taken the easy road in specifying a convenient"end"
to the constriction, but this adds a fairly large "normalizing" factor,
in the shape of the neck cone (or oboe reed staple). On sax, it would be
much more accurate to use the new Warburton neck system and just use the
attachable
>  neck end to measure Frs while it is inserted to the correct point in
a mpc. This would add only an extremely short length of cone to the mix.
Apparently Benade felt that measuring Frs to the end of the neck was
good enough, and indeed other factors such as embouchure and reed
characteristics and
>  temperature and facings (and vocal tract configuration) probably make
that about as accurate as it can be before those other factors have too
large an effect and overwhelm finer measurements of the necessary
volume.
>
> Toby
>
> MartinMods lancelotburt@... wrote:
> John,
>
> Thanks very much for your explanation.  I understand exactly what you
mean - crystal, only I do not agree, bear with me and I'll explain why.
>
> 1. Benade's diagram and description of a conical instrument's parts,
which we all are familiar with - a truncated tube, and the substitution
for the truncation - a cavity and a constriction.  This is perfectly
clear and universally applicable.
>
> 2. The existence of a one-piece, straight sided, soprano saxophone,
which according to Nederveen, would be an acoustically superior
saxophone design, were only the truncation ratio reduced somewhat.  With
a  cross-sectional view of it's bore, fitted with an Otto Link STM
mouthpiece, .we can
>  clearly see each section Benade described in # 1. - the cavity of the
Link mouthpiece, the constriction of the mouthpiece's bore caused by the
smaller opening of the body's bore. (the fact that it has no measurable
length is unimportant. Play your mouthpiece alone, and then constrict
the opening
>  by covering 1/4 of it with a sheet of paper.  The pitch will drop
noticeably, even though the paper is very, very thin.  The length of the
constriction is unimportant.  Only the diameter is important.), and
finally, the truncated, one-piece, straight sided body.  The meaning of
anything Benade
>  ever wrote about the saxophone is easily understood by applying it to
this essential model.  Some statements require qualification, but are
easy to understand when we remember that he sometimes addressed
acoustical issues with mechanical convenience in mind, rather than
complete acoustical
>  accuracy, but all of his statements apply to this model, as they
must.
>
> 3. In order to clarify Benade's nebulous statements, I emailed Dr. Joe
Wolfe, and asked him to explain, just what  constituted the substitution
for the missing cone, the mouthpiece volume, or the mouthpiece volume +
the neck volume.  His reply was, mouthpiece + reed compliance.  OK. 
That is
>  substantiated by #1 and #2.  So, without question, the neck is not
part of the substitution.  The neck is body volume and body length, for
those horns with removable necks, regardless of taper.
>
> 4. Frs is the playing frequency of the substitution, the mouthpiece +
it's constriction.  That's OK by #1, #2, and #3, only it's impossible to
measure without ruining the mouthpiece and we need the neck opening
diameter reduction for our constriction. So Benade made his sematic and
acoustic
>  compromise, and told us to measure frs with the complete neck.  It is
an approximation of the real frs, but it works, provided the neck is of
the correct design.
>
> 5. I don't wish to compare saxophones with oboes or bassoons.  There
is no need.   First, the model in #2 encompasses every essential aspect
of the saxophone, and second, as Benade wrote, not every aspect of the
oboe is applicable to the saxophone.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> By your comments in this post, I'm beginning to understand more
clearly your misinterpretation of Benade's Frs statements.  Please bear
with me.  On page 470 FMA Benade writes:
>
>
> "We can continue our search for a useful imitation of the missing part
of the cone by trying the effect of matching Frs for the reed system to
the first-mode natural frequency of the cone apex itself.  In the
general frequency neighborhood of Frs the oboe will then "see" an object
at its upper end
>  whose acoustical behavior is quite  similar to that of the missing
apical cone."
>
> "In particular, there will be a pressure node in the neighborhood of
the junction of the main bore with the reed staple, lying a little
inside the staple at frequencies somewhat above Frs and moving down
below the junction at oboe playing frequencies below Frs---behavior that
is identical with
>  that found in an ideal cone."
>
> The junction of the main bore (of the oboe) with the reed staple is at
the bottom of the staple the reed is attached to---not the top. 
Therefore the pressure node of the frequencies just above Frs (the
frequency of the reed combined with its staple) will still be just
inside the cork end of the
>  staple.  The frequencies just below Frs will go just beyond that down
into the body of the oboe itself.
>
> The counterpart in an alto sax is the frequency produced by the
mouthpiece and neck apart  from the body of the saxophone  which is very
close to Ab concert (written F).  The pressure node of the frequency
just above that pitch, F# for example, when played on the complete sax
will be found just up
>  inside the neck tenon.  The pressure node of the frequency just below
that pitch, an E natural will be slightly past the bottom of the neck
receiver into the body of the sax.
>
> This Ab concert would be the note sounded if the cone to its apex
added to the complete neck could produce its resonant frequency.  When
the mouthpiece substitutes for the missing cone by matching its volume,
the mouthpiece plus the complete neck produces this frequency.  When the
Frs - frequency
>  of the reed on its staple or frequency of the sax mouthpiece on its
neck is the same as the pitch that would be produced by the missing
cone, if it could---the body of the instrument is "fooled" into thinking
the cone is complete and  behaves accordingly.  This is exactly the
effect Benade
>  describes in all of his writings on this topic.  On this point he is
very clear.
>
> Benade also uses the term "constricted tube" to describe the staple,
bocal, and sax neck as well as the term "constriction" .  There is also
a "point of constriction" at the opening of each of these that as you
know has a strong effect upon the production of the soundwave inside the
mouthpiece.
>  But when Benade uses the term "cavity plus constriction", he is
clearly referring to the mouthpiece and the entire neck.
>
> I hope this helps to clarify these topics in our discussions, in order
to move forward instead of just going around in the same circles and
getting nowhere.
>
> John
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@
...> wrote:
> >
> > "Can you cite a source for more
> > information about  the "hole in the saxophone spectrum" that is
created
> > inside the mouthpiece.  Is this what Dalmont calls the
"anti-formant"
> > Do you know if this "hole in the spectrum" can actually be
identified
> > in any of graphs of the saxophone sound spectrum at the UNSW
Saxophone Acoustics  site? "
> >
> > I have not done an exhaustive search yet.  Fletcher touched on it
somewhere, as have a few others.  Nederveen explains the reed closure
period and resultant acoustical power differences compared to
cylindrical instruments.  It is what Dalmont calls the "anti-formant"
and if the
>  mouthpiece/constric tion frs were correct, would be found at the neck
opening, where the bore starts to expand, I would say.
> >
> > I have gone over with Toby without resolution, the idea that it is
exactly this resonance that Benade refers to when discussing the frs of
the substitution - ( paraphrased) the body will see  a something that
acoustically resembles the missing cone.  There will be a pressure node
(the
>  mouthpiece/constric tion resonance's displacement anti-node) at or
slightly inside the mouthpiece shank (he actually refers to an oboe
staple) for played tones above frs, and moving slightly inside the neck
(oboe body) for played tones below frs.  Though Dalmont states that the
anti-formant freq.
>  exists independent of the note played, Benade states that the mc
resonance disp, anti-node affects played resonances with nodes in it's
area.  I surmise that the reverse is also true to some extent, which
would explain the nodes movement from just inside the shank to just
inside the neck.
> >
> > I have not done a thorough search of the UNSW site.
> >
>

John,

Toby and I are in agreement.  Do you see that?

For your interpretation of Benade to be correct, it must apply to all saxophones.  It does not apply to the straight walled, one piece soprano, so it is incorrect.  The interpretation that Toby and I adhere to applies to ALL saxophones.

As interesting as they are, I'm not interested in comparing oboes to saxophones, in order to understand saxophones.  All I need to do is examine the soprano example I have provided.

Thanks though.  I do understand what you are saying.

Lance.  



--- On Fri, 3/12/10, John <jtalcott47@...> wrote:

From: John <jtalcott47@...>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, March 12, 2010, 7:05 AM







 



  


    
      
      
      


Lance,

I'm sorry you just don't get it.  I've done my best to explain.  You seem to have all the information, but not the understanding.  You continue to stubbornly cling to the idea that the constriction Benade refers to is only the point of constriction inside the mouthpiece where the soundwave enters the opening of the neck instead of the entire "constricted tube" which is the neck itself.   

The rest of your misunderstanding comes from the term Frs.  This is the Frequency of the reed on its staple when played apart from the oboe.  The equivalent on the bassoon is the frequency of the reed on its bocal.  The equivalent on the saxophone is the mouthpiece on its neck.  Benade did not mean that term to refer to the frequency of the mouthpiece alone with the part of the shaft that goes on the cork cut off and a thin ring glued to the end to imitate the smaller diameter opening of the neck.  If that were the case he would have said so.

You have now called Dr. Benade's writings among other things "vague", "nebulous", and a "semantic and acoustic compromise".  
He in fact is one of the few writers of acoustic texts that are in large part accessible to a lay person without a scientific background because he writes, thinks, and explains things so clearly.   It is clearly an exercise in futility to try to reason with you on this topic since your mind is fixed on what you imagine to be true.  Unfortunately any further discussion of topics related to the "missing cone" with such opposite views of the basic terminology will not be any more productive than this one.


--- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ ...> wrote:
>
> 
> John,
> 
> Thanks very much for your explanation.  I understand exactly what you mean - crystal, only I do not agree, bear with me and I'll explain why.
> 
> 1. Benade's diagram and description of a conical instrument's parts, which we all are familiar with - a truncated tube, and the substitution for the truncation - a cavity and a constriction.  This is perfectly clear and universally applicable.
> 
> 2. The existence of a one-piece, straight sided, soprano saxophone, which according to Nederveen, would be an acoustically superior saxophone design, were only the truncation ratio reduced somewhat.  With a  cross-sectional view of it's bore, fitted with an Otto Link STM mouthpiece, .we can clearly see each section Benade described in # 1. - the cavity of the Link mouthpiece, the constriction of the mouthpiece's bore caused by the smaller opening of the body's bore. (the fact that it has no measurable length is unimportant. Play your mouthpiece alone, and then constrict the opening by covering 1/4 of it with a sheet of paper.  The pitch will drop noticeably, even though the paper is very, very thin.  The length of the constriction is unimportant.  Only the diameter is important.), and finally, the truncated, one-piece, straight sided body.  The meaning of anything Benade ever wrote about the saxophone is easily understood by applying
 it to this
>  essential model.  Some statements require qualification, but are easy to understand when we remember that he sometimes addressed acoustical issues with mechanical convenience in mind, rather than complete acoustical accuracy, but all of his statements apply to this model, as they must.
> 
> 3. In order to clarify Benade's nebulous statements, I emailed Dr. Joe Wolfe, and asked him to explain, just what constituted the substitution for the missing cone, the mouthpiece volume, or the mouthpiece volume + the neck volume.  His reply was, mouthpiece + reed compliance.  OK.  That is substantiated by #1 and #2.  So, without question, the neck is not part of the substitution.  The neck is body volume and body length, for those horns with removable necks, regardless of taper.
> 
> 4. Frs is the playing frequency of the substitution, the mouthpiece + it's constriction.  That's OK by #1, #2, and #3, only it's impossible to measure without ruining the mouthpiece and we need the neck opening diameter reduction for our constriction. So Benade made his sematic and acoustic compromise, and told us to measure frs with the complete neck.  It is an approximation of the real frs, but it works, provided the neck is of the correct design.
> 
> 5. I don't wish to compare saxophones with oboes or bassoons.  There is no need.  First, the model in #2 encompasses every essential aspect of the saxophone, and second, as Benade wrote, not every aspect of the oboe is applicable to the saxophone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By your comments in this post, I'm beginning to understand more clearly your misinterpretation of Benade's Frs statements.  Please bear with me.  On page 470 FMA Benade writes:
> 
> "We can continue our search for a useful imitation of the missing part of the cone by trying the effect of matching Frs for the reed system to the first-mode natural frequency of the cone apex itself.  In the general frequency neighborhood of Frs the oboe will then "see" an object at its upper end whose acoustical behavior is quite similar to that of the missing apical cone."
> 
> "In particular, there will be a pressure node in the neighborhood of the junction of the main bore with the reed staple, lying a little inside the staple at frequencies somewhat above Frs and moving down below the junction at oboe playing frequencies below Frs---behavior that is identical with that found in an ideal cone."
> 
> The junction of the main bore (of the oboe) with the reed staple is at the bottom of the staple the reed is attached to---not the top.  Therefore the pressure node of the frequencies just above Frs (the frequency of the reed combined with its staple) will still be just inside the cork end of the staple.  The frequencies just below Frs will go just beyond that down into the body of the oboe itself.  
> 
> The counterpart in an alto sax is the frequency produced by the mouthpiece and neck apart from the body of the saxophone  which is very close to Ab concert (written F).  The pressure node of the frequency just above that pitch, F# for example, when played on the complete sax will be found just up inside the neck tenon.  The pressure node of the frequency just below that pitch, an E natural will be slightly past the bottom of the neck receiver into the body of the sax.  
> 
> This Ab concert would be the note sounded if the cone to its apex added to the complete neck could produce its resonant frequency.  When the mouthpiece substitutes for the missing cone by matching its volume, the mouthpiece plus the complete neck produces this frequency.  When the Frs - frequency of the reed on its staple or frequency of the sax mouthpiece on its neck is the same as the pitch that would be produced by the missing cone, if it could---the body of the instrument is "fooled" into thinking the cone is complete and behaves accordingly.  This is exactly the effect Benade describes in all of his writings on this topic.  On this point he is very clear.
> 
> Benade also uses the term "constricted tube" to describe the staple, bocal, and sax neck as well as the term "constriction" .  There is also a "point of constriction" at the opening of each of these that as you know has a strong effect upon the production of the soundwave inside the mouthpiece.  But when Benade uses the term "cavity plus constriction" , he is clearly referring to the mouthpiece and the entire neck.
> 
> I hope this helps to clarify these topics in our discussions, in order to move forward instead of just going around in the same circles and getting nowhere.
> 
> John
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ ...> wrote:
> >
> > "Can you cite a source for more
> > information about the "hole in the saxophone spectrum" that is created
> > inside the mouthpiece.  Is this what Dalmont calls the "anti-formant"
> > Do you know if this "hole in the spectrum" can actually be identified
> > in any of graphs of the saxophone sound spectrum at the UNSW Saxophone Acoustics  site? "
> > 
> > I have not done an exhaustive search yet.  Fletcher touched on it somewhere, as have a few others.  Nederveen explains the reed closure period and resultant acoustical power differences compared to cylindrical instruments.  It is what Dalmont calls the "anti-formant" and if the mouthpiece/constric tion frs were correct, would be found at the neck opening, where the bore starts to expand, I would say.  
> > 
> > I have gone over with Toby without resolution, the idea that it is exactly this resonance that Benade refers to when discussing the frs of the substitution - ( paraphrased) the body will see a something that acoustically resembles the missing cone.  There will be a pressure node (the mouthpiece/constric tion resonance's displacement anti-node) at or slightly inside the mouthpiece shank (he actually refers to an oboe staple) for played tones above frs, and moving slightly inside the neck (oboe body) for played tones below frs.  Though Dalmont states that the anti-formant freq. exists independent of the note played, Benade states that the mc resonance disp, anti-node affects played resonances with nodes in it's area.  I surmise that the reverse is also true to some extent, which would explain the nodes movement from just inside the shank to just inside the neck.
> > 
> > I have not done a thorough search of the UNSW site.
> >
>



    
     

    
    


 



  






      

Lance,for once we agree! Let's break out the beer 

Chin chin!

Toby

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

Toby and I are in agreement.  Do you see that?

For your interpretation of Benade to be correct, it must apply to all saxophones.  It does not apply to the straight walled, one piece soprano, so it is incorrect.  The interpretation that Toby and I adhere to applies to ALL saxophones.

As interesting as they are, I'm not interested in comparing oboes to saxophones, in order to understand saxophones.  All I need to do is examine the soprano example I have provided.

Thanks though.  I do understand what you are saying.

Lance.  



--- On Fri, 3/12/10, John <jtalcott47@...> wrote:

From: John <jtalcott47@...>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The  Elusive Missing Cone
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, March 12, 2010, 7:05 AM

                                       Lance,

I'm sorry you just don't get it.  I've done my best to explain.  You seem to have all the information, but not the understanding.  You continue to stubbornly cling to the idea that the constriction Benade refers to is only the point of constriction inside the mouthpiece where the soundwave enters
 the opening of the neck instead of the entire "constricted tube" which is the neck itself.   

The rest of your misunderstanding comes from the term Frs.  This is the Frequency of the reed on its staple when played apart from the oboe.  The equivalent on the bassoon is the frequency of the reed on its bocal.  The equivalent on the saxophone is the mouthpiece on its neck.  Benade did not
 mean that term to refer to the frequency of the mouthpiece alone with the part of the shaft that goes on the cork cut off and a thin ring glued to the end to imitate the  smaller diameter opening of the neck.  If that were the case he would have said so.

You have now called Dr. Benade's writings among other things "vague", "nebulous", and a "semantic and acoustic compromise".  
He in fact is one of the few writers of acoustic texts that are in large part accessible to a lay person without a scientific background because he writes, thinks, and explains things so clearly.   It is clearly an exercise in futility to try to reason with you on this topic since your mind is
 fixed on what you imagine to be true.  Unfortunately any further discussion of topics related to the "missing cone" with such opposite views of the basic terminology will not be any more productive than this one.


--- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ ...> wrote:
>
> 
> John,
> 
> Thanks very much for your explanation.$B>,!"(B  I understand exactly what  you mean - crystal, only I do not agree, bear with me and I'll explain why.
> 
> 1. Benade's diagram and description of a conical instrument's parts, which we all are familiar with - a truncated tube, and the substitution for the truncation - a cavity and a constriction.$B>,!"(B  This is perfectly clear and universally applicable.
> 
> 2. The existence of a one-piece, straight sided, soprano saxophone, which according to Nederveen, would be an acoustically superior saxophone design, were only the truncation ratio reduced somewhat.$B>,!"(B  With a$B>,!"(B  cross-sectional view of it's bore, fitted with an Otto Link STM mouthpiece, .we
 can clearly see each section Benade described in # 1. - the cavity of the Link mouthpiece, the constriction of the mouthpiece's bore caused by the smaller opening of the body's bore. (the fact that it has no measurable length is unimportant. Play your mouthpiece alone, and then constrict the
 opening by  covering 1/4 of it with a sheet of paper.$B>,!"(B  The pitch will drop noticeably, even though the paper is very, very thin.$B>,!"(B  The length of the constriction is unimportant.$B>,!"(B  Only the diameter is important.), and finally, the truncated, one-piece, straight sided body.$B>,!"(B  The
 meaning of anything Benade ever wrote about the saxophone is easily understood by applying it to this
>  essential model.$B>,!"(B  Some statements require qualification, but are easy to understand when we remember that he sometimes addressed acoustical issues with mechanical convenience in mind, rather than complete acoustical accuracy, but all of his statements apply to this model, as they must.
> 
> 3. In order to clarify Benade's nebulous statements, I emailed Dr. Joe Wolfe, and asked him to explain, just what constituted the substitution for the missing cone, the mouthpiece volume, or the mouthpiece volume + the neck volume.$B>,!"(B  His reply  was, mouthpiece + reed compliance.$B>,!"(B  OK.$B>,!"(B 
 That is substantiated by #1 and #2.$B>,!"(B  So, without question, the neck is not part of the substitution.$B>,!"(B  The neck is body volume and body length, for those horns with removable necks, regardless of taper.
> 
> 4. Frs is the playing frequency of the substitution, the mouthpiece + it's constriction.$B>,!"(B  That's OK by #1, #2, and #3, only it's impossible to measure without ruining the mouthpiece and we need the neck opening diameter reduction for our constriction. So Benade made his sematic and acoustic
 compromise, and told us to measure frs with the complete neck.$B>,!"(B  It is an approximation of the real frs, but it works, provided the neck is of the correct design.
> 
> 5. I don't wish to compare saxophones with oboes or bassoons.$B>,!"(B  There is no need.$B>,!"(B  First, the model in #2 encompasses every essential aspect of the saxophone, and second, as Benade  wrote, not every aspect of the oboe is applicable to the saxophone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By your comments in this post, I'm beginning to understand more clearly your misinterpretation of Benade's Frs statements.$B>,!"(B  Please bear with me.$B>,!"(B  On page 470 FMA Benade writes:
> 
> "We can continue our search for a useful imitation of the missing part of the cone by trying the effect of matching Frs for the reed system to the first-mode natural frequency of the cone apex itself.$B>,!"(B  In the general frequency neighborhood of Frs the oboe will then "see" an object at its
 upper end whose acoustical behavior is quite similar to that of the missing apical cone."
> 
> "In particular, there will be a pressure node in the neighborhood of the junction of the main bore with the reed staple, lying a little inside the staple at frequencies somewhat  above Frs and moving down below the junction at oboe playing frequencies below Frs---behavior that is identical with
 that found in an ideal cone."
> 
> The junction of the main bore (of the oboe) with the reed staple is at the bottom of the staple the reed is attached to---not the top.$B>,!"(B  Therefore the pressure node of the frequencies just above Frs (the frequency of the reed combined with its staple) will still be just inside the cork end of
 the staple.$B>,!"(B  The frequencies just below Frs will go just beyond that down into the body of the oboe itself.$B>,!"(B  
> 
> The counterpart in an alto sax is the frequency produced by the mouthpiece and neck apart from the body of the saxophone$B>,!"(B  which is very close to Ab concert (written F).$B>,!"(B  The pressure node of the frequency just above that pitch, F# for example, when played on the complete sax will be
 found just up inside the neck tenon.$B>,!"(B  The pressure node  of the frequency just below that pitch, an E natural will be slightly past the bottom of the neck receiver into the body of the sax.$B>,!"(B  
> 
> This Ab concert would be the note sounded if the cone to its apex added to the complete neck could produce its resonant frequency.$B>,!"(B  When the mouthpiece substitutes for the missing cone by matching its volume, the mouthpiece plus the complete neck produces this frequency.$B>,!"(B  When the Frs -
 frequency of the reed on its staple or frequency of the sax mouthpiece on its neck is the same as the pitch that would be produced by the missing cone, if it could---the body of the instrument is "fooled" into thinking the cone is complete and behaves accordingly.$B>,!"(B  This is exactly the effect
 Benade describes in all of his writings on this topic.$B>,!"(B  On this point he is very clear.
> 
> Benade also uses the term "constricted tube" to describe the staple, bocal, and sax neck as  well as the term "constriction" .$B>,!"(B  There is also a "point of constriction" at the opening of each of these that as you know has a strong effect upon the production of the soundwave inside the
 mouthpiece.$B>,!"(B  But when Benade uses the term "cavity plus constriction" , he is clearly referring to the mouthpiece and the entire neck.
> 
> I hope this helps to clarify these topics in our discussions, in order to move forward instead of just going around in the same circles and getting nowhere.
> 
> John
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ ...> wrote:
> >
> > "Can you cite a source for more
> > information about the "hole in the saxophone spectrum" that is created
> > inside the mouthpiece.$B>,!"(B  Is this what Dalmont calls the "anti-formant"
> > Do you know if this "hole in the  spectrum" can actually be identified
> > in any of graphs of the saxophone sound spectrum at the UNSW Saxophone Acoustics $B>,!"(B site? "
> > 
> > I have not done an exhaustive search yet.$B>,!"(B  Fletcher touched on it somewhere, as have a few others.$B>,!"(B  Nederveen explains the reed closure period and resultant acoustical power differences compared to cylindrical instruments.$B>,!"(B  It is what Dalmont calls the "anti-formant" and if the
 mouthpiece/constric tion frs were correct, would be found at the neck opening, where the bore starts to expand, I would say.$B>,!"(B  
> > 
> > I have gone over with Toby without resolution, the idea that it is exactly this resonance that Benade refers to when discussing the frs of the substitution - ( paraphrased) the body will see a something that acoustically resembles the missing cone.$B>,!"(B  There will be a pressure node (the
 mouthpiece/constric tion resonance's  displacement anti-node) at or slightly inside the mouthpiece shank (he actually refers to an oboe staple) for played tones above frs, and moving slightly inside the neck (oboe body) for played tones below frs.$B>,!"(B  Though Dalmont states that the anti-formant
 freq. exists independent of the note played, Benade states that the mc resonance disp, anti-node affects played resonances with nodes in it's area.$B>,!"(B  I surmise that the reverse is also true to some extent, which would explain the nodes movement from just inside the shank to just inside the
 neck.
> > 
> > I have not done a thorough search of the UNSW site.
> >
>
 
      
              

        
      
                 
                 
 

John,

The problem, if problem it is, is that the more of the cone you include, the less any deviation caused by the perturbation at the end of the tube (the mpc) is going to show up. Apparently, things start getting nasty when the truncation is equal to or larger than 1/4 wavelength. Smaller than this
 and the tube compared to truncation is enough so that the wavelength doesn't "mind" the perturbation too much. The cone looks complete to a long wavelength and so the frequency is not much disturbed. 

However as you go up the scale and the wavelengths become shorter, there starts to be more and more effect from the fact that the mpc is not actually the missing conic apex, but is just a pretender. This is true whether the wavelength is short because the tube is short, or because you are playing
 the a higher mode of a long tube.

I believe that Lance is correct. The limiting case for the Frs, and the one that gives the most accurate picture of how closely the resonance of the mpc matches the resonance of the missing apex, is one in which only the mpc is measured. BUT, you have to set up the correct conditions for how the
 mpc is seen by the cone, and this means that the mpc has to be terminated at the point where it meets the neck in real life, and with the entrance diameter of the neck.

If we had a system like the clarinet, life would be easier, since in that case the end of the mpc is the point where it joins the body and the exit diameter of the mpc is (for all intents and purposes) the entrance diameter of the body. So if we wish to get the Frs of a clainet mpc it can be
 measured by itself.

As Lance points out, doing this for sax is impractical, since it would mean cutting off the mpc at the point where the neck reaches in the shank, and adding a very thin insert to mimic the neck opening diameter.

Actually, it should be possible to mathematically correct for the blown frequency of a mpc--lowering the pitch a given amount for the length and diameter of the extra part of the shank, plus lowering again for the smaller diameter of the neck opening. We could probably find the formulae to do this.

But obviously Benade finds this overkill, and thinks that the extra length of the neck is not enough to throw things off too much for the playing frequencies of the sax.

Remember that we are only trying to correct for frequencies in the upper 2nd octave and plams: the best we can possibly do is to mimic the volume (which makes the mode relationships in most of the first two octaves OK), and add a second correction for this Frs, which pulls the second peak into
 alignment for the top of the second octave and palms. Beyond this we have to count on mode locking to pull errant third, fourth, fifth...n partials into line. 

