Using wooden beads on a cable I was able to get a more accurate neck
length measurement from 173 mm to 176 mm
Using a graduated cylinder the measured volume inside the neck was
measured at 50 ml as opposed to 49 ml
The greatest change was recalculating the effective volume of the
mouthpiece with it 28.2 mm onto the cork instead of 10 mm
It was found to add exactly 2.26 ml when placed  28.2 mm onto the cork
compared  to  2.38 ml when placed at 10 mm.
As a result the 28.2 mm was added to the measured mouthpiece volume in
the MCVCSR in lieu of adding 28%.
The results are interesting to say the least.

The revised study can be found here  MCVCSR  
<http://jbtsaxmusic.homestead.com/Missing_Cone_Volume_Comparison_Study-R\
evised.pdf>

The new effective mouthpiece volume study is at this link Mouthpiece
Effective Volume
<http://jbtsaxmusic.homestead.com/Mouthpiece_effective_volume_study_new.\
pdf>




Gentlemen start your flame throwers.

What is the point of this as opposed to pushing the mpc on
the cork until it tunes correctly?

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

> Using wooden beads on a cable I was able to get a
> more accurate neck
> length measurement from 173 mm to 176 mm
> Using a graduated cylinder the measured volume
> inside the neck was
> measured at 50 ml as opposed to 49 ml
> The greatest change was recalculating the effective
> volume of the
> mouthpiece with it 28.2 mm onto the cork instead of
> 10 mm
> It was found to add exactly 2.26 ml when placed 
> 28.2 mm onto the cork
> compared  to  2.38 ml when placed at 10 mm.
> As a result the 28.2 mm was added to the measured
> mouthpiece volume in
> the MCVCSR in lieu of adding 28%.
> The results are interesting to say the least.
> 
> The revised study can be found here  MCVCSR  
>
<http://jbtsaxmusic.homestead.com/Missing_Cone_Volume_Comparison_Study-R\
> evised.pdf>
> 
> The new effective mouthpiece volume study is at this
> link Mouthpiece
> Effective Volume
>
<http://jbtsaxmusic.homestead.com/Mouthpiece_effective_volume_study_new.\
> pdf>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gentlemen start your flame throwers.
> 
> 
> 
> 

Your examples indicate calculations based on an even taper of the neck and
body tube. I am unaware of any manufacturer of professional quality
instruments using an even taper. Which actual instruments were measured?

 

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of John
Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2010 12:26 AM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] MCV Comparison Study Revised

 

  

Using wooden beads on a cable I was able to get a more accurate neck length
measurement from 173 mm to 176 mm
Using a graduated cylinder the measured volume inside the neck was measured
at 50 ml as opposed to 49 ml
The greatest change was recalculating the effective volume of the mouthpiece
with it 28.2 mm onto the cork instead of 10 mm
It was found to add exactly 2.26 ml when placed  28.2 mm onto the cork
compared  to  2.38 ml when placed at 10 mm.
As a result the 28.2 mm was added to the measured mouthpiece volume in the
MCVCSR in lieu of adding 28%.
The results are interesting to say the least.

The revised study can be found here  MCVCSR
<http://jbtsaxmusic.homestead.com/Missing_Cone_Volume_Comparison_Study-Revis
ed.pdf>   

The new effective mouthpiece volume study is at this link Mouthpiece
<http://jbtsaxmusic.homestead.com/Mouthpiece_effective_volume_study_new.pdf>
Effective Volume 




Gentlemen start your flame throwers.

Hi Toby,

The point is:

-To find an effective way to calculate the length and volume of the
missing cone that can apply to all saxophones.

-To investigate how the "effective" volume of a mouthpiece compares to
its measured physical volume.

-To calculate the Frs of the neck + missing cone

-To compare the played frequency of the neck + mouthpiece with the
calculated frequency of the neck + missing cone

-To investigate ways to make the played Frs match the calculated Frs
without changing a good match between calculated missing cone volume and
effective mouthpiece volume.

My opinion is that we should not be satisfied just knowing that a given
mouthpiece (or neck) solves the intonation problems on a given
saxophone.  It is important to know why it works in order to transfer
that understanding to other situations.

I'm actually leaning toward Santy Runyon's mouthpiece pitch concepts as
the most effective way to match Frs when the volumes are the same.  I
believe Santy was right, but not for the reasons he gave at the time
which have turned out to be false.

John


--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
>
> What is the point of this as opposed to pushing the mpc on
> the cork until it tunes correctly?
>
> --- John jtalcott47@... wrote:
>
> > Using wooden beads on a cable I was able to get a
> > more accurate neck
> > length measurement from 173 mm to 176 mm
> > Using a graduated cylinder the measured volume
> > inside the neck was
> > measured at 50 ml as opposed to 49 ml
> > The greatest change was recalculating the effective
> > volume of the
> > mouthpiece with it 28.2 mm onto the cork instead of
> > 10 mm
> > It was found to add exactly 2.26 ml when placed
> > 28.2 mm onto the cork
> > compared  to  2.38 ml when placed at 10 mm.
> > As a result the 28.2 mm was added to the measured
> > mouthpiece volume in
> > the MCVCSR in lieu of adding 28%.
> > The results are interesting to say the least.
> >
> > The revised study can be found here  MCVCSR
> >
>
<http://jbtsaxmusic.homestead.com/Missing_Cone_Volume_Comparison_Study-R\
\
> > evised.pdf>
> >
> > The new effective mouthpiece volume study is at this
> > link Mouthpiece
> > Effective Volume
> >
>
<http://jbtsaxmusic.homestead.com/Mouthpiece_effective_volume_study_new.\
\
> > pdf>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Gentlemen start your flame throwers.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Steve,

I find it puzzling that in light of your earlier response (below) to my
very legitimate questions directed to you about your experience with the
acoustics of necks and mouthpieces, that you are now wanting to
participate in a new discussion with me and ask me questions.  That
represents a very obvious inconsistency to say the least.

That said, I will answer your question in the hopes that you will answer
mine and share some of your knowledge gained by designing necks and
mouthpieces since you are the expert on this forum.

The following investigation of an SBA alto neck should answer your
questions about the taper calculations used in the other studies.    
Detailed SBA Nick Measurements
<http://jbtsaxmusic.homestead.com/Detailed_SBA_neck_measurements.pdf>

John

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.  [emphasis added]

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "STEVE GOODSON" <saxgourmet@...>
wrote:
>
> Your examples indicate calculations based on an even taper of the neck
and
> body tube. I am unaware of any manufacturer of professional quality
> instruments using an even taper. Which actual instruments were
measured?
>
>
>
> From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of John
> Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2010 12:26 AM
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] MCV Comparison Study Revised
>
>
>
>
>
> Using wooden beads on a cable I was able to get a more accurate neck
length
> measurement from 173 mm to 176 mm
> Using a graduated cylinder the measured volume inside the neck was
measured
> at 50 ml as opposed to 49 ml
> The greatest change was recalculating the effective volume of the
mouthpiece
> with it 28.2 mm onto the cork instead of 10 mm
> It was found to add exactly 2.26 ml when placed  28.2 mm onto the cork
> compared  to  2.38 ml when placed at 10 mm.
> As a result the 28.2 mm was added to the measured mouthpiece volume in
the
> MCVCSR in lieu of adding 28%.
> The results are interesting to say the least.
>
> The revised study can be found here  MCVCSR
>
<http://jbtsaxmusic.homestead.com/Missing_Cone_Volume_Comparison_Study-R\
evis
> ed.pdf>
>
> The new effective mouthpiece volume study is at this link Mouthpiece
>
<http://jbtsaxmusic.homestead.com/Mouthpiece_effective_volume_study_new.\
pdf>
> Effective Volume
>
>
>
>
> Gentlemen start your flame throwers.
>

John,

While I agree that these are noble goals, the elephant in
the room is that reed parameters that have nothing to do
with any of this have a very large impact on the final
pitch of any given note, and therefore throw a giant
monkey wrench into any hope of reaching these goals with
numbers alone. Benade himself hints at the fact that
"normal embouchure" has wide variation, and this has a
major impact on your Frs, as well as mpc volume. This is
not to mention that different reed strengths and even
different lays have a large effect on the lowering of the
tube resonances. This means that different players playing
different reeds would all need a different mpc volume,
just for starters.

And, as soon as one moves the mpc even slightly from the
measured position, all your numbers get thrown way off,
and this is often absolutely necessary to compensate for
temperature effects.

How do you propose to make use of your theory in light of
those facts?

BTW, you may find this interesting. I don't know why the
formulae are obscured, but this touches on many of the
factors that I mention, plus giving you some hints about
artificial embouchures:

"Some aspects of tuning and clean intonation in reed
instruments."

http://perso.univ-lemans.fr/~jgilbert/ArticlesPageWeb/AppliedAc1995.pdf

While I agree that ballpark figures can indicate
tendencies, there is a limit to just how much what you are
working so hard to quantify is actually applicable in
real-world situations, given the great number of other
factors that come into play. Note in the end part of the
paper that there is a discussion about inharmonicity, and
how that can generally be minimized if the top of the cone
is narrowed. This seems to be done as a matter of course
(I believe Steve touched on this in at least one post),
and this alone would throw off your volume calculations if
they are based simply on the ratio of the diameters of the
two ends of the truncated cone.

Of course, how you spend your time is your own business
;-)

Toby

Toby


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

> Hi Toby,
> 
> The point is:
> 
> -To find an effective way to calculate the length
> and volume of the
> missing cone that can apply to all saxophones.
> 
> -To investigate how the "effective" volume of a
> mouthpiece compares to
> its measured physical volume.
> 
> -To calculate the Frs of the neck + missing cone
> 
> -To compare the played frequency of the neck +
> mouthpiece with the
> calculated frequency of the neck + missing cone
> 
> -To investigate ways to make the played Frs match
> the calculated Frs
> without changing a good match between calculated
> missing cone volume and
> effective mouthpiece volume.
> 
> My opinion is that we should not be satisfied just
> knowing that a given
> mouthpiece (or neck) solves the intonation problems
> on a given
> saxophone.  It is important to know why it works in
> order to transfer
> that understanding to other situations.
> 
> I'm actually leaning toward Santy Runyon's
> mouthpiece pitch concepts as
> the most effective way to match Frs when the volumes
> are the same.  I
> believe Santy was right, but not for the reasons he
> gave at the time
> which have turned out to be false.
> 
> John
> 
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com,
> <kymarto123@...> wrote:
> >
> > What is the point of this as opposed to pushing
> the mpc on
> > the cork until it tunes correctly?
> >
> > --- John jtalcott47@... wrote:
> >
> > > Using wooden beads on a cable I was able to get
> a
> > > more accurate neck
> > > length measurement from 173 mm to 176 mm
> > > Using a graduated cylinder the measured volume
> > > inside the neck was
> > > measured at 50 ml as opposed to 49 ml
> > > The greatest change was recalculating the
> effective
> > > volume of the
> > > mouthpiece with it 28.2 mm onto the cork instead
> of
> > > 10 mm
> > > It was found to add exactly 2.26 ml when placed
> > > 28.2 mm onto the cork
> > > compared  to  2.38 ml when placed at 10 mm.
> > > As a result the 28.2 mm was added to the
> measured
> > > mouthpiece volume in
> > > the MCVCSR in lieu of adding 28%.
> > > The results are interesting to say the least.
> > >
> > > The revised study can be found here  MCVCSR
> > >
> >
>
<http://jbtsaxmusic.homestead.com/Missing_Cone_Volume_Comparison_Study-R\
> \
> > > evised.pdf>
> > >
> > > The new effective mouthpiece volume study is at
> this
> > > link Mouthpiece
> > > Effective Volume
> > >
> >
>
<http://jbtsaxmusic.homestead.com/Mouthpiece_effective_volume_study_new.\
> \
> > > pdf>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Gentlemen start your flame throwers.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> 
> 

Thanks Toby for that wonderful link.  It is too bad the actual figures
(illustrations) are not included from that source.

I agree with what you said.  However seeking a better understanding of
how the entire "system" actually works is a laudable goal in itself even
if there is no commercial or immediate practical application.   I have
never the type of person who is  content to just know that something
works.  I have always needed to know why it works as well.

The variables of the player's embouchure pressure, blowing pressure,
reed strength, etc. are all certainly factors that have an impact on the
volume and played frequency of the missing cone.  Along with that is the
facing and tip opening of the mouthpiece and its interior volume as
well.  I am convinced that there are some important relationships among
all of these that can be identified and used to help solve tuning and
intonation problems involved with using different set-ups.

