Defects found while parsing message: [{'multipart/alternative': ['CloseBoundaryNotFoundDefect: A start boundary was found, but not the corresponding close boundary.']}]

Defects found while parsing message: [{'multipart/alternative': ['CloseBoundaryNotFoundDefect: A start boundary was found, but not the corresponding close boundary.']}]

Defects found while parsing message: [{'multipart/alternative': ['CloseBoundaryNotFoundDefect: A start boundary was found, but not the corresponding close boundary.']}]

Defects found while parsing message: [{'multipart/alternative': ['CloseBoundaryNotFoundDefect: A start boundary was found, but not the corresponding close boundary.']}]

"Am I correct that you believe that the more a
member posts, the greater their status and say-so in the group? Is there a “three
post minimum per set” or something like that? What about members who consistently
post material that is off topic from mouthpiece work? Are they more important?"

That would be a twisted interpretation.  

Objectively seen, my post says nothing more than a previous post of yours, which I will paraphrase, if I may, 

"If you're not discussing what you want to discuss here, it's your own fault."  

With that in mind, I have to ask - Am I correct in assuming then, that complaining about the theoretical MC conversation is your subject of choice?



      

Dear MM
I have limited expertise but great interest in most mouthpiece matters.
I have learned a great deal from reading many of the posts on this board.
I only post when I think I have something of value to add to the community.
NS

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
>
> Mr. Smale,
> 
> I mean no disrespect, but, Your last post was on Dec, 12, 2008.  It would appear that you are more interested in our little esoteric theoretical discussion, than anything else mouthpiece related, so I see no reason to complain.  Had you had other interests, surely you would have posted something about them.  That's what the forum is for.  It is not an entertainment channel.
> 
> MM
> 
> 
> --- On Sat, 3/13/10, Norman Smale <norman.smale@...> wrote:
> 
> From: Norman Smale <norman.smale@...>
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Digest Number 1898
> To: "No Reply" <notify-dg-MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com>
> Cc: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Saturday, March 13, 2010, 9:48 PM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
>   
> 
> 
>     
>       
>       
>       Am I alone in thinking that a dinner party with just 4-5 people with fetishist interest in discussing a single esoteric interest would be more appropriate than regaling the facts to a restaurant full of people most of whom would be more interested in moving  on with life ??
> 
>  
> 13 March 2010 12:37, <MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sax and Clarinet Mouthpiece Work 
> 
> 
> Messages In This Digest (17 Messages) 
> 
> 
> 1.1. 
> Re: The Elusive Missing Cone From: John 
> 
> 1.2. 
> Re: The Elusive Missing Cone From: MartinMods 
> 
> 1.3. 
> Re: The Elusive Missing Cone From: John 
> 
> 1.4. 
> Re: The Elusive Missing Cone From: Toby 
> 
> 1.5. 
> Re: The Elusive Missing Cone From: MartinMods 
> 
> 1.6. 
> Re: The Elusive Missing Cone From: kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp 
> 
> 1.7. 
> Re: The Elusive Missing Cone From: MartinMods 
> 
> 1.8. 
> Re: The Elusive Missing Cone From: John 
> 
> 1.9. 
> Re: The Elusive Missing Cone From: John 
> 
> 1.10. 
> Re: The Elusive Missing Cone From: kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp 
> 
> 
> 2a. 
> Rico Metalite From: Willis Dair 
> 
> 2b. 
> Re: Subject Matter Priority From: MartinMods 
> 
> 2c. 
> Re: Subject Matter Priority From: Keith Bradbury 
> 
> 
> 3.1. 
> Re: The Elusive Missing Cone--mpc volume vs length for tuning From: MartinMods 
> 
> 3.2. 
> Re: The Elusive Missing Cone--mpc volume vs length for tuning From: John 
> 
> 3.3. 
> Re: The Elusive Missing Cone--mpc volume vs length for tuning From: MartinMods 
> 
> 3.4. 
> Re: The Elusive Missing Cone--mpc volume vs length for tuning From: kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp 
> 
> View All Topics | Create New Topic 
> 
> Messages 
> 
> 
> 1.1. 
> 
> Re: The Elusive Missing Cone 
> 
> Posted by: "John" jtalcott47@msn. com   jbtsax 
> 
> Fri Mar 12, 2010 9:19 am (PST) 
> 
> 
> 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.
> > > >
> > >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> Back to top 
> Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post 
> 
> Messages in this topic (155) 
> 
> 1.2. 
> 
> Re: The Elusive Missing Cone 
> 
> Posted by: "MartinMods" lancelotburt@ yahoo.com   lancelotburt 
> 
> Fri Mar 12, 2010 10:55 am (PST) 
> 
> 
> 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@msn. com> wrote:
> 
> From: John <jtalcott47@msn. com>
> 
> 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.
> > > >
> > >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> Back to top 
> Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post 
> 
> Messages in this topic (155) 
> 
> 1.3. 
> 
> Re: The Elusive Missing Cone 
> 
> Posted by: "John" jtalcott47@msn. com   jbtsax 
> 
> Fri Mar 12, 2010 3:48 pm (PST) 
> 
> 
> 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.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> Back to top 
> Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post 
> 
> Messages in this topic (155) 
> 
> 1.4. 
> 
> Re: The Elusive Missing Cone 
> 
> Posted by: "Toby" kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp   kymarto 
> 
> Fri Mar 12, 2010 4:49 pm (PST) 
> 
> 
> 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 to
(Message over 64 KB, truncated)

Defects found while parsing message: [{'multipart/alternative': ['CloseBoundaryNotFoundDefect: A start boundary was found, but not the corresponding close boundary.']}]

You need to carefully review my posting history in this group……..

 

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of MartinMods
Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2010 3:15 PM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [MouthpieceWork] Digest Number 1898

 

  


"Am I correct that you believe that the more a member posts, the greater their status and say-so in the group? Is there a “three post minimum per set” or something like that? What about members who consistently post material that is off topic from mouthpiece work? Are they more important?"

That would be a twisted interpretation.  

Objectively seen, my post says nothing more than a previous post of yours, which I will paraphrase, if I may, 

"If you're not discussing what you want to discuss here, it's your own fault."  

With that in mind, I have to ask - Am I correct in assuming then, that complaining about the theoretical MC conversation is your subject of choice?