That's how I understand it.

Toby

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

You use the word "normalizing" like it is a bad thing.  

Isn't it more accurate to evaluate the mouthpiece's substitution of the missing cone in terms of its interaction with a part of the body of the instrument?  There is no "real world" parallel to playing the mouthpiece unattached to a longer tube.  Plus playing on the mouthpiece alone is far more
 unstable than playing it on the neck.  On the mouthpiece alone, the pitch can be just about anywhere you want it to be. Just think how it would be with 20 mm cut off the end of the shank!  How in the world would you ever find the resonant frequency of such a small short tube just by playing it? 
 I know that I couldn't do it.  Give me an oboe reed on a staple, a bassoon reed on a bocal, or a sax mouthpiece on a neck and I have a chance.



--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
>
> The mpc substitutes for the missing conic apex. We want it to resemble as closely as possible that missing apex, so that the timing of the wavefronts is preserved as it would be in the real apex. 
> 
> The Frs is simply the resonant frequency of the substitution and whatever length of cone is attached to it: that should match the resonant frequency of the complete missing apex to the same diameter of the cone as we are measuring. Frs is not the resonant frequency of the substitution; it is the
>  resonant frequency of the substitution/constriction combination, and practically that always includes some length of the body cone. For example, the Frs of a complete tenor sax is C3. This includes the substitution and all of the cone. Because the tube is long and its resonance predominates,
 this
>  is not very helpful in finding out how well we are doing in substituting the truncated part of the cone. The purest measure of that, as Lance points out, would be to have the mpc cut to the point where the neck begins and have the mpc sitting on an infinitely thin plane centered on an opening
 the
>  diameter of the end of the neck. 
> 
> As soon as we start adding cone length, we get more and more "normalizing" effect from the cone itself, and therefore a less and less accurate picture of what happens in the higher frequencies, where shorter and shorter wavelengths are more affected by irregularities in the substitution (because
>  that length becomes a larger and larger fraction of their total wavelength).
> 
> Benade has indeed taken the easy road in specifying a convenient"end" to the constriction, but this adds a fairly large "normalizing" factor, in the shape of the neck cone (or oboe reed staple). On sax, it would be much more accurate to use the new Warburton neck system and just use the
 attachable
>  neck end to measure Frs while it is inserted to the correct point in a mpc. This would add only an extremely short length of cone to the mix. Apparently Benade felt that measuring Frs to the end of the neck was good enough, and indeed other factors such as embouchure and reed characteristics and
>  temperature and facings (and vocal tract configuration) probably make that about as accurate as it can be before those other factors have too large an effect and overwhelm finer measurements of the necessary volume.
> 
> Toby
> 
> MartinMods lancelotburt@... wrote:                                           
> John,
> 
> Thanks very much for your explanation.  I understand exactly what you mean - crystal, only I do not agree, bear with me and I'll explain why.
> 
> 1. Benade's diagram and description of a conical instrument's parts, which we all are familiar with - a truncated tube, and the substitution for the truncation - a cavity and a constriction.  This is perfectly clear and universally applicable.
> 
> 2. The existence of a one-piece, straight sided, soprano saxophone, which according to Nederveen, would be an acoustically superior saxophone design, were only the truncation ratio reduced somewhat.  With a  cross-sectional view of it's bore, fitted with an Otto Link STM mouthpiece, .we can
>  clearly see each section Benade described in # 1. - the cavity of the Link mouthpiece, the constriction of the mouthpiece's bore caused by the  smaller opening of the body's bore. (the fact that it has no measurable length is unimportant. Play your mouthpiece alone, and then constrict the
 opening
>  by covering 1/4 of it with a sheet of paper.  The pitch will drop noticeably, even though the paper is very, very thin.  The length of the constriction is unimportant.  Only the diameter is important.), and finally, the truncated, one-piece, straight sided body.  The meaning of anything Benade
>  ever wrote about the saxophone is easily understood by applying it to this essential model.  Some statements require qualification, but are easy to understand when we remember that he sometimes addressed acoustical issues with mechanical convenience in mind, rather than complete acoustical
>  accuracy, but all of his statements apply to this model, as they must.
> 
> 3. In order to clarify Benade's nebulous statements, I emailed Dr. Joe Wolfe, and asked him to explain, just what  constituted the substitution for the missing cone, the mouthpiece volume, or the mouthpiece volume + the neck volume.  His reply was, mouthpiece + reed compliance.  OK.  That is
>  substantiated by #1 and #2.  So, without question, the neck is not part of the substitution.  The neck is body volume and body length, for those horns with removable necks, regardless of taper.
> 
> 4. Frs is the playing frequency of the substitution, the mouthpiece + it's constriction.  That's OK by #1, #2, and #3, only it's impossible to measure without ruining the mouthpiece and we need the neck opening diameter reduction for our constriction. So Benade made his sematic and acoustic
>  compromise, and told us to measure frs with the complete neck.  It is an approximation of the real frs, but it works, provided the neck is of the correct design.
> 
> 5. I don't wish to compare saxophones with oboes or bassoons.  There is no need.   First, the model in #2 encompasses every essential aspect of the saxophone, and second, as Benade wrote, not every aspect of the oboe is applicable to the saxophone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By your comments in this post, I'm beginning to understand more clearly your misinterpretation of Benade's Frs statements.  Please bear with me.  On page 470 FMA Benade writes:
> 
> 
> "We can continue our search for a useful imitation of the missing part of the cone by trying the effect of matching Frs for the reed system to the first-mode natural frequency of the cone apex itself.  In the general frequency neighborhood of Frs the oboe will then "see" an object at its upper
 end
>  whose acoustical behavior is quite  similar to that of the missing apical cone."
> 
> "In particular, there will be a pressure node in the neighborhood of the junction of the main bore with the reed staple, lying a little inside the staple at frequencies somewhat above Frs and moving down below the junction at oboe playing frequencies below Frs---behavior that is identical with
>  that found in an ideal cone."
> 
> The junction of the main bore (of the oboe) with the reed staple is at the bottom of the staple the reed is attached to---not the top.  Therefore the pressure node of the frequencies just above Frs (the frequency of the reed combined with its staple) will still be just inside the cork end of the
>  staple.  The frequencies just below Frs will go just beyond that down into the body of the oboe itself.  
> 
> The counterpart in an alto sax is the frequency produced by the mouthpiece and neck apart  from the body of the saxophone  which is very close to Ab concert (written F).  The pressure node of the frequency just above that pitch, F# for example, when played on the complete sax will be found just
 up
>  inside the neck tenon.  The pressure node of the frequency just below that pitch, an E natural will be slightly past the bottom of the neck receiver into the body of the sax.  
> 
> This Ab concert would be the note sounded if the cone to its apex added to the complete neck could produce its resonant frequency.  When the mouthpiece substitutes for the missing cone by matching its volume, the mouthpiece plus the complete neck produces this frequency.  When the Frs - frequency
>  of the reed on its staple or frequency of the sax mouthpiece on its neck is the same as the pitch that would be produced by the missing cone, if it could---the body of the instrument is "fooled" into thinking the cone is complete and  behaves accordingly.  This is exactly the effect Benade
>  describes in all of his writings on this topic.  On this point he is very clear.
> 
> Benade also uses the term "constricted tube" to describe the staple, bocal, and sax neck as well as the term "constriction" .  There is also a "point of constriction" at the opening of each of these that as you know has a strong effect upon the production of the soundwave inside the mouthpiece. 
>  But when Benade uses the term "cavity plus constriction", he is clearly referring to the mouthpiece and the entire neck.
> 
> I hope this helps to clarify these topics in our discussions, in order to move forward instead of just going around in the same circles and getting nowhere.
> 
> John
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ ...> wrote:
> >
> > "Can you cite a source for more
> > information about  the "hole in the saxophone spectrum" that is created
> > inside the mouthpiece.  Is this what Dalmont calls the "anti-formant"
> > Do you know if this "hole in the spectrum" can actually be identified
> > in any of graphs of the saxophone sound spectrum at the UNSW Saxophone Acoustics  site? "
> > 
> > I have not done an exhaustive search yet.  Fletcher touched on it somewhere, as have a few others.  Nederveen explains the reed closure period and resultant acoustical power differences compared to cylindrical instruments.  It is what Dalmont calls the "anti-formant" and if the
>  mouthpiece/constric tion frs were correct, would be found at the neck opening, where the bore starts to expand, I would say.  
> > 
> > I have gone over with Toby without resolution, the idea that it is exactly this resonance that Benade refers to when discussing the frs of the substitution - ( paraphrased) the body will see  a something that acoustically resembles the missing cone.  There will be a pressure node (the
>  mouthpiece/constric tion resonance's displacement anti-node) at or slightly inside the mouthpiece shank (he actually refers to an oboe staple) for played tones above frs, and moving slightly inside the neck (oboe body) for played tones below frs.  Though Dalmont states that the anti-formant
 freq.
>  exists independent of the note played, Benade states that the mc resonance disp, anti-node affects played resonances with nodes in it's area.  I surmise that the reverse is also true to some extent, which would explain the nodes movement from just inside the shank to just inside the neck.
> > 
> > I have not done a thorough search of the UNSW site.
> >
>
  
      
                 
                 
 

When I did experiments with a soprano sax mouthpiece, I left the baffle alone.  

I drilled from the shank end, bringing the bore almost into the window area.  

I made inserts from 1/2" Delrin rod drilled out to 5/16" diameter.  The inserts were of various lengths.

No insert used represented a large chamber.  The longest insert represented a small chamber.  Etc.

It was easy to find which insert tuned the low octave correctly AND blew the upper octave and into the palm keys in tune.

And it was easy to see the effect too large or too small chamber produced.

Paul


--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:
>
> I would recommend using a single large chamber mouthpiece with a removable baffle insert.  This gives you two test points that are fairly repeatable and identical except for chamber volume and baffle.
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: "kymarto123@..." <kymarto123@...>
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thu, March 11, 2010 2:27:21 AM
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone--mpc volume vs length for tuning
> 
>   
> OK, OK. But the point is that you can probably find two same brand, same opening mpcs that play the same frequency when they are at the same point on the neck, and whose mode relations are generally the same within a few cents. That is certainly close enough to have a control for comparison when you alter one.
> 
> Toby
> 
> MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote: 
>   
> >"A good further step, to really control factors here, would be to take two identical mpcs....."
> >
> >That would be a cool trick.
> > 
> >
>

Yes, unless you want to change the sound and response of
the piece, it would certainly be better to leave the front
of the baffle alone.

Unfortunately the mpc that I'd like to experiment on is so
thin that there is nothing to really ream out. The easy
way to do the experiments, though--even from its present
state--would be to use modeling clay to reduce the chamber
by given amounts. It should be easy to find how much water
a certain amount of clay displaces, and then simply mold
that into the chamber temporarily.

Toby

--- tenorman1952 <tenorman1952@...> wrote:

> 
> When I did experiments with a soprano sax
> mouthpiece, I left the baffle alone.  
> 
> I drilled from the shank end, bringing the bore
> almost into the window area.  
> 
> I made inserts from 1/2" Delrin rod drilled out to
> 5/16" diameter.  The inserts were of various
> lengths.
> 
> No insert used represented a large chamber.  The
> longest insert represented a small chamber.  Etc.
> 
> It was easy to find which insert tuned the low
> octave correctly AND blew the upper octave and into
> the palm keys in tune.
> 
> And it was easy to see the effect too large or too
> small chamber produced.
> 
> Paul
> 
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Keith
> Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:
> >
> > I would recommend using a single large chamber
> mouthpiece with a removable baffle insert.  This
> gives you two test points that are fairly repeatable
> and identical except for chamber volume and baffle.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ________________________________
> > From: "kymarto123@..." <kymarto123@...>
> > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Thu, March 11, 2010 2:27:21 AM
> > Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive
> Missing Cone--mpc volume vs length for tuning
> > 
> >   
> > OK, OK. But the point is that you can probably
> find two same brand, same opening mpcs that play the
> same frequency when they are at the same point on
> the neck, and whose mode relations are generally the
> same within a few cents. That is certainly close
> enough to have a control for comparison when you
> alter one.
> > 
> > Toby
> > 
> > MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote: 
> >   
> > >"A good further step, to really control factors
> here, would be to take two identical mpcs....."
> > >
> > >That would be a cool trick.
> > > 
> > >
> >
> 
> 
> 

There are some underlying truths that In my opinion trump all of the
esoteric theoretical ideas being put forth by both you and Lance.

They are:

1.  It is impossible to accurately measure the played frequency* of the
used volume of the mouthpiece plus a narrow ring to mimic the opening of
the neck.  (If anyone disagrees with this statement---the burden is upon
them to prove it can be done.  No other argument can have  any merit
whatsoever.)

2.  The mouthpiece always functions as a part of the the truncated
conical tube we call a saxophone.  Therefore, the acoustical behavior of
the sound wave generated by the interior workings of the mouthpiece as
it interacts with the tube that follows it has far more significance
that that of the mouthpiece as a separate unit by itself.

3.  Benade's use of the cavity + constriction (meaning the entire
staple, bocal, neck) in his missing cone requirements:

a.  Was clearly intended to show the similar acoustical properties
shared by all conical woodwinds.  (You cannot under any circumstances
measure the frequency of an oboe reed  apart from its staple).

b.  Was the most realistic, pragmatic, practical,  and I believe most
accurate under real playing conditions---way to define the frequency
requirement of the missing cone.  By adding the saxophone neck to the
missing cone you are simply moving the point of truncation.  This
changes none of the relationships that are found in the "real world"
playing of the instrument.

*  To refer to the natural frequency of the mouthpiece alone as Frs is a
misnomer.  Benade coined this term to refer to the
Frequency of the oboe reed added to its staple".  He writes on FMA p.
469:

" The reed cavity plus the constricted passageway through the staple (or
the reed plus bocal in the bassoon, or the mouthpiece plus neck in the
saxophone) must therefore be arranged to imitate the acoustical
properties of the missing part of the cone."

He then goes on to describe that the imitation has two (related) parts. 
1. That the volume of the missing cone must be matched by its
substitution.  2.  That the played frequency of the substitution must
equal the calculated frequency of the actual missing cone added to the
constricted passageway using the formula:   F = C/2 Xo


--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
>
> John,
>
> The problem, if problem it is, is that the more of the cone you
include, the less any deviation caused by the perturbation at the end of
the tube (the mpc) is going to show up. Apparently, things start getting
nasty when the truncation is equal to or larger than 1/4 wavelength.
Smaller than this
>  and the tube compared to truncation is enough so that the wavelength
doesn't "mind" the perturbation too much. The cone looks complete to a
long wavelength and so the frequency is not much disturbed.
>
> However as you go up the scale and the wavelengths become shorter,
there starts to be more and more effect from the fact that the mpc is
not actually the missing conic apex, but is just a pretender. This is
true whether the wavelength is short because the tube is short, or
because you are playing
>  the a higher mode of a long tube.
>
> I believe that Lance is correct. The limiting case for the Frs, and
the one that gives the most accurate picture of how closely the
resonance of the mpc matches the resonance of the missing apex, is one
in which only the mpc is measured. BUT, you have to set up the correct
conditions for how the
>  mpc is seen by the cone, and this means that the mpc has to be
terminated at the point where it meets the neck in real life, and with
the entrance diameter of the neck.
>
> If we had a system like the clarinet, life would be easier, since in
that case the end of the mpc is the point where it joins the body and
the exit diameter of the mpc is (for all intents and purposes) the
entrance diameter of the body. So if we wish to get the Frs of a clainet
mpc it can be
>  measured by itself.
>
> As Lance points out, doing this for sax is impractical, since it would
mean cutting off the mpc at the point where the neck reaches in the
shank, and adding a very thin insert to mimic the neck opening diameter.
>
> Actually, it should be possible to mathematically correct for the
blown frequency of a mpc--lowering the pitch a given amount for the
length and diameter of the extra part of the shank, plus lowering again
for the smaller diameter of the neck opening. We could probably find the
formulae to do this.
>
> But obviously Benade finds this overkill, and thinks that the extra
length of the neck is not enough to throw things off too much for the
playing frequencies of the sax.
>
> Remember that we are only trying to correct for frequencies in the
upper 2nd octave and plams: the best we can possibly do is to mimic the
volume (which makes the mode relationships in most of the first two
octaves OK), and add a second correction for this Frs, which pulls the
second peak into
>  alignment for the top of the second octave and palms. Beyond this we
have to count on mode locking to pull errant third, fourth, fifth...n
partials into line.
>
> That's how I understand it.
>
> Toby
>
> John jtalcott47@... wrote:
Toby,
>
> You use the word "normalizing" like it is a bad thing.
>
> Isn't it more accurate to evaluate the mouthpiece's substitution of
the missing cone in terms of its interaction with a part of the body of
the instrument?  There is no "real world" parallel to playing the
mouthpiece unattached to a longer tube.  Plus playing on the mouthpiece
alone is far more
>  unstable than playing it on the neck.  On the mouthpiece alone, the
pitch can be just about anywhere you want it to be. Just think how it
would be with 20 mm cut off the end of the shank!  How in the world
would you ever find the resonant frequency of such a small short tube
just by playing it?
>  I know that I couldn't do it.  Give me an oboe reed on a staple, a
bassoon reed on a bocal, or a sax mouthpiece on a neck and I have a
chance.
>
>
>
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, kymarto123@ wrote:
> >
> > The mpc substitutes for the missing conic apex. We want it to
resemble as closely as possible that missing apex, so that the timing of
the wavefronts is preserved as it would be in the real apex.
> >
> > The Frs is simply the resonant frequency of the substitution and
whatever length of cone is attached to it: that should match the
resonant frequency of the complete missing apex to the same diameter of
the cone as we are measuring. Frs is not the resonant frequency of the
substitution; it is the
> >  resonant frequency of the substitution/constriction combination,
and practically that always includes some length of the body cone. For
example, the Frs of a complete tenor sax is C3. This includes the
substitution and all of the cone. Because the tube is long and its
resonance predominates,
>  this
> >  is not very helpful in finding out how well we are doing in
substituting the truncated part of the cone. The purest measure of that,
as Lance points out, would be to have the mpc cut to the point where the
neck begins and have the mpc sitting on an infinitely thin plane
centered on an opening
>  the
> >  diameter of the end of the neck.
> >
> > As soon as we start adding cone length, we get more and more
"normalizing" effect from the cone itself, and therefore a less and less
accurate picture of what happens in the higher frequencies, where
shorter and shorter wavelengths are more affected by irregularities in
the substitution (because
> >  that length becomes a larger and larger fraction of their total
wavelength).
> >
> > Benade has indeed taken the easy road in specifying a
convenient"end" to the constriction, but this adds a fairly large
"normalizing" factor, in the shape of the neck cone (or oboe reed
staple). On sax, it would be much more accurate to use the new Warburton
neck system and just use the
>  attachable
> >  neck end to measure Frs while it is inserted to the correct point
in a mpc. This would add only an extremely short length of cone to the
mix. Apparently Benade felt that measuring Frs to the end of the neck
was good enough, and indeed other factors such as embouchure and reed
characteristics and
> >  temperature and facings (and vocal tract configuration) probably
make that about as accurate as it can be before those other factors have
too large an effect and overwhelm finer measurements of the necessary
volume.
> >
> > Toby
> >
> > MartinMods lancelotburt@ wrote:
> > John,
> >
> > Thanks very much for your explanation.  I understand exactly what
you mean - crystal, only I do not agree, bear with me and I'll explain
why.
> >
> > 1. Benade's diagram and description of a conical instrument's parts,
which we all are familiar with - a truncated tube, and the substitution
for the truncation - a cavity and a constriction.  This is perfectly
clear and universally applicable.
> >
> > 2. The existence of a one-piece, straight sided, soprano saxophone,
which according to Nederveen, would be an acoustically superior
saxophone design, were only the truncation ratio reduced somewhat.  With
a  cross-sectional view of it's bore, fitted with an Otto Link STM
mouthpiece, .we can
> >  clearly see each section Benade described in # 1. - the cavity of
the Link mouthpiece, the constriction of the mouthpiece's bore caused by
the  smaller opening of the body's bore. (the fact that it has no
measurable length is unimportant. Play your mouthpiece alone, and then
constrict the
>  opening
> >  by covering 1/4 of it with a sheet of paper.  The pitch will drop
noticeably, even though the paper is very, very thin.  The length of the
constriction is unimportant.  Only the diameter is important.), and
finally, the truncated, one-piece, straight sided body.  The meaning of
anything Benade
> >  ever wrote about the saxophone is easily understood by applying it
to this essential model.  Some statements require qualification, but are
easy to understand when we remember that he sometimes addressed
acoustical issues with mechanical convenience in mind, rather than
complete acoustical
> >  accuracy, but all of his statements apply to this model, as they
must.
> >
> > 3. In order to clarify Benade's nebulous statements, I emailed Dr.
Joe Wolfe, and asked him to explain, just what  constituted the
substitution for the missing cone, the mouthpiece volume, or the
mouthpiece volume + the neck volume.  His reply was, mouthpiece + reed
compliance.  OK.  That is
> >  substantiated by #1 and #2.  So, without question, the neck is not
part of the substitution.  The neck is body volume and body length, for
those horns with removable necks, regardless of taper.
> >
> > 4. Frs is the playing frequency of the substitution, the mouthpiece
+ it's constriction.  That's OK by #1, #2, and #3, only it's impossible
to measure without ruining the mouthpiece and we need the neck opening
diameter reduction for our constriction. So Benade made his sematic and
acoustic
> >  compromise, and told us to measure frs with the complete neck.  It
is an approximation of the real frs, but it works, provided the neck is
of the correct design.
> >
> > 5. I don't wish to compare saxophones with oboes or bassoons.  There
is no need.   First, the model in #2 encompasses every essential aspect
of the saxophone, and second, as Benade wrote, not every aspect of the
oboe is applicable to the saxophone.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > By your comments in this post, I'm beginning to understand more
clearly your misinterpretation of Benade's Frs statements.  Please bear
with me.  On page 470 FMA Benade writes:
> >
> >
> > "We can continue our search for a useful imitation of the missing
part of the cone by trying the effect of matching Frs for the reed
system to the first-mode natural frequency of the cone apex itself.  In
the general frequency neighborhood of Frs the oboe will then "see" an
object at its upper
>  end
> >  whose acoustical behavior is quite  similar to that of the missing
apical cone."
> >
> > "In particular, there will be a pressure node in the neighborhood of
the junction of the main bore with the reed staple, lying a little
inside the staple at frequencies somewhat above Frs and moving down
below the junction at oboe playing frequencies below Frs---behavior that
is identical with
> >  that found in an ideal cone."
> >
> > The junction of the main bore (of the oboe) with the reed staple is
at the bottom of the staple the reed is attached to---not the top. 
Therefore the pressure node of the frequencies just above Frs (the
frequency of the reed combined with its staple) will still be just
inside the cork end of the
> >  staple.  The frequencies just below Frs will go just beyond that
down into the body of the oboe itself.
> >
> > The counterpart in an alto sax is the frequency produced by the
mouthpiece and neck apart  from the body of the saxophone  which is very
close to Ab concert (written F).  The pressure node of the frequency
just above that pitch, F# for example, when played on the complete sax
will be found just
>  up
> >  inside the neck tenon.  The pressure node of the frequency just
below that pitch, an E natural will be slightly past the bottom of the
neck receiver into the body of the sax.
> >
> > This Ab concert would be the note sounded if the cone to its apex
added to the complete neck could produce its resonant frequency.  When
the mouthpiece substitutes for the missing cone by matching its volume,
the mouthpiece plus the complete neck produces this frequency.  When the
Frs - frequency
> >  of the reed on its staple or frequency of the sax mouthpiece on its
neck is the same as the pitch that would be produced by the missing
cone, if it could---the body of the instrument is "fooled" into thinking
the cone is complete and  behaves accordingly.  This is exactly the
effect Benade
> >  describes in all of his writings on this topic.  On this point he
is very clear.
> >
> > Benade also uses the term "constricted tube" to describe the staple,
bocal, and sax neck as well as the term "constriction" .  There is also
a "point of constriction" at the opening of each of these that as you
know has a strong effect upon the production of the soundwave inside the
mouthpiece.
> >  But when Benade uses the term "cavity plus constriction", he is
clearly referring to the mouthpiece and the entire neck.
> >
> > I hope this helps to clarify these topics in our discussions, in
order to move forward instead of just going around in the same circles
and getting nowhere.
> >
> > John
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@
...> wrote:
> > >
> > > "Can you cite a source for more
> > > information about  the "hole in the saxophone spectrum" that is
created
> > > inside the mouthpiece.  Is this what Dalmont calls the
"anti-formant"
> > > Do you know if this "hole in the spectrum" can actually be
identified
> > > in any of graphs of the saxophone sound spectrum at the UNSW
Saxophone Acoustics  site? "
> > >
> > > I have not done an exhaustive search yet.  Fletcher touched on it
somewhere, as have a few others.  Nederveen explains the reed closure
period and resultant acoustical power differences compared to
cylindrical instruments.  It is what Dalmont calls the "anti-formant"
and if the
> >  mouthpiece/constric tion frs were correct, would be found at the
neck opening, where the bore starts to expand, I would say.
> > >
> > > I have gone over with Toby without resolution, the idea that it is
exactly this resonance that Benade refers to when discussing the frs of
the substitution - ( paraphrased) the body will see  a something that
acoustically resembles the missing cone.  There will be a pressure node
(the
> >  mouthpiece/constric tion resonance's displacement anti-node) at or
slightly inside the mouthpiece shank (he actually refers to an oboe
staple) for played tones above frs, and moving slightly inside the neck
(oboe body) for played tones below frs.  Though Dalmont states that the
anti-formant
>  freq.
> >  exists independent of the note played, Benade states that the mc
resonance disp, anti-node affects played resonances with nodes in it's
area.  I surmise that the reverse is also true to some extent, which
would explain the nodes movement from just inside the shank to just
inside the neck.
> > >
> > > I have not done a thorough search of the UNSW site.
> > >
> >
>

John,

We may just have to agree to disagre.  Two things though:

1. In all your debate, you have yet to address to any satisfaction, the one-piece, straight sided soprano example. To have any validity, your "rules" must apply to it, or they are no good.

2. "...(the mouthpiece plus neck in
the saxophone) must therefore be arranged to imitate the acoustical
properties of the missing part of the cone."