Thanks again for that link.  In my estimation Gilbert, Dalmont,
Nederveen, and Wolfe are the new generation' s version of Coltman,
Fletcher, and Benade in the field of musical acoustics.





--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
>
> John,
>
> While I agree that these are noble goals, the elephant in
> the room is that reed parameters that have nothing to do
> with any of this have a very large impact on the final
> pitch of any given note, and therefore throw a giant
> monkey wrench into any hope of reaching these goals with
> numbers alone. Benade himself hints at the fact that
> "normal embouchure" has wide variation, and this has a
> major impact on your Frs, as well as mpc volume. This is
> not to mention that different reed strengths and even
> different lays have a large effect on the lowering of the
> tube resonances. This means that different players playing
> different reeds would all need a different mpc volume,
> just for starters.
>
> And, as soon as one moves the mpc even slightly from the
> measured position, all your numbers get thrown way off,
> and this is often absolutely necessary to compensate for
> temperature effects.
>
> How do you propose to make use of your theory in light of
> those facts?
>
> BTW, you may find this interesting. I don't know why the
> formulae are obscured, but this touches on many of the
> factors that I mention, plus giving you some hints about
> artificial embouchures:
>
> "Some aspects of tuning and clean intonation in reed
> instruments."
>
>
http://perso.univ-lemans.fr/~jgilbert/ArticlesPageWeb/AppliedAc1995.pdf
>
> While I agree that ballpark figures can indicate
> tendencies, there is a limit to just how much what you are
> working so hard to quantify is actually applicable in
> real-world situations, given the great number of other
> factors that come into play. Note in the end part of the
> paper that there is a discussion about inharmonicity, and
> how that can generally be minimized if the top of the cone
> is narrowed. This seems to be done as a matter of course
> (I believe Steve touched on this in at least one post),
> and this alone would throw off your volume calculations if
> they are based simply on the ratio of the diameters of the
> two ends of the truncated cone.
>
> Of course, how you spend your time is your own business
> ;-)
>
> Toby
>
> Toby
>
>
> --- John jtalcott47@... wrote:
>
> > Hi Toby,
> >
> > The point is:
> >
> > -To find an effective way to calculate the length
> > and volume of the
> > missing cone that can apply to all saxophones.
> >
> > -To investigate how the "effective" volume of a
> > mouthpiece compares to
> > its measured physical volume.
> >
> > -To calculate the Frs of the neck + missing cone
> >
> > -To compare the played frequency of the neck +
> > mouthpiece with the
> > calculated frequency of the neck + missing cone
> >
> > -To investigate ways to make the played Frs match
> > the calculated Frs
> > without changing a good match between calculated
> > missing cone volume and
> > effective mouthpiece volume.
> >
> > My opinion is that we should not be satisfied just
> > knowing that a given
> > mouthpiece (or neck) solves the intonation problems
> > on a given
> > saxophone.  It is important to know why it works in
> > order to transfer
> > that understanding to other situations.
> >
> > I'm actually leaning toward Santy Runyon's
> > mouthpiece pitch concepts as
> > the most effective way to match Frs when the volumes
> > are the same.  I
> > believe Santy was right, but not for the reasons he
> > gave at the time
> > which have turned out to be false.
> >
> > John
> >
> >
> > --- In MouthpieceWork@...m,
> > kymarto123@ wrote:
> > >
> > > What is the point of this as opposed to pushing
> > the mpc on
> > > the cork until it tunes correctly?
> > >
> > > --- John jtalcott47@ wrote:
> > >
> > > > Using wooden beads on a cable I was able to get
> > a
> > > > more accurate neck
> > > > length measurement from 173 mm to 176 mm
> > > > Using a graduated cylinder the measured volume
> > > > inside the neck was
> > > > measured at 50 ml as opposed to 49 ml
> > > > The greatest change was recalculating the
> > effective
> > > > volume of the
> > > > mouthpiece with it 28.2 mm onto the cork instead
> > of
> > > > 10 mm
> > > > It was found to add exactly 2.26 ml when placed
> > > > 28.2 mm onto the cork
> > > > compared  to  2.38 ml when placed at 10 mm.
> > > > As a result the 28.2 mm was added to the
> > measured
> > > > mouthpiece volume in
> > > > the MCVCSR in lieu of adding 28%.
> > > > The results are interesting to say the least.
> > > >
> > > > The revised study can be found here  MCVCSR
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
<http://jbtsaxmusic.homestead.com/Missing_Cone_Volume_Comparison_Study-R\
\
> > \
> > > > evised.pdf>
> > > >
> > > > The new effective mouthpiece volume study is at
> > this
> > > > link Mouthpiece
> > > > Effective Volume
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
<http://jbtsaxmusic.homestead.com/Mouthpiece_effective_volume_study_new.\
\
> > \
> > > > pdf>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Gentlemen start your flame throwers.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>

Thank Google for the link. I came across it while
researching my diatribe against putting too much stock in
simple mpc volume and Frs.
It appears that the sax tunes mostly by mpc volume (or so
it seems from my informal research: I can so far find no
clear link between mpc length and tuning--contrary to my
arguments long ago on SOTW), I think that you would do
well to turn your attention to trying to establish a link
between those two parameters. Taking Paul's example, you
might put inserts of graduated sizes in a mpc (as you did
before), retune the lower octave and see what the
relationship is with the second mode. If we could get a
reasonable idea of how length from neck end to reed tip
(with correct internal volume as per position on neck)
affect the mode relationships it would be valuable. There
doesn't seem to be a really practical method of varying
Frs on the sax keeping the internal volume correct (unless
you change or shorten the neck). Any change to the mpc
entails a volume change, so as soon as you compensate for
that you are generally back to where you started. It
appears that the length/volume ratio is about the only
feasible parameter to vary on a mpc. Scavone mentions that
there are timbre differences between a mpc with a long
thin and short fat chamber, but he did not investigate
mode relationships, apparently.

Toby

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

> Thanks Toby for that wonderful link.  It is too bad
> the actual figures
> (illustrations) are not included from that source.
> 
> I agree with what you said.  However seeking a
> better understanding of
> how the entire "system" actually works is a laudable
> goal in itself even
> if there is no commercial or immediate practical
> application.   I have
> never the type of person who is  content to just
> know that something
> works.  I have always needed to know why it works as
> well.
> 
> The variables of the player's embouchure pressure,
> blowing pressure,
> reed strength, etc. are all certainly factors that
> have an impact on the
> volume and played frequency of the missing cone. 
> Along with that is the
> facing and tip opening of the mouthpiece and its
> interior volume as
> well.  I am convinced that there are some important
> relationships among
> all of these that can be identified and used to help
> solve tuning and
> intonation problems involved with using different
> set-ups.
> 
> Thanks again for that link.  In my estimation
> Gilbert, Dalmont,
> Nederveen, and Wolfe are the new generation' s
> version of Coltman,
> Fletcher, and Benade in the field of musical
> acoustics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com,
> <kymarto123@...> wrote:
> >
> > John,
> >
> > While I agree that these are noble goals, the
> elephant in
> > the room is that reed parameters that have nothing
> to do
> > with any of this have a very large impact on the
> final
> > pitch of any given note, and therefore throw a
> giant
> > monkey wrench into any hope of reaching these
> goals with
> > numbers alone. Benade himself hints at the fact
> that
> > "normal embouchure" has wide variation, and this
> has a
> > major impact on your Frs, as well as mpc volume.
> This is
> > not to mention that different reed strengths and
> even
> > different lays have a large effect on the lowering
> of the
> > tube resonances. This means that different players
> playing
> > different reeds would all need a different mpc
> volume,
> > just for starters.
> >
> > And, as soon as one moves the mpc even slightly
> from the
> > measured position, all your numbers get thrown way
> off,
> > and this is often absolutely necessary to
> compensate for
> > temperature effects.
> >
> > How do you propose to make use of your theory in
> light of
> > those facts?
> >
> > BTW, you may find this interesting. I don't know
> why the
> > formulae are obscured, but this touches on many of
> the
> > factors that I mention, plus giving you some hints
> about
> > artificial embouchures:
> >
> > "Some aspects of tuning and clean intonation in
> reed
> > instruments."
> >
> >
>
http://perso.univ-lemans.fr/~jgilbert/ArticlesPageWeb/AppliedAc1995.pdf
> >
> > While I agree that ballpark figures can indicate
> > tendencies, there is a limit to just how much what
> you are
> > working so hard to quantify is actually applicable
> in
> > real-world situations, given the great number of
> other
> > factors that come into play. Note in the end part
> of the
> > paper that there is a discussion about
> inharmonicity, and
> > how that can generally be minimized if the top of
> the cone
> > is narrowed. This seems to be done as a matter of
> course
> > (I believe Steve touched on this in at least one
> post),
> > and this alone would throw off your volume
> calculations if
> > they are based simply on the ratio of the
> diameters of the
> > two ends of the truncated cone.
> >
> > Of course, how you spend your time is your own
> business
> > ;-)
> >
> > Toby
> >
> > Toby
> >
> >
> > --- John jtalcott47@... wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Toby,
> > >
> > > The point is:
> > >
> > > -To find an effective way to calculate the
> length
> > > and volume of the
> > > missing cone that can apply to all saxophones.
> > >
> > > -To investigate how the "effective" volume of a
> > > mouthpiece compares to
> > > its measured physical volume.
> > >
> > > -To calculate the Frs of the neck + missing cone
> > >
> > > -To compare the played frequency of the neck +
> > > mouthpiece with the
> > > calculated frequency of the neck + missing cone
> > >
> > > -To investigate ways to make the played Frs
> match
> > > the calculated Frs
> > > without changing a good match between calculated
> > > missing cone volume and
> > > effective mouthpiece volume.
> > >
> > > My opinion is that we should not be satisfied
> just
> > > knowing that a given
> > > mouthpiece (or neck) solves the intonation
> problems
> > > on a given
> > > saxophone.  It is important to know why it works
> in
> > > order to transfer
> > > that understanding to other situations.
> > >
> > > I'm actually leaning toward Santy Runyon's
> > > mouthpiece pitch concepts as
> > > the most effective way to match Frs when the
> volumes
> > > are the same.  I
> > > believe Santy was right, but not for the reasons
> he
> > > gave at the time
> > > which have turned out to be false.
> > >
> > > John
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com,
> > > kymarto123@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > > What is the point of this as opposed to
> pushing
> > > the mpc on
> > > > the cork until it tunes correctly?
> > > >
> > > > --- John jtalcott47@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Using wooden beads on a cable I was able to
> get
> > > a
> > > > > more accurate neck
> > > > > length measurement from 173 mm to 176 mm
> > > > > Using a graduated cylinder the measured
> volume
> > > > > inside the neck was
> 
== $B0J2<$N%a%C%;!<%8$O>JN,$5$l$^$7$?(B =

"While I agree that these are noble goals,.....different players playing

different reeds would all need a different mpc volume, just for starters."

A rather limited outlook....

On one end of the market, you may have someone designing a mouthpiece for mass appeal, that will work on any horn, played by any player, of any skill level, with any reed and concept of style.   

On the other end is perhaps someone concerned only with exclusive, high-end applications of the art, designing one particular mouthpiece for one individual player of exceptional artistry, playing one particular instrument, with one consistent reed type, and one particular artistic concept.

Then there could also be the talented player, who's only concern is designing the ultimate mouthpiece for their own use.

These are very different objectives with very different design parameters.  I'm hesitant to assume that everyone has the same goals.







      

Point well taken. For designing custom mpcs for players
willing to take the time, money and trouble, that info
could be very useful.

Here is an interesting link, worth having a look:

subaru2.univ-lemans.fr/~jgilbert/ArticlesPageWeb/CaracNL_Jasa2003.pdf

Toby

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

> "While I agree that these are noble
> goals,.....different players playing
> 
> different reeds would all need a different mpc
> volume, just for starters."
> 
> A rather limited outlook....
> 
> On one end of the market, you may have someone
> designing a mouthpiece for mass appeal, that will
> work on any horn, played by any player, of any skill
> level, with any reed and concept of style.   
> 
> On the other end is perhaps someone concerned only
> with exclusive, high-end applications of the art,
> designing one particular mouthpiece for one
> individual player of exceptional artistry, playing
> one particular instrument, with one consistent reed
> type, and one particular artistic concept.
> 
> Then there could also be the talented player, who's
> only concern is designing the ultimate mouthpiece
> for their own use.
> 
> These are very different objectives with very
> different design parameters.  I'm hesitant to
assume
> that everyone has the same goals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>       

So ,if you were able to work on your theory, Toby, you could take a certain model horn  and work out the following.
With say a Selmer Mk6 and a good embouchure,not pinched,blown up or down, you should have the volume(capacity) of the of a mouthpiece (with reed closed) between a certain range. This should give correct tuning for most Selmer Mk6's.  Keeping the volume the same but changing the internal shape would make the piece sound different and play different but keep it in tune without moving it on the cork.
I don't think that volume(capacity) would be too hard to measure on a mouthpiece. 
Would this be too hard for you theory guys to work out?
Is someone willing to try this on some working models?
Better still , has someone done this? If so,what were the results?
Ross McIntyre

Ross,

I think it's not quite that simple. The embouchure tension
changes both the reed impedance and the volume under the
reed, which must be figured in the internal volume of the
mpc. The reed impedance has a varying effect on intonation
depending on the strength of the horn impedances. If there
are really strong peaks then the reed gets locked into the
horn resonance and can't change it too much (try lipping
the bell notes of the low octave), but in the shorter tube
notes and the second register the reed impedance has a
much stronger effect.

I've noticed on my old Selmer Super alto that there is a
big problem between E and D--very sharp in the second
register. Somebody made a reducing ring for the D tonehole
many years ago, which helps D somewhat but makes it very
flat then in the low octave. No way the mpc is going to
help that.

One problem that you will surely run into has to do with
ambient temperature. Play in the cold and you will have to
push the mpc in. This will reduce volume and make the
notes increasingly sharp the higher you go. And the
temperature differential on a cold day between the short
and long tube notes could get up around ten cents.

My little informal experiments so far point to the fact
that mpc length has little to do with register intonation.
Leaving aside temperature effects for the moment, you will
naturally push on the mpc until the internal volume is in
the ballpark--which makes the horn play in tune for the
most part. If the mpc has a larger chamber you will push
it on farther. A smaller chamber will make you pull it off
farther, until the volumes are just about equal for a
given sounding pitch. 

With a couple of different mpcs, I found about a 1 cm
difference in total length from end of neck to tip rail
(the big chamber one being pushed on much farther), and
that didn't seem to make a big difference in the tuning
across the registers. I also filled a small-chamber piece
with clay until to tune correctly it was almost falling
off the neck, and that seems to have made the upper note
about 10 cents sharp, but that was a radical change, and a
slightly smaller clay insert did not seem to have the same
effect.

The point I was trying to make in earlier posts is that
because it is so easy to tune most notes (especially in
the second register) using mouth tension alone (and we all
do this unconsciously all the time unless we are tone
deaf), it is very difficult to actually find the effect of
these profile changes in mpcs without the use of an
artificial embouchure, which is less smart than we are
(sometimes not by much) and cannot compensate. 

The embouchure is dynamic: it is not a fixed proposition,
and we all use our embouchures to correct intonation and
for expressive purposes anyway. These volume mismatches
which throw out the octaves are usually pretty much
progressive, and thus we simply get used to adjusting
embouchure (which we have to do anyway when we change
dynamics) to hit the correct pitch center, just as a
violin player learns (in the absence of frets) just where
to put the fingers to get the correct pitch.

Much more insidious is mistuning between notes, because it
is difficult to adjust the embouchure that quickly. But as
long as the intonation problems are progressive, we just
adjust unconsciously as we play.

I have been listening carefully to a lot of music lately,
and I can recognize that many passing notes are well
beyond 20 cents off. We easily accept that unless there
are instruments in unison or a long note is held that is
that far off intonationally. As long as the
instrumentalist is able to land on pitch in critical
moments, we do not notice.

There was an interesting study done on what it means to be
"in the groove" rhythmically. It turns out that perfect
timing does not make the groove, imperfect timing
does--timing that threatens to disintegrate, but manages
to keep it together is felt to be in the groove. It is
tricky: if the timing is too perfect it is simply
mechanical, if it is too far out it is sloppy, but there
is a "sweet spot" in which it has character, and the fact
that it hits the beat right while almost not hitting it
right is what gives it dynamism.

I might argue that the same is true intonationally.
"Singing" has got to be the small variations in pitch that
always seem to find the right center; but it is the
inconsistency which gives the flavor. This is why a synth
can sound so sterile. It may well be that at a certain
level, the quest for perfect intonation is
counterproductive; what gives the feeling of mastery and
expression is the fact that an instrumentalist has control
of the pitch and can ride it well. If the pitch has
control, and it is out, that is awful. If the pitch has
control and it is perfect, that is boring.

FWIW,

Toby

--- Ross and Helen McIntyre <mk6sax@...> wrote:

> So ,if you were able to work on your theory, Toby,
> you could take a certain model horn  and work out
> the following.
> With say a Selmer Mk6 and a good embouchure,not
> pinched,blown up or down, you should have the
> volume(capacity) of the of a mouthpiece (with reed
> closed) between a certain range. This should give
> correct tuning for most Selmer Mk6's.  Keeping the
> volume the same but changing the internal shape
> would make the piece sound different and play
> different but keep it in tune without moving it on
> the cork.
> I don't think that volume(capacity) would be too
> hard to measure on a mouthpiece. 
> Would this be too hard for you theory guys to work
> out?
> Is someone willing to try this on some working
> models?
> Better still , has someone done this? If so,what
> were the results?
> Ross McIntyre

Toby,

I believe that I can eventually find a way to prove that even though
changes in the embouchure pressure on the reed do change the effective
volume somewhat,  that the change in the Frs (frequency of the
mouthpiece and neck) is proportionately greater than just that change in
the mouthpiece volume alone.

That would mean  that the mouthpiece pitch concept espoused by Santy
Runyon, Eugene Rousseau, et al has an important acoustic basis, that
being a way to match the the played Frs of the mouthpiece and neck with
the calculated resonant frequency of the neck plus the missing cone. 
This would then fulfill one of Benade's two requirements for a conical
woodwind "to work properly".

This all begins to make sense when the mouthpiece is set on the cork to
play low B and  its first two overtones  B2 and F#2 in tune and then the
mouthpiece and neck are removed and the player then fine tunes the
embouchure to produce a perfect Ab concert on the neck and mouthpiece
alone, and then checks the pitch of the low B with that same embouchure.

This may take some going back and forth at first, but when both tuning
conditions are met using exactly the same embouchure, then everything
else in the saxophone's scale and octaves are the best they can be
within the design of that instrument.  This has been my experience, and
now I believe I understand the acoustic theory as to why it works. From
there as you say the musician takes over and makes small nuanced pitch
adjustments through careful listening---but does not have to work nearly
as hard as he would if those volume and Frs requirements are not met.

I am first and foremost a teacher, and I can see the pedagogical
importance to this type of study and research as well as its application
to design.

John


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

> I think it's not quite that simple. The embouchure tension
> changes both the reed impedance and the volume under the
> reed, which must be figured in the internal volume of the
> mpc. The reed impedance has a varying effect on intonation
> depending on the strength of the horn impedances. If there
> are really strong peaks then the reed gets locked into the
> horn resonance and can't change it too much (try lipping
> the bell notes of the low octave), but in the shorter tube
> notes and the second register the reed impedance has a
> much stronger effect.



>

True enough...you would starve to death trying to make a living selling "one
off" mouthpieces

 

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of MartinMods
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 2:08 AM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: MCV Comparison Study Revised

 

  


"While I agree that these are noble goals,.....different players playing
different reeds would all need a different mpc volume, just for starters."

A rather limited outlook....

On one end of the market, you may have someone designing a mouthpiece for
mass appeal, that will work on any horn, played by any player, of any skill
level, with any reed and concept of style.   

On the other end is perhaps someone concerned only with exclusive, high-end
applications of the art, designing one particular mouthpiece for one
individual player of exceptional artistry, playing one particular
instrument, with one consistent reed type, and one particular artistic
concept.

Then there could also be the talented player, who's only concern is
designing the ultimate mouthpiece for their own use.

These are very different objectives with very different design parameters.
I'm hesitant to assume that everyone has the same goals.





 

Toby,
thanks for your informative reply.

cheers
Ross

"True enough…….you would starve to death
 
trying to make a
living selling “one off” mouthpieces"

I appreciate you offering the benefits of your experience, but what you are saying is essentially that you decided, that with what you have to offer, you would starve to death.....

If I wanted to mass produce something, with the sole objective of making money, I would certainly steer clear of anything having to do with bent pieces of metal that a very small minority of crazy  people spend much of their lives blowing into.  



      

Well, I suppose I should rephrase what I said: I couldn’t maintain my current standard of living if I had to rely on making custom mouthpieces only, and charge what the work is worth. I don’t think the super premium price bracket is there in sufficient numbers for anyone to make a good living. It’s another one of those thing there is a lot of talk and dreaming about, but not a huge number of people actually writing checks. Even if you had the entire market to yourself, I don’t think there is really that much money to be made.

 

The most expensive mouthpiece we sell is priced at $400, the vast majority of our mouthpiece products are less than $200.

We sold slightly less than a thousand mouthpieces at retail worldwide last (2009) year. Do the math. We feel like we have the market figured out, at least to our satisfaction. To generate the same sort of revenue stream with a totally handmade custom made to order product makes little sense to us. A product of this nature would be very time consuming to make, and the numbers just aren’t there. I note with interest that almost none of the highly skilled and well recognized mouthpiece refacers have chosen to enter this market. They are apparently able to do the math.  Hand making custom mouthpieces would also require us to neglect the other aspects of our business such as saxophones, necks, and other accessories. We enjoy the mouthpiece business, and it is very profitable for us, but it represents a small portion of our company sales.

 

I feel that if we were to elect to enter the custom mouthpiece market, we could be as successful as anybody. That market just doesn’t appeal to us.

 

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of MartinMods
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 4:39 PM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [MouthpieceWork] Re: MCV Comparison Study Revised

 

  


"True enough…….you would starve to death trying to make a living selling “one off” mouthpieces"

I appreciate you offering the benefits of your experience, but what you are saying is essentially that you decided, that with what you have to offer, you would starve to death.....

If I wanted to mass produce something, with the sole objective of making money, I would certainly steer clear of anything having to do with bent pieces of metal that a very small minority of crazy  people spend much of their lives blowing into.  

 

John,

Don't forget that Frs affects the intonation of the higher
notes only. For sax that would mean starting around high B
(I guess) and going up into the palms.

Also, Frs is determined by the shape and volume of the mpc
and the constriction. It is not changed but very slightly
by changing the volume under the reed by changing
embouchure pressure. It has nothing at all to do with reed
impedance.

I think you are barking up a very wrong tree.

Toby

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

> Toby,
> 
> I believe that I can eventually find a way to prove
> that even though
> changes in the embouchure pressure on the reed do
> change the effective
> volume somewhat,  that the change in the Frs
> (frequency of the
> mouthpiece and neck) is proportionately greater than
> just that change in
> the mouthpiece volume alone.
> 
> That would mean  that the mouthpiece pitch concept
> espoused by Santy
> Runyon, Eugene Rousseau, et al has an important
> acoustic basis, that
> being a way to match the the played Frs of the
> mouthpiece and neck with
> the calculated resonant frequency of the neck plus
> the missing cone. 
> This would then fulfill one of Benade's two
> requirements for a conical
> woodwind "to work properly".
> 
> This all begins to make sense when the mouthpiece is
> set on the cork to
> play low B and  its first two overtones  B2 and F#2
> in tune and then the
> mouthpiece and neck are removed and the player then
> fine tunes the
> embouchure to produce a perfect Ab concert on the
> neck and mouthpiece
> alone, and then checks the pitch of the low B with
> that same embouchure.
> 
> This may take some going back and forth at first,
> but when both tuning
> conditions are met using exactly the same
> embouchure, then everything
> else in the saxophone's scale and octaves are the
> best they can be
> within the design of that instrument.  This has been
> my experience, and
> now I believe I understand the acoustic theory as to
> why it works. From
> there as you say the musician takes over and makes
> small nuanced pitch
> adjustments through careful listening---but does not
> have to work nearly
> as hard as he would if those volume and Frs
> requirements are not met.
> 
> I am first and foremost a teacher, and I can see the
> pedagogical
> importance to this type of study and research as
> well as its application
> to design.
> 
> John
> 
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com,
> <kymarto123@...> wrote:
> 
> > I think it's not quite that simple. The embouchure
> tension
> > changes both the reed impedance and the volume
> under the
> > reed, which must be figured in the internal volume
> of the
> > mpc. The reed impedance has a varying effect on
> intonation
> > depending on the strength of the horn impedances.
> If there
> > are really strong peaks then the reed gets locked
> into the
> > horn resonance and can't change it too much (try
> lipping
> > the bell notes of the low octave), but in the
> shorter tube
> > notes and the second register the reed impedance
> has a
> > much stronger effect.
> 
> 
> 
> >
> 
> 

"Well, I suppose I should rephrase what I
 said",

Steve,  

Thanks  I appreciate the input.  At this point I do only custom horn modifications, no routine repads/overhauls at all, no clarinets, no flutes, and the horizon looks good, adding mouthpiece, necks, and maybe, eventually, complete horns.  My emphasis is on everything being hand made in my shop - old world.  That's something that can't be mass produced.  I like doing it, so, in the Zen way, I'll see what doing what I like to do brings me.