This is the contradiction which flaws your viewpoint.  This is impossible, as stated, since the neck is not part of the missing cone.  According to your own Missing Cone Volume Study, the missing cone extends from the end of the small neck opening to the apex, and does not include the slightest amount of neck volume or length.  We can just as correctly then, incorporate the bell in this formula.  You can't have it both ways.  The terminology must be defined and have only one meaning, AND IT MUST APPLY TO ALL SAXOPHONES. 

The view that Toby and I adhere to is the only one that satisfies all requirements.  The only solution to #2 is:  The neck is not part of the missing cone or the substitution, however, the 2 dimensional constriction caused by it's reduced opening diameter, is, and is the necessary element to complete the mouthpiece + constriction components which constitute the substitution.   It would be easier to see if the saxophone used a clarinet tenon style mouthpiece coupling.  Then the frs could easily be checked correctly using just the mouthpiece and a piece of tape, with a neck opening diameter hole in it, stuck over the end.  The mechanical aspects of the mouthpiece over the neck coupling do not change the acoustical characteristics of the instrument, and Benade's confusing contradictions are due to his attempt to be mechanically practical, rather than acoustically accurate.








--- On Fri, 3/12/10, John <jtalcott47@...> wrote:

From: John <jtalcott47@...>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, March 12, 2010, 5:16 PM







 



  


    
      
      
      


There are some underlying truths that In my opinion trump all of the esoteric theoretical ideas being put forth by both you and Lance.

They are:

1.  It is impossible to accurately measure the played frequency* of the used volume of the mouthpiece plus a narrow ring to mimic the opening of the neck.  (If anyone disagrees with this statement--- the burden is upon them to prove it can be done.  No other argument can have  any merit whatsoever.)

2.  The mouthpiece always functions as a part of the the truncated conical tube we call a saxophone.  Therefore, the acoustical behavior of the sound wave generated by the interior workings of the mouthpiece as it interacts with the tube that follows it has far more significance that that of the mouthpiece as a separate unit by itself.

3.  Benade's use of the cavity + constriction (meaning the entire staple, bocal, neck) in his missing cone requirements:

a.  Was clearly intended to show the similar acoustical properties shared by all conical woodwinds.  (You cannot under any circumstances measure the frequency of an oboe reed  apart from its staple).

b.  Was the most realistic, pragmatic, practical,  and I believe most accurate under real playing conditions-- -way to define the frequency requirement of the missing cone.  By adding the saxophone neck to the missing cone you are simply moving the point of truncation.  This changes none of the relationships that are found in the "real world" playing of the instrument.

*  To refer to the natural frequency of the mouthpiece alone as Frs is a misnomer.  Benade coined this term to refer to the 
Frequency of the oboe reed added to its staple".  He writes on FMA p. 469:

" The reed cavity plus the constricted passageway through the staple (or the reed plus bocal in the bassoon, or the mouthpiece plus neck in the saxophone) must therefore be arranged to imitate the acoustical properties of the missing part of the cone."

He then goes on to describe that the imitation has two (related) parts.  1. That the volume of the missing cone must be matched by its substitution.  2.  That the played frequency of the substitution must equal the calculated frequency of the actual missing cone added to the constricted passageway using the formula:   F = C/2 Xo


--- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, <kymarto123@. ..> wrote:
>
> John,
> 
> The problem, if problem it is, is that the more of the cone you include, the less any deviation caused by the perturbation at the end of the tube (the mpc) is going to show up. Apparently, things start getting nasty when the truncation is equal to or larger than 1/4 wavelength. Smaller than this
>  and the tube compared to truncation is enough so that the wavelength doesn't "mind" the perturbation too much. The cone looks complete to a long wavelength and so the frequency is not much disturbed. 
> 
> However as you go up the scale and the wavelengths become shorter, there starts to be more and more effect from the fact that the mpc is not actually the missing conic apex, but is just a pretender. This is true whether the wavelength is short because the tube is short, or because you are playing
>  the a higher mode of a long tube.
> 
> I believe that Lance is correct. The limiting case for the Frs, and the one that gives the most accurate picture of how closely the resonance of the mpc matches the resonance of the missing apex, is one in which only the mpc is measured. BUT, you have to set up the correct conditions for how the
>  mpc is seen by the cone, and this means that the mpc has to be terminated at the point where it meets the neck in real life, and with the entrance diameter of the neck.
> 
> If we had a system like the clarinet, life would be easier, since in that case the end of the mpc is the point where it joins the body and the exit diameter of the mpc is (for all intents and purposes) the entrance diameter of the body. So if we wish to get the Frs of a clainet mpc it can be
>  measured by itself.
> 
> As Lance points out, doing this for sax is impractical, since it would mean cutting off the mpc at the point where the neck reaches in the shank, and adding a very thin insert to mimic the neck opening diameter.
> 
> Actually, it should be possible to mathematically correct for the blown frequency of a mpc--lowering the pitch a given amount for the length and diameter of the extra part of the shank, plus lowering again for the smaller diameter of the neck opening. We could probably find the formulae to do this.
> 
> But obviously Benade finds this overkill, and thinks that the extra length of the neck is not enough to throw things off too much for the playing frequencies of the sax.
> 
> Remember that we are only trying to correct for frequencies in the upper 2nd octave and plams: the best we can possibly do is to mimic the volume (which makes the mode relationships in most of the first two octaves OK), and add a second correction for this Frs, which pulls the second peak into
>  alignment for the top of the second octave and palms. Beyond this we have to count on mode locking to pull errant third, fourth, fifth...n partials into line. 
> 
> That's how I understand it.
> 
> Toby
> 
> John jtalcott47@. .. wrote:                                              Toby,
> 
> You use the word "normalizing" like it is a bad thing.  
> 
> Isn't it more accurate to evaluate the mouthpiece's substitution of the missing cone in terms of its interaction with a part of the body of the instrument?  There is no "real world" parallel to playing the mouthpiece unattached to a longer tube.  Plus playing on the mouthpiece alone is far more
>  unstable than playing it on the neck.  On the mouthpiece alone, the pitch can be just about anywhere you want it to be. Just think how it would be with 20 mm cut off the end of the shank!  How in the world would you ever find the resonant frequency of such a small short tube just by playing it? 
>  I know that I couldn't do it.  Give me an oboe reed on a staple, a bassoon reed on a bocal, or a sax mouthpiece on a neck and I have a chance.
> 
> 
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, kymarto123@ wrote:
> >
> > The mpc substitutes for the missing conic apex. We want it to resemble as closely as possible that missing apex, so that the timing of the wavefronts is preserved as it would be in the real apex. 
> > 
> > The Frs is simply the resonant frequency of the substitution and whatever length of cone is attached to it: that should match the resonant frequency of the complete missing apex to the same diameter of the cone as we are measuring. Frs is not the resonant frequency of the substitution; it is the
> >  resonant frequency of the substitution/ constriction combination, and practically that always includes some length of the body cone. For example, the Frs of a complete tenor sax is C3. This includes the substitution and all of the cone. Because the tube is long and its resonance predominates,
>  this
> >  is not very helpful in finding out how well we are doing in substituting the truncated part of the cone. The purest measure of that, as Lance points out, would be to have the mpc cut to the point where the neck begins and have the mpc sitting on an infinitely thin plane centered on an opening
>  the
> >  diameter of the end of the neck. 
> > 
> > As soon as we start adding cone length, we get more and more "normalizing" effect from the cone itself, and therefore a less and less accurate picture of what happens in the higher frequencies, where shorter and shorter wavelengths are more affected by irregularities in the substitution (because
> >  that length becomes a larger and larger fraction of their total wavelength).
> > 
> > Benade has indeed taken the easy road in specifying a convenient"end" to the constriction, but this adds a fairly large "normalizing" factor, in the shape of the neck cone (or oboe reed staple). On sax, it would be much more accurate to use the new Warburton neck system and just use the
>  attachable
> >  neck end to measure Frs while it is inserted to the correct point in a mpc. This would add only an extremely short length of cone to the mix. Apparently Benade felt that measuring Frs to the end of the neck was good enough, and indeed other factors such as embouchure and reed characteristics and
> >  temperature and facings (and vocal tract configuration) probably make that about as accurate as it can be before those other factors have too large an effect and overwhelm finer measurements of the necessary volume.
> > 
> > Toby
> > 
> > MartinMods lancelotburt@ wrote:                                           
> > John,
> > 
> > Thanks very much for your explanation.  I understand exactly what you mean - crystal, only I do not agree, bear with me and I'll explain why.
> > 
> > 1. Benade's diagram and description of a conical instrument's parts, which we all are familiar with - a truncated tube, and the substitution for the truncation - a cavity and a constriction.  This is perfectly clear and universally applicable.
> > 
> > 2. The existence of a one-piece, straight sided, soprano saxophone, which according to Nederveen, would be an acoustically superior saxophone design, were only the truncation ratio reduced somewhat.  With a  cross-sectional view of it's bore, fitted with an Otto Link STM mouthpiece, .we can
> >  clearly see each section Benade described in # 1. - the cavity of the Link mouthpiece, the constriction of the mouthpiece's bore caused by the  smaller opening of the body's bore. (the fact that it has no measurable length is unimportant. Play your mouthpiece alone, and then constrict the
>  opening
> >  by covering 1/4 of it with a sheet of paper.  The pitch will drop noticeably, even though the paper is very, very thin.  The length of the constriction is unimportant.  Only the diameter is important.), and finally, the truncated, one-piece, straight sided body.  The meaning of anything Benade
> >  ever wrote about the saxophone is easily understood by applying it to this essential model.  Some statements require qualification, but are easy to understand when we remember that he sometimes addressed acoustical issues with mechanical convenience in mind, rather than complete acoustical
> >  accuracy, but all of his statements apply to this model, as they must.
> > 
> > 3. In order to clarify Benade's nebulous statements, I emailed Dr. Joe Wolfe, and asked him to explain, just what  constituted the substitution for the missing cone, the mouthpiece volume, or the mouthpiece volume + the neck volume.  His reply was, mouthpiece + reed compliance.  OK.  That is
> >  substantiated by #1 and #2.  So, without question, the neck is not part of the substitution.  The neck is body volume and body length, for those horns with removable necks, regardless of taper.
> > 
> > 4. Frs is the playing frequency of the substitution, the mouthpiece + it's constriction.  That's OK by #1, #2, and #3, only it's impossible to measure without ruining the mouthpiece and we need the neck opening diameter reduction for our constriction. So Benade made his sematic and acoustic
> >  compromise, and told us to measure frs with the complete neck.  It is an approximation of the real frs, but it works, provided the neck is of the correct design.
> > 
> > 5. I don't wish to compare saxophones with oboes or bassoons.  There is no need.   First, the model in #2 encompasses every essential aspect of the saxophone, and second, as Benade wrote, not every aspect of the oboe is applicable to the saxophone.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > By your comments in this post, I'm beginning to understand more clearly your misinterpretation of Benade's Frs statements.  Please bear with me.  On page 470 FMA Benade writes:
> > 
> > 
> > "We can continue our search for a useful imitation of the missing part of the cone by trying the effect of matching Frs for the reed system to the first-mode natural frequency of the cone apex itself.  In the general frequency neighborhood of Frs the oboe will then "see" an object at its upper
>  end
> >  whose acoustical behavior is quite  similar to that of the missing apical cone."
> > 
> > "In particular, there will be a pressure node in the neighborhood of the junction of the main bore with the reed staple, lying a little inside the staple at frequencies somewhat above Frs and moving down below the junction at oboe playing frequencies below Frs---behavior that is identical with
> >  that found in an ideal cone."
> > 
> > The junction of the main bore (of the oboe) with the reed staple is at the bottom of the staple the reed is attached to---not the top.  Therefore the pressure node of the frequencies just above Frs (the frequency of the reed combined with its staple) will still be just inside the cork end of the
> >  staple.  The frequencies just below Frs will go just beyond that down into the body of the oboe itself.  
> > 
> > The counterpart in an alto sax is the frequency produced by the mouthpiece and neck apart  from the body of the saxophone  which is very close to Ab concert (written F).  The pressure node of the frequency just above that pitch, F# for example, when played on the complete sax will be found just
>  up
> >  inside the neck tenon.  The pressure node of the frequency just below that pitch, an E natural will be slightly past the bottom of the neck receiver into the body of the sax.  
> > 
> > This Ab concert would be the note sounded if the cone to its apex added to the complete neck could produce its resonant frequency.  When the mouthpiece substitutes for the missing cone by matching its volume, the mouthpiece plus the complete neck produces this frequency.  When the Frs - frequency
> >  of the reed on its staple or frequency of the sax mouthpiece on its neck is the same as the pitch that would be produced by the missing cone, if it could---the body of the instrument is "fooled" into thinking the cone is complete and  behaves accordingly.  This is exactly the effect Benade
> >  describes in all of his writings on this topic.  On this point he is very clear.
> > 
> > Benade also uses the term "constricted tube" to describe the staple, bocal, and sax neck as well as the term "constriction" .  There is also a "point of constriction" at the opening of each of these that as you know has a strong effect upon the production of the soundwave inside the mouthpiece. 
> >  But when Benade uses the term "cavity plus constriction" , he is clearly referring to the mouthpiece and the entire neck.
> > 
> > I hope this helps to clarify these topics in our discussions, in order to move forward instead of just going around in the same circles and getting nowhere.
> > 
> > John
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ ...> wrote:
> > >
> > > "Can you cite a source for more
> > > information about  the "hole in the saxophone spectrum" that is created
> > > inside the mouthpiece.  Is this what Dalmont calls the "anti-formant"
> > > Do you know if this "hole in the spectrum" can actually be identified
> > > in any of graphs of the saxophone sound spectrum at the UNSW Saxophone Acoustics  site? "
> > > 
> > > I have not done an exhaustive search yet.  Fletcher touched on it somewhere, as have a few others.  Nederveen explains the reed closure period and resultant acoustical power differences compared to cylindrical instruments.  It is what Dalmont calls the "anti-formant" and if the
> >  mouthpiece/constric tion frs were correct, would be found at the neck opening, where the bore starts to expand, I would say.  
> > > 
> > > I have gone over with Toby without resolution, the idea that it is exactly this resonance that Benade refers to when discussing the frs of the substitution - ( paraphrased) the body will see  a something that acoustically resembles the missing cone.  There will be a pressure node (the
> >  mouthpiece/constric tion resonance's displacement anti-node) at or slightly inside the mouthpiece shank (he actually refers to an oboe staple) for played tones above frs, and moving slightly inside the neck (oboe body) for played tones below frs.  Though Dalmont states that the anti-formant
>  freq.
> >  exists independent of the note played, Benade states that the mc resonance disp, anti-node affects played resonances with nodes in it's area.  I surmise that the reverse is also true to some extent, which would explain the nodes movement from just inside the shank to just inside the neck.
> > > 
> > > I have not done a thorough search of the UNSW site.
> > >
> >
>



    
     

    
    


 



  






      

"When I did experiments with a soprano sax mouthpiece, I left the baffle alone.  



I drilled from the shank end, bringing the bore almost into the window area.  



I made inserts from 1/2" Delrin rod drilled out to 5/16" diameter.  The inserts were of various lengths.



No insert used represented a large chamber.  The longest insert represented a small chamber.  Etc.



It was easy to find which insert tuned the low octave correctly AND blew the upper octave and into the palm keys in tune.



And it was easy to see the effect too large or too small chamber produced.



Paul"

Yes.  And your earlier description of the effects of volume on intonation was very clear and easy to understand.   It should be automatically reposed, every month. IMO..  

I think adjusting volume in the throat via inserts is the best way to go about adjusting a mouthpiece, just for the sake of volume however.  One may want to adjust sound via volume distribution and shape, in which case, volume adjustments are made in the chamber, and the total volume then corrected in the throat, - rounding out sidewalls up to the tip and enlarging the chamber in order to achieve a more "spread" and flexible sound, for example






      

 I can't argue with that logic.   [B-)]


--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
wrote:
>
> John,
>
> We may just have to agree to disagre.  Two things though:
>
> 1. In all your debate, you have yet to address to any satisfaction,
the one-piece, straight sided soprano example. To have any validity,
your "rules" must apply to it, or they are no good.
>
> 2. "...(the mouthpiece plus neck in
> the saxophone) must therefore be arranged to imitate the acoustical
> properties of the missing part of the cone."
>
> This is the contradiction which flaws your viewpoint.  This is
impossible, as stated, since the neck is not part of the missing
cone.  According to your own Missing Cone Volume Study, the missing
cone extends from the end of the small neck opening to the apex, and
does not include the slightest amount of neck volume or length.  We
can just as correctly then, incorporate the bell in this formula. 
You can't have it both ways.  The terminology must be defined and
have only one meaning, AND IT MUST APPLY TO ALL SAXOPHONES.
>
> The view that Toby and I adhere to is the only one that satisfies all
requirements.  The only solution to #2 is:  The neck is not part
of the missing cone or the substitution, however, the 2 dimensional
constriction caused by it's reduced opening diameter, is, and is the
necessary element to complete the mouthpiece + constriction components
which constitute the substitution.   It would be easier to see
if the saxophone used a clarinet tenon style mouthpiece coupling. 
Then the frs could easily be checked correctly using just the mouthpiece
and a piece of tape, with a neck opening diameter hole in it, stuck over
the end.  The mechanical aspects of the mouthpiece over the neck
coupling do not change the acoustical characteristics of the instrument,
and Benade's confusing contradictions are due to his attempt to be
mechanically practical, rather than acoustically accurate.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- On Fri, 3/12/10, John jtalcott47@... wrote:
>
> From: John jtalcott47@...
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Friday, March 12, 2010, 5:16 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> There are some underlying truths that In my opinion trump all of the
esoteric theoretical ideas being put forth by both you and Lance.
>
> They are:
>
> 1.  It is impossible to accurately measure the played frequency*
of the used volume of the mouthpiece plus a narrow ring to mimic the
opening of the neck.  (If anyone disagrees with this statement---
the burden is upon them to prove it can be done.  No other argument
can have  any merit whatsoever.)
>
> 2.  The mouthpiece always functions as a part of the the truncated
conical tube we call a saxophone.  Therefore, the acoustical
behavior of the sound wave generated by the interior workings of the
mouthpiece as it interacts with the tube that follows it has far more
significance that that of the mouthpiece as a separate unit by itself.
>
> 3.  Benade's use of the cavity + constriction (meaning the entire
staple, bocal, neck) in his missing cone requirements:
>
> a.  Was clearly intended to show the similar acoustical properties
shared by all conical woodwinds.  (You cannot under any
circumstances measure the frequency of an oboe reed  apart from its
staple).
>
> b.  Was the most realistic, pragmatic, practical,  and I
believe most accurate under real playing conditions-- -way to define the
frequency requirement of the missing cone.  By adding the saxophone
neck to the missing cone you are simply moving the point of
truncation.  This changes none of the relationships that are found
in the "real world" playing of the instrument.
>
> *Â  To refer to the natural frequency of the mouthpiece alone as
Frs is a misnomer.  Benade coined this term to refer to the
> Frequency of the oboe reed added to its staple".  He writes on FMA
p. 469:
>
> " The reed cavity plus the constricted passageway through the staple
(or the reed plus bocal in the bassoon, or the mouthpiece plus neck in
the saxophone) must therefore be arranged to imitate the acoustical
properties of the missing part of the cone."
>
> He then goes on to describe that the imitation has two (related)
parts.  1. That the volume of the missing cone must be matched by
its substitution.  2.  That the played frequency of the
substitution must equal the calculated frequency of the actual missing
cone added to the constricted passageway using the formula:Â Â  F
= C/2 Xo
>
>
> --- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, kymarto123@ ..> wrote:
> >
> > John,
> >
> > The problem, if problem it is, is that the more of the cone you
include, the less any deviation caused by the perturbation at the end of
the tube (the mpc) is going to show up. Apparently, things start getting
nasty when the truncation is equal to or larger than 1/4 wavelength.
Smaller than this
> >  and the tube compared to truncation is enough so that the
wavelength doesn't "mind" the perturbation too much. The cone looks
complete to a long wavelength and so the frequency is not much
disturbed.
> >
> > However as you go up the scale and the wavelengths become shorter,
there starts to be more and more effect from the fact that the mpc is
not actually the missing conic apex, but is just a pretender. This is
true whether the wavelength is short because the tube is short, or
because you are playing
> >  the a higher mode of a long tube.
> >
> > I believe that Lance is correct. The limiting case for the Frs, and
the one that gives the most accurate picture of how closely the
resonance of the mpc matches the resonance of the missing apex, is one
in which only the mpc is measured. BUT, you have to set up the correct
conditions for how the
> >  mpc is seen by the cone, and this means that the mpc has to be
terminated at the point where it meets the neck in real life, and with
the entrance diameter of the neck.
> >
> > If we had a system like the clarinet, life would be easier, since in
that case the end of the mpc is the point where it joins the body and
the exit diameter of the mpc is (for all intents and purposes) the
entrance diameter of the body. So if we wish to get the Frs of a clainet
mpc it can be
> >  measured by itself.
> >
> > As Lance points out, doing this for sax is impractical, since it
would mean cutting off the mpc at the point where the neck reaches in
the shank, and adding a very thin insert to mimic the neck opening
diameter.
> >
> > Actually, it should be possible to mathematically correct for the
blown frequency of a mpc--lowering the pitch a given amount for the
length and diameter of the extra part of the shank, plus lowering again
for the smaller diameter of the neck opening. We could probably find the
formulae to do this.
> >
> > But obviously Benade finds this overkill, and thinks that the extra
length of the neck is not enough to throw things off too much for the
playing frequencies of the sax.
> >
> > Remember that we are only trying to correct for frequencies in the
upper 2nd octave and plams: the best we can possibly do is to mimic the
volume (which makes the mode relationships in most of the first two
octaves OK), and add a second correction for this Frs, which pulls the
second peak into
> >  alignment for the top of the second octave and palms. Beyond this
we have to count on mode locking to pull errant third, fourth, fifth...n
partials into line.
> >
> > That's how I understand it.
> >
> > Toby
> >
> > John jtalcott47@ .. wrote:
Toby,
> >
> > You use the word "normalizing" like it is a bad thing.
> >
> > Isn't it more accurate to evaluate the mouthpiece's substitution of
the missing cone in terms of its interaction with a part of the body of
the instrument?  There is no "real world" parallel to playing the
mouthpiece unattached to a longer tube.  Plus playing on the mouthpiece
alone is far more
> >  unstable than playing it on the neck.  On the mouthpiece alone, the
pitch can be just about anywhere you want it to be. Just think how it
would be with 20 mm cut off the end of the shank!  How in the world
would you ever find the resonant frequency of such a small short tube
just by playing it?
> >  I know that I couldn't do it.  Give me an oboe reed on a staple, a
bassoon reed on a bocal, or a sax mouthpiece on a neck and I have a
chance.
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, kymarto123@ wrote:
> > >
> > > The mpc substitutes for the missing conic apex. We want it to
resemble as closely as possible that missing apex, so that the timing of
the wavefronts is preserved as it would be in the real apex.
> > >
> > > The Frs is simply the resonant frequency of the substitution and
whatever length of cone is attached to it: that should match the
resonant frequency of the complete missing apex to the same diameter of
the cone as we are measuring. Frs is not the resonant frequency of the
substitution; it is the
> > >  resonant frequency of the substitution/ constriction combination,
and practically that always includes some length of the body cone. For
example, the Frs of a complete tenor sax is C3. This includes the
substitution and all of the cone. Because the tube is long and its
resonance predominates,
> >  this
> > >  is not very helpful in finding out how well we are doing in
substituting the truncated part of the cone. The purest measure of that,
as Lance points out, would be to have the mpc cut to the point where the
neck begins and have the mpc sitting on an infinitely thin plane
centered on an opening
> >  the
> > >  diameter of the end of the neck.
> > >
> > > As soon as we start adding cone length, we get more and more
"normalizing" effect from the cone itself, and therefore a less and less
accurate picture of what happens in the higher frequencies, where
shorter and shorter wavelengths are more affected by irregularities in
the substitution (because
> > >  that length becomes a larger and larger fraction of their total
wavelength).
> > >
> > > Benade has indeed taken the easy road in specifying a
convenient"end" to the constriction, but this adds a fairly large
"normalizing" factor, in the shape of the neck cone (or oboe reed
staple). On sax, it would be much more accurate to use the new Warburton
neck system and just use the
> >  attachable
> > >  neck end to measure Frs while it is inserted to the correct point
in a mpc. This would add only an extremely short length of cone to the
mix. Apparently Benade felt that measuring Frs to the end of the neck
was good enough, and indeed other factors such as embouchure and reed
characteristics and
> > >  temperature and facings (and vocal tract configuration) probably
make that about as accurate as it can be before those other factors have
too large an effect and overwhelm finer measurements of the necessary
volume.
> > >
> > > Toby
> > >
> > > MartinMods lancelotburt@ wrote:
> > > John,
> > >
> > > Thanks very much for your explanation.  I understand exactly what
you mean - crystal, only I do not agree, bear with me and I'll explain
why.
> > >
> > > 1. Benade's diagram and description of a conical instrument's
parts, which we all are familiar with - a truncated tube, and the
substitution for the truncation - a cavity and a constriction.  This is
perfectly clear and universally applicable.
> > >
> > > 2. The existence of a one-piece, straight sided, soprano
saxophone, which according to Nederveen, would be an acoustically
superior saxophone design, were only the truncation ratio reduced
somewhat.  With a  cross-sectional view of it's bore, fitted with an
Otto Link STM mouthpiece, .we can
> > >  clearly see each section Benade described in # 1. - the cavity of
the Link mouthpiece, the constriction of the mouthpiece's bore caused by
the  smaller opening of the body's bore. (the fact that it has no
measurable length is unimportant. Play your mouthpiece alone, and then
constrict the
> >  opening
> > >  by covering 1/4 of it with a sheet of paper.  The pitch will drop
noticeably, even though the paper is very, very thin.  The length of the
constriction is unimportant.  Only the diameter is important.), and
finally, the truncated, one-piece, straight sided body.  The meaning of
anything Benade
> > >  ever wrote about the saxophone is easily understood by applying
it to this essential model.  Some statements require qualification, but
are easy to understand when we remember that he sometimes addressed
acoustical issues with mechanical convenience in mind, rather than
complete acoustical
> > >  accuracy, but all of his statements apply to this model, as they
must.
> > >
> > > 3. In order to clarify Benade's nebulous statements, I emailed Dr.
Joe Wolfe, and asked him to explain, just what  constituted the
substitution for the missing cone, the mouthpiece volume, or the
mouthpiece volume + the neck volume.  His reply was, mouthpiece + reed
compliance.  OK.  That is
> > >  substantiated by #1 and #2.  So, without question, the neck is
not part of the substitution.  The neck is body volume and body length,
for those horns with removable necks, regardless of taper.
> > >
> > > 4. Frs is the playing frequency of the substitution, the
mouthpiece + it's constriction.  That's OK by #1, #2, and #3, only it's
impossible to measure without ruining the mouthpiece and we need the
neck opening diameter reduction for our constriction. So Benade made his
sematic and acoustic
> > >  compromise, and told us to measure frs with the complete neck. 
It is an approximation of the real frs, but it works, provided the neck
is of the correct design.
> > >
> > > 5. I don't wish to compare saxophones with oboes or bassoons. 
There is no need.   First, the model in #2 encompasses every essential
aspect of the saxophone, and second, as Benade wrote, not every aspect
of the oboe is applicable to the saxophone.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > By your comments in this post, I'm beginning to understand more
clearly your misinterpretation of Benade's Frs statements.  Please bear
with me.  On page 470 FMA Benade writes:
> > >
> > >
> > > "We can continue our search for a useful imitation of the missing
part of the cone by trying the effect of matching Frs for the reed
system to the first-mode natural frequency of the cone apex itself.  In
the general frequency neighborhood of Frs the oboe will then "see" an
object at its upper
> >  end
> > >  whose acoustical behavior is quite  similar to that of the
missing apical cone."
> > >
> > > "In particular, there will be a pressure node in the neighborhood
of the junction of the main bore with the reed staple, lying a little
inside the staple at frequencies somewhat above Frs and moving down
below the junction at oboe playing frequencies below Frs---behavior that
is identical with
> > >  that found in an ideal cone."
> > >
> > > The junction of the main bore (of the oboe) with the reed staple
is at the bottom of the staple the reed is attached to---not the top. 
Therefore the pressure node of the frequencies just above Frs (the
frequency of the reed combined with its staple) will still be just
inside the cork end of the
> > >  staple.  The frequencies just below Frs will go just beyond that
down into the body of the oboe itself.
> > >
> > > The counterpart in an alto sax is the frequency produced by the
mouthpiece and neck apart  from the body of the saxophone  which is very
close to Ab concert (written F).  The pressure node of the frequency
just above that pitch, F# for example, when played on the complete sax
will be found just
> >  up
> > >  inside the neck tenon.  The pressure node of the frequency just
below that pitch, an E natural will be slightly past the bottom of the
neck receiver into the body of the sax.
> > >
> > > This Ab concert would be the note sounded if the cone to its apex
added to the complete neck could produce its resonant frequency.  When
the mouthpiece substitutes for the missing cone by matching its volume,
the mouthpiece plus the complete neck produces this frequency.  When the
Frs - frequency
> > >  of the reed on its staple or frequency of the sax mouthpiece on
its neck is the same as the pitch that would be produced by the missing
cone, if it could---the body of the instrument is "fooled" into thinking
the cone is complete and  behaves accordingly.  This is exactly the
effect Benade
> > >  describes in all of his writings on this topic.  On this point he
is very clear.
> > >
> > > Benade also uses the term "constricted tube" to describe the
staple, bocal, and sax neck as well as the term "constriction" .  There
is also a "point of constriction" at the opening of each of these that
as you know has a strong effect upon the production of the soundwave
inside the mouthpiece.
> > >  But when Benade uses the term "cavity plus constriction" , he is
clearly referring to the mouthpiece and the entire neck.
> > >
> > > I hope this helps to clarify these topics in our discussions, in
order to move forward instead of just going around in the same circles
and getting nowhere.
> > >
> > > John
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@
...> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Can you cite a source for more
> > > > information about  the "hole in the saxophone spectrum" that is
created
> > > > inside the mouthpiece.  Is this what Dalmont calls the
"anti-formant"
> > > > Do you know if this "hole in the spectrum" can actually be
identified
> > > > in any of graphs of the saxophone sound spectrum at the UNSW
Saxophone Acoustics  site? "
> > > >
> > > > I have not done an exhaustive search yet.  Fletcher touched on
it somewhere, as have a few others.  Nederveen explains the reed closure
period and resultant acoustical power differences compared to
cylindrical instruments.  It is what Dalmont calls the "anti-formant"
and if the
> > >  mouthpiece/constric tion frs were correct, would be found at the
neck opening, where the bore starts to expand, I would say.
> > > >
> > > > I have gone over with Toby without resolution, the idea that it
is exactly this resonance that Benade refers to when discussing the frs
of the substitution - ( paraphrased) the body will see  a something that
acoustically resembles the missing cone.  There will be a pressure node
(the
> > >  mouthpiece/constric tion resonance's displacement anti-node) at
or slightly inside the mouthpiece shank (he actually refers to an oboe
staple) for played tones above frs, and moving slightly inside the neck
(oboe body) for played tones below frs.  Though Dalmont states that the
anti-formant
> >  freq.
> > >  exists independent of the note played, Benade states that the mc
resonance disp, anti-node affects played resonances with nodes in it's
area.  I surmise that the reverse is also true to some extent, which
would explain the nodes movement from just inside the shank to just
inside the neck.
> > > >
> > > > I have not done a thorough search of the UNSW site.
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