MM.



      

I totally agree that you should do what you like, and I salute you for doing
so..of course, if you can make a few shekels along the way, it's all the
better..I'm having a great time doing what I'm doing..I don't think I could
ever invent a better job for myself. It also keeps me from having to learn
to say "do you want fries with that?"...it's the perfect day job for a
retired player

 

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of MartinMods
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 6:04 PM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [MouthpieceWork] Re: MCV Comparison Study Revised

 

  


"Well, I suppose I should rephrase what I said",

Steve,  

Thanks  I appreciate the input.  At this point I do only custom horn
modifications, no routine repads/overhauls at all, no clarinets, no flutes,
and the horizon looks good, adding mouthpiece, necks, and maybe, eventually,
complete horns.  My emphasis is on everything being hand made in my shop -
old world.  That's something that can't be mass produced.  I like doing it,
so, in the Zen way, I'll see what doing what I like to do brings me.

MM.

 

"Don't forget that Frs affects the intonation of the higher

notes only. For sax that would mean starting around high B

(I guess) and going up into the palms"

In his Stanford class notes, page 21, Benade puts the mouthpiece/constriction resonance frequency as being in the area of the 2nd-mode frequency of the shortest used tube.  On a tenor with an F# key, that would be the top F# tone hole, overblown, or a concert E (1318.56Hz).  That would put the displacement anti-node of that resonance, which he calls frs, just inside the neck opening.  The actual mouthpiece+ entire neck resonance for a tenor, as John advocates, is a concert E (659.28Hz), an octave lower.  Do you see the contradiction?



      

Hi Lance,

I'm assuming (perhaps wrongly) that since oboes and
bassoons don't have palm keys, he is talking about C# more
or less, but I put it a tad lower for conservatism. 

AFAIK all Benade is saying about Frs is that if you play
the same frequency as the neck/mpc Frs, that the node
should be at the same place (end of the neck) as it is
when you play the combo off the horn. Since there is no
tone hole at the neck, that would mean playing a note with
a tube length twice that of what would be the length of
the untruncated neck, and cutting it in half with the
register key to get a center pressure node. 

There is no contradiction if you realize that the Frs in
question (to affect the higher resonances) is that of the
mpc alone (with suitable constriction), because the neck
is already a cone and therefore won't screw up the modes
where it is in play. You need to consider mpc Frs, not
mpc/neck Frs to know where the effect is going to kick in.
Considering mpc/neck Frs will give you an idea about how
well the modes should be aligned for a played note around
that frequency, if I am not mistaken.

Actually, looking at it that way (and assuming that even
with the constriction the mpc Hh resonance is somewhat
higher than that which you get blowing across it with the
complete shank, which I think is a safe assumption), it
appears that indeed the effective Hh resonance of the mpc
with constriction diameter would be right up around C or
so. I'm not willing to cut up a mpc to find out, though...

Toby



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

> "Don't forget that Frs affects the intonation of the
> higher
> 
> notes only. For sax that would mean starting around
> high B
> 
> (I guess) and going up into the palms"
> 
> In his Stanford class notes, page 21, Benade puts
> the mouthpiece/constriction resonance frequency as
> being in the area of the 2nd-mode frequency of the
> shortest used tube.  On a tenor with an F# key,
that
> would be the top F# tone hole, overblown, or a
> concert E (1318.56Hz).  That would put the
> displacement anti-node of that resonance, which he
> calls frs, just inside the neck opening.  The
actual
> mouthpiece+ entire neck resonance for a tenor, as
> John advocates, is a concert E (659.28Hz), an octave
> lower.  Do you see the contradiction?
> 
> 
> 
>       

Re contribution of reed to intonation:

Recently, I've been playing a cut-down "Bari" baritone reed on tenor. I
noticed that compared to tenor reeds, I've had to push in a bit further. The
reed still is a bit wider than tenor reeds, and the profile is also a bit
different.

The mouthpiece has some added baffle material, enough that I've had to pull
it out more to stay in tune (to the point of adding an extension to the
mpc). The baritone reed compensates somewhat for that.

I haven't had any intonation problems.  If anything, this setup feels
better. There is some problem with switching back and forth between this
reed and other tenor reeds though, as I need to re-adjust.

What I don't know yet, is whether I'll be able to get any other baritone
reeds to play so well. So far, my first attempt has failed.

Barry


> From: "John" <jtalcott47@...>
> Reply-To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 03:53:38 -0000
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: MCV Comparison Study Revised
> 
> The variables of the player's embouchure pressure, blowing pressure,
> reed strength, etc. are all certainly factors that have an impact on the
> volume and played frequency of the missing cone.  Along with that is the
> facing and tip opening of the mouthpiece and its interior volume as
> well.  I am convinced that there are some important relationships among
> all of these that can be identified and used to help solve tuning and
> intonation problems involved with using different set-ups.
> 

I followed John's method, to calculate the resonant frequency (F=c/2*l) of my Martin neck tube (with tenon removed), and then compared it to the actual played frequency of the neck section, by blowing across the end with both ends open (as per flute).  The regime formed with both ends open is very weak, but still clearly audible.  The pitch was the same blown from either end, with the register key closed.

Calculated Frequency:1018Hz
Actual Played Frequency:  932Hz
Difference: 153 cents

So you can see, that including the entire neck in the frs calculation, at least in this case, would have resulted in a considerable amount of error, so there would be no telling if your mouthpiece/constriction was actually close to having the correct frequency or not.



      

Lance,

You might want to rethink that with the pitch of the tube the length of
the highest palm key notes without the octave key.  Take the 2nd mode
frequency of that and see what you get.   [B-)]

By the way Benade taught that class at Case Western University in
Cleveland, OH.  It says so on page 1 of the class notes you quoted.  He
taught there his entire career from 1952 till the time of his death in
1987---35 years later.

John


--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
wrote:
>
> "Don't forget that Frs affects the intonation of the higher
>
> notes only. For sax that would mean starting around high B
>
> (I guess) and going up into the palms"
>
> In his Stanford class notes, page 21, Benade puts the
mouthpiece/constriction resonance frequency as being in the area of the
2nd-mode frequency of the shortest used tube.  On a tenor with an F#
key, that would be the top F# tone hole, overblown, or a concert E
(1318.56Hz).  That would put the displacement anti-node of that
resonance, which he calls frs, just inside the neck opening.  The actual
mouthpiece+ entire neck resonance for a tenor, as John advocates, is a
concert E (659.28Hz), an octave lower.  Do you see the contradiction?
>

John,

The palm key notes play about 1/2 step flat without the octave key.  The 2nd mode would be an octave above that, still almost an octave above the pitch of the mouthpiece + neck.  

Lance



      

I don't know exactly what John's method involves, but an
open/open conic frustum is a very different animal than
closed/open and different from an open/open cylinder.
Scavone, I believe, has some stuff about that. That may
account for some of the disrepancy. F=c/2*l certainly
doesn't work in this case; not unless it is closed/open
and complete.

Toby

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

> I followed John's method, to calculate the resonant
> frequency (F=c/2*l) of my Martin neck tube (with
> tenon removed), and then compared it to the actual
> played frequency of the neck section, by blowing
> across the end with both ends open (as per flute). 
> The regime formed with both ends open is very weak,
> but still clearly audible.  The pitch was the same
> blown from either end, with the register key closed.
> 
> Calculated Frequency:1018Hz
> Actual Played Frequency:  932Hz
> Difference: 153 cents
> 
> So you can see, that including the entire neck in
> the frs calculation, at least in this case, would
> have resulted in a considerable amount of error, so
> there would be no telling if your
> mouthpiece/constriction was actually close to having
> the correct frequency or not.
> 
> 
> 
>       

Hi Toby,

This link gives some information about that.  Acoustic resonance
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_resonance>

I am not sure why Lance's played frequency is so far off the calculated
resonance of the tube.  I am trying to replicate his results by
recording the sound and then doing a frequency analysis.  So far I have
found the frequencies embodied in that airy tone to be all over the
spectrum and far too variable and unstable to get an accurate reading.  
Of course I will keep trying different methods.

John


--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
>
> I don't know exactly what John's method involves, but an
> open/open conic frustum is a very different animal than
> closed/open and different from an open/open cylinder.
> Scavone, I believe, has some stuff about that. That may
> account for some of the disrepancy. F=c/2*l certainly
> doesn't work in this case; not unless it is closed/open
> and complete.
>
> Toby
>
> --- MartinMods lancelotburt@... wrote:
>
> > I followed John's method, to calculate the resonant
> > frequency (F=c/2*l) of my Martin neck tube (with
> > tenon removed), and then compared it to the actual
> > played frequency of the neck section, by blowing
> > across the end with both ends open (as per flute). 
> > The regime formed with both ends open is very weak,
> > but still clearly audible.  The pitch was the same
> > blown from either end, with the register key closed.
> >
> > Calculated Frequency:1018Hz
> > Actual Played Frequency:  932Hz
> > Difference: 153 cents
> >
> > So you can see, that including the entire neck in
> > the frs calculation, at least in this case, would
> > have resulted in a considerable amount of error, so
> > there would be no telling if your
> > mouthpiece/constriction was actually close to having
> > the correct frequency or not.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

"So far I have found the frequencies embodied in that airy tone to be all
 over the spectrum and far too variable and unstable to get an accurate 
reading."


John,  

I suggest you use your ears to narrow in on the frequency.  Blow gently across the small end and alternate having the large end open, and then 1/4 closed.  The pitch will drop ca. 1/2 step in the semi-closed position.  You can also hear the frequency by holding the small end 1" from your ear, and then tapping the outside of the tenon with your finger (not the nail).  If you can't hear it, then I suggest a different profession.:-)

Lance



      

I understand what you are saying and have done those things.  I hear an approximate pitch, but what I am seeking is an accurate frequency.

The sound analysis program I am using does that with good accuracy, given a stable recorded sound wave.  Unfortunately recording the airy sound blown across the end or the tapping sound does not provide that.  When I take a small sampling at different parts of those recoded wave sounds, I get wildly different frequencies.

If you can record your sounds to an MP3 file and send it to me, I can see if your efforts produce any better results.  My ears work just fine hearing and matching pitches, they just don't tell me the exact Hz of the frequency I am listening to---especially if it is an unstable airy whistle or the "thonk" of tapping a metal tube.

John

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
>
> "So far I have found the frequencies embodied in that airy tone to be all
>  over the spectrum and far too variable and unstable to get an accurate 
> reading."
> 
> 
> John,  
> 
> I suggest you use your ears to narrow in on the frequency.  Blow gently across the small end and alternate having the large end open, and then 1/4 closed.  The pitch will drop ca. 1/2 step in the semi-closed position.  You can also hear the frequency by holding the small end 1" from your ear, and then tapping the outside of the tenon with your finger (not the nail).  If you can't hear it, then I suggest a different profession.:-)
> 
> Lance
>

It should be easy to isolate with some audio filtering.

--- On Tue, 3/16/10, John <jtalcott47@...> wrote:

From: John <jtalcott47@...>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: MCV Comparison Study Revised
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, March 16, 2010, 3:45 PM







 



  


    
      
      
      I understand what you are saying and have done those things.  I hear an approximate pitch, but what I am seeking is an accurate frequency.



The sound analysis program I am using does that with good accuracy, given a stable recorded sound wave.  Unfortunately recording the airy sound blown across the end or the tapping sound does not provide that.  When I take a small sampling at different parts of those recoded wave sounds, I get wildly different frequencies.



If you can record your sounds to an MP3 file and send it to me, I can see if your efforts produce any better results.  My ears work just fine hearing and matching pitches, they just don't tell me the exact Hz of the frequency I am listening to---especially if it is an unstable airy whistle or the "thonk" of tapping a metal tube.



John



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

>

> "So far I have found the frequencies embodied in that airy tone to be all

>  over the spectrum and far too variable and unstable to get an accurate 

> reading."