I'm curious if you found as I did that when the insert was placed in the shank of the mouthpiece that the pitch went sharp by the same amount as if the mouthpiece were pushed onto the neck displacing the same amount of volume?

Did the addition of the insert that removed volume inside the mouthpiece solve the problem of sharp palm key notes, or were they flat to begin with in relation to the low notes?

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "tenorman1952" <tenorman1952@...> wrote:
>
> 
> When I did experiments with a soprano sax mouthpiece, I left the baffle alone.  
> 
> I drilled from the shank end, bringing the bore almost into the window area.  
> 
> I made inserts from 1/2" Delrin rod drilled out to 5/16" diameter.  The inserts were of various lengths.
> 
> No insert used represented a large chamber.  The longest insert represented a small chamber.  Etc.
> 
> It was easy to find which insert tuned the low octave correctly AND blew the upper octave and into the palm keys in tune.
> 
> And it was easy to see the effect too large or too small chamber produced.
> 
> Paul
> 
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@> wrote:
> >
> > I would recommend using a single large chamber mouthpiece with a removable baffle insert.  This gives you two test points that are fairly repeatable and identical except for chamber volume and baffle.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ________________________________
> > From: "kymarto123@" <kymarto123@>
> > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Thu, March 11, 2010 2:27:21 AM
> > Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone--mpc volume vs length for tuning
> > 
> >   
> > OK, OK. But the point is that you can probably find two same brand, same opening mpcs that play the same frequency when they are at the same point on the neck, and whose mode relations are generally the same within a few cents. That is certainly close enough to have a control for comparison when you alter one.
> > 
> > Toby
> > 
> > MartinMods <lancelotburt@ yahoo.com> wrote: 
> >   
> > >"A good further step, to really control factors here, would be to take two identical mpcs....."
> > >
> > >That would be a cool trick.
> > > 
> > >
> >
>

"I'm curious if you found as I did that when the insert was placed in
the shank of the mouthpiece that the pitch went sharp by the same
amount as if the mouthpiece were pushed onto the neck displacing the
same amount of volume?"

Just according to this discription:

Placing 3mm insert in the throat would cause the pitch to rise due to the reduction in volume.  Removing it and pushing the neck in 3mm further, to the same point as the end of the insert, would cause the pitch to rise due to the same reduction in volume and even more do to the 3mm reduction in the length of the tube.  Right?




      

Hmmm...

I find it interesting that you go to such lengths to get around the fundamental fact that the point of the whole exercise is to get the Frs of the mpc to match that of the part of the cone that it replaces. The "neck" doesn't enter into this at all, except to provide the transition to the main body tube, and anyway the length of the neck is arbitrary, comprising a different percentage of the body tube in bass, bari, tenor and alto, and not even existing on many sops, as Lance points out.

And of course it is possible to measure Frs with at least a shorter portion of the cone: just cut off the end of a junker neck and use that instead of the whole neck. It should be pretty obvious, I would think, that the shorter the section of cone used, the more accurate would be the measurement of the mpc Frs.

To (hopefully) settle this debate, I post (yet again) the relevant section from F&R:

"While the saxophone has a single reed like the clarinet, the mouthpiece effectively truncates the conical taper of the main bore and introduces significant changes in tone color. In order that the horn modes be as nearly harmonic as possible, it is desirable that the mouthpiece mimic the acoustic behavior of the missing apex of the cone. This can be done at two frequencies, and then fits reasonably well over the whole range, At low frequencies, the matching is achieved if the internal volume of the mouthpiece is equal to that of the missing conical apex, which requires that the mouthpiece have a slightly bulbous internal shape so that it actually constitutes a sort of Helmholtz resonator. The high frequency match can then be achieved by arranging the shape of the constriction where it joins the main part of the instrument so that the Helmholtz resonance frequency of the mouthpiece is the same as the first resonance of the missing conical apex, at which it is half a wavelength long."

If that isn't clear I don't know what is.

Lance--note that these guys stress your point about the mpc introducing "significant changes in tone color". They go on further to say,

"This mouthpiece cavity has an important effect on the spectrum of the saxophone (Benade and Lutgen, 1988)...The cavity acts rather like the mouthcup of a brass instrument...and imparts an extra rise of 6 dB/octave below its resonance frequency and a fall of -6 dB/octave. The mouthpiece resonance frequency is typically comparable with the tonehole cutoff frequency [omega/c], so these extra slopes contribute simply to the behavior above and below [omega/c], which is typically about 850 Hz for an alto saxophone..."

Toby

"Shut up and pass the peas..."
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: John 
  To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2010 2:16 AM
  Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone


    
  There are some underlying truths that In my opinion trump all of the esoteric theoretical ideas being put forth by both you and Lance.

  They are:

  1.  It is impossible to accurately measure the played frequency* of the used volume of the mouthpiece plus a narrow ring to mimic the opening of the neck.  (If anyone disagrees with this statement---the burden is upon them to prove it can be done.  No other argument can have  any merit whatsoever.)

  2.  The mouthpiece always functions as a part of the the truncated conical tube we call a saxophone.  Therefore, the acoustical behavior of the sound wave generated by the interior workings of the mouthpiece as it interacts with the tube that follows it has far more significance that that of the mouthpiece as a separate unit by itself.

  3.  Benade's use of the cavity + constriction (meaning the entire staple, bocal, neck) in his missing cone requirements:



    a.  Was clearly intended to show the similar acoustical properties shared by all conical woodwinds.  (You cannot under any circumstances measure the frequency of an oboe reed  apart from its staple).

    b.  Was the most realistic, pragmatic, practical,  and I believe most accurate under real playing conditions---way to define the frequency requirement of the missing cone.  By adding the saxophone neck to the missing cone you are simply moving the point of truncation.  This changes none of the relationships that are found in the "real world" playing of the instrument.


  *  To refer to the natural frequency of the mouthpiece alone as Frs is a misnomer.  Benade coined this term to refer to the 
  Frequency of the oboe reed added to its staple".  He writes on FMA p. 469:


    " The reed cavity plus the constricted passageway through the staple (or the reed plus bocal in the bassoon, or the mouthpiece plus neck in the saxophone) must therefore be arranged to imitate the acoustical properties of the missing part of the cone."


  He then goes on to describe that the imitation has two (related) parts.  1. That the volume of the missing cone must be matched by its substitution.  2.  That the played frequency of the substitution must equal the calculated frequency of the actual missing cone added to the constricted passageway using the formula:   F = C/2 Xo


  --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
  >
  > John,
  > 
  > The problem, if problem it is, is that the more of the cone you include, the less any deviation caused by the perturbation at the end of the tube (the mpc) is going to show up. Apparently, things start getting nasty when the truncation is equal to or larger than 1/4 wavelength. Smaller than this
  > and the tube compared to truncation is enough so that the wavelength doesn't "mind" the perturbation too much. The cone looks complete to a long wavelength and so the frequency is not much disturbed. 
  > 
  > However as you go up the scale and the wavelengths become shorter, there starts to be more and more effect from the fact that the mpc is not actually the missing conic apex, but is just a pretender. This is true whether the wavelength is short because the tube is short, or because you are playing
  > the a higher mode of a long tube.
  > 
  > I believe that Lance is correct. The limiting case for the Frs, and the one that gives the most accurate picture of how closely the resonance of the mpc matches the resonance of the missing apex, is one in which only the mpc is measured. BUT, you have to set up the correct conditions for how the
  > mpc is seen by the cone, and this means that the mpc has to be terminated at the point where it meets the neck in real life, and with the entrance diameter of the neck.
  > 
  > If we had a system like the clarinet, life would be easier, since in that case the end of the mpc is the point where it joins the body and the exit diameter of the mpc is (for all intents and purposes) the entrance diameter of the body. So if we wish to get the Frs of a clainet mpc it can be
  > measured by itself.
  > 
  > As Lance points out, doing this for sax is impractical, since it would mean cutting off the mpc at the point where the neck reaches in the shank, and adding a very thin insert to mimic the neck opening diameter.
  > 
  > Actually, it should be possible to mathematically correct for the blown frequency of a mpc--lowering the pitch a given amount for the length and diameter of the extra part of the shank, plus lowering again for the smaller diameter of the neck opening. We could probably find the formulae to do this.
  > 
  > But obviously Benade finds this overkill, and thinks that the extra length of the neck is not enough to throw things off too much for the playing frequencies of the sax.
  > 
  > Remember that we are only trying to correct for frequencies in the upper 2nd octave and plams: the best we can possibly do is to mimic the volume (which makes the mode relationships in most of the first two octaves OK), and add a second correction for this Frs, which pulls the second peak into
  > alignment for the top of the second octave and palms. Beyond this we have to count on mode locking to pull errant third, fourth, fifth...n partials into line. 
  > 
  > That's how I understand it.
  > 
  > Toby
  > 
  > John jtalcott47@... wrote: Toby,
  > 
  > You use the word "normalizing" like it is a bad thing. 
  > 
  > Isn't it more accurate to evaluate the mouthpiece's substitution of the missing cone in terms of its interaction with a part of the body of the instrument? There is no "real world" parallel to playing the mouthpiece unattached to a longer tube. Plus playing on the mouthpiece alone is far more
  > unstable than playing it on the neck. On the mouthpiece alone, the pitch can be just about anywhere you want it to be. Just think how it would be with 20 mm cut off the end of the shank! How in the world would you ever find the resonant frequency of such a small short tube just by playing it? 
  > I know that I couldn't do it. Give me an oboe reed on a staple, a bassoon reed on a bocal, or a sax mouthpiece on a neck and I have a chance.
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, kymarto123@ wrote:
  > >
  > > The mpc substitutes for the missing conic apex. We want it to resemble as closely as possible that missing apex, so that the timing of the wavefronts is preserved as it would be in the real apex. 
  > > 
  > > The Frs is simply the resonant frequency of the substitution and whatever length of cone is attached to it: that should match the resonant frequency of the complete missing apex to the same diameter of the cone as we are measuring. Frs is not the resonant frequency of the substitution; it is the
  > > resonant frequency of the substitution/constriction combination, and practically that always includes some length of the body cone. For example, the Frs of a complete tenor sax is C3. This includes the substitution and all of the cone. Because the tube is long and its resonance predominates,
  > this
  > > is not very helpful in finding out how well we are doing in substituting the truncated part of the cone. The purest measure of that, as Lance points out, would be to have the mpc cut to the point where the neck begins and have the mpc sitting on an infinitely thin plane centered on an opening
  > the
  > > diameter of the end of the neck. 
  > > 
  > > As soon as we start adding cone length, we get more and more "normalizing" effect from the cone itself, and therefore a less and less accurate picture of what happens in the higher frequencies, where shorter and shorter wavelengths are more affected by irregularities in the substitution (because
  > > that length becomes a larger and larger fraction of their total wavelength).
  > > 
  > > Benade has indeed taken the easy road in specifying a convenient"end" to the constriction, but this adds a fairly large "normalizing" factor, in the shape of the neck cone (or oboe reed staple). On sax, it would be much more accurate to use the new Warburton neck system and just use the
  > attachable
  > > neck end to measure Frs while it is inserted to the correct point in a mpc. This would add only an extremely short length of cone to the mix. Apparently Benade felt that measuring Frs to the end of the neck was good enough, and indeed other factors such as embouchure and reed characteristics and
  > > temperature and facings (and vocal tract configuration) probably make that about as accurate as it can be before those other factors have too large an effect and overwhelm finer measurements of the necessary volume.
  > > 
  > > Toby
  > > 
  > > MartinMods lancelotburt@ wrote: 
  > > John,
  > > 
  > > Thanks very much for your explanation. I understand exactly what you mean - crystal, only I do not agree, bear with me and I'll explain why.
  > > 
  > > 1. Benade's diagram and description of a conical instrument's parts, which we all are familiar with - a truncated tube, and the substitution for the truncation - a cavity and a constriction. This is perfectly clear and universally applicable.
  > > 
  > > 2. The existence of a one-piece, straight sided, soprano saxophone, which according to Nederveen, would be an acoustically superior saxophone design, were only the truncation ratio reduced somewhat. With a cross-sectional view of it's bore, fitted with an Otto Link STM mouthpiece, .we can
  > > clearly see each section Benade described in # 1. - the cavity of the Link mouthpiece, the constriction of the mouthpiece's bore caused by the smaller opening of the body's bore. (the fact that it has no measurable length is unimportant. Play your mouthpiece alone, and then constrict the
  > opening
  > > by covering 1/4 of it with a sheet of paper. The pitch will drop noticeably, even though the paper is very, very thin. The length of the constriction is unimportant. Only the diameter is important.), and finally, the truncated, one-piece, straight sided body. The meaning of anything Benade
  > > ever wrote about the saxophone is easily understood by applying it to this essential model. Some statements require qualification, but are easy to understand when we remember that he sometimes addressed acoustical issues with mechanical convenience in mind, rather than complete acoustical
  > > accuracy, but all of his statements apply to this model, as they must.
  > > 
  > > 3. In order to clarify Benade's nebulous statements, I emailed Dr. Joe Wolfe, and asked him to explain, just what constituted the substitution for the missing cone, the mouthpiece volume, or the mouthpiece volume + the neck volume. His reply was, mouthpiece + reed compliance. OK. That is
  > > substantiated by #1 and #2. So, without question, the neck is not part of the substitution. The neck is body volume and body length, for those horns with removable necks, regardless of taper.
  > > 
  > > 4. Frs is the playing frequency of the substitution, the mouthpiece + it's constriction. That's OK by #1, #2, and #3, only it's impossible to measure without ruining the mouthpiece and we need the neck opening diameter reduction for our constriction. So Benade made his sematic and acoustic
  > > compromise, and told us to measure frs with the complete neck. It is an approximation of the real frs, but it works, provided the neck is of the correct design.
  > > 
  > > 5. I don't wish to compare saxophones with oboes or bassoons. There is no need. First, the model in #2 encompasses every essential aspect of the saxophone, and second, as Benade wrote, not every aspect of the oboe is applicable to the saxophone.
  > > 
  > > 
  > > 
  > > 
  > > 
  > > 
  > > 
  > > 
  > > 
  > > 
  > > 
  > > By your comments in this post, I'm beginning to understand more clearly your misinterpretation of Benade's Frs statements. Please bear with me. On page 470 FMA Benade writes:
  > > 
  > > 
  > > "We can continue our search for a useful imitation of the missing part of the cone by trying the effect of matching Frs for the reed system to the first-mode natural frequency of the cone apex itself. In the general frequency neighborhood of Frs the oboe will then "see" an object at its upper
  > end
  > > whose acoustical behavior is quite similar to that of the missing apical cone."
  > > 
  > > "In particular, there will be a pressure node in the neighborhood of the junction of the main bore with the reed staple, lying a little inside the staple at frequencies somewhat above Frs and moving down below the junction at oboe playing frequencies below Frs---behavior that is identical with
  > > that found in an ideal cone."
  > > 
  > > The junction of the main bore (of the oboe) with the reed staple is at the bottom of the staple the reed is attached to---not the top. Therefore the pressure node of the frequencies just above Frs (the frequency of the reed combined with its staple) will still be just inside the cork end of the
  > > staple. The frequencies just below Frs will go just beyond that down into the body of the oboe itself. 
  > > 
  > > The counterpart in an alto sax is the frequency produced by the mouthpiece and neck apart from the body of the saxophone which is very close to Ab concert (written F). The pressure node of the frequency just above that pitch, F# for example, when played on the complete sax will be found just
  > up
  > > inside the neck tenon. The pressure node of the frequency just below that pitch, an E natural will be slightly past the bottom of the neck receiver into the body of the sax. 
  > > 
  > > This Ab concert would be the note sounded if the cone to its apex added to the complete neck could produce its resonant frequency. When the mouthpiece substitutes for the missing cone by matching its volume, the mouthpiece plus the complete neck produces this frequency. When the Frs - frequency
  > > of the reed on its staple or frequency of the sax mouthpiece on its neck is the same as the pitch that would be produced by the missing cone, if it could---the body of the instrument is "fooled" into thinking the cone is complete and behaves accordingly. This is exactly the effect Benade
  > > describes in all of his writings on this topic. On this point he is very clear.
  > > 
  > > Benade also uses the term "constricted tube" to describe the staple, bocal, and sax neck as well as the term "constriction" . There is also a "point of constriction" at the opening of each of these that as you know has a strong effect upon the production of the soundwave inside the mouthpiece. 
  > > But when Benade uses the term "cavity plus constriction", he is clearly referring to the mouthpiece and the entire neck.
  > > 
  > > I hope this helps to clarify these topics in our discussions, in order to move forward instead of just going around in the same circles and getting nowhere.
  > > 
  > > John
  > > 
  > > 
  > > 
  > > 
  > > 
  > > 
  > > --- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ ...> wrote:
  > > >
  > > > "Can you cite a source for more
  > > > information about the "hole in the saxophone spectrum" that is created
  > > > inside the mouthpiece. Is this what Dalmont calls the "anti-formant"
  > > > Do you know if this "hole in the spectrum" can actually be identified
  > > > in any of graphs of the saxophone sound spectrum at the UNSW Saxophone Acoustics site? "
  > > > 
  > > > I have not done an exhaustive search yet. Fletcher touched on it somewhere, as have a few others. Nederveen explains the reed closure period and resultant acoustical power differences compared to cylindrical instruments. It is what Dalmont calls the "anti-formant" and if the
  > > mouthpiece/constric tion frs were correct, would be found at the neck opening, where the bore starts to expand, I would say. 
  > > > 
  > > > I have gone over with Toby without resolution, the idea that it is exactly this resonance that Benade refers to when discussing the frs of the substitution - ( paraphrased) the body will see a something that acoustically resembles the missing cone. There will be a pressure node (the
  > > mouthpiece/constric tion resonance's displacement anti-node) at or slightly inside the mouthpiece shank (he actually refers to an oboe staple) for played tones above frs, and moving slightly inside the neck (oboe body) for played tones below frs. Though Dalmont states that the anti-formant
  > freq.
  > > exists independent of the note played, Benade states that the mc resonance disp, anti-node affects played resonances with nodes in it's area. I surmise that the reverse is also true to some extent, which would explain the nodes movement from just inside the shank to just inside the neck.
  > > > 
  > > > I have not done a thorough search of the UNSW site.
  > > >
  > >
  >


  

"
Lance--note that these guys stress your point about 
the mpc introducing "significant changes in tone color". They go on further to 
say,
 
"This mouthpiece cavity has an important effect on 
the spectrum of the saxophone (Benade and Lutgen, 1988)...The cavity acts rather 
like the mouthcup of a brass instrument.. .and imparts an extra rise of 6 
dB/octave below its resonance frequency and a fall of -6 dB/octave. The 
mouthpiece resonance frequency is typically comparable with the tonehole cutoff 
frequency [omega/c], so these extra slopes contribute simply to the behavior 
above and below [omega/c], which is typically about 850 Hz for an alto 
saxophone... ""

Toby,  Who might those guys be exactly?

thanks



--- On Sat, 3/13/10, Toby <kymarto123@...> wrote:

From: Toby <kymarto123@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, March 13, 2010, 12:49 AM







 



  


    
      
      
      


Hmmm...
 
I find it interesting that you go to such lengths 
to get around the fundamental fact that the point of the whole exercise is to 
get the Frs of the mpc to match that of the part of the cone that it replaces. 
The "neck" doesn't enter into this at all, except to provide the transition to 
the main body tube, and anyway the length of the neck is arbitrary, comprising a 
different percentage of the body tube in bass, bari, tenor and alto, and not 
even existing on many sops, as Lance points out.
 
And of course it is possible to measure Frs with at 
least a shorter portion of the cone: just cut off the end of a junker neck and 
use that instead of the whole neck. It should be pretty obvious, I would think, 
that the shorter the section of cone used, the more accurate would be the 
measurement of the mpc Frs.
 
To (hopefully) settle this debate, I post (yet 
again) the relevant section from F&R:
 
"While the saxophone has a single reed like the 
clarinet, the mouthpiece effectively truncates the conical taper of the main 
bore and introduces significant changes in tone color. In order that the horn 
modes be as nearly harmonic as possible, it is desirable that the mouthpiece 
mimic the acoustic behavior of the missing apex of the cone. This can be done at 
two frequencies, and then fits reasonably well over the whole range, At low 
frequencies, the matching is achieved if the internal volume of the mouthpiece 
is equal to that of the missing conical apex, which requires that the mouthpiece 
have a slightly bulbous internal shape so that it actually constitutes a sort of 
Helmholtz resonator. The high frequency match can then be achieved by arranging 
the shape of the constriction where it joins the main part of the 
instrument so that the Helmholtz resonance frequency of the 
mouthpiece is the same as the first resonance of the missing conical 
apex, at which it is half a wavelength long."
 
If that isn't clear I don't know what 
is.
 
Lance--note that these guys stress your point about 
the mpc introducing "significant changes in tone color". They go on further to 
say,
 
"This mouthpiece cavity has an important effect on 
the spectrum of the saxophone (Benade and Lutgen, 1988)...The cavity acts rather 
like the mouthcup of a brass instrument.. .and imparts an extra rise of 6 
dB/octave below its resonance frequency and a fall of -6 dB/octave. The 
mouthpiece resonance frequency is typically comparable with the tonehole cutoff 
frequency [omega/c], so these extra slopes contribute simply to the behavior 
above and below [omega/c], which is typically about 850 Hz for an alto 
saxophone... "
 
Toby
 
"Shut up and pass the peas..."

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: 
  John 
  To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com 
  
  Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2010 2:16 
  AM
  Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive 
  Missing Cone
  
  
  
  There are some underlying truths that In my opinion trump all of the 
  esoteric theoretical ideas being put forth by both you and Lance.

They 
  are:

1.  It is impossible to accurately measure the played 
  frequency* of the used volume of the mouthpiece plus a narrow ring to mimic 
  the opening of the neck.  (If anyone disagrees with this 
  statement--- the burden is upon them to prove it can be done.  No 
  other argument can have  any merit whatsoever.)

2.  The 
  mouthpiece always functions as a part of the the truncated conical tube we 
  call a saxophone.  Therefore, the acoustical behavior of the sound wave 
  generated by the interior workings of the mouthpiece as it interacts with the 
  tube that follows it has far more significance that that of the mouthpiece as 
  a separate unit by itself.

3.  Benade's use of the cavity + 
  constriction (meaning the entire staple, bocal, neck) in his missing cone 
  requirements:


  a.  Was clearly intended to show the similar acoustical 
    properties shared by all conical woodwinds.  (You cannot under any 
    circumstances measure the frequency of an oboe reed  apart from its 
    staple).

b.  Was the most realistic, pragmatic, practical,  
    and I believe most accurate under real playing conditions-- -way to 
    define the frequency requirement of the missing cone.  By adding the 
    saxophone neck to the missing cone you are simply moving the point of 
    truncation.  This changes none of the relationships that are found in 
    the "real world" playing of the instrument.

*  To 
  refer to the natural frequency of the mouthpiece alone as Frs is a 
  misnomer.  Benade coined this term to refer to the 
Frequency 
  of the oboe reed added to its staple".  He writes on FMA p. 
  469:


  " The reed cavity plus the constricted passageway through the 
    staple (or the reed plus bocal in the bassoon, or the mouthpiece plus neck 
    in the saxophone) must therefore be arranged to imitate the acoustical 
    properties of the missing part of the cone."

He then 
  goes on to describe that the imitation has two (related) parts.  1. That 
  the volume of the missing cone must be matched by its substitution.  
  2.  That the played frequency of the substitution must equal the 
  calculated frequency of the actual missing cone added to the constricted 
  passageway using the formula:   F = C/2 Xo


--- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, 
  <kymarto123@. ..> wrote:
>
> John,
> 
> The 
  problem, if problem it is, is that the more of the cone you include, the less 
  any deviation caused by the perturbation at the end of the tube (the mpc) is 
  going to show up. Apparently, things start getting nasty when the truncation 
  is equal to or larger than 1/4 wavelength. Smaller than this
> and the 
  tube compared to truncation is enough so that the wavelength doesn't "mind" 
  the perturbation too much. The cone looks complete to a long wavelength and so 
  the frequency is not much disturbed. 
> 
> However as you go up 
  the scale and the wavelengths become shorter, there starts to be more and more 
  effect from the fact that the mpc is not actually the missing conic apex, but 
  is just a pretender. This is true whether the wavelength is short because the 
  tube is short, or because you are playing
> the a higher mode of a long 
  tube.
> 
> I believe that Lance is correct. The limiting case for 
  the Frs, and the one that gives the most accurate picture of how closely the 
  resonance of the mpc matches the resonance of the missing apex, is one in 
  which only the mpc is measured. BUT, you have to set up the correct conditions 
  for how the
> mpc is seen by the cone, and this means that the mpc has 
  to be terminated at the point where it meets the neck in real life, and with 
  the entrance diameter of the neck.
> 
> If we had a system like 
  the clarinet, life would be easier, since in that case the end of the mpc is 
  the point where it joins the body and the exit diameter of the mpc is (for all 
  intents and purposes) the entrance diameter of the body. So if we wish to get 
  the Frs of a clainet mpc it can be
> measured by itself.
> 
  
> As Lance points out, doing this for sax is impractical, since it 
  would mean cutting off the mpc at the point where the neck reaches in the 
  shank, and adding a very thin insert to mimic the neck opening 
  diameter.
> 
> Actually, it should be possible to mathematically 
  correct for the blown frequency of a mpc--lowering the pitch a given amount 
  for the length and diameter of the extra part of the shank, plus lowering 
  again for the smaller diameter of the neck opening. We could probably find the 
  formulae to do this.
> 
> But obviously Benade finds this 
  overkill, and thinks that the extra length of the neck is not enough to throw 
  things off too much for the playing frequencies of the sax.
> 
> 
  Remember that we are only trying to correct for frequencies in the upper 2nd 
  octave and plams: the best we can possibly do is to mimic the volume (which 
  makes the mode relationships in most of the first two octaves OK), and add a 
  second correction for this Frs, which pulls the second peak into
> 
  alignment for the top of the second octave and palms. Beyond this we have to 
  count on mode locking to pull errant third, fourth, fifth...n partials into 
  line. 
> 
> That's how I understand it.
> 
> 
  Toby
> 
> John jtalcott47@. .. wrote: Toby,
> 
> 
  You use the word "normalizing" like it is a bad thing. 
> 
> Isn't 
  it more accurate to evaluate the mouthpiece's substitution of the missing cone 
  in terms of its interaction with a part of the body of the instrument? There 
  is no "real world" parallel to playing the mouthpiece unattached to a longer 
  tube. Plus playing on the mouthpiece alone is far more
> unstable than 
  playing it on the neck. On the mouthpiece alone, the pitch can be just about 
  anywhere you want it to be. Just think how it would be with 20 mm cut off the 
  end of the shank! How in the world would you ever find the resonant frequency 
  of such a small short tube just by playing it? 
> I know that I couldn't 
  do it. Give me an oboe reed on a staple, a bassoon reed on a bocal, or a sax 
  mouthpiece on a neck and I have a chance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
  --- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, kymarto123@ wrote:
> 
  >
> > The mpc substitutes for the missing conic apex. We want it 
  to resemble as closely as possible that missing apex, so that the timing of 
  the wavefronts is preserved as it would be in the real apex. 
> > 
  
> > The Frs is simply the resonant frequency of the substitution and 
  whatever length of cone is attached to it: that should match the resonant 
  frequency of the complete missing apex to the same diameter of the cone as we 
  are measuring. Frs is not the resonant frequency of the substitution; it is 
  the
> > resonant frequency of the substitution/ constriction 
  combination, and practically that always includes some length of the body 
  cone. For example, the Frs of a complete tenor sax is C3. This includes the 
  substitution and all of the cone. Because the tube is long and its resonance 
  predominates,
> this
> > is not very helpful in finding out how 
  well we are doing in substituting the truncated part of the cone. The purest 
  measure of that, as Lance points out, would be to have the mpc cut to the 
  point where the neck begins and have the mpc sitting on an infinitely thin 
  plane centered on an opening
> the
> > diameter of the end of 
  the neck. 
> > 
> > As soon as we start adding cone length, 
  we get more and more "normalizing" effect from the cone itself, and therefore 
  a less and less accurate picture of what happens in the higher frequencies, 
  where shorter and shorter wavelengths are more affected by irregularities in 
  the substitution (because
> > that length becomes a larger and larger 
  fraction of their total wavelength).
> > 
> > Benade has 
  indeed taken the easy road in specifying a convenient"end" to the 
  constriction, but this adds a fairly large "normalizing" factor, in the shape 
  of the neck cone (or oboe reed staple). On sax, it would be much more accurate 
  to use the new Warburton neck system and just use the
> 
  attachable
> > neck end to measure Frs while it is inserted to the 
  correct point in a mpc. This would add only an extremely short length of cone 
  to the mix. Apparently Benade felt that measuring Frs to the end of the neck 
  was good enough, and indeed other factors such as embouchure and reed 
  characteristics and
> > temperature and facings (and vocal tract 
  configuration) probably make that about as accurate as it can be before those 
  other factors have too large an effect and overwhelm finer measurements of the 
  necessary volume.
> > 
> > Toby
> > 
> > 
  MartinMods lancelotburt@ wrote: 
> > John,
> > 
> > 
  Thanks very much for your explanation. I understand exactly what you mean - 
  crystal, only I do not agree, bear with me and I'll explain why.
> > 
  
> > 1. Benade's diagram and description of a conical instrument's 
  parts, which we all are familiar with - a truncated tube, and the substitution 
  for the truncation - a cavity and a constriction. This is perfectly clear and 
  universally applicable.
> > 
> > 2. The existence of a 
  one-piece, straight sided, soprano saxophone, which according to Nederveen, 
  would be an acoustically superior saxophone design, were only the truncation 
  ratio reduced somewhat. With a cross-sectional view of it's bore, fitted with 
  an Otto Link STM mouthpiece, .we can
> > clearly see each section 
  Benade described in # 1. - the cavity of the Link mouthpiece, the constriction 
  of the mouthpiece's bore caused by the smaller opening of the body's bore. 
  (the fact that it has no measurable length is unimportant. Play your 
  mouthpiece alone, and then constrict the
> opening
> > by 
  covering 1/4 of it with a sheet of paper. The pitch will drop noticeably, even 
  though the paper is very, very thin. The length of the constriction is 
  unimportant. Only the diameter is important.), and finally, the truncated, 
  one-piece, straight sided body. The meaning of anything Benade
> > 
  ever wrote about the saxophone is easily understood by applying it to this 
  essential model. Some statements require qualification, but are easy to 
  understand when we remember that he sometimes addressed acoustical issues with 
  mechanical convenience in mind, rather than complete acoustical
> > 
  accuracy, but all of his statements apply to this model, as they must.
> 
  > 
> > 3. In order to clarify Benade's nebulous statements, I 
  emailed Dr. Joe Wolfe, and asked him to explain, just what constituted the 
  substitution for the missing cone, the mouthpiece volume, or the mouthpiece 
  volume + the neck volume. His reply was, mouthpiece + reed compliance. OK. 
  That is
> > substantiated by #1 and #2. So, without question, the 
  neck is not part of the substitution. The neck is body volume and body length, 
  for those horns with removable necks, regardless of taper.
> > 
  
> > 4. Frs is the playing frequency of the substitution, the 
  mouthpiece + it's constriction. That's OK by #1, #2, and #3, only it's 
  impossible to measure without ruining the mouthpiece and we need the neck 
  opening diameter reduction for our constriction. So Benade made his sematic 
  and acoustic
> > compromise, and told us to measure frs with the 
  complete neck. It is an approximation of the real frs, but it works, provided 
  the neck is of the correct design.
> > 
> > 5. I don't wish 
  to compare saxophones with oboes or bassoons. There is no need. First, the 
  model in #2 encompasses every essential aspect of the saxophone, and second, 
  as Benade wrote, not every aspect of the oboe is applicable to the 
  saxophone.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
  > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
  
> > 
> > By your comments in this post, I'm beginning to 
  understand more clearly your misinterpretation of Benade's Frs statements. 
  Please bear with me. On page 470 FMA Benade writes:
> > 
> > 
  
> > "We can continue our search for a useful imitation of the 
  missing part of the cone by trying the effect of matching Frs for the reed 
  system to the first-mode natural frequency of the cone apex itself. In the 
  general frequency neighborhood of Frs the oboe will then "see" an object at 
  its upper
> end
> > whose acoustical behavior is quite similar 
  to that of the missing apical cone."
> > 
> > "In 
  particular, there will be a pressure node in the neighborhood of the junction 
  of the main bore with the reed staple, lying a little inside the staple at 
  frequencies somewhat above Frs and moving down below the junction at oboe 
  playing frequencies below Frs---behavior that is identical with
> > 
  that found in an ideal cone."
> > 
> > The junction of the 
  main bore (of the oboe) with the reed staple is at the bottom of the staple 
  the reed is attached to---not the top. Therefore the pressure node of the 
  frequencies just above Frs (the frequency of the reed combined with its 
  staple) will still be just inside the cork end of the
> > staple. The 
  frequencies just below Frs will go just beyond that down into the body of the 
  oboe itself. 
> > 
> > The counterpart in an alto sax is the 
  frequency produced by the mouthpiece and neck apart from the body of the 
  saxophone which is very close to Ab concert (written F). The pressure node of 
  the frequency just above that pitch, F# for example, when played on the 
  complete sax will be found just
> up
> > inside the neck tenon. 
  The pressure node of the frequency just below that pitch, an E natural will be 
  slightly past the bottom of the neck receiver into the body of the sax. 
  
> > 
> > This Ab concert would be the note sounded if the 
  cone to its apex added to the complete neck could produce its resonant 
  frequency. When the mouthpiece substitutes for the missing cone by matching 
  its volume, the mouthpiece plus the complete neck produces this frequency. 
  When the Frs - frequency
> > of the reed on its staple or frequency 
  of the sax mouthpiece on its neck is the same as the pitch that would be 
  produced by the missing cone, if it could---the body of the instrument is 
  "fooled" into thinking the cone is complete and behaves accordingly. This is 
  exactly the effect Benade
> > describes in all of his writings on 
  this topic. On this point he is very clear.
> > 
> > Benade 
  also uses the term "constricted tube" to describe the staple, bocal, and sax 
  neck as well as the term "constriction" . There is also a "point of 
  constriction" at the opening of each of these that as you know has a strong 
  effect upon the production of the soundwave inside the mouthpiece. 
> 
  > But when Benade uses the term "cavity plus constriction" , he is 
  clearly referring to the mouthpiece and the entire neck.
> > 
> 
  > I hope this helps to clarify these topics in our discussions, in order to 
  move forward instead of just going around in the same circles and getting 
  nowhere.
> > 
> > John
> > 
> > 
> 
  > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- In 
  MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ ...> 
  wrote:
> > >
> > > "Can you cite a source for 
  more
> > > information about the "hole in the saxophone spectrum" 
  that is created
> > > inside the mouthpiece. Is this what Dalmont 
  calls the "anti-formant"
> > > Do you know if this "hole in the 
  spectrum" can actually be identified
> > > in any of graphs of the 
  saxophone sound spectrum at the UNSW Saxophone Acoustics site? "
> > 
  > 
> > > I have not done an exhaustive search yet. Fletcher 
  touched on it somewhere, as have a few others. Nederveen explains the reed 
  closure period and resultant acoustical power differences compared to 
  cylindrical instruments. It is what Dalmont calls the "anti-formant" and if 
  the
> > mouthpiece/constric tion frs were correct, would be found at 
  the neck opening, where the bore starts to expand, I would say. 
> > 
  > 
> > > I have gone over with Toby without resolution, the 
  idea that it is exactly this resonance that Benade refers to when discussing 
  the frs of the substitution - ( paraphrased) the body will see a something 
  that acoustically resembles the missing cone. There will be a pressure node 
  (the
> > mouthpiece/constric tion resonance's displacement anti-node) 
  at or slightly inside the mouthpiece shank (he actually refers to an oboe 
  staple) for played tones above frs, and moving slightly inside the neck (oboe 
  body) for played tones below frs. Though Dalmont states that the 
  anti-formant
> freq.
> > exists independent of the note played, 
  Benade states that the mc resonance disp, anti-node affects played resonances 
  with nodes in it's area. I surmise that the reverse is also true to some 
  extent, which would explain the nodes movement from just inside the shank to 
  just inside the neck.
> > > 
> > > I have not done a 
  thorough search of the UNSW site.
> > >
> >
>

  


    
     

    
    


 



  






      

Yes, this is a very interesting question, because it would
seem to suggest that to get intermode tuning correct when
the upper register is sharp, we should actually reduce the
chamber volume and pull the mpc further off the cork, but
this was not my experience empirically, unless I am
totally fooling myself.

For example, I did some (unfortunately not-too-rigorous)
tests with this Beechler alto piece and a Vandoren A35.
The Beechler to play G4 in tune, has a total length from
neck end to reed tip of ~66 mm. The Vandoren slots in at
~61 mm. And yet the Beechler plays much sharper in the
second register than the Vandoren, by about 15 cents. Huh?

The tip openings are about the same, but they blow much
differently, and so this may have something to do with
embouchure pressure. I can't really keep all the variables
straight.

But consider this: If the second mode is sharp, we can
keep pulling the mpc off the cork until the volume is
correct and the modes are in line (as larger volume
narrows the mode relationships). However at this point the
whole shebang is flat. So now we ream out the chamber so
that it goes flat at the same position. This will narrow
the modes again, making the second mode even flatter than
the first. Now we push the mpc on the cork. The first mode
rises, the second mode rises even faster (as reducing
volume widens the modes). When the two modes are again in
alignment at concert tuning you win the game.

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

> "I'm curious if you found as I did that when the
> insert was placed in
> the shank of the mouthpiece that the pitch went
> sharp by the same
> amount as if the mouthpiece were pushed onto the
> neck displacing the
> same amount of volume?"
> 
> Just according to this discription:
> 
> Placing 3mm insert in the throat would cause the
> pitch to rise due to the reduction in volume. 
> Removing it and pushing the neck in 3mm further, to
> the same point as the end of the insert, would cause
> the pitch to rise due to the same reduction in
> volume and even more do to the 3mm reduction in the
> length of the tube.  Right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
>       

Oh sorry, Fletcher and Rossing in "The Physics of Musical
Instruments". It would be interesting to locate the Benade
and Lutgen paper, for sure.

Toby

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

> "
> Lance--note that these guys stress your point about 
> the mpc introducing "significant changes in tone
> color". They go on further to 
> say,
> �
> "This mouthpiece cavity has an important effect on 
> the spectrum of the saxophone (Benade and Lutgen,
> 1988)...The cavity acts rather 
> like the mouthcup of a brass instrument.. .and
> imparts an extra rise of 6 
> dB/octave below its resonance frequency and a fall
> of -6 dB/octave. The 
> mouthpiece resonance frequency is typically
> comparable with the tonehole cutoff 
> frequency [omega/c], so these extra slopes
> contribute simply to the behavior 
> above and below [omega/c], which is typically about
> 850 Hz for an alto 
> saxophone... ""
> 
> Toby,� Who might those guys be exactly?
> 
> thanks
> 
> 
> 
> --- On Sat, 3/13/10, Toby <kymarto123@...>
> wrote:
> 
> From: Toby <kymarto123@...>
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive
> Missing Cone
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Saturday, March 13, 2010, 12:49 AM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> �
> 
> 
> 
>   
> 
> 
>     
>       
>       
>       
> 
> 
> Hmmm...
> �
> I find it interesting that you go to such lengths 
> to get around the fundamental fact that the point of
> the whole exercise is to 
> get the Frs of the mpc to match that of the part of
> the cone that it replaces. 
> The "neck" doesn't enter into this at all, except to
> provide the transition to 
> the main body tube, and anyway the length of the
> neck is arbitrary, comprising a 
> different percentage of the body tube in bass, bari,
> tenor and alto, and not 
> even existing on many sops, as Lance points out.
> �
> And of course it is possible to measure Frs with at 
> least a shorter portion of the cone: just cut off
> the end of a junker neck and 
> use that instead of the whole neck. It should be
> pretty obvious, I would think, 
> that the shorter the section of cone used, the more
> accurate would be the 
> measurement of the mpc Frs.
> �
> To (hopefully) settle this debate, I post (yet 
> again) the relevant section from F&R:
> �
> "While the saxophone has a single reed like the 
> clarinet, the mouthpiece effectively truncates the
> conical taper of the main 
> bore and introduces significant changes in tone
> color. In order that the horn 
> modes be as nearly harmonic as possible, it is
> desirable that the mouthpiece 
> mimic the acoustic behavior of the missing apex of
> the cone. This can be done at 
> two frequencies, and then fits reasonably well over
> the whole range, At low 
> frequencies, the matching is achieved if the
> internal volume of the mouthpiece 
> is equal to that of the missing conical apex, which
> requires that the mouthpiece 
> have a slightly bulbous internal shape so that it
> actually constitutes a sort of 
> Helmholtz resonator. The high frequency match can
> then be achieved by arranging 
> the shape of the constriction where it joins the
> main part of the 
> instrument�so that the Helmholtz resonance
> frequency of the 
> mouthpiece is the same as the first resonance of the
> missing conical 
> apex, at which it is half a wavelength long."
> �
> If that isn't clear I don't know what 
> is.
> �
> Lance--note that these guys stress your point about 
> the mpc introducing "significant changes in tone
> color". They go on further to 
> say,
> �
> "This mouthpiece cavity has an important effect on 
> the spectrum of the saxophone (Benade and Lutgen,
> 1988)...The cavity acts rather 
> like the mouthcup of a brass instrument.. .and
> imparts an extra rise of 6 
> dB/octave below its resonance frequency and a fall
> of -6 dB/octave. The 
> mouthpiece resonance frequency is typically
> comparable with the tonehole cutoff 
> frequency [omega/c], so these extra slopes
> contribute simply to the behavior 
> above and below [omega/c], which is typically about
> 850 Hz for an alto 
> saxophone... "
> �
> Toby
> �
> "Shut up and pass the peas..."
> 
>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: 
>   John 
>   To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com 
>   
>   Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2010 2:16 
>   AM
>   Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive 
>   Missing Cone
>   
> � 
>   
>   There are some underlying truths that In my
> opinion trump all of the 
>   esoteric theoretical ideas being put forth by both
> you and Lance.
> 
> They 
>   are:
> 
> 1.� It is impossible to accurately measure the
> played 
>   frequency* of the used volume of the mouthpiece
> plus a narrow ring to mimic 
>   the opening of the neck.� (If anyone disagrees
> with this 
>   statement--- the burden is upon them to prove it
> can be done.� No 
>   other argument can have� any merit whatsoever.)
> 
> 2.� The 
>   mouthpiece always functions as a part of the the
> truncated conical tube we 
>   call a saxophone.� Therefore, the acoustical
> behavior of the sound wave 
>   generated by the interior workings of the
> mouthpiece as it interacts with the 
>   tube that follows it has far more significance
> that that of the mouthpiece as 
>   a separate unit by itself.
> 
> 3.� Benade's use of the cavity + 
>   constriction (meaning the entire staple, bocal,
> neck) in his missing cone 
>   requirements:
> 
> 
>   a.� Was clearly intended to show the similar
> acoustical 
>     properties shared by all conical woodwinds.�
> (You cannot under any 
>     circumstances measure the frequency of an oboe
> reed� apart from its 
>     staple).
> 
> b.� Was the most realistic, pragmatic,
practical,�
> 
>     and I believe most accurate under real playing
> conditions-- -way to 
>     define the frequency requirement of the missing
> cone.� By adding the 
>     saxophone neck to the missing cone you are
> simply moving the point of 
>     truncation.� This changes none of the
> relationships that are found in 
> 
== $B0J2<$N%a%C%;!<%8$O>JN,$5$l$^$7$?(B =

"The Saxophone Spectrum", A. Benade

The ASA - http://asa.aip.org/

has an extensive online library, including this Benade publication.   Membership ($95.00) gives one access, or non-members may purchase individual pdf copies.  This Benade paper costs $25.00.  It may be worth joining.





      

It is worth joining.  I have been a member for over 3 years.  Many of
the papers are just abstracts, but there are some full studies that
can't be found anywhere else.

In light of all of the esoteric theorizing about finding the frequency
(NOT Frs) of the missing cone that the mouthpiece is a substitution for,
I have done a visual representation of what I believe to be true.  That
is:

In theory both a cut off mouthpiece with a constricted ring at its end
and a mouthpiece at its normal position on a neck apart from a saxophone
can be used to accurately estimate the frequency of the missing cone. 
However, only one of these methods is practical and relatively easy and
effective to use.

The visual and mathematical support of this idea can be found here: 
Calculating the Frequency of the Missing Cone
<http://jbtsaxmusic.homestead.com/Calculating_missing_cone_frequency.pdf\
>

John

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
wrote:
>
> "The Saxophone Spectrum", A. Benade
>
> The ASA - http://asa.aip.org/
>
> has an extensive online library, including this Benade publication.  
Membership ($95.00) gives one access, or non-members may purchase
individual pdf copies.  This Benade paper costs $25.00.  It may be worth
joining.
>

I agree that finding the Frequency (NOT Frs) of the missing cone is the
point of the exercise.  However I believe (as does Benade) that
comparing the CALCULATED  Frequency of the length of the neck added to
the length of the missing cone with the PLAYED frequency of the
mouthpiece and neck apart from the saxophone gives an effective and
accurate way to do so.  It certainly is easier than chopping off the
mouthpiece and adding a narrow ring at the end to mimic the constriction
of the neck opening.

  Do you believe you could actually play that short mouthpiece device and
with any certainty zero in on it's natural (Helmholtz) resonant
frequency.  I know I certainly could not.  It is hard enough for me to
consistently produce an A concert on the alto sax mouthpiece alone---let
alone find the pitch that the mouthpiece "naturally" wants to play at. 
Remember too that most mouthpieces go 20 to 30 mm on to the cork and so
that much of the mouthpiece would need to be chopped off the shank.

It is interesting that Fletcher is saying essentially the same thing as
Benade.  However one part is not very clear to me to which I wish he
would have provided more detail.  It is the sentence that follows your
quotation in his book.  It reads:

"The high frequency match can then be achieved by arranging the shape of
the constriction where it joins the main part of the instrument so that
the Helmholtz resonance frequency of the mouthpiece is the same as the
first resonance of the missing conical apex, at which it is a half
wavelength long." [emphasis added]

It is almost like a riddle to solve.  How does one "arrange the shape of
the constriction" where it joins the main part of the instrument?  Is
the main part of the instrument the neck, or is it the body?  He seems
to be saying that the length of the missing cone  determines its
frequency "at which it is a half wavelength long".