> 

> 

> John,  

> 

> I suggest you use your ears to narrow in on the frequency.  Blow gently across the small end and alternate having the large end open, and then 1/4 closed.  The pitch will drop ca. 1/2 step in the semi-closed position.  You can also hear the frequency by holding the small end 1" from your ear, and then tapping the outside of the tenon with your finger (not the nail).  If you can't hear it, then I suggest a different profession.: -)

> 

> Lance

>





    
     

    
    


 



  






      

So, close to that of an open/open cylinder. I was wrong. I
still don't know what you are trying to do, but it is
obvious that neither of you is an end-blown flute player.
Blowing across the open neck I can get a strong and steady
tone with a very solid pitch center.

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

> Hi Toby,
> 
> This link gives some information about that. 
> Acoustic resonance
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_resonance>
> 
> I am not sure why Lance's played frequency is so far
> off the calculated
> resonance of the tube.  I am trying to replicate his
> results by
> recording the sound and then doing a frequency
> analysis.  So far I have
> found the frequencies embodied in that airy tone to
> be all over the
> spectrum and far too variable and unstable to get an
> accurate reading.  
> Of course I will keep trying different methods.
> 
> John
> 
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com,
> <kymarto123@...> wrote:
> >
> > I don't know exactly what John's method involves,
> but an
> > open/open conic frustum is a very different animal
> than
> > closed/open and different from an open/open
> cylinder.
> > Scavone, I believe, has some stuff about that.
> That may
> > account for some of the disrepancy. F=c/2*l
> certainly
> > doesn't work in this case; not unless it is
> closed/open
> > and complete.
> >
> > Toby
> >
> > --- MartinMods lancelotburt@... wrote:
> >
> > > I followed John's method, to calculate the
> resonant
> > > frequency (F=c/2*l) of my Martin neck tube (with
> > > tenon removed), and then compared it to the
> actual
> > > played frequency of the neck section, by blowing
> > > across the end with both ends open (as per
> flute). 
> > > The regime formed with both ends open is very
> weak,
> > > but still clearly audible.  The pitch was
> the same
> > > blown from either end, with the register key
> closed.
> > >
> > > Calculated Frequency:1018Hz
> > > Actual Played Frequency:  932Hz
> > > Difference: 153 cents
> > >
> > > So you can see, that including the entire neck
> in
> > > the frs calculation, at least in this case,
> would
> > > have resulted in a considerable amount of error,
> so
> > > there would be no telling if your
> > > mouthpiece/constriction was actually close to
> having
> > > the correct frequency or not.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> 
> 

Blow the large end of the neck like a Turkish ney. My alto
neck sound 820 Hz, +-10 Hz. With mpc it blows 450. With
mpc much less air is required to get a sounding note, but
both are solid and clear.

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

> I understand what you are saying and have done those
> things.  I hear an approximate pitch, but what I am
> seeking is an accurate frequency.
> 
> The sound analysis program I am using does that with
> good accuracy, given a stable recorded sound wave. 
> Unfortunately recording the airy sound blown across
> the end or the tapping sound does not provide that. 
> When I take a small sampling at different parts of
> those recoded wave sounds, I get wildly different
> frequencies.
> 
> If you can record your sounds to an MP3 file and
> send it to me, I can see if your efforts produce any
> better results.  My ears work just fine hearing and
> matching pitches, they just don't tell me the exact
> Hz of the frequency I am listening to---especially
> if it is an unstable airy whistle or the "thonk" of
> tapping a metal tube.
> 
> John
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods
> <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
> >
> > "So far I have found the frequencies embodied in
> that airy tone to be all
> >  over the spectrum and far too variable and
> unstable to get an accurate 
> > reading."
> > 
> > 
> > John,  
> > 
> > I suggest you use your ears to narrow in on the
> frequency.  Blow gently across the small end and
> alternate having the large end open, and then 1/4
> closed.  The pitch will drop ca. 1/2 step in the
> semi-closed position.  You can also hear the
> frequency by holding the small end 1" from your ear,
> and then tapping the outside of the tenon with your
> finger (not the nail).  If you can't hear it, then
I
> suggest a different profession.:-)
> > 
> > Lance
> >
> 
> 
> 

Blowing the small end of my 10M tenor neck I get a Eb on my tuner.  I think it is like Eb2 on a flute.  622 Hz?  Like Toby said this a open-open "instrument" so a compression node = displacement anti-node is forced at each end.  I'm not sure what you can do with this.




________________________________
From: "kymarto123@..." <kymarto123@....jp>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, March 16, 2010 7:47:55 PM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: MCV Comparison Study Revised

  
So, close to that of an open/open cylinder. I was wrong. I
still don't know what you are trying to do, but it is
obvious that neither of you is an end-blown flute player.
Blowing across the open neck I can get a strong and steady
tone with a very solid pitch center.

Toby
--- John <jtalcott47@msn. com> wrote:

> Hi Toby,
> 
> This link gives some information about that. 
> Acoustic resonance
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_resonance>
> 
> I am not sure why Lance's played frequency is so far
> off the calculated
> resonance of the tube. I am trying to replicate his
> results by
> recording the sound and then doing a frequency
> analysis. So far I have
> found the frequencies embodied in that airy tone to
> be all over the
> spectrum and far too variable and unstable to get an
> accurate reading. 
> Of course I will keep trying different methods.
> 
> John
> 
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com,
> <kymarto123@ ...> wrote:
> >
> > I don't know exactly what John's method involves,
> but an
> > open/open conic frustum is a very different animal
> than
> > closed/open and different from an open/open
> cylinder.
> > Scavone, I believe, has some stuff about that.
> That may
> > account for some of the disrepancy. F=c/2*l
> certainly
> > doesn't work in this case; not unless it is
> closed/open
> > and complete.
> >
> > Toby
> >
> > --- MartinMods lancelotburt@ ... wrote:
> >
> > > I followed John's method, to calculate the
> resonant
> > > frequency (F=c/2*l) of my Martin neck tube (with
> > > tenon removed), and then compared it to the
> actual
> > > played frequency of the neck section, by blowing
> > > across the end with both ends open (as per
> flute). 
> > > The regime formed with both ends open is very
> weak,
> > > but still clearly audible.  The pitch was
> the same
> > > blown from either end, with the register key
> closed.
> > >
> > > Calculated Frequency:1018Hz
> > > Actual Played Frequency:&# 160; 932Hz
> > > Difference: 153 cents
> > >
> > > So you can see, that including the entire neck
> in
> > > the frs calculation, at least in this case,
> would
> > > have resulted in a considerable amount of error,
> so
> > > there would be no telling if your
> > > mouthpiece/constric tion was actually close to
> having
> > > the correct frequency or not.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> 
> 





      

With my Yamaha alto neck, I get a 20 cents sharp G.  So that would be 804 Hz, close to Toby's 820 Hz.  These notes are easy to lip down but not up.  I'm probably playing flat since most of my embouchure was developed via regular flutes and beer bottles (one end closed).  




________________________________
From: "kymarto123@..." <kymarto123@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, March 16, 2010 7:54:49 PM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: MCV Comparison Study Revised

  
Blow the large end of the neck like a Turkish ney. My alto
neck sound 820 Hz, +-10 Hz. With mpc it blows 450. With
mpc much less air is required to get a sounding note, but
both are solid and clear.

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

> I understand what you are saying and have done those
> things. I hear an approximate pitch, but what I am
> seeking is an accurate frequency.
> 
> The sound analysis program I am using does that with
> good accuracy, given a stable recorded sound wave. 
> Unfortunately recording the airy sound blown across
> the end or the tapping sound does not provide that. 
> When I take a small sampling at different parts of
> those recoded wave sounds, I get wildly different
> frequencies.
> 
> If you can record your sounds to an MP3 file and
> send it to me, I can see if your efforts produce any
> better results. My ears work just fine hearing and
> matching pitches, they just don't tell me the exact
> Hz of the frequency I am listening to---especially
> if it is an unstable airy whistle or the "thonk" of
> tapping a metal tube.
> 
> John
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, MartinMods
> <lancelotburt@ ...> wrote:
> >
> > "So far I have found the frequencies embodied in
> that airy tone to be all
> > over the spectrum and far too variable and
> unstable to get an accurate 
> > reading."
> > 
> > 
> > John,  
> > 
> > I suggest you use your ears to narrow in on the
> frequency.&# 160; Blow gently across the small end and
> alternate having the large end open, and then 1/4
> closed.  The pitch will drop ca. 1/2 step in the
> semi-closed position.  You can also hear the
> frequency by holding the small end 1" from your ear,
> and then tapping the outside of the tenon with your
> finger (not the nail).  If you can't hear it, then
I
> suggest a different profession.: -)
> > 
> > Lance
> >
> 
> 
> 





      

I find it much easier to get the note to sound if I blow
across the large end (at least for alto). One tip is that
you have to have a very wide embouchure and blow pretty
hard (and needless to say it has to be aimed exactly
right).

Toby

--- Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:

> Blowing the small end of my 10M tenor neck I get a
> Eb on my tuner.� I think it is like Eb2 on a
> flute.� 622 Hz?� Like Toby said this a
open-open
> "instrument" so a compression node = displacement
> anti-node is forced at each end.� I'm not sure
what
> you can do with this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: "kymarto123@..." <kymarto123@...>
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tue, March 16, 2010 7:47:55 PM
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: MCV Comparison
> Study Revised
> 
> � 
> So, close to that of an open/open cylinder. I was
> wrong. I
> still don't know what you are trying to do, but it
> is
> obvious that neither of you is an end-blown flute
> player.
> Blowing across the open neck I can get a strong and
> steady
> tone with a very solid pitch center.
> 
> Toby
> --- John <jtalcott47@msn. com> wrote:
> 
> > Hi Toby,
> > 
> > This link gives some information about that. 
> > Acoustic resonance
> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_resonance>
> > 
> > I am not sure why Lance's played frequency is so
> far
> > off the calculated
> > resonance of the tube. I am trying to replicate
> his
> > results by
> > recording the sound and then doing a frequency
> > analysis. So far I have
> > found the frequencies embodied in that airy tone
> to
> > be all over the
> > spectrum and far too variable and unstable to get
> an
> > accurate reading. 
> > Of course I will keep trying different methods.
> > 
> > John
> > 
> > 
> > --- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com,
> > <kymarto123@ ...> wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't know exactly what John's method
> involves,
> > but an
> > > open/open conic frustum is a very different
> animal
> > than
> > > closed/open and different from an open/open
> > cylinder.
> > > Scavone, I believe, has some stuff about that.
> > That may
> > > account for some of the disrepancy. F=c/2*l
> > certainly
> > > doesn't work in this case; not unless it is
> > closed/open
> > > and complete.
> > >
> > > Toby
> > >
> > > --- MartinMods lancelotburt@ ... wrote:
> > >
> > > > I followed John's method, to calculate the
> > resonant
> > > > frequency (F=c/2*l) of my Martin neck tube
> (with
> > > > tenon removed), and then compared it to the
> > actual
> > > > played frequency of the neck section, by
> blowing
> > > > across the end with both ends open (as per
> > flute). 
> > > > The regime formed with both ends open is very
> > weak,
> > > > but still clearly audible.  The pitch was
> > the same
> > > > blown from either end, with the register key
> > closed.
> > > >
> > > > Calculated Frequency:1018Hz
> > > > Actual Played Frequency:&# 160; 932Hz
> > > > Difference: 153 cents
> > > >
> > > > So you can see, that including the entire neck
> > in
> > > > the frs calculation, at least in this case,
> > would
> > > > have resulted in a considerable amount of
> error,
> > so
> > > > there would be no telling if your
> > > > mouthpiece/constric tion was actually close to
> > having
> > > > the correct frequency or not.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>       

You are right of course.  In FMA p. 470 Benade writes that there will be
a pressure node of the Frs (on a sax) inside the neck for frequencies
just above Frs and below the junction of where the neck goes inside the
body for frequencies just below Frs.  [paraphrased to fit the
saxophone].

This along with the fact that the neck and mouthpiece of the alto sax
produces close to a written F2 (Ab concert) would indicate that the Frs
is approximately the first mode frequency of the shortest tube note and
not the second as Benade states in his typed class notes.

By the way, using the "airy sound" created by blowing across the small
end and a tuner I found the pitch of my alto neck used in the study to
be Ab concert + 40 cents which comes out to a frequency of  about 851
hz.

The calculated frequency using the measured length of the neck  is  f = 
346/ 2*197  =   878 hz

Since the formula uses 2 x l,  that indicates that the wave turns around
and goes back  which suggests an end correction at the large end.   The
formula for the end correction commonly used is  .6 times the radius.