This link gives a visual representation of what I believe to be true in
regard to finding the frequency of the elusive "missing cone".   
Calculating the Missing Cone Frequency
 
<http://jbtsaxmusic.homestead.com/Calculating_missing_cone_frequency.pdf\
>






--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "Toby" <kymarto123@...> wrote:
>
> Hmmm...
>
> I find it interesting that you go to such lengths to get around the
fundamental fact that the point of the whole exercise is to get the Frs
of the mpc to match that of the part of the cone that it replaces. The
"neck" doesn't enter into this at all, except to provide the transition
to the main body tube, and anyway the length of the neck is arbitrary,
comprising a different percentage of the body tube in bass, bari, tenor
and alto, and not even existing on many sops, as Lance points out.
>
> And of course it is possible to measure Frs with at least a shorter
portion of the cone: just cut off the end of a junker neck and use that
instead of the whole neck. It should be pretty obvious, I would think,
that the shorter the section of cone used, the more accurate would be
the measurement of the mpc Frs.
>
> To (hopefully) settle this debate, I post (yet again) the relevant
section from F&R:
>
> "While the saxophone has a single reed like the clarinet, the
mouthpiece effectively truncates the conical taper of the main bore and
introduces significant changes in tone color. In order that the horn
modes be as nearly harmonic as possible, it is desirable that the
mouthpiece mimic the acoustic behavior of the missing apex of the cone.
This can be done at two frequencies, and then fits reasonably well over
the whole range, At low frequencies, the matching is achieved if the
internal volume of the mouthpiece is equal to that of the missing
conical apex, which requires that the mouthpiece have a slightly bulbous
internal shape so that it actually constitutes a sort of Helmholtz
resonator.
>
> If that isn't clear I don't know what is.
>
> Lance--note that these guys stress your point about the mpc
introducing "significant changes in tone color". They go on further to
say,
>
> "This mouthpiece cavity has an important effect on the spectrum of the
saxophone (Benade and Lutgen, 1988)...The cavity acts rather like the
mouthcup of a brass instrument...and imparts an extra rise of 6
dB/octave below its resonance frequency and a fall of -6 dB/octave. The
mouthpiece resonance frequency is typically comparable with the tonehole
cutoff frequency [omega/c], so these extra slopes contribute simply to
the behavior above and below [omega/c], which is typically about 850 Hz
for an alto saxophone..."
>
> Toby
>
> "Shut up and pass the peas..."
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: John
>   To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2010 2:16 AM
>   Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
>
>
>
>   There are some underlying truths that In my opinion trump all of the
esoteric theoretical ideas being put forth by both you and Lance.
>
>   They are:
>
>   1.  It is impossible to accurately measure the played frequency* of
the used volume of the mouthpiece plus a narrow ring to mimic the
opening of the neck.  (If anyone disagrees with this statement---the
burden is upon them to prove it can be done.  No other argument can have
any merit whatsoever.)
>
>   2.  The mouthpiece always functions as a part of the the truncated
conical tube we call a saxophone.  Therefore, the acoustical behavior of
the sound wave generated by the interior workings of the mouthpiece as
it interacts with the tube that follows it has far more significance
that that of the mouthpiece as a separate unit by itself.
>
>   3.  Benade's use of the cavity + constriction (meaning the entire
staple, bocal, neck) in his missing cone requirements:
>
>
>
>     a.  Was clearly intended to show the similar acoustical properties
shared by all conical woodwinds.  (You cannot under any circumstances
measure the frequency of an oboe reed  apart from its staple).
>
>     b.  Was the most realistic, pragmatic, practical,  and I believe
most accurate under real playing conditions---way to define the
frequency requirement of the missing cone.  By adding the saxophone neck
to the missing cone you are simply moving the point of truncation.  This
changes none of the relationships that are found in the "real world"
playing of the instrument.
>
>
>   *  To refer to the natural frequency of the mouthpiece alone as Frs
is a misnomer.  Benade coined this term to refer to the
>   Frequency of the oboe reed added to its staple".  He writes on FMA
p. 469:
>
>
>     " The reed cavity plus the constricted passageway through the
staple (or the reed plus bocal in the bassoon, or the mouthpiece plus
neck in the saxophone) must therefore be arranged to imitate the
acoustical properties of the missing part of the cone."
>
>
>   He then goes on to describe that the imitation has two (related)
parts.  1. That the volume of the missing cone must be matched by its
substitution.  2.  That the played frequency of the substitution must
equal the calculated frequency of the actual missing cone added to the
constricted passageway using the formula:   F = C/2 Xo
>
>
>   --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, kymarto123@ wrote:
>   >
>   > John,
>   >
>   > The problem, if problem it is, is that the more of the cone you
include, the less any deviation caused by the perturbation at the end of
the tube (the mpc) is going to show up. Apparently, things start getting
nasty when the truncation is equal to or larger than 1/4 wavelength.
Smaller than this
>   > and the tube compared to truncation is enough so that the
wavelength doesn't "mind" the perturbation too much. The cone looks
complete to a long wavelength and so the frequency is not much
disturbed.
>   >
>   > However as you go up the scale and the wavelengths become shorter,
there starts to be more and more effect from the fact that the mpc is
not actually the missing conic apex, but is just a pretender. This is
true whether the wavelength is short because the tube is short, or
because you are playing
>   > the a higher mode of a long tube.
>   >
>   > I believe that Lance is correct. The limiting case for the Frs,
and the one that gives the most accurate picture of how closely the
resonance of the mpc matches the resonance of the missing apex, is one
in which only the mpc is measured. BUT, you have to set up the correct
conditions for how the
>   > mpc is seen by the cone, and this means that the mpc has to be
terminated at the point where it meets the neck in real life, and with
the entrance diameter of the neck.
>   >
>   > If we had a system like the clarinet, life would be easier, since
in that case the end of the mpc is the point where it joins the body and
the exit diameter of the mpc is (for all intents and purposes) the
entrance diameter of the body. So if we wish to get the Frs of a clainet
mpc it can be
>   > measured by itself.
>   >
>   > As Lance points out, doing this for sax is impractical, since it
would mean cutting off the mpc at the point where the neck reaches in
the shank, and adding a very thin insert to mimic the neck opening
diameter.
>   >
>   > Actually, it should be possible to mathematically correct for the
blown frequency of a mpc--lowering the pitch a given amount for the
length and diameter of the extra part of the shank, plus lowering again
for the smaller diameter of the neck opening. We could probably find the
formulae to do this.
>   >
>   > But obviously Benade finds this overkill, and thinks that the
extra length of the neck is not enough to throw things off too much for
the playing frequencies of the sax.
>   >
>   > Remember that we are only trying to correct for frequencies in the
upper 2nd octave and plams: the best we can possibly do is to mimic the
volume (which makes the mode relationships in most of the first two
octaves OK), and add a second correction for this Frs, which pulls the
second peak into
>   > alignment for the top of the second octave and palms. Beyond this
we have to count on mode locking to pull errant third, fourth, fifth...n
partials into line.
>   >
>   > That's how I understand it.
>   >
>   > Toby
>   >
>   > John jtalcott47@ wrote: Toby,
>   >
>   > You use the word "normalizing" like it is a bad thing.
>   >
>   > Isn't it more accurate to evaluate the mouthpiece's substitution
of the missing cone in terms of its interaction with a part of the body
of the instrument? There is no "real world" parallel to playing the
mouthpiece unattached to a longer tube. Plus playing on the mouthpiece
alone is far more
>   > unstable than playing it on the neck. On the mouthpiece alone, the
pitch can be just about anywhere you want it to be. Just think how it
would be with 20 mm cut off the end of the shank! How in the world would
you ever find the resonant frequency of such a small short tube just by
playing it?
>   > I know that I couldn't do it. Give me an oboe reed on a staple, a
bassoon reed on a bocal, or a sax mouthpiece on a neck and I have a
chance.
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, kymarto123@ wrote:
>   > >
>   > > The mpc substitutes for the missing conic apex. We want it to
resemble as closely as possible that missing apex, so that the timing of
the wavefronts is preserved as it would be in the real apex.
>   > >
>   > > The Frs is simply the resonant frequency of the substitution and
whatever length of cone is attached to it: that should match the
resonant frequency of the complete missing apex to the same diameter of
the cone as we are measuring. Frs is not the resonant frequency of the
substitution; it is the
>   > > resonant frequency of the substitution/constriction combination,
and practically that always includes some length of the body cone. For
example, the Frs of a complete tenor sax is C3. This includes the
substitution and all of the cone. Because the tube is long and its
resonance predominates,
>   > this
>   > > is not very helpful in finding out how well we are doing in
substituting the truncated part of the cone. The purest measure of that,
as Lance points out, would be to have the mpc cut to the point where the
neck begins and have the mpc sitting on an infinitely thin plane
centered on an opening
>   > the
>   > > diameter of the end of the neck.
>   > >
>   > > As soon as we start adding cone length, we get more and more
"normalizing" effect from the cone itself, and therefore a less and less
accurate picture of what happens in the higher frequencies, where
shorter and shorter wavelengths are more affected by irregularities in
the substitution (because
>   > > that length becomes a larger and larger fraction of their total
wavelength).
>   > >
>   > > Benade has indeed taken the easy road in specifying a
convenient"end" to the constriction, but this adds a fairly large
"normalizing" factor, in the shape of the neck cone (or oboe reed
staple). On sax, it would be much more accurate to use the new Warburton
neck system and just use the
>   > attachable
>   > > neck end to measure Frs while it is inserted to the correct
point in a mpc. This would add only an extremely short length of cone to
the mix. Apparently Benade felt that measuring Frs to the end of the
neck was good enough, and indeed other factors such as embouchure and
reed characteristics and
>   > > temperature and facings (and vocal tract configuration) probably
make that about as accurate as it can be before those other factors have
too large an effect and overwhelm finer measurements of the necessary
volume.
>   > >
>   > > Toby
>   > >
>   > > MartinMods lancelotburt@ wrote:
>   > > John,
>   > >
>   > > Thanks very much for your explanation. I understand exactly what
you mean - crystal, only I do not agree, bear with me and I'll explain
why.
>   > >
>   > > 1. Benade's diagram and description of a conical instrument's
parts, which we all are familiar with - a truncated tube, and the
substitution for the truncation - a cavity and a constriction. This is
perfectly clear and universally applicable.
>   > >
>   > > 2. The existence of a one-piece, straight sided, soprano
saxophone, which according to Nederveen, would be an acoustically
superior saxophone design, were only the truncation ratio reduced
somewhat. With a cross-sectional view of it's bore, fitted with an Otto
Link STM mouthpiece, .we can
>   > > clearly see each section Benade described in # 1. - the cavity
of the Link mouthpiece, the constriction of the mouthpiece's bore caused
by the smaller opening of the body's bore. (the fact that it has no
measurable length is unimportant. Play your mouthpiece alone, and then
constrict the
>   > opening
>   > > by covering 1/4 of it with a sheet of paper. The pitch will drop
noticeably, even though the paper is very, very thin. The length of the
constriction is unimportant. Only the diameter is important.), and
finally, the truncated, one-piece, straight sided body. The meaning of
anything Benade
>   > > ever wrote about the saxophone is easily understood by applying
it to this essential model. Some statements require qualification, but
are easy to understand when we remember that he sometimes addressed
acoustical issues with mechanical convenience in mind, rather than
complete acoustical
>   > > accuracy, but all of his statements apply to this model, as they
must.
>   > >
>   > > 3. In order to clarify Benade's nebulous statements, I emailed
Dr. Joe Wolfe, and asked him to explain, just what constituted the
substitution for the missing cone, the mouthpiece volume, or the
mouthpiece volume + the neck volume. His reply was, mouthpiece + reed
compliance. OK. That is
>   > > substantiated by #1 and #2. So, without question, the neck is
not part of the substitution. The neck is body volume and body length,
for those horns with removable necks, regardless of taper.
>   > >
>   > > 4. Frs is the playing frequency of the substitution, the
mouthpiece + it's constriction. That's OK by #1, #2, and #3, only it's
impossible to measure without ruining the mouthpiece and we need the
neck opening diameter reduction for our constriction. So Benade made his
sematic and acoustic
>   > > compromise, and told us to measure frs with the complete neck.
It is an approximation of the real frs, but it works, provided the neck
is of the correct design.
>   > >
>   > > 5. I don't wish to compare saxophones with oboes or bassoons.
There is no need. First, the model in #2 encompasses every essential
aspect of the saxophone, and second, as Benade wrote, not every aspect
of the oboe is applicable to the saxophone.
>   > >
>   > >
>   > >
>   > >
>   > >
>   > >
>   > >
>   > >
>   > >
>   > >
>   > >
>   > > By your comments in this post, I'm beginning to understand more
clearly your misinterpretation of Benade's Frs statements. Please bear
with me. On page 470 FMA Benade writes:
>   > >
>   > >
>   > > "We can continue our search for a useful imitation of the
missing part of the cone by trying the effect of matching Frs for the
reed system to the first-mode natural frequency of the cone apex itself.
In the general frequency neighborhood of Frs the oboe will then "see" an
object at its upper
>   > end
>   > > whose acoustical behavior is quite similar to that of the
missing apical cone."
>   > >
>   > > "In particular, there will be a pressure node in the
neighborhood of the junction of the main bore with the reed staple,
lying a little inside the staple at frequencies somewhat above Frs and
moving down below the junction at oboe playing frequencies below
Frs---behavior that is identical with
>   > > that found in an ideal cone."
>   > >
>   > > The junction of the main bore (of the oboe) with the reed staple
is at the bottom of the staple the reed is attached to---not the top.
Therefore the pressure node of the frequencies just above Frs (the
frequency of the reed combined with its staple) will still be just
inside the cork end of the
>   > > staple. The frequencies just below Frs will go just beyond that
down into the body of the oboe itself.
>   > >
>   > > The counterpart in an alto sax is the frequency produced by the
mouthpiece and neck apart from the body of the saxophone which is very
close to Ab concert (written F). The pressure node of the frequency just
above that pitch, F# for example, when played on the complete sax will
be found just
>   > up
>   > > inside the neck tenon. The pressure node of the frequency just
below that pitch, an E natural will be slightly past the bottom of the
neck receiver into the body of the sax.
>   > >
>   > > This Ab concert would be the note sounded if the cone to its
apex added to the complete neck could produce its resonant frequency.
When the mouthpiece substitutes for the missing cone by matching its
volume, the mouthpiece plus the complete neck produces this frequency.
When the Frs - frequency
>   > > of the reed on its staple or frequency of the sax mouthpiece on
its neck is the same as the pitch that would be produced by the missing
cone, if it could---the body of the instrument is "fooled" into thinking
the cone is complete and behaves accordingly. This is exactly the effect
Benade
>   > > describes in all of his writings on this topic. On this point he
is very clear.
>   > >
>   > > Benade also uses the term "constricted tube" to describe the
staple, bocal, and sax neck as well as the term "constriction" . There
is also a "point of constriction" at the opening of each of these that
as you know has a strong effect upon the production of the soundwave
inside the mouthpiece.
>   > > But when Benade uses the term "cavity plus constriction", he is
clearly referring to the mouthpiece and the entire neck.
>   > >
>   > > I hope this helps to clarify these topics in our discussions, in
order to move forward instead of just going around in the same circles
and getting nowhere.
>   > >
>   > > John
>   > >
>   > >
>   > >
>   > >
>   > >
>   > >
>   > > --- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, MartinMods
<lancelotburt@ ...> wrote:
>   > > >
>   > > > "Can you cite a source for more
>   > > > information about the "hole in the saxophone spectrum" that is
created
>   > > > inside the mouthpiece. Is this what Dalmont calls the
"anti-formant"
>   > > > Do you know if this "hole in the spectrum" can actually be
identified
>   > > > in any of graphs of the saxophone sound spectrum at the UNSW
Saxophone Acoustics site? "
>   > > >
>   > > > I have not done an exhaustive search yet. Fletcher touched on
it somewhere, as have a few others. Nederveen explains the reed closure
period and resultant acoustical power differences compared to
cylindrical instruments. It is what Dalmont calls the "anti-formant" and
if the
>   > > mouthpiece/constric tion frs were correct, would be found at the
neck opening, where the bore starts to expand, I would say.
>   > > >
>   > > > I have gone over with Toby without resolution, the idea that
it is exactly this resonance that Benade refers to when discussing the
frs of the substitution - ( paraphrased) the body will see a something
that acoustically resembles the missing cone. There will be a pressure
node (the
>   > > mouthpiece/constric tion resonance's displacement anti-node) at
or slightly inside the mouthpiece shank (he actually refers to an oboe
staple) for played tones above frs, and moving slightly inside the neck
(oboe body) for played tones below frs. Though Dalmont states that the
anti-formant
>   > freq.
>   > > exists independent of the note played, Benade states that the mc
resonance disp, anti-node affects played resonances with nodes in it's
area. I surmise that the reverse is also true to some extent, which
would explain the nodes movement from just inside the shank to just
inside the neck.
>   > > >
>   > > > I have not done a thorough search of the UNSW site.
>   > > >
>   > >
>   >
>

I agree that it is not practical to measure the mpc alone,
although it would be relatively easy to make a small brass
pipe with the same entrance diameter and angle as the
neck. It would need only to stick out from the shank far
enough to be able to easily remove it.

Frs stands for "resonance frequency". Both the missing
cone and the mpc have one and they should be the same. How
does your use of "frequency" differ?

I'll have a look at your link now.

Toby

--- John <jtalcott47@...> wrote:

> It is worth joining.  I have been a member for over
> 3 years.  Many of
> the papers are just abstracts, but there are some
> full studies that
> can't be found anywhere else.
> 
> In light of all of the esoteric theorizing about
> finding the frequency
> (NOT Frs) of the missing cone that the mouthpiece is
> a substitution for,
> I have done a visual representation of what I
> believe to be true.  That
> is:
> 
> In theory both a cut off mouthpiece with a
> constricted ring at its end
> and a mouthpiece at its normal position on a neck
> apart from a saxophone
> can be used to accurately estimate the frequency of
> the missing cone. 
> However, only one of these methods is practical and
> relatively easy and
> effective to use.
> 
> The visual and mathematical support of this idea can
> be found here: 
> Calculating the Frequency of the Missing Cone
>
<http://jbtsaxmusic.homestead.com/Calculating_missing_cone_frequency.pdf\
> >
> 
> John
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods
> <lancelotburt@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > "The Saxophone Spectrum", A. Benade
> >
> > The ASA - http://asa.aip.org/
> >
> > has an extensive online library, including this
> Benade publication.  
> Membership ($95.00) gives one access, or non-members
> may purchase
> individual pdf copies.  This Benade paper costs
> $25.00.  It may be worth
> joining.
> >
> 
> 

John,

I'm certainly happy to keep discussing the theory, but I have to tell you that I wonder just how valuable it is in real life. I just completed some informal tests of extremely different mpcs, including an old Conn CMel mpc with a shank that fits an alto and has a huge chamber like a bubble, a Lakey, a Vandoren classic and that snaky Beechler. To make life even more interesting, I molded a huge blob of clay into the Beechler, which took up about half the chamber volume and some of the lower baffle too. This changed the tuning point on the neck until the mpc was just hanging off the end.

The result is that I realized that it made barely any difference. The huge blob of clay did seem, paradoxically, to make the second register somewhat sharp, but for the most part there was very little real-world difference , and nothing that I couldn't easily compensate for without a second thought with my embouchure. The CMel mpc had to be put on so far that the end of the shank was past the cork, but once there it played quite happily in tune, just as the Beechler did a good 10 mm farther back. If there was more than five cents difference between the way they played the first and second registers I couldn't tell.

My point here is that once you are anywhere in the ballpark, so many other factors become more important that small adjustments such as Frs are just subsumed in the general chaos of embouchure changes, reed effects, tube perturbations, temperature gradients and a whole number of other parameters which influence the final sound. In any case, as you pointed out, it is not so easy to change the Frs of the mpc, since it depends almost entirely on the volume and the exit diameter. Once the volume is correct Frs should follow along. I may do some experiments to change the neck diameter at the end with clay, just to see what happens, but in normal life you would not do such a thing.

Trying to find the Frs of the mpc was a nightmare. I did get a nice steady tone when blowing across it like a bottle with the window sealed, which is what a Helmholtz resonance is all about, but that was much higher than when the mpc was blown, unless I tightened my embouchure to the max. This makes sense, since the reed itself lowers all the resonant frequencies of the horn, and of course there is the question of virtual volume under the reed--not to mention that reed effects really predominate here due to the very weak impedance of the little mpc chamber compared to the influence of that big old reed controlled by the player.

This alone makes me see why Benade would recommend measuring the Frs in combination with the neck, but in that case, the Frs is strongly dependent on the enclosed volume of the neck, and small changes in the mpc volume hardly make a difference. Every single mpc, once it was set to play in tune, had just about the same Frs, no matter what the internal configuration. If there is a difference between the register tuning depending on length I couldn't sort it out among all the other effects.

I can easily lip the second register 30-40 cents either way, keeping decent tone. I  don't think that is in any way exceptional. Given that, what difference do a few cents make depending on the mpc configuration? Can you even tell?

When and if I have more time I am going to try to do this with a little bit more systematic methodology, and perhaps I will see some trends, but I can already see that the effects that we are endlessly discussing are slight at best.

Toby


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: John 
  To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2010 2:38 PM
  Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone


    
  I agree that finding the Frequency (NOT Frs) of the missing cone is the point of the exercise.  However I believe (as does Benade) that comparing the CALCULATED  Frequency of the length of the neck added to the length of the missing cone with the PLAYED frequency of the mouthpiece and neck apart from the saxophone gives an effective and accurate way to do so.  It certainly is easier than chopping off the mouthpiece and adding a narrow ring at the end to mimic the constriction of the neck opening.  

   Do you believe you could actually play that short mouthpiece device and with any certainty zero in on it's natural (Helmholtz) resonant frequency.  I know I certainly could not.  It is hard enough for me to consistently produce an A concert on the alto sax mouthpiece alone---let alone find the pitch that the mouthpiece "naturally" wants to play at.  Remember too that most mouthpieces go 20 to 30 mm on to the cork and so that much of the mouthpiece would need to be chopped off the shank.

  It is interesting that Fletcher is saying essentially the same thing as Benade.  However one part is not very clear to me to which I wish he would have provided more detail.  It is the sentence that follows your quotation in his book.  It reads:

  "The high frequency match can then be achieved by arranging the shape of the constriction where it joins the main part of the instrument so that the Helmholtz resonance frequency of the mouthpiece is the same as the first resonance of the missing conical apex, at which it is a half wavelength long." [emphasis added]

  It is almost like a riddle to solve.  How does one "arrange the shape of the constriction" where it joins the main part of the instrument?  Is the main part of the instrument the neck, or is it the body?  He seems to be saying that the length of the missing cone  determines its frequency "at which it is a half wavelength long".

  This link gives a visual representation of what I believe to be true in regard to finding the frequency of the elusive "missing cone".    Calculating the Missing Cone Frequency
   