The radius of the large end (23 d) is 11.5 mm.    11.5 x .6 =  6.9 mm  
Putting that into the formula we get:

f = 346 / 2* (197 + 6.9)  =   848.5 hz   which is in good agreement with
the played frequency of 851 hz.

John




--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
wrote:
>
> John,
>
> The palm key notes play about 1/2 step flat without the octave key. 
The 2nd mode would be an octave above that, still almost an octave above
the pitch of the mouthpiece + neck.
>
> Lance
>

John,

Should we be concerned that Benade, did not include the factor for end correction in his frs formula in the first place?  

Since you are playing an open cone, there would be need of 2 end corrections, as the wave reflects at both ends.  Small radius 6.3mm *.6 = 3.78mm additional length, so, f = 346 / 2* (197 + 6.9 + 3.78)  = 833Hz.  The interval 833hz to 851Hz is 34 cents, almost a quarter tone.  For the combined mouthpiece + neck frequency to be correct then, the mouthpiece would need to be 34 cents sharp.  How much will that 34 cent error affect the integral relationships of the higher resonances?




--- On Wed, 3/17/10, John <jtalcott47@...> wrote:

From: John <jtalcott47@...>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: MCV Comparison Study Revised
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, March 17, 2010, 5:17 AM







 



  


    
      
      
      You are right of course.  In FMA p. 470 Benade writes that there will be

a pressure node of the Frs (on a sax) inside the neck for frequencies

just above Frs and below the junction of where the neck goes inside the

body for frequencies just below Frs.  [paraphrased to fit the

saxophone].



This along with the fact that the neck and mouthpiece of the alto sax

produces close to a written F2 (Ab concert) would indicate that the Frs

is approximately the first mode frequency of the shortest tube note and

not the second as Benade states in his typed class notes.



By the way, using the "airy sound" created by blowing across the small

end and a tuner I found the pitch of my alto neck used in the study to

be Ab concert + 40 cents which comes out to a frequency of  about 851

hz.



The calculated frequency using the measured length of the neck  is  f = 

346/ 2*197  =   878 hz



Since the formula uses 2 x l,  that indicates that the wave turns around

and goes back  which suggests an end correction at the large end.   The

formula for the end correction commonly used is  .6 times the radius.



The radius of the large end (23 d) is 11.5 mm.    11.5 x .6 =  6.9 mm  

Putting that into the formula we get:



f = 346 / 2* (197 + 6.9)  =   848.5 hz   which is in good agreement with

the played frequency of 851 hz.



John



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

wrote:

>

> John,

>

> The palm key notes play about 1/2 step flat without the octave key. 

The 2nd mode would be an octave above that, still almost an octave above

the pitch of the mouthpiece + neck.

>

> Lance

>





    
     

    
    


 



  






      

"In FMA p. 470 Benade writes that there will be

a pressure node of the Frs (on a sax) inside the neck for frequencies

just above Frs and below the junction of where the neck goes inside the

body for frequencies just below Frs.  [paraphrased to fit the

saxophone].



This along with the fact that the neck and mouthpiece of the alto sax

produces close to a written F2 (Ab concert) would indicate that the Frs

is approximately the first mode frequency of the shortest tube note and

not the second as Benade states in his typed class notes."

I would beg to differ. On page 470, in FMA, as Toby has explained, Benade describes the the location of the pressure node for played tones of frequencies equal to the mouthpiece + entire neck resonance, and those nodes for played notes higher and lower than that.  In the class notes, he describes the actual independent resonance of the cavity + constriction, almost one octave higher.  

The alto's mouthpiece + neck frequency is then concert Ab (830.61Hz).  The shortest tube without octave key produces ca. a concert G (783.99Hz) and it's second mode, one octave higher is 1567.98Hz.  






      

Yep. The point is that you never have a tube length as
short as the mpc+neck alone. The exercise is to play the
octave lower and then "cut the wave in half" so to speak,
by playing the second mode via the register key. That
forms a pressure node at the halfway point, and that
should be at exactly the same point as the pressure node
at the end of the neck when the neck is blown apart from
the body.

If the pressure node in the second register using the body
is indeed at the end of the neck when the horn is played,
it shows that the tube resonances (at least the second
peak) is in the right place, and the cone profile is
correct.

Toby

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

> "In FMA p. 470 Benade writes that there will be
> 
> a pressure node of the Frs (on a sax) inside the
> neck for frequencies
> 
> just above Frs and below the junction of where the
> neck goes inside the
> 
> body for frequencies just below Frs.  [paraphrased
> to fit the
> 
> saxophone].
> 
> 
> 
> This along with the fact that the neck and
> mouthpiece of the alto sax
> 
> produces close to a written F2 (Ab concert) would
> indicate that the Frs
> 
> is approximately the first mode frequency of the
> shortest tube note and
> 
> not the second as Benade states in his typed class
> notes."
> 
> I would beg to differ. On page 470, in FMA, as Toby
> has explained, Benade describes the the location of
> the pressure node for played tones of frequencies
> equal to the mouthpiece + entire neck resonance, and
> those nodes for played notes higher and lower than
> that.  In the class notes, he describes the actual
> independent resonance of the cavity + constriction,
> almost one octave higher.  
> 
> The alto's mouthpiece + neck frequency is then
> concert Ab (830.61Hz).  The shortest tube without
> octave key produces ca. a concert G (783.99Hz) and
> it's second mode, one octave higher is 1567.98Hz.  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>       

Think about it.  Blowing across the end of a saxophone neck is the
acoustic equivalent of blowing across the head joint of a flute.  The
end at which the soundwave is generated by the air stream being split
into two part I believe does not have an "end correction" since the air
is being pushed into the tube at that point.  Maybe our resident flute
expert Toby can say for sure if the flute has an "end correction" at
both ends.  My sense of logic says that it does not.

When the mouthpiece and neck are on the saxophone under normal playing
conditions there, of course, will not be an end correction at the end of
the neck since there is no opening there.  So no, it think Benade knew
exactly what he was writing about "in the first place".  Also no one
seems to be quite sure exactly what the end correction is for a conical
tube, so most use the one for a cylindrical tube which is calculated to
be .6 times the radius, according to Joe Wolfe.


--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
wrote:
>
> John,
>
> Should we be concerned that Benade, did not include the factor for end
correction in his frs formula in the first place?Â
>
> Since you are playing an open cone, there would be need of 2 end
corrections, as the wave reflects at both ends.  Small radius 6.3mm
*.6 = 3.78mm additional length, so, f = 346 / 2* (197 + 6.9 + 3.78)  =
833Hz.  The interval 833hz to 851Hz is 34 cents, almost a quarter
tone.  For the combined mouthpiece + neck frequency to be correct
then, the mouthpiece would need to be 34 cents sharp.  How much will
that 34 cent error affect the integral relationships of the higher
resonances?
>
>
>
>
> --- On Wed, 3/17/10, John jtalcott47@... wrote:
>
> From: John jtalcott47@...
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: MCV Comparison Study Revised
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Wednesday, March 17, 2010, 5:17 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>       You are right of course.  In FMA p. 470 Benade writes that there
will be
>
> a pressure node of the Frs (on a sax) inside the neck for frequencies
>
> just above Frs and below the junction of where the neck goes inside
the
>
> body for frequencies just below Frs.  [paraphrased to fit the
>
> saxophone].
>
>
>
> This along with the fact that the neck and mouthpiece of the alto sax
>
> produces close to a written F2 (Ab concert) would indicate that the
Frs
>
> is approximately the first mode frequency of the shortest tube note
and
>
> not the second as Benade states in his typed class notes.
>
>
>
> By the way, using the "airy sound" created by blowing across the small
>
> end and a tuner I found the pitch of my alto neck used in the study to
>
> be Ab concert + 40 cents which comes out to a frequency of  about 851
>
> hz.
>
>
>
> The calculated frequency using the measured length of the neck  is  f
=
>
> 346/ 2*197  =   878 hz
>
>
>
> Since the formula uses 2 x l,  that indicates that the wave turns
around
>
> and goes back  which suggests an end correction at the large end.  
The
>
> formula for the end correction commonly used is  .6 times the radius.
>
>
>
> The radius of the large end (23 d) is 11.5 mm.    11.5 x .6 =  6.9 mm
>
> Putting that into the formula we get:
>
>
>
> f = 346 / 2* (197 + 6.9)  =   848.5 hz   which is in good agreement
with
>
> the played frequency of 851 hz.
>
>
>
> John
>
>
>
> --- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@
...>
>
> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > John,
>
> >
>
> > The palm key notes play about 1/2 step flat without the octave key.
>
> The 2nd mode would be an octave above that, still almost an octave
above
>
> the pitch of the mouthpiece + neck.
>
> >
>
> > Lance
>
> >
>

What is the practical application of this?

 

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of kymarto123@...
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 4:23 AM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: MCV Comparison Study Revised

 

  

Yep. The point is that you never have a tube length as
short as the mpc+neck alone. The exercise is to play the
octave lower and then "cut the wave in half" so to speak,
by playing the second mode via the register key. That
forms a pressure node at the halfway point, and that
should be at exactly the same point as the pressure node
at the end of the neck when the neck is blown apart from
the body.

If the pressure node in the second register using the body
is indeed at the end of the neck when the horn is played,
it shows that the tube resonances (at least the second
peak) is in the right place, and the cone profile is
correct.

Toby

--- MartinMods <lancelotburt@... <mailto:lancelotburt%40yahoo.com> >
wrote:

> "In FMA p. 470 Benade writes that there will be
> 
> a pressure node of the Frs (on a sax) inside the
> neck for frequencies
> 
> just above Frs and below the junction of where the
> neck goes inside the
> 
> body for frequencies just below Frs. [paraphrased
> to fit the
> 
> saxophone].
> 
> 
> 
> This along with the fact that the neck and
> mouthpiece of the alto sax
> 
> produces close to a written F2 (Ab concert) would
> indicate that the Frs
> 
> is approximately the first mode frequency of the
> shortest tube note and
> 
> not the second as Benade states in his typed class
> notes."
> 
> I would beg to differ. On page 470, in FMA, as Toby
> has explained, Benade describes the the location of
> the pressure node for played tones of frequencies
> equal to the mouthpiece + entire neck resonance, and
> those nodes for played notes higher and lower than
> that.  In the class notes, he describes the actual
> independent resonance of the cavity + constriction,
> almost one octave higher.  
> 
> The alto's mouthpiece + neck frequency is then
> concert Ab (830.61Hz).  The shortest tube without
> octave key produces ca. a concert G (783.99Hz) and
> it's second mode, one octave higher is 1567.98Hz.  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Steve,

The whole world is not just about the commercial application of ideas
and information in order to make money.  That may be the entire narrow
view of things of some folks in the music industry, but the same is not
true for the rest of us.

Knowledge for knowledge sake to gain a better understanding of why
things work the way they do has an intrinsic value all its own.  It is
not always about "taking as much money out of other peoples pockets and
putting it into your own " as some people have said.  At least that is
how I see it.   Others may view it differently, and have the right to do
so.

John


--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "STEVE GOODSON" <saxgourmet@...>
wrote:
>
> What is the practical application of this?
>
>
>
> From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of kymarto123@...
> Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 4:23 AM
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: MCV Comparison Study Revised
>
>
>
>
>
> Yep. The point is that you never have a tube length as
> short as the mpc+neck alone. The exercise is to play the
> octave lower and then "cut the wave in half" so to speak,
> by playing the second mode via the register key. That
> forms a pressure node at the halfway point, and that
> should be at exactly the same point as the pressure node
> at the end of the neck when the neck is blown apart from
> the body.
>
> If the pressure node in the second register using the body
> is indeed at the end of the neck when the horn is played,
> it shows that the tube resonances (at least the second
> peak) is in the right place, and the cone profile is
> correct.
>
> Toby
>
> --- MartinMods lancelotburt@... <mailto:lancelotburt%40yahoo.com> >
> wrote:
>
> > "In FMA p. 470 Benade writes that there will be
> >
> > a pressure node of the Frs (on a sax) inside the
> > neck for frequencies
> >
> > just above Frs and below the junction of where the
> > neck goes inside the
> >
> > body for frequencies just below Frs. [paraphrased
> > to fit the
> >
> > saxophone].
> >
> >
> >
> > This along with the fact that the neck and
> > mouthpiece of the alto sax
> >
> > produces close to a written F2 (Ab concert) would
> > indicate that the Frs
> >
> > is approximately the first mode frequency of the
> > shortest tube note and
> >
> > not the second as Benade states in his typed class
> > notes."
> >
> > I would beg to differ. On page 470, in FMA, as Toby
> > has explained, Benade describes the the location of
> > the pressure node for played tones of frequencies
> > equal to the mouthpiece + entire neck resonance, and
> > those nodes for played notes higher and lower than
> > that.  In the class notes, he describes the actual
> > independent resonance of the cavity + constriction,
> > almost one octave higher. 
> >
> > The alto's mouthpiece + neck frequency is then
> > concert Ab (830.61Hz).  The shortest tube without
> > octave key produces ca. a concert G (783.99Hz) and
> > it's second mode, one octave higher is 1567.98Hz. 
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Please read my post again: I said PRACTICAL applications, not commercial
applications...