  --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "Toby" <kymarto123@...> wrote:
  >
  > Hmmm...
  > 
  > I find it interesting that you go to such lengths to get around the fundamental fact that the point of the whole exercise is to get the Frs of the mpc to match that of the part of the cone that it replaces. The "neck" doesn't enter into this at all, except to provide the transition to the main body tube, and anyway the length of the neck is arbitrary, comprising a different percentage of the body tube in bass, bari, tenor and alto, and not even existing on many sops, as Lance points out.
  > 
  > And of course it is possible to measure Frs with at least a shorter portion of the cone: just cut off the end of a junker neck and use that instead of the whole neck. It should be pretty obvious, I would think, that the shorter the section of cone used, the more accurate would be the measurement of the mpc Frs.
  > 
  > To (hopefully) settle this debate, I post (yet again) the relevant section from F&R:
  > 
  > "While the saxophone has a single reed like the clarinet, the mouthpiece effectively truncates the conical taper of the main bore and introduces significant changes in tone color. In order that the horn modes be as nearly harmonic as possible, it is desirable that the mouthpiece mimic the acoustic behavior of the missing apex of the cone. This can be done at two frequencies, and then fits reasonably well over the whole range, At low frequencies, the matching is achieved if the internal volume of the mouthpiece is equal to that of the missing conical apex, which requires that the mouthpiece have a slightly bulbous internal shape so that it actually constitutes a sort of Helmholtz resonator. 
  > 
  > If that isn't clear I don't know what is.
  > 
  > Lance--note that these guys stress your point about the mpc introducing "significant changes in tone color". They go on further to say,
  > 
  > "This mouthpiece cavity has an important effect on the spectrum of the saxophone (Benade and Lutgen, 1988)...The cavity acts rather like the mouthcup of a brass instrument...and imparts an extra rise of 6 dB/octave below its resonance frequency and a fall of -6 dB/octave. The mouthpiece resonance frequency is typically comparable with the tonehole cutoff frequency [omega/c], so these extra slopes contribute simply to the behavior above and below [omega/c], which is typically about 850 Hz for an alto saxophone..."
  > 
  > Toby
  > 
  > "Shut up and pass the peas..."
  > ----- Original Message ----- 
  > From: John 
  > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
  > Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2010 2:16 AM
  > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > There are some underlying truths that In my opinion trump all of the esoteric theoretical ideas being put forth by both you and Lance.
  > 
  > They are:
  > 
  > 1. It is impossible to accurately measure the played frequency* of the used volume of the mouthpiece plus a narrow ring to mimic the opening of the neck. (If anyone disagrees with this statement---the burden is upon them to prove it can be done. No other argument can have any merit whatsoever.)
  > 
  > 2. The mouthpiece always functions as a part of the the truncated conical tube we call a saxophone. Therefore, the acoustical behavior of the sound wave generated by the interior workings of the mouthpiece as it interacts with the tube that follows it has far more significance that that of the mouthpiece as a separate unit by itself.
  > 
  > 3. Benade's use of the cavity + constriction (meaning the entire staple, bocal, neck) in his missing cone requirements:
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > a. Was clearly intended to show the similar acoustical properties shared by all conical woodwinds. (You cannot under any circumstances measure the frequency of an oboe reed apart from its staple).
  > 
  > b. Was the most realistic, pragmatic, practical, and I believe most accurate under real playing conditions---way to define the frequency requirement of the missing cone. By adding the saxophone neck to the missing cone you are simply moving the point of truncation. This changes none of the relationships that are found in the "real world" playing of the instrument.
  > 
  > 
  > * To refer to the natural frequency of the mouthpiece alone as Frs is a misnomer. Benade coined this term to refer to the 
  > Frequency of the oboe reed added to its staple". He writes on FMA p. 469:
  > 
  > 
  > " The reed cavity plus the constricted passageway through the staple (or the reed plus bocal in the bassoon, or the mouthpiece plus neck in the saxophone) must therefore be arranged to imitate the acoustical properties of the missing part of the cone."
  > 
  > 
  > He then goes on to describe that the imitation has two (related) parts. 1. That the volume of the missing cone must be matched by its substitution. 2. That the played frequency of the substitution must equal the calculated frequency of the actual missing cone added to the constricted passageway using the formula: F = C/2 Xo
  > 
  > 
  > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, kymarto123@ wrote:
  > >
  > > John,
  > > 
  > > The problem, if problem it is, is that the more of the cone you include, the less any deviation caused by the perturbation at the end of the tube (the mpc) is going to show up. Apparently, things start getting nasty when the truncation is equal to or larger than 1/4 wavelength. Smaller than this
  > > and the tube compared to truncation is enough so that the wavelength doesn't "mind" the perturbation too much. The cone looks complete to a long wavelength and so the frequency is not much disturbed. 
  > > 
  > > However as you go up the scale and the wavelengths become shorter, there starts to be more and more effect from the fact that the mpc is not actually the missing conic apex, but is just a pretender. This is true whether the wavelength is short because the tube is short, or because you are playing
  > > the a higher mode of a long tube.
  > > 
  > > I believe that Lance is correct. The limiting case for the Frs, and the one that gives the most accurate picture of how closely the resonance of the mpc matches the resonance of the missing apex, is one in which only the mpc is measured. BUT, you have to set up the correct conditions for how the
  > > mpc is seen by the cone, and this means that the mpc has to be terminated at the point where it meets the neck in real life, and with the entrance diameter of the neck.
  > > 
  > > If we had a system like the clarinet, life would be easier, since in that case the end of the mpc is the point where it joins the body and the exit diameter of the mpc is (for all intents and purposes) the entrance diameter of the body. So if we wish to get the Frs of a clainet mpc it can be
  > > measured by itself.
  > > 
  > > As Lance points out, doing this for sax is impractical, since it would mean cutting off the mpc at the point where the neck reaches in the shank, and adding a very thin insert to mimic the neck opening diameter.
  > > 
  > > Actually, it should be possible to mathematically correct for the blown frequency of a mpc--lowering the pitch a given amount for the length and diameter of the extra part of the shank, plus lowering again for the smaller diameter of the neck opening. We could probably find the formulae to do this.
  > > 
  > > But obviously Benade finds this overkill, and thinks that the extra length of the neck is not enough to throw things off too much for the playing frequencies of the sax.
  > > 
  > > Remember that we are only trying to correct for frequencies in the upper 2nd octave and plams: the best we can possibly do is to mimic the volume (which makes the mode relationships in most of the first two octaves OK), and add a second correction for this Frs, which pulls the second peak into
  > > alignment for the top of the second octave and palms. Beyond this we have to count on mode locking to pull errant third, fourth, fifth...n partials into line. 
  > > 
  > > That's how I understand it.
  > > 
  > > Toby
  > > 
  > > John jtalcott47@ wrote: Toby,
  > > 
  > > You use the word "normalizing" like it is a bad thing. 
  > > 
  > > Isn't it more accurate to evaluate the mouthpiece's substitution of the missing cone in terms of its interaction with a part of the body of the instrument? There is no "real world" parallel to playing the mouthpiece unattached to a longer tube. Plus playing on the mouthpiece alone is far more
  > > unstable than playing it on the neck. On the mouthpiece alone, the pitch can be just about anywhere you want it to be. Just think how it would be with 20 mm cut off the end of the shank! How in the world would you ever find the resonant frequency of such a small short tube just by playing it? 
  > > I know that I couldn't do it. Give me an oboe reed on a staple, a bassoon reed on a bocal, or a sax mouthpiece on a neck and I have a chance.
  > > 
  > > 
  > > 
  > > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, kymarto123@ wrote:
  > > >
  > > > The mpc substitutes for the missing conic apex. We want it to resemble as closely as possible that missing apex, so that the timing of the wavefronts is preserved as it would be in the real apex. 
  > > > 
  > > > The Frs is simply the resonant frequency of the substitution and whatever length of cone is attached to it: that should match the resonant frequency of the complete missing apex to the same diameter of the cone as we are measuring. Frs is not the resonant frequency of the substitution; it is the
  > > > resonant frequency of the substitution/constriction combination, and practically that always includes some length of the body cone. For example, the Frs of a complete tenor sax is C3. This includes the substitution and all of the cone. Because the tube is long and its resonance predominates,
  > > this
  > > > is not very helpful in finding out how well we are doing in substituting the truncated part of the cone. The purest measure of that, as Lance points out, would be to have the mpc cut to the point where the neck begins and have the mpc sitting on an infinitely thin plane centered on an opening
  > > the
  > > > diameter of the end of the neck. 
  > > > 
  > > > As soon as we start adding cone length, we get more and more "normalizing" effect from the cone itself, and therefore a less and less accurate picture of what happens in the higher frequencies, where shorter and shorter wavelengths are more affected by irregularities in the substitution (because
  > > > that length becomes a larger and larger fraction of their total wavelength).
  > > > 
  > > > Benade has indeed taken the easy road in specifying a convenient"end" to the constriction, but this adds a fairly large "normalizing" factor, in the shape of the neck cone (or oboe reed staple). On sax, it would be much more accurate to use the new Warburton neck system and just use the
  > > attachable
  > > > neck end to measure Frs while it is inserted to the correct point in a mpc. This would add only an extremely short length of cone to the mix. Apparently Benade felt that measuring Frs to the end of the neck was good enough, and indeed other factors such as embouchure and reed characteristics and
  > > > temperature and facings (and vocal tract configuration) probably make that about as accurate as it can be before those other factors have too large an effect and overwhelm finer measurements of the necessary volume.
  > > > 
  > > > Toby
  > > > 
  > > > MartinMods lancelotburt@ wrote: 
  > > > John,
  > > > 
  > > > Thanks very much for your explanation. I understand exactly what you mean - crystal, only I do not agree, bear with me and I'll explain why.
  > > > 
  > > > 1. Benade's diagram and description of a conical instrument's parts, which we all are familiar with - a truncated tube, and the substitution for the truncation - a cavity and a constriction. This is perfectly clear and universally applicable.
  > > > 
  > > > 2. The existence of a one-piece, straight sided, soprano saxophone, which according to Nederveen, would be an acoustically superior saxophone design, were only the truncation ratio reduced somewhat. With a cross-sectional view of it's bore, fitted with an Otto Link STM mouthpiece, .we can
  > > > clearly see each section Benade described in # 1. - the cavity of the Link mouthpiece, the constriction of the mouthpiece's bore caused by the smaller opening of the body's bore. (the fact that it has no measurable length is unimportant. Play your mouthpiece alone, and then constrict the
  > > opening
  > > > by covering 1/4 of it with a sheet of paper. The pitch will drop noticeably, even though the paper is very, very thin. The length of the constriction is unimportant. Only the diameter is important.), and finally, the truncated, one-piece, straight sided body. The meaning of anything Benade
  > > > ever wrote about the saxophone is easily understood by applying it to this essential model. Some statements require qualification, but are easy to understand when we remember that he sometimes addressed acoustical issues with mechanical convenience in mind, rather than complete acoustical
  > > > accuracy, but all of his statements apply to this model, as they must.
  > > > 
  > > > 3. In order to clarify Benade's nebulous statements, I emailed Dr. Joe Wolfe, and asked him to explain, just what constituted the substitution for the missing cone, the mouthpiece volume, or the mouthpiece volume + the neck volume. His reply was, mouthpiece + reed compliance. OK. That is
  > > > substantiated by #1 and #2. So, without question, the neck is not part of the substitution. The neck is body volume and body length, for those horns with removable necks, regardless of taper.
  > > > 
  > > > 4. Frs is the playing frequency of the substitution, the mouthpiece + it's constriction. That's OK by #1, #2, and #3, only it's impossible to measure without ruining the mouthpiece and we need the neck opening diameter reduction for our constriction. So Benade made his sematic and acoustic
  > > > compromise, and told us to measure frs with the complete neck. It is an approximation of the real frs, but it works, provided the neck is of the correct design.
  > > > 
  > > > 5. I don't wish to compare saxophones with oboes or bassoons. There is no need. First, the model in #2 encompasses every essential aspect of the saxophone, and second, as Benade wrote, not every aspect of the oboe is applicable to the saxophone.
  > > > 
  > > > 
  > > > 
  > > > 
  > > > 
  > > > 
  > > > 
  > > > 
  > > > 
  > > > 
  > > > 
  > > > By your comments in this post, I'm beginning to understand more clearly your misinterpretation of Benade's Frs statements. Please bear with me. On page 470 FMA Benade writes:
  > > > 
  > > > 
  > > > "We can continue our search for a useful imitation of the missing part of the cone by trying the effect of matching Frs for the reed system to the first-mode natural frequency of the cone apex itself. In the general frequency neighborhood of Frs the oboe will then "see" an object at its upper
  > > end
  > > > whose acoustical behavior is quite similar to that of the missing apical cone."
  > > > 
  > > > "In particular, there will be a pressure node in the neighborhood of the junction of the main bore with the reed staple, lying a little inside the staple at frequencies somewhat above Frs and moving down below the junction at oboe playing frequencies below Frs---behavior that is identical with
  > > > that found in an ideal cone."
  > > > 
  > > > The junction of the main bore (of the oboe) with the reed staple is at the bottom of the staple the reed is attached to---not the top. Therefore the pressure node of the frequencies just above Frs (the frequency of the reed combined with its staple) will still be just inside the cork end of the
  > > > staple. The frequencies just below Frs will go just beyond that down into the body of the oboe itself. 
  > > > 
  > > > The counterpart in an alto sax is the frequency produced by the mouthpiece and neck apart from the body of the saxophone which is very close to Ab concert (written F). The pressure node of the frequency just above that pitch, F# for example, when played on the complete sax will be found just
  > > up
  > > > inside the neck tenon. The pressure node of the frequency just below that pitch, an E natural will be slightly past the bottom of the neck receiver into the body of the sax. 
  > > > 
  > > > This Ab concert would be the note sounded if the cone to its apex added to the complete neck could produce its resonant frequency. When the mouthpiece substitutes for the missing cone by matching its volume, the mouthpiece plus the complete neck produces this frequency. When the Frs - frequency
  > > > of the reed on its staple or frequency of the sax mouthpiece on its neck is the same as the pitch that would be produced by the missing cone, if it could---the body of the instrument is "fooled" into thinking the cone is complete and behaves accordingly. This is exactly the effect Benade
  > > > describes in all of his writings on this topic. On this point he is very clear.
  > > > 
  > > > Benade also uses the term "constricted tube" to describe the staple, bocal, and sax neck as well as the term "constriction" . There is also a "point of constriction" at the opening of each of these that as you know has a strong effect upon the production of the soundwave inside the mouthpiece. 
  > > > But when Benade uses the term "cavity plus constriction", he is clearly referring to the mouthpiece and the entire neck.
  > > > 
  > > > I hope this helps to clarify these topics in our discussions, in order to move forward instead of just going around in the same circles and getting nowhere.
  > > > 
  > > > John
  > > > 
  > > > 
  > > > 
  > > > 
  > > > 
  > > > 
  > > > --- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ ...> wrote:
  > > > >
  > > > > "Can you cite a source for more
  > > > > information about the "hole in the saxophone spectrum" that is created
  > > > > inside the mouthpiece. Is this what Dalmont calls the "anti-formant"
  > > > > Do you know if this "hole in the spectrum" can actually be identified
  > > > > in any of graphs of the saxophone sound spectrum at the UNSW Saxophone Acoustics site? "
  > > > > 
  > > > > I have not done an exhaustive search yet. Fletcher touched on it somewhere, as have a few others. Nederveen explains the reed closure period and resultant acoustical power differences compared to cylindrical instruments. It is what Dalmont calls the "anti-formant" and if the
  > > > mouthpiece/constric tion frs were correct, would be found at the neck opening, where the bore starts to expand, I would say. 
  > > > > 
  > > > > I have gone over with Toby without resolution, the idea that it is exactly this resonance that Benade refers to when discussing the frs of the substitution - ( paraphrased) the body will see a something that acoustically resembles the missing cone. There will be a pressure node (the
  > > > mouthpiece/constric tion resonance's displacement anti-node) at or slightly inside the mouthpiece shank (he actually refers to an oboe staple) for played tones above frs, and moving slightly inside the neck (oboe body) for played tones below frs. Though Dalmont states that the anti-formant
  > > freq.
  > > > exists independent of the note played, Benade states that the mc resonance disp, anti-node affects played resonances with nodes in it's area. I surmise that the reverse is also true to some extent, which would explain the nodes movement from just inside the shank to just inside the neck.
  > > > > 
  > > > > I have not done a thorough search of the UNSW site.
  > > > >
  > > >
  > >
  >


  

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
>
> "I'm curious if you found as I did that when the insert was placed in
> the shank of the mouthpiece that the pitch went sharp by the same
> amount as if the mouthpiece were pushed onto the neck displacing the
> same amount of volume?"
> 
> Just according to this discription:
> 
> Placing 3mm insert in the throat would cause the pitch to rise due to the reduction in volume.  Removing it and pushing the neck in 3mm further, to the same point as the end of the insert, would cause the pitch to rise due to the same reduction in volume and even more do to the 3mm reduction in the length of the tube.  Right?
>

The inserts were inserted in the shank end, and pushed all the way up to the window.  With the shank removed, the mouthpiece had to be pushed further onto the neck cork in order to tune the lower octave.  But then the mouthpiece was sharp on the upper end of the upper octave, high C and on up into the palm keys.

With the longer inserts, the mouthpiece had to be pulled out somewhat to tune the low register (getting that missing cone volume correct, which caused the top end to go flat.

With one of the shorter inserts the result was good tuning in both registers and the palm keys were in tune.  But I had known this from other mouthpiece experiments.

Like Goldilocks, I had to find the one that was not too hot, not too cold, but was just right.

Paul C.

Please Toby.  Both you and Lance have misunderstood Benade's term from
the beginning.  Frs  is first used by Benade on p. 467.

An oboe reed mounted on its little brass tube (called a staple) may be
thought of as a tiny woodwind in its own right, with a playing frequency
that is extremely sensitive to the forces exerted on the reed by the
player's embouchure and by his blowing pressure. . . If a player first
uses the reed to sound a specified note on his instrument and then plays
with the same embouchure and blowing pressure on the reed alone, the
resulting frequency Frs of the reed-plus-staple turns out to be well
defined upon test and retest.  [emphasis added]

Frs is the abbreviation of  Frequency of the reed on its staple.  The
equivalent on bassoon is the reed on its bocal.  The equivalent on the
saxophone is the mouthpiece on its neck.  Obviously as Lance points out,
a one piece straight soprano sax cannot have a measurable Frs because it
does not have a detachable neck (staple).   That does not mean that the
measurement of the Frs on saxes with removable necks to determine if the
frequency of the mouthpiece substitute for the missing cone matches its
calculated frequency is invalid.   That is a flawed argument.

Here is the logic that I use:    Xo  -  the calculated missing cone
length   Y - the measured neck length

If the calculated frequency of  Xo + Y  =  the played frequency  of   Xo
+ Y

Dropping the constant Y from each side of the equation we get

calculated frequency  Xo  =  played frequency Xo  which means that

The pitch requirement of the mouthpiece substitution has been met!



--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
>
> I agree that it is not practical to measure the mpc alone,
> although it would be relatively easy to make a small brass
> pipe with the same entrance diameter and angle as the
> neck. It would need only to stick out from the shank far
> enough to be able to easily remove it.
>
> Frs stands for "resonance frequency". Both the missing
> cone and the mpc have one and they should be the same. How
> does your use of "frequency" differ?
>
> I'll have a look at your link now.
>
> Toby
>
> --- John jtalcott47@... wrote:
>
> > It is worth joining.  I have been a member for over
> > 3 years.  Many of
> > the papers are just abstracts, but there are some
> > full studies that
> > can't be found anywhere else.
> >
> > In light of all of the esoteric theorizing about
> > finding the frequency
> > (NOT Frs) of the missing cone that the mouthpiece is
> > a substitution for,
> > I have done a visual representation of what I
> > believe to be true.  That
> > is:
> >
> > In theory both a cut off mouthpiece with a
> > constricted ring at its end
> > and a mouthpiece at its normal position on a neck
> > apart from a saxophone
> > can be used to accurately estimate the frequency of
> > the missing cone.
> > However, only one of these methods is practical and
> > relatively easy and
> > effective to use.
> >
> > The visual and mathematical support of this idea can
> > be found here:
> > Calculating the Frequency of the Missing Cone
> >
>
<http://jbtsaxmusic.homestead.com/Calculating_missing_cone_frequency.pdf\
\
> > >
> >
> > John
> >
> > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods
> > lancelotburt@
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > "The Saxophone Spectrum", A. Benade
> > >
> > > The ASA - http://asa.aip.org/
> > >
> > > has an extensive online library, including this
> > Benade publication.
> > Membership ($95.00) gives one access, or non-members
> > may purchase
> > individual pdf copies.  This Benade paper costs
> > $25.00.  It may be worth
> > joining.
> > >
> >
> >
>

I think this is a truth.  Some of the literature has placed too much importance on conditions "that must be met".  We can not even agree on what the authors meant but this does not appear to be that important either.  Some of the modern researchers are working more on understanding the embouchure better since that appears to be a more important factor than the finer details of the equipment design.  So far, the best results can be obtained via personal experimentation with set-ups and practice.   Resistance may be futile...


________________________________
From: Toby <kymarto123@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, March 13, 2010 10:50:25 AM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone


...My point here is that once you are anywhere in the ballpark, so many other factors become more important ....


      

Gentlemen,

Then should this thread be renamed to: "The Irrelevant Missing Cone"?

Tom De Winter


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Keith Bradbury 
  To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2010 10:38 AM
  Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone


    

  I think this is a truth.  Some of the literature has placed too much importance on conditions "that must be met".  We can not even agree on what the authors meant but this does not appear to be that important either.  Some of the modern researchers are working more on understanding the embouchure better since that appears to be a more important factor than the finer details of the equipment design.  So far, the best results can be obtained via personal experimentation with set-ups and practice.   Resistance may be futile...


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  From: Toby <kymarto123@...>
  To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Sat, March 13, 2010 10:50:25 AM
  Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone



  ...My point here is that once you are anywhere in the ballpark, so many other factors become more important ....



  

Somehow I've missed the specific application of all this discussion, or at
least an application that is superior to building a mouthpiece, playing it,
then building another that is different and comparing them. Do any of the
participants actually build mouthpieces of an original design and play test
them?

 

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Tom De Winter
Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2010 11:20 AM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone

 

  

Gentlemen,

 

Then should this thread be renamed to: "The Irrelevant Missing Cone"?

 

Tom De Winter

 

 

----- Original Message ----- 

From: Keith Bradbury <mailto:kwbradbury@...>  

To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 

Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2010 10:38 AM

Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone

 

  

I think this is a truth.  Some of the literature has placed too much
importance on conditions "that must be met".  We can not even agree on what
the authors meant but this does not appear to be that important either.
Some of the modern researchers are working more on understanding the
embouchure better since that appears to be a more important factor than the
finer details of the equipment design.  So far, the best results can be
obtained via personal experimentation with set-ups and practice.
Resistance may be futile...


  _____  


From: Toby <kymarto123@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, March 13, 2010 10:50:25 AM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone

...My point here is that once you are anywhere in the ballpark, so many
other factors become more important ....

 

You don't think an understanding of the relevant acoustics can inform an initial design and the changes from iteration to iteration?

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "STEVE GOODSON" <saxgourmet@...> wrote:
>
> Somehow I've missed the specific application of all this discussion, or at
> least an application that is superior to building a mouthpiece, playing it,
> then building another that is different and comparing them. Do any of the
> participants actually build mouthpieces of an original design and play test
> them?
> 
>  
> 
> From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of Tom De Winter
> Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2010 11:20 AM
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
> 
>  
> 
>   
> 
> Gentlemen,
> 
>  
> 
> Then should this thread be renamed to: "The Irrelevant Missing Cone"?
> 
>  
> 
> Tom De Winter
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> 
> From: Keith Bradbury <mailto:kwbradbury@...>  
> 
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
> 
> Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2010 10:38 AM
> 
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
> 
>  
> 
>   
> 
> I think this is a truth.  Some of the literature has placed too much
> importance on conditions "that must be met".  We can not even agree on what
> the authors meant but this does not appear to be that important either.
> Some of the modern researchers are working more on understanding the
> embouchure better since that appears to be a more important factor than the
> finer details of the equipment design.  So far, the best results can be
> obtained via personal experimentation with set-ups and practice.
> Resistance may be futile...
> 
> 
>   _____  
> 
> 
> From: Toby <kymarto123@...>
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sat, March 13, 2010 10:50:25 AM
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
> 
> ...My point here is that once you are anywhere in the ballpark, so many
> other factors become more important ....
>

Of course I do, Morgan. Insofar as I know, pretty much everybody I know who
is actually successful in the business of making mouthpieces for a living
understands it. That being said, it would appear from the discussion that
the minutia being argued over has little practical application. It's the old
"how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" scenario.  I note with
interest that the members of this group (including myself) who are actually
in the business of making mouthpieces (and there are a few here) refrain
from participating.

 

I have no objection whatsoever to the discussion, and hope it continues. I
would like to see the participants move into a more practical application
with real world examples that can be independently verified. I am not
absolutely certain, based on my experience, that some of what I have been
reading here recently is entirely correct.

 

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Morgan
Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2010 12:43 PM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone

 

  

You don't think an understanding of the relevant acoustics can inform an
initial design and the changes from iteration to iteration?

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> , "STEVE GOODSON" <saxgourmet@...>
wrote:
>
> Somehow I've missed the specific application of all this discussion, or at
> least an application that is superior to building a mouthpiece, playing
it,
> then building another that is different and comparing them. Do any of the
> participants actually build mouthpieces of an original design and play
test
> them?
> 
> 
> 
> From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> ]
> On Behalf Of Tom De Winter
> Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2010 11:20 AM
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> 
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gentlemen,
> 
> 
> 
> Then should this thread be renamed to: "The Irrelevant Missing Cone"?
> 
> 
> 
> Tom De Winter
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> 
> From: Keith Bradbury <mailto:kwbradbury@...> 
> 
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>  
> 
> Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2010 10:38 AM
> 
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think this is a truth. Some of the literature has placed too much
> importance on conditions "that must be met". We can not even agree on what
> the authors meant but this does not appear to be that important either.
> Some of the modern researchers are working more on understanding the
> embouchure better since that appears to be a more important factor than
the
> finer details of the equipment design. So far, the best results can be
> obtained via personal experimentation with set-ups and practice.
> Resistance may be futile...
> 
> 
> _____ 
> 
> 
> From: Toby <kymarto123@...>
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> 
> Sent: Sat, March 13, 2010 10:50:25 AM
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
> 
> ...My point here is that once you are anywhere in the ballpark, so many
> other factors become more important ....
>

Welcome back Steve.  Since you are the resident "expert" on this forum who designs and builds mouthpieces.  I'm hoping you can share some of the knowledge you have gained from that experience with the rest of us.  For example:

If you have two tenor mouthpieces with exactly the same interior volume, but one is longer and narrower than the other:

1.  Will they both play in tune at the same position on the neck?

2.  Will the longer mouthpiece play the second mode and/or short tube notes differently (sharp or flat) compared to the other shorter mouthpiece of identical volume?

If a customer wrote to you that their current mouthpiece sounds great on their Conn 10M but everything from high C# on up is very sharp, what different mouthpiece characteristics would you recommend to solve their problem?  If you would recommend one of your mouthpieces instead, what are the characteristics of your mouthpiece design that solves this problem.  

These are just questions off the top of my head. I'm sure others on the forum can think of even more questions that can tap into your knowledge and experience.

Thanks.

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "STEVE GOODSON" <saxgourmet@...> wrote:
>
> Somehow I've missed the specific application of all this discussion, or at
> least an application that is superior to building a mouthpiece, playing it,
> then building another that is different and comparing them. Do any of the
> participants actually build mouthpieces of an original design and play test
> them?
> 
>  
> 
> From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of Tom De Winter
> Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2010 11:20 AM
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
> 
>  
> 
>   
> 
> Gentlemen,
> 
>  
> 
> Then should this thread be renamed to: "The Irrelevant Missing Cone"?
> 
>  
> 
> Tom De Winter
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> 
> From: Keith Bradbury <mailto:kwbradbury@...>  
> 
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
> 
> Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2010 10:38 AM
> 
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
> 
>  
> 
>   
> 
> I think this is a truth.  Some of the literature has placed too much
> importance on conditions "that must be met".  We can not even agree on what
> the authors meant but this does not appear to be that important either.
> Some of the modern researchers are working more on understanding the
> embouchure better since that appears to be a more important factor than the
> finer details of the equipment design.  So far, the best results can be
> obtained via personal experimentation with set-ups and practice.
> Resistance may be futile...
> 
> 
>   _____  
> 
> 
> From: Toby <kymarto123@...>
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sat, March 13, 2010 10:50:25 AM
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
> 
> ...My point here is that once you are anywhere in the ballpark, so many
> other factors become more important ....
>

John:

Having read with great interest your post
http://www.woodwindforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p&321 in which you
categorically make statements which are totally untrue (that's being
kind...) about products you have never seen or measured, much less played, I
think you can understand my unwillingness to participate in any discussion
in which you are active. Sorry, my man, but you just have zero credibility
with me.

 

 

 

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of John
Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2010 1:39 PM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone

 

  



Welcome back Steve. Since you are the resident "expert" on this forum who
designs and builds mouthpieces. I'm hoping you can share some of the
knowledge you have gained from that experience with the rest of us. For
example:

If you have two tenor mouthpieces with exactly the same interior volume, but
one is longer and narrower than the other:

1. Will they both play in tune at the same position on the neck?

2. Will the longer mouthpiece play the second mode and/or short tube notes
differently (sharp or flat) compared to the other shorter mouthpiece of
identical volume?

If a customer wrote to you that their current mouthpiece sounds great on
their Conn 10M but everything from high C# on up is very sharp, what
different mouthpiece characteristics would you recommend to solve their
problem? If you would recommend one of your mouthpieces instead, what are
the characteristics of your mouthpiece design that solves this problem. 

These are just questions off the top of my head. I'm sure others on the
forum can think of even more questions that can tap into your knowledge and
experience.

Thanks.

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> , "STEVE GOODSON" <saxgourmet@...>
wrote:
>
> Somehow I've missed the specific application of all this discussion, or at
> least an application that is superior to building a mouthpiece, playing
it,
> then building another that is different and comparing them. Do any of the
> participants actually build mouthpieces of an original design and play
test
> them?
> 
> 
> 
> From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> ]
> On Behalf Of Tom De Winter
> Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2010 11:20 AM
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> 
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gentlemen,
> 
> 
> 
> Then should this thread be renamed to: "The Irrelevant Missing Cone"?
> 
> 
> 
> Tom De Winter
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> 
> From: Keith Bradbury <mailto:kwbradbury@...> 
> 
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>  
> 
> Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2010 10:38 AM
> 
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think this is a truth. Some of the literature has placed too much
> importance on conditions "that must be met". We can not even agree on what
> the authors meant but this does not appear to be that important either.
> Some of the modern researchers are working more on understanding the
> embouchure better since that appears to be a more important factor than
the
> finer details of the equipment design. So far, the best results can be
> obtained via personal experimentation with set-ups and practice.
> Resistance may be futile...
> 
> 
> _____ 
> 
> 
> From: Toby <kymarto123@...>
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> 
> Sent: Sat, March 13, 2010 10:50:25 AM
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
> 
> ...My point here is that once you are anywhere in the ballpark, so many
> other factors become more important ....
>

That's unfortunate Steve.  This is not the place to debate the topic of how you represent your necks to the public, nor do I want to.  I just hope your refusal to respond to my questions about mouthpiece volume here doesn't give the appearance to others that you don't know the answers.  Maybe if someone else were to ask you those same questions you could respond without having to "participate in any discussion" with me.  Just a thought.

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "STEVE GOODSON" <saxgourmet@...> wrote:
>
> John:
> 
> Having read with great interest your post
> http://www.woodwindforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p&321 in which you
> categorically make statements which are totally untrue (that's being
> kind...) about products you have never seen or measured, much less played, I
> think you can understand my unwillingness to participate in any discussion
> in which you are active. Sorry, my man, but you just have zero credibility
> with me.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of John
> Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2010 1:39 PM
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
> 
>  
> 
>   
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome back Steve. Since you are the resident "expert" on this forum who
> designs and builds mouthpieces. I'm hoping you can share some of the
> knowledge you have gained from that experience with the rest of us. For
> example:
> 
> If you have two tenor mouthpieces with exactly the same interior volume, but
> one is longer and narrower than the other:
> 
> 1. Will they both play in tune at the same position on the neck?
> 
> 2. Will the longer mouthpiece play the second mode and/or short tube notes
> differently (sharp or flat) compared to the other shorter mouthpiece of
> identical volume?
> 
> If a customer wrote to you that their current mouthpiece sounds great on
> their Conn 10M but everything from high C# on up is very sharp, what
> different mouthpiece characteristics would you recommend to solve their
> problem? If you would recommend one of your mouthpieces instead, what are
> the characteristics of your mouthpiece design that solves this problem. 
> 
> These are just questions off the top of my head. I'm sure others on the
> forum can think of even more questions that can tap into your knowledge and
> experience.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> , "STEVE GOODSON" <saxgourmet@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Somehow I've missed the specific application of all this discussion, or at
> > least an application that is superior to building a mouthpiece, playing
> it,
> > then building another that is different and comparing them. Do any of the
> > participants actually build mouthpieces of an original design and play
> test
> > them?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
> [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> ]
> > On Behalf Of Tom De Winter
> > Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2010 11:20 AM
> > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> 
> > Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Gentlemen,
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Then should this thread be renamed to: "The Irrelevant Missing Cone"?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Tom De Winter
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > 
> > From: Keith Bradbury <mailto:kwbradbury@> 
> > 
> > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>  
> > 
> > Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2010 10:38 AM
> > 
> > Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > I think this is a truth. Some of the literature has placed too much
> > importance on conditions "that must be met". We can not even agree on what
> > the authors meant but this does not appear to be that important either.
> > Some of the modern researchers are working more on understanding the
> > embouchure better since that appears to be a more important factor than
> the
> > finer details of the equipment design. So far, the best results can be
> > obtained via personal experimentation with set-ups and practice.
> > Resistance may be futile...
> > 
> > 
> > _____ 
> > 
> > 
> > From: Toby <kymarto123@>
> > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> 
> > Sent: Sat, March 13, 2010 10:50:25 AM
> > Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
> > 
> > ...My point here is that once you are anywhere in the ballpark, so many
> > other factors become more important ....
> >
>

"Please Toby.  Both you and Lance have misunderstood Benade's term from the beginning. "

John,

I understand exactly what Benade is saying, in every case of the use of frs.  As I explained, and you have yet to address the issue, in 

https://ccrma.stanford.edu/marl/Benade/documents/Benade-Physics323-1977.pdf

, page 21, just 1" above Benade's discription of frs being, "Frs - played frequency of the reed on it's own cavity and neck.", is his illustration of the parts of a conical reed instrument.  Clearly marked are, Xo, on the left, (the length of the substitution for the missing cone) and L, on the right (the length of the body's main bore).  On the side of Xo, are clearly shown the two parts of the missing cone, the cavity and the constriction.  If we take Benade literally, as you do, the neck ("Constriction - ...it is the sax neck.") is part of the missing cone, in it's entirety, in both volume and length.

As clear as that is established in both diagram and description, you still claim in your Missing Cone Volume Study, that the neck is not part of the missing cone. I, personally, can not ignore this huge contradiction.  Your use of your own original terminology, "The true missing cone is the part beyond the end of the saxophone neck", doesn't cut it for me.   I won't buy an interpretation of Benade, which means one thing here, and the opposite thing there,





      

John,

Just a little more....

Which is why I have my own interpretation of Benade, which encompasses, the misisng cone, frs, and everything else, in which there are no contradictions, either in terminology, mechanics, or acoustics, and it holds up in the "real world" application.



      

Ok Lance.  I will accept your idea as having validity in the real world when you can demonstrate the played frequency of a mouthpiece the same length as the portion of the mouthpiece that extends beyond the end of the neck is the same as the calculated frequency of the apical missing cone.  Good luck.

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
>
> John,
> 
> Just a little more....
> 
> Which is why I have my own interpretation of Benade, which encompasses, the misisng cone, frs, and everything else, in which there are no contradictions, either in terminology, mechanics, or acoustics, and it holds up in the "real world" application.
>

Lance,

I beginning to believe 3 things.

a.  that you have to be right---no matter what.
b.  that you love to argue.
c.  that  a and b together make up the frequency of "your" missing cone

The "true missing cone" is the truncated section at the end of the
saxophone neck that allows a mouthpiece to be put on the end to act as
its substitution.

The neck is considered a part of a missing conical section only if and
when it and the mouthpiece are detached from the body of the saxophone
to test the Frs.  The neck is never really missing unless you lose it
and can't play your saxophone.  Let's have the last word on this because
the argument is going beyond silly to the ridiculous.


--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
wrote:
>
> "Please Toby.  Both you and Lance have misunderstood Benade's term
from the beginning. "
>
> John,
>
> I understand exactly what Benade is saying, in every case of the use
of frs.  As I explained, and you have yet to address the issue, in
>
>
https://ccrma.stanford.edu/marl/Benade/documents/Benade-Physics323-1977.\
pdf
>
> , page 21, just 1" above Benade's discription of frs being, "Frs -
played frequency of the reed on it's own cavity and neck.", is his
illustration of the parts of a conical reed instrument.  Clearly marked
are, Xo, on the left, (the length of the substitution for the missing
cone) and L, on the right (the length of the body's main bore).  On the
side of Xo, are clearly shown the two parts of the missing cone, the
cavity and the constriction.  If we take Benade literally, as you do,
the neck ("Constriction - ...it is the sax neck.") is part of the
missing cone, in it's entirety, in both volume and length.
>
> As clear as that is established in both diagram and description, you
still claim in your Missing Cone Volume Study, that the neck is not part
of the missing cone. I, personally, can not ignore this huge
contradiction.  Your use of your own original terminology, "The true
missing cone is the part beyond the end of the saxophone neck", doesn't
cut it for me.   I won't buy an interpretation of Benade, which means
one thing here, and the opposite thing there,
>

Hi John,

It doesn't matter a bit. The frequency of the mpc volume
plus whatever part of the cone is included must match the
frequency of that length of complete cone. End of story,
end of chapter. If you use the full length of the sax,
playing low Bb, that should be the same frequency as the
resonant frequency of the entire sax if the cone were
complete. If you use one centimeter of neck, the Frs
should be the same frequency as the missing cone plus that
one centimeter of neck. Why is this so much trouble to
understand?

Benade's writings are not the Bible. He takes certain
license and uses descriptive approximations. If you want
to understand it fully you have to go strictly with the
math.

That being said, just why are we discussing this? What
practical use is this? I have to agree with Steve that you
need to actually do some empirical tests. It was certainly
instructive to me to see just how little all this matters,
or rather, just how little all this matters in light of
all the other factors (such as the Fr--reed resonance)
that also play a part in determining intonation.

This is like determinism--you are not going to be able to
predict every event in the universe from fully
understanding physical laws (as if that were possible). If
you use a rough understanding of the principles involved
as a guide it should help you move in the right empirical
directions, but this is all good only to a first
approximation in the real world.

When I once asked Joe Wolfe some questions like these, in
one of my debates with Lance, he sent me a cartoon about
"nerd sniping". I'm sorry I can't send it along, because
you should see it. In it two guys are discussing "nerd
sniping"--you give a nerd an interesting-looking but
totally irrelevant problem--the illustration was of trying
to figure out the impedance across a large series of one
ohm resistors. The nerd gets the problem and gets so
mentally lost, standing in the road and trying to work out
the answer, that he gets creamed by truck that he doesn't
notice barreling down the road. The two guys then figure
out how to score the hit.

The meaning was pretty obvious to me: get out of your head
and get to work on what matters. It is very easy to
experiment with different chamber volumes and sizes. Try
it, like I did, and find out just how much difference it
does or doesn't make, and what differences you find. 

Since embouchure changes can so thoroughly mask mpc
changes, it would probably be a good idea to get your "hot
lips" machine going. Even then, you need to consider the
fact that an artificial embouchure is static, and cannot
really represent what happens when you have a real player
dynamically controlling reed resonance.

Toby

--- John <jtalcott47@...> wrote:

> Please Toby.  Both you and Lance have misunderstood
> Benade's term from
> the beginning.  Frs  is first used by Benade on p.
> 467.
> 
> An oboe reed mounted on its little brass tube
> (called a staple) may be
> thought of as a tiny woodwind in its own right, with
> a playing frequency
> that is extremely sensitive to the forces exerted on
> the reed by the
> player's embouchure and by his blowing pressure. . .
> If a player first
> uses the reed to sound a specified note on his
> instrument and then plays
> with the same embouchure and blowing pressure on the
> reed alone, the
> resulting frequency Frs of the reed-plus-staple
> turns out to be well
> defined upon test and retest.  [emphasis added]
> 
> Frs is the abbreviation of  Frequency of the reed on
> its staple.  The
> equivalent on bassoon is the reed on its bocal.  The
> equivalent on the
> saxophone is the mouthpiece on its neck.  Obviously
> as Lance points out,
> a one piece straight soprano sax cannot have a
> measurable Frs because it
> does not have a detachable neck (staple).   That
> does not mean that the
> measurement of the Frs on saxes with removable necks
> to determine if the
> frequency of the mouthpiece substitute for the
> missing cone matches its
> calculated frequency is invalid.   That is a flawed
> argument.
> 
> Here is the logic that I use:    Xo  -  the
> calculated missing cone
> length   Y - the measured neck length
> 
> If the calculated frequency of  Xo + Y  =  the
> played frequency  of   Xo
> + Y
> 
> Dropping the constant Y from each side of the
> equation we get
> 
> calculated frequency  Xo  =  played frequency Xo 
> which means that
> 
> The pitch requirement of the mouthpiece substitution
> has been met!
> 
> 
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com,
> <kymarto123@...> wrote:
> >
> > I agree that it is not practical to measure the
> mpc alone,
> > although it would be relatively easy to make a
> small brass
> > pipe with the same entrance diameter and angle as
> the
> > neck. It would need only to stick out from the
> shank far
> > enough to be able to easily remove it.
> >
> > Frs stands for "resonance frequency". Both the
> missing
> > cone and the mpc have one and they should be the
> same. How
> > does your use of "frequency" differ?
> >
> > I'll have a look at your link now.
> >
> > Toby
> >
> > --- John jtalcott47@... wrote:
> >
> > > It is worth joining.  I have been a member for
> over
> > > 3 years.  Many of
> > > the papers are just abstracts, but there are
> some
> > > full studies that
> > > can't be found anywhere else.
> > >
> > > In light of all of the esoteric theorizing about
> > > finding the frequency
> > > (NOT Frs) of the missing cone that the
> mouthpiece is
> > > a substitution for,
> > > I have done a visual representation of what I
> > > believe to be true.  That
> > > is:
> > >
> > > In theory both a cut off mouthpiece with a
> > > constricted ring at its end
> > > and a mouthpiece at its normal position on a
> neck
> > > apart from a saxophone
> > > can be used to accurately estimate the frequency
> of
> > > the missing cone.
> > > However, only one of these methods is practical
> and
> > > relatively easy and
> > > effective to use.
> > >
> > > The visual and mathematical support of this idea
> can
> > > be found here:
> > > Calculating the Frequency of the Missing Cone
> > >
> >
>
<http://jbtsaxmusic.homestead.com/Calculating_missing_cone_frequency.pdf\
> \
> > > >
> > >
> > > John
> > >
> > > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com,
> MartinMods
> > > lancelotburt@
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "The Saxophone Spectrum", A. Benade
> > > >
> > > > The ASA - http://asa.aip.org/
> > > >
> > > > has an extensive online library, including
> this
> > > Benade publication.
> > > Membership ($95.00) gives one access, or
> non-members
> > > may purchase
> > > individual pdf copies.  This Benade paper costs
> > > $25.00.  It may be worth
> > > joining.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> 
> 

Still you avoid the issue.

--- On Sun, 3/14/10, John <jtalcott47@...> wrote:

From: John <jtalcott47@...>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, March 14, 2010, 12:34 AM







 



  


    
      
      
      Ok Lance.  I will accept your idea as having validity in the real world when you can demonstrate the played frequency of a mouthpiece the same length as the portion of the mouthpiece that extends beyond the end of the neck is the same as the calculated frequency of the apical missing cone.  Good luck.



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

>

> John,

> 

> Just a little more....

> 

> Which is why I have my own interpretation of Benade, which encompasses, the misisng cone, frs, and everything else, in which there are no contradictions, either in terminology, mechanics, or acoustics, and it holds up in the "real world" application.

>





    
     

    
    


 



  






      

Yes.  I agree that it certainly is not logical at all.


--- On Sun, 3/14/10, John <jtalcott47@...> wrote:

From: John <jtalcott47@...>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, March 14, 2010, 12:53 AM







 



  


    
      
      
      
Lance,

I beginning to believe 3 things.

a.  that you have to be right---no matter what.
b.  that you love to argue.
c.  that  a and b together make up the frequency of "your" missing cone

The "true missing cone" is the truncated section at the end of the saxophone neck that allows a mouthpiece to be put on the end to act as its substitution.

The neck is considered a part of a missing conical section only if and when it and the mouthpiece are detached from the body of the saxophone to test the Frs.  The neck is never really missing unless you lose it and can't play your saxophone.  Let's have the last word on this because the argument is going beyond silly to the ridiculous.


--- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ ...> wrote:
>
> "Please Toby.  Both you and Lance have misunderstood Benade's term from the beginning. "
> 
> John,
> 
> I understand exactly what Benade is saying, in every case of the use of frs.  As I explained, and you have yet to address the issue, in 
> 
> https://ccrma. stanford. edu/marl/ Benade/documents /Benade-Physics3 23-1977.pdf
> 
> , page 21, just 1" above Benade's discription of frs being, "Frs - played frequency of the reed on it's own cavity and neck.", is his illustration of the parts of a conical reed instrument.  Clearly marked are, Xo, on the left, (the length of the substitution for the missing cone) and L, on the right (the length of the body's main bore).  On the side of Xo, are clearly shown the two parts of the missing cone, the cavity and the constriction.  If we take Benade literally, as you do, the neck ("Constriction - ...it is the sax neck.") is part of the missing cone, in it's entirety, in both volume and length.
> 
> As clear as that is established in both diagram and description, you still claim in your Missing Cone Volume Study, that the neck is not part of the missing cone. I, personally, can not ignore this huge contradiction.  Your use of your own original terminology, "The true missing cone is the part beyond the end of the saxophone neck", doesn't cut it for me.   I won't buy an interpretation of Benade, which means one thing here, and the opposite thing there,
>




    
     

    
    


 



  






      

It's not the played frequency, it's the Helmholtz
frequency. You can't play a conic apex, but it has a
Helmholtz frequency, and it is that which should match the
analog in the mpc.

Toby

--- John <jtalcott47@...> wrote:

> Ok Lance.  I will accept your idea as having
> validity in the real world when you can demonstrate
> the played frequency of a mouthpiece the same length
> as the portion of the mouthpiece that extends beyond
> the end of the neck is the same as the calculated
> frequency of the apical missing cone.  Good luck.
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods
> <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
> >
> > John,
> > 
> > Just a little more....
> > 
> > Which is why I have my own interpretation of
> Benade, which encompasses, the misisng cone, frs,
> and everything else, in which there are no
> contradictions, either in terminology, mechanics, or
> acoustics, and it holds up in the "real world"
> application.
> >
> 
> 
> 

John,

Frs Challenge:  No problem.  I don't know what kind of embouchure you have, but I can hold a very steady pitch on any mouthpiece alone, and I'm absolutely certain about what my normal embouchure feels like.

MM


--- On Sun, 3/14/10, John <jtalcott47@...> wrote:

From: John <jtalcott47@...>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, March 14, 2010, 12:34 AM







 



  


    
      
      
      Ok Lance.  I will accept your idea as having validity in the real world when you can demonstrate the played frequency of a mouthpiece the same length as the portion of the mouthpiece that extends beyond the end of the neck is the same as the calculated frequency of the apical missing cone.  Good luck.



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

>

> John,

> 

> Just a little more....

> 

> Which is why I have my own interpretation of Benade, which encompasses, the misisng cone, frs, and everything else, in which there are no contradictions, either in terminology, mechanics, or acoustics, and it holds up in the "real world" application.

>





    
     

    
    


 



  






      

I haven't commented in this thread much, but have long ago become confused as to the point of it all.  

This discussion has deteriorated to arguments over details that are nearly meaningless... where I would say, "so what?"  Even if we were able to calculate an exact number for X, what are we going to do with it?  We certainly aren't going to reshape the bore of a customer's saxophone, nor are we going to relocate the toneholes.  

In the end, all we can do here is work on his mouthpiece.  Even here, I have found that not every intonation and response issue can be corrected with a proper mouthpiece, or altering a mouthpiece.  Sometimes it's just the lousy instrument.  And sometimes it's just the player.

Paul C.

Toby:

I also question the point of all this use of bandwidth and fail to see any
practical application. The realities of the actual use of saxophone in the
real world have been all but totally ignored.

 

As to your suggestion that an artificial embouchure might yield some useful
findings, I very strongly disagree. If the ultimate goal of any research is
to "improve the breed", then you must conduct any and all tests in "real
world" situations, using bona fide players. There is considerable variation
among highly skilled players in embouchure, and for any product or design
improvement to be viable, it MUST work for all of them, not in an artificial
environment. This is the only way any design improvement is of any use
whatsoever to the saxophone community, and this is why artificial tests such
as you propose have been consistently rejected by designers and
manufacturers. The results have no relevance in the real world, and if they
have no relevance to the real world, what's the point?

 

Instead of the constant regurgitation of writings of the past, I would
suggest that the participants who insist on pursuing these matters actually
build some products and have them properly evaluated by independent third
parties. I would admonish them to "do it, THEN talk about it"!

 

It is really quite easy to enter the saxophone/mouthpiece business. Anyone
with original designs or improvements that they wish to advance can easily
do it. Sharon and I entered the business independently of any other
corporate entanglements a little over two years ago, and here is our
process, which can easily be used by anyone else who wishes to advance the
craft:

 

We build the first product prototype at our shop in New Orleans, and then
have it evaluated by our "posse" of full time professional players with a
strong studio work background. We listen to what the posse has to say and
make changes as necessary. If the product in question is a mouthpiece or
small component, we usually convert the design to a Solid Works file. If it
is an entire instrument, we prepare extensive drawings and specifications.
We then contact appropriate manufacturers (all of our products except
lubricants are manufactured by outside vendors who build to our
specifications) and upon selection of an appropriate vendor, have them build
a few (less than five) prototypes and send them to us. It is most important
that the vendor build multiple examples so we can be certain they can repeat
the manufacturing process consistently. We then verify that the prototypes
are built to our specification, and call the posse in again and have them
extensively play tested. If the prototypes are deemed acceptable, we then
order a production run.

 

It is in no way difficult to find factories to build your products. The
world is full of them. Our mouthpiece blanks (all are finished at our New
Orleans office) are manufactured by five different factories located in the
USA, Taiwan, and China. We make 18 different mouthpiece models, and try to
choose factories based on their expertise in a particular type of
manufacture. While it is true that the mouthpieces sold under my name
several years ago by Orpheus Music were modifications of existing designs
(sourced from two different vendors, one in Taiwan and one in China),
everything we sell today is unique to us and available nowhere else.

 

This is not a complicated process. Anyone can do it. All you have to do is
come up with an improved design, go to the NAMM show or Musik Messe to find
a wide variety of factories, and build your product. The market will then
tell you if you are correct in your design or not! 

 

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of kymarto123@...
Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2010 7:21 PM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The Elusive Missing Cone

 

  

Hi John,

It doesn't matter a bit. The frequency of the mpc volume
plus whatever part of the cone is included must match the
frequency of that length of complete cone. End of story,
end of chapter. If you use the full length of the sax,
playing low Bb, that should be the same frequency as the
resonant frequency of the entire sax if the cone were
complete. If you use one centimeter of neck, the Frs
should be the same frequency as the missing cone plus that
one centimeter of neck. Why is this so much trouble to
understand?

Benade's writings are not the Bible. He takes certain
license and uses descriptive approximations. If you want
to understand it fully you have to go strictly with the
math.

That being said, just why are we discussing this? What
practical use is this? I have to agree with Steve that you
need to actually do some empirical tests. It was certainly
instructive to me to see just how little all this matters,
or rather, just how little all this matters in light of
all the other factors (such as the Fr--reed resonance)
that also play a part in determining intonation.

This is like determinism--you are not going to be able to
predict every event in the universe from fully
understanding physical laws (as if that were possible). If
you use a rough understanding of the principles involved
as a guide it should help you move in the right empirical
directions, but this is all good only to a first
approximation in the real world.

When I once asked Joe Wolfe some questions like these, in
one of my debates with Lance, he sent me a cartoon about
"nerd sniping". I'm sorry I can't send it along, because
you should see it. In it two guys are discussing "nerd
sniping"--you give a nerd an interesting-looking but
totally irrelevant problem--the illustration was of trying
to figure out the impedance across a large series of one
ohm resistors. The nerd gets the problem and gets so
mentally lost, standing in the road and trying to work out
the answer, that he gets creamed by truck that he doesn't
notice barreling down the road. The two guys then figure
out how to score the hit.

The meaning was pretty obvious to me: get out of your head
and get to work on what matters. It is very easy to
experiment with different chamber volumes and sizes. Try
it, like I did, and find out just how much difference it
does or doesn't make, and what differences you find. 

Since embouchure changes can so thoroughly mask mpc
changes, it would probably be a good idea to get your "hot
lips" machine going. Even then, you need to consider the
fact that an artificial embouchure is static, and cannot
really represent what happens when you have a real player
dynamically controlling reed resonance.

Toby

--- John <jtalcott47@... <mailto:jtalcott47%40msn.com> > wrote:

> Please Toby. Both you and Lance have misunderstood
> Benade's term from
> the beginning. Frs is first used by Benade on p.
> 467.
> 
> An oboe reed mounted on its little brass tube
> (called a staple) may be
> thought of as a tiny woodwind in its own right, with
> a playing frequency
> that is extremely sensitive to the forces exerted on
> the reed by the
> player's embouchure and by his blowing pressure. . .
> If a player first
> uses the reed to sound a specified note on his
> instrument and then plays
> with the same embouchure and blowing pressure on the
> reed alone, the
> resulting frequency Frs of the reed-plus-staple
> turns out to be well
> defined upon test and retest. [emphasis added]
> 
> Frs is the abbreviation of Frequency of the reed on
> its staple. The
> equivalent on bassoon is the reed on its bocal. The
> equivalent on the
> saxophone is the mouthpiece on its neck. Obviously
> as Lance points out,
> a one piece straight soprano sax cannot have a
> measurable Frs because it
> does not have a detachable neck (staple). That
> does not mean that the
> measurement of the Frs on saxes with removable necks
> to determine if the
> frequency of the mouthpiece substitute for the
> missing cone matches its
> calculated frequency is invalid. That is a flawed
> argument.
> 
> Here is the logic that I use: Xo - the
> calculated missing cone
> length Y - the measured neck length
> 
> If the calculated frequency of Xo + Y = the
> played frequency of Xo
> + Y
> 
> Dropping the constant Y from each side of the
> equation we get
> 
> calculated frequency Xo = played frequency Xo 
> which means that
> 
> The pitch requirement of the mouthpiece substitution
> has been met!
> 
> 
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> ,
> <kymarto123@...> wrote:
> >
> > I agree that it is not practical to measure the
> mpc alone,
> > although it would be relatively easy to make a
> small brass
> > pipe with the same entrance diameter and angle as
> the
> > neck. It would need only to stick out from the
> shank far
> > enough to be able to easily remove it.
> >
> > Frs stands for "resonance frequency". Both the
> missing
> > cone and the mpc have one and they should be the
> same. How
> > does your use of "frequency" differ?
> >
> > I'll have a look at your link now.
> >
> > Toby
> >
> > --- John jtalcott47@... wrote:
> >
> > > It is worth joining. I have been a member for
> over
> > > 3 years. Many of
> > > the papers are just abstracts, but there are
> some
> > > full studies that
> > > can't be found anywhere else.
> > >
> > > In light of all of the esoteric theorizing about
> > > finding the frequency
> > > (NOT Frs) of the missing cone that the
> mouthpiece is
> > > a substitution for,
> > > I have done a visual representation of what I
> > > believe to be true. That
> > > is:
> > >
> > > In theory both a cut off mouthpiece with a
> > > constricted ring at its end
> > > and a mouthpiece at its normal position on a
> neck
> > > apart from a saxophone
> > > can be used to accurately estimate the frequency
> of
> > > the missing cone.
> > > However, only one of these methods is practical
> and
> > > relatively easy and
> > > effective to use.
> > >
> > > The visual and mathematical support of this idea
> can
> > > be found here:
> > > Calculating the Frequency of the Missing Cone
> > >
> >
>
<http://jbtsaxmusic.homestead.com/Calculating_missing_cone_frequency.pdf\
<http://jbtsaxmusic.homestead.com/Calculating_missing_cone_frequency.pdf> 
> \
> > > >
> > >
> > > John
> > >
> > > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> ,
> MartinMods
> > > lancelotburt@
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "The Saxophone Spectrum", A. Benade
> > > >
> > > > The ASA - http://asa.aip.org/
> > > >
> > > > has an extensive online library, including
> this
> > > Benade publication.
> > > Membership ($95.00) gives one access, or
> non-members
> > > may purchase
> > > individual pdf copies. This Benade paper costs
> > > $25.00. It may be worth
> > > joining.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> 
> 

"I haven't commented in this thread much, but have long ago become confused as to the point of it all."

I can only speak for myself.  In planning some original, machined from brass rod, mouthpiece prototypes, I decided to go back to the purely theoretical basics, which I then compare and combine with what I know from my playing experience, so the discussion of equivalent mouthpiece volume and how to determine it, mouthpiece chamber volume, missing cone volume and how to determine it, and input from those also interested, even conflictingly, are of use.  I think that will yield more results than just randomly altering some pre-existing product to see if it improves.  So, for me, the gain is worth the pain, but I can see how others might feel otherwise.  They do have the option of just not opening the message after all. I use that option myself frequently.  It's easier than complaining.