 

Of course, if somebody doesn't find an application to be ultimately
profitable, then it will not be produced and made available to the saxophone
community. I don't know of anybody who offers improved products to the
community strictly for the sake of their health...

 

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of John
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 10:41 AM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: MCV Comparison Study Revised

 

  

Steve,

The whole world is not just about the commercial application of ideas and
information in order to make money.  That may be the entire narrow view of
things of some folks in the music industry, but the same is not true for the
rest of us. 

Knowledge for knowledge sake to gain a better understanding of why things
work the way they do has an intrinsic value all its own.  It is not always
about "taking as much money out of other peoples pockets and putting it into
your own " as some people have said.  At least that is how I see it.
Others may view it differently, and have the right to do so.

John


--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "STEVE GOODSON" <saxgourmet@...>
wrote:
>
> What is the practical application of this?
> 
> 
> 
> From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of kymarto123@...
> Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 4:23 AM
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: MCV Comparison Study Revised
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. The point is that you never have a tube length as
> short as the mpc+neck alone. The exercise is to play the
> octave lower and then "cut the wave in half" so to speak,
> by playing the second mode via the register key. That
> forms a pressure node at the halfway point, and that
> should be at exactly the same point as the pressure node
> at the end of the neck when the neck is blown apart from
> the body.
> 
> If the pressure node in the second register using the body
> is indeed at the end of the neck when the horn is played,
> it shows that the tube resonances (at least the second
> peak) is in the right place, and the cone profile is
> correct.
> 
> Toby
> 
> --- MartinMods lancelotburt@... <mailto:lancelotburt%40yahoo.com> >
> wrote:
> 
> > "In FMA p. 470 Benade writes that there will be
> > 
> > a pressure node of the Frs (on a sax) inside the
> > neck for frequencies
> > 
> > just above Frs and below the junction of where the
> > neck goes inside the
> > 
> > body for frequencies just below Frs. [paraphrased
> > to fit the
> > 
> > saxophone].
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > This along with the fact that the neck and
> > mouthpiece of the alto sax
> > 
> > produces close to a written F2 (Ab concert) would
> > indicate that the Frs
> > 
> > is approximately the first mode frequency of the
> > shortest tube note and
> > 
> > not the second as Benade states in his typed class
> > notes."
> > 
> > I would beg to differ. On page 470, in FMA, as Toby
> > has explained, Benade describes the the location of
> > the pressure node for played tones of frequencies
> > equal to the mouthpiece + entire neck resonance, and
> > those nodes for played notes higher and lower than
> > that.  In the class notes, he describes the actual
> > independent resonance of the cavity + constriction,
> > almost one octave higher.  
> > 
> > The alto's mouthpiece + neck frequency is then
> > concert Ab (830.61Hz).  The shortest tube without
> > octave key produces ca. a concert G (783.99Hz) and
> > it's second mode, one octave higher is 1567.98Hz.  
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >
>

"Think about it.  Blowing across the end of a saxophone neck is the 
acoustic equivalent of blowing across the head joint of a flute.  The 
end at which the soundwave is generated by the air stream being split 
into two part I believe does not have an "end correction" since the air 
is being pushed into the tube at that point.  Maybe our resident flute 
expert Toby can say for sure if the flute has an "end correction" at 
both ends.  My sense of logic says that it does not."

John,

I get the exact same pitch by tapping my neck on the outside of the 
tube, equidistant from both ends, as I do by blowing across it.  






      

"When the mouthpiece and neck are on the saxophone under normal playing 
conditions there, of course, will not be an end correction at the
 end of the neck since there is no opening there.  So no, it think 
Benade knew exactly what he was writing about "in the first place".


There is a huge fault in your logic.  You made your logical deduction after examining only one of the necessary two conditions for frs testing.  

First, our universal truth.  Because you claim an end correction is necessary for testing the played frequency of the neck tube alone, then we must assume that an end correction is necessary in all cases of play testing any tube.  This is our universal truth.

The first part of your equation is true, the calculated frequency of the section under normal playing conditions does not require an end correction.  

The second part, which you omitted (a common propaganda "trick"), actually playing the mouthpiece on the neck, as per your universal truth, requires that we make an end correction in order to get an accurate frequency. 

As Benade never mentioned this fact, either Benade is wrong in not applying our universal truth, or you are wrong in proposing it.



      

I can easily get a loud, steady tone, by covering 1/2 of the end with my lower lip, but since there is a displacement anti-node there, the pitch is lowered almost a semi-tone.  Both ends must be open, with nothing closer than 1" to the opening, or the pitch will be affected.  Tapping gives a definite tone, short, and soft, but easily matched with a tunable oscillator, using headphones.  Like tuning tablas.



      

The use of the word "profitable" in the second sentence says it all.



--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "STEVE GOODSON" <saxgourmet@...> wrote:
>
> Please read my post again: I said PRACTICAL applications, not commercial
> applications...
> 
>  
> 
> Of course, if somebody doesn't find an application to be ultimately
> profitable, then it will not be produced and made available to the saxophone
> community. I don't know of anybody who offers improved products to the
> community strictly for the sake of their health...
> 
>  
> 
> From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of John
> Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 10:41 AM
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: MCV Comparison Study Revised
> 
>  
> 
>   
> 
> Steve,
> 
> The whole world is not just about the commercial application of ideas and
> information in order to make money.  That may be the entire narrow view of
> things of some folks in the music industry, but the same is not true for the
> rest of us. 
> 
> Knowledge for knowledge sake to gain a better understanding of why things
> work the way they do has an intrinsic value all its own.  It is not always
> about "taking as much money out of other peoples pockets and putting it into
> your own " as some people have said.  At least that is how I see it.
> Others may view it differently, and have the right to do so.
> 
> John
> 
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "STEVE GOODSON" <saxgourmet@>
> wrote:
> >
> > What is the practical application of this?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
> > On Behalf Of kymarto123@
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 4:23 AM
> > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: MCV Comparison Study Revised
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Yep. The point is that you never have a tube length as
> > short as the mpc+neck alone. The exercise is to play the
> > octave lower and then "cut the wave in half" so to speak,
> > by playing the second mode via the register key. That
> > forms a pressure node at the halfway point, and that
> > should be at exactly the same point as the pressure node
> > at the end of the neck when the neck is blown apart from
> > the body.
> > 
> > If the pressure node in the second register using the body
> > is indeed at the end of the neck when the horn is played,
> > it shows that the tube resonances (at least the second
> > peak) is in the right place, and the cone profile is
> > correct.
> > 
> > Toby
> > 
> > --- MartinMods lancelotburt@ <mailto:lancelotburt%40yahoo.com> >
> > wrote:
> > 
> > > "In FMA p. 470 Benade writes that there will be
> > > 
> > > a pressure node of the Frs (on a sax) inside the
> > > neck for frequencies
> > > 
> > > just above Frs and below the junction of where the
> > > neck goes inside the
> > > 
> > > body for frequencies just below Frs. [paraphrased
> > > to fit the
> > > 
> > > saxophone].
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > This along with the fact that the neck and
> > > mouthpiece of the alto sax
> > > 
> > > produces close to a written F2 (Ab concert) would
> > > indicate that the Frs
> > > 
> > > is approximately the first mode frequency of the
> > > shortest tube note and
> > > 
> > > not the second as Benade states in his typed class
> > > notes."
> > > 
> > > I would beg to differ. On page 470, in FMA, as Toby
> > > has explained, Benade describes the the location of
> > > the pressure node for played tones of frequencies
> > > equal to the mouthpiece + entire neck resonance, and
> > > those nodes for played notes higher and lower than
> > > that.  In the class notes, he describes the actual
> > > independent resonance of the cavity + constriction,
> > > almost one octave higher.  
> > > 
> > > The alto's mouthpiece + neck frequency is then
> > > concert Ab (830.61Hz).  The shortest tube without
> > > octave key produces ca. a concert G (783.99Hz) and
> > > it's second mode, one octave higher is 1567.98Hz.  
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > >
> >
>

Of course it has an end correction; there is a
displacement antinode there, right? No different on that
score from the other end. There is an additional and very
important end correction at the blowing end, however,
having to do with changing the impedance by shading the
hole with the player's lip. This can vary notes by way
more than a semitone, so it is VERY important to make sure
that your lip does not protrude at all over the edge of
the tenon end when you blow the note. 

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

> Think about it.  Blowing across the end of a
> saxophone neck is the
> acoustic equivalent of blowing across the head joint
> of a flute.  The
> end at which the soundwave is generated by the air
> stream being split
> into two part I believe does not have an "end
> correction" since the air
> is being pushed into the tube at that point.  Maybe
> our resident flute
> expert Toby can say for sure if the flute has an
> "end correction" at
> both ends.  My sense of logic says that it does not.
> 
> When the mouthpiece and neck are on the saxophone
> under normal playing
> conditions there, of course, will not be an end
> correction at the end of
> the neck since there is no opening there.  So no, it
> think Benade knew
> exactly what he was writing about "in the first
> place".  Also no one
> seems to be quite sure exactly what the end
> correction is for a conical
> tube, so most use the one for a cylindrical tube
> which is calculated to
> be .6 times the radius, according to Joe Wolfe.
> 
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods
> <lancelotburt@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > John,
> >
> > Should we be concerned that Benade, did not
> include the factor for end
> correction in his frs formula in the first place?$B>,!"(B
> >
> > Since you are playing an open cone, there would be
> need of 2 end
> corrections, as the wave reflects at both ends.$B>,!"(B 
> Small radius 6.3mm
> *.6 = 3.78mm additional length, so, f = 346 / 2*
> (197 + 6.9 + 3.78)  > 833Hz.$B>,!"(B  The interval 833hz to 851Hz is 34 cents,
> almost a quarter
> tone.$B>,!"(B  For the combined mouthpiece + neck
> frequency to be correct
> then, the mouthpiece would need to be 34 cents
> sharp.$B>,!"(B  How much will
> that 34 cent error affect the integral relationships
> of the higher
> resonances?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- On Wed, 3/17/10, John jtalcott47@... wrote:
> >
> > From: John jtalcott47@...
> > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: MCV Comparison Study
> Revised
> > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> > Date: Wednesday, March 17, 2010, 5:17 AM
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > $B>,!"(B
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >       You are right of course.  In FMA p. 470
> Benade writes that there
> will be
> >
> > a pressure node of the Frs (on a sax) inside the
> neck for frequencies
> >
> > just above Frs and below the junction of where the
> neck goes inside
> the
> >
> > body for frequencies just below Frs.  [paraphrased
> to fit the
> >
> > saxophone].
> >
> >
> >
> > This along with the fact that the neck and
> mouthpiece of the alto sax
> >
> > produces close to a written F2 (Ab concert) would
> indicate that the
> Frs
> >
> > is approximately the first mode frequency of the
> shortest tube note
> and
> >
> > not the second as Benade states in his typed class
> notes.
> >
> >
> >
> > By the way, using the "airy sound" created by
> blowing across the small
> >
> > end and a tuner I found the pitch of my alto neck
> used in the study to
> >
> > be Ab concert + 40 cents which comes out to a
> frequency of  about 851
> >
> > hz.
> >
> >
> >
> > The calculated frequency using the measured length
> of the neck  is  f
> > >
> > 346/ 2*197  =   878 hz
> >
> >
> >
> > Since the formula uses 2 x l,  that indicates that
> the wave turns
> around
> >
> > and goes back  which suggests an end correction at
> the large end.  
> The
> >
> > formula for the end correction commonly used is 
> .6 times the radius.
> >
> >
> >
> > The radius of the large end (23 d) is 11.5 mm.   
> 11.5 x .6 =  6.9 mm
> >
> > Putting that into the formula we get:
> >
> >
> >
> > f = 346 / 2* (197 + 6.9)  =   848.5 hz   which is
> in good agreement
> with
> >
> > the played frequency of 851 hz.
> >
> >
> >
> > John
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com,
> MartinMods <lancelotburt@
> ...>
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> >
> > > John,
> >
> > >
> >
> > > The palm key notes play about 1/2 step flat
> without the octave key.
> >
> > The 2nd mode would be an octave above that, still
> almost an octave
> above
> >
> > the pitch of the mouthpiece + neck.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Lance
> >
> > >
> >
> 
> 

None really. It is simply a visualization of whether the
tube and neck are correctly proportioned to overblow the
octave in tune. And it is almost impossible to test, since
there is no good way to find the exact position of the
displacement antinode while you are playing the note. In a
soprano with a straight tube and detachable neck, you
could put a bead on the end of a long, thin rod and push
it up from the bottom to find the point and see if it is
at the bottom of the neck tenon, but ONLY if a fingered
note played the exact same frequency as the mpc and neck
alone. It is basically a practically useless piece of
information.

Toby

--- STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...> wrote:

> What is the practical application of this?
> 
>  
> 
> From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of kymarto123@...
> Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 4:23 AM
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: MCV Comparison
> Study Revised
> 
>  
> 
>   
> 
> Yep. The point is that you never have a tube length
> as
> short as the mpc+neck alone. The exercise is to play
> the
> octave lower and then "cut the wave in half" so to
> speak,
> by playing the second mode via the register key.
> That
> forms a pressure node at the halfway point, and that
> should be at exactly the same point as the pressure
> node
> at the end of the neck when the neck is blown apart
> from
> the body.
> 
> If the pressure node in the second register using
> the body
> is indeed at the end of the neck when the horn is
> played,
> it shows that the tube resonances (at least the
> second
> peak) is in the right place, and the cone profile is
> correct.
> 
> Toby
> 
> --- MartinMods <lancelotburt@...
> <mailto:lancelotburt%40yahoo.com> >
> wrote:
> 
> > "In FMA p. 470 Benade writes that there will be
> > 
> > a pressure node of the Frs (on a sax) inside the
> > neck for frequencies
> > 
> > just above Frs and below the junction of where the
> > neck goes inside the
> > 
> > body for frequencies just below Frs. [paraphrased
> > to fit the
> > 
> > saxophone].
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > This along with the fact that the neck and
> > mouthpiece of the alto sax
> > 
> > produces close to a written F2 (Ab concert) would
> > indicate that the Frs
> > 
> > is approximately the first mode frequency of the
> > shortest tube note and
> > 
> > not the second as Benade states in his typed class
> > notes."
> > 
> > I would beg to differ. On page 470, in FMA, as
> Toby
> > has explained, Benade describes the the location
> of
> > the pressure node for played tones of frequencies
> > equal to the mouthpiece + entire neck resonance,
> and
> > those nodes for played notes higher and lower than
> > that.  In the class notes, he describes the
> actual
> > independent resonance of the cavity +
> constriction,
> > almost one octave higher.  
> > 
> > The alto's mouthpiece + neck frequency is then
> > concert Ab (830.61Hz).  The shortest tube
> without
> > octave key produces ca. a concert G (783.99Hz) and
> > it's second mode, one octave higher is
> 1567.98Hz.  
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 

For more information about the end corrections of standing waves inside
a tube go to this link:  End Corrections
<http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/jw/musFAQ.html#end>

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
wrote:
>
> "When the mouthpiece and neck are on the saxophone under normal
playing
> conditions there, of course, will not be an end correction at the
>  end of the neck since there is no opening there.  So no, it think
> Benade knew exactly what he was writing about "in the first place".
>
>
> There is a huge fault in your logic.  You made your logical deduction
after examining only one of the necessary two conditions for frs
testing.
>
> First, our universal truth.  Because you claim an end correction is
necessary for testing the played frequency of the neck tube alone, then
we must assume that an end correction is necessary in all cases of play
testing any tube.  This is our universal truth.
>
> The first part of your equation is true, the calculated frequency of
the section under normal playing conditions does not require an end
correction.
>
> The second part, which you omitted (a common propaganda "trick"),
actually playing the mouthpiece on the neck, as per your universal
truth, requires that we make an end correction in order to get an
accurate frequency.
>
> As Benade never mentioned this fact, either Benade is wrong in not
applying our universal truth, or you are wrong in proposing it.
>

Thanks Toby for that clarification.  On our saxophone neck "flute" blown to create a pitch, will the blown end use the same formula for its "end correction" as the open end?  I have done more research and found out about an "embouchure hole" correction on flutes, but I am not sure this applies directly to what we are trying to measure with this "device".

John

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
>
> Of course it has an end correction; there is a
> displacement antinode there, right? No different on that
> score from the other end. There is an additional and very
> important end correction at the blowing end, however,
> having to do with changing the impedance by shading the
> hole with the player's lip. This can vary notes by way
> more than a semitone, so it is VERY important to make sure
> that your lip does not protrude at all over the edge of
> the tenon end when you blow the note. 
> 
> --- John <jtalcott47@...> wrote:
> 
> > Think about it.  Blowing across the end of a
> > saxophone neck is the
> > acoustic equivalent of blowing across the head joint
> > of a flute.  The
> > end at which the soundwave is generated by the air
> > stream being split
> > into two part I believe does not have an "end
> > correction" since the air
> > is being pushed into the tube at that point.  Maybe
> > our resident flute
> > expert Toby can say for sure if the flute has an
> > "end correction" at
> > both ends.  My sense of logic says that it does not.
> > 
> > When the mouthpiece and neck are on the saxophone
> > under normal playing
> > conditions there, of course, will not be an end
> > correction at the end of
> > the neck since there is no opening there.  So no, it
> > think Benade knew
> > exactly what he was writing about "in the first
> > place".  Also no one
> > seems to be quite sure exactly what the end
> > correction is for a conical
> > tube, so most use the one for a cylindrical tube
> > which is calculated to
> > be .6 times the radius, according to Joe Wolfe.
> > 
> > 
> > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods
> > <lancelotburt@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > John,
> > >
> > > Should we be concerned that Benade, did not
> > include the factor for end
> > correction in his frs formula in the first place?¾¬¡¢
> > >
> > > Since you are playing an open cone, there would be
> > need of 2 end
> > corrections, as the wave reflects at both ends.¾¬¡¢ 
> > Small radius 6.3mm
> > *.6 = 3.78mm additional length, so, f = 346 / 2*
> > (197 + 6.9 + 3.78)  =
> > 833Hz.¾¬¡¢  The interval 833hz to 851Hz is 34 cents,
> > almost a quarter
> > tone.¾¬¡¢  For the combined mouthpiece + neck
> > frequency to be correct
> > then, the mouthpiece would need to be 34 cents
> > sharp.¾¬¡¢  How much will
> > that 34 cent error affect the integral relationships
> > of the higher
> > resonances?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- On Wed, 3/17/10, John jtalcott47@ wrote:
> > >
> > > From: John jtalcott47@
> > > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: MCV Comparison Study
> > Revised
> > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> > > Date: Wednesday, March 17, 2010, 5:17 AM
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ¾¬¡¢
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >       You are right of course.  In FMA p. 470
> > Benade writes that there
> > will be
> > >
> > > a pressure node of the Frs (on a sax) inside the
> > neck for frequencies
> > >
> > > just above Frs and below the junction of where the
> > neck goes inside
> > the
> > >
> > > body for frequencies just below Frs.  [paraphrased
> > to fit the
> > >
> > > saxophone].
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > This along with the fact that the neck and
> > mouthpiece of the alto sax
> > >
> > > produces close to a written F2 (Ab concert) would
> > indicate that the
> > Frs
> > >
> > > is approximately the first mode frequency of the
> > shortest tube note
> > and
> > >
> > > not the second as Benade states in his typed class
> > notes.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > By the way, using the "airy sound" created by
> > blowing across the small
> > >
> > > end and a tuner I found the pitch of my alto neck
> > used in the study to
> > >
> > > be Ab concert + 40 cents which comes out to a
> > frequency of  about 851
> > >
> > > hz.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The calculated frequency using the measured length
> > of the neck  is  f
> > =
> > >
> > > 346/ 2*197  =   878 hz
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Since the formula uses 2 x l,  that indicates that
> > the wave turns
> > around
> > >
> > > and goes back  which suggests an end correction at
> > the large end.  
> > The
> > >
> > > formula for the end correction commonly used is 
> > .6 times the radius.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The radius of the large end (23 d) is 11.5 mm.   
> > 11.5 x .6 =  6.9 mm
> > >
> > > Putting that into the formula we get:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > f = 346 / 2* (197 + 6.9)  =   848.5 hz   which is
> > in good agreement
> > with
> > >
> > > the played frequency of 851 hz.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > John
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com,
> > MartinMods <lancelotburt@
> > ...>
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > John,
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > The palm key notes play about 1/2 step flat
> > without the octave key.
> > >
> > > The 2nd mode would be an octave above that, still
> > almost an octave
> > above
> > >
> > > the pitch of the mouthpiece + neck.
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > Lance
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > 
> >
>

If you do not occlude the blown end I would assume that it
is the normal end correction. As Lance says, you get the
same note when you simply tap the tube as when it is
blown, within a few cents, anyway. You are never going to
get accuracy down to any decimal places...

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

> Thanks Toby for that clarification.  On our
> saxophone neck "flute" blown to create a pitch, will
> the blown end use the same formula for its "end
> correction" as the open end?  I have done more
> research and found out about an "embouchure hole"
> correction on flutes, but I am not sure this applies
> directly to what we are trying to measure with this
> "device".
> 
> John
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com,
> <kymarto123@...> wrote:
> >
> > Of course it has an end correction; there is a
> > displacement antinode there, right? No different
> on that
> > score from the other end. There is an additional
> and very
> > important end correction at the blowing end,
> however,
> > having to do with changing the impedance by
> shading the
> > hole with the player's lip. This can vary notes by
> way
> > more than a semitone, so it is VERY important to
> make sure
> > that your lip does not protrude at all over the
> edge of
> > the tenon end when you blow the note. 
> > 
> > --- John <jtalcott47@...> wrote:
> > 
> > > Think about it.  Blowing across the end of a
> > > saxophone neck is the
> > > acoustic equivalent of blowing across the head
> joint
> > > of a flute.  The
> > > end at which the soundwave is generated by the
> air
> > > stream being split
> > > into two part I believe does not have an "end
> > > correction" since the air
> > > is being pushed into the tube at that point. 
> Maybe
> > > our resident flute
> > > expert Toby can say for sure if the flute has an
> > > "end correction" at
> > > both ends.  My sense of logic says that it does
> not.
> > > 
> > > When the mouthpiece and neck are on the
> saxophone
> > > under normal playing
> > > conditions there, of course, will not be an end
> > > correction at the end of
> > > the neck since there is no opening there.  So
> no, it
> > > think Benade knew
> > > exactly what he was writing about "in the first
> > > place".  Also no one
> > > seems to be quite sure exactly what the end
> > > correction is for a conical
> > > tube, so most use the one for a cylindrical tube
> > > which is calculated to
> > > be .6 times the radius, according to Joe Wolfe.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com,
> MartinMods
> > > <lancelotburt@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > John,
> > > >
> > > > Should we be concerned that Benade, did not
> > > include the factor for end
> > > correction in his frs formula in the first
> place?$B>,!"(B
> > > >
> > > > Since you are playing an open cone, there
> would be
> > > need of 2 end
> > > corrections, as the wave reflects at both
> ends.$B>,!"(B 
> > > Small radius 6.3mm
> > > *.6 = 3.78mm additional length, so, f = 346 / 2*
> > > (197 + 6.9 + 3.78)  > > > 833Hz.$B>,!"(B  The interval 833hz to 851Hz is 34
> cents,
> > > almost a quarter
> > > tone.$B>,!"(B  For the combined mouthpiece + neck
> > > frequency to be correct
> > > then, the mouthpiece would need to be 34 cents
> > > sharp.$B>,!"(B  How much will
> > > that 34 cent error affect the integral
> relationships
> > > of the higher
> > > resonances?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- On Wed, 3/17/10, John jtalcott47@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > > From: John jtalcott47@
> > > > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: MCV Comparison
> Study
> > > Revised
> > > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Date: Wednesday, March 17, 2010, 5:17 AM
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > $B>,!"(B
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >       You are right of course.  In FMA p. 470
> > > Benade writes that there
> > > will be
> > > >
> > > > a pressure node of the Frs (on a sax) inside
> the
> > > neck for frequencies
> > > >
> > > > just above Frs and below the junction of where
> the
> > > neck goes inside
> > > the
> > > >
> > > > body for frequencies just below Frs. 
> [paraphrased
> > > to fit the
> > > >
> > > > saxophone].
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > This along with the fact that the neck and
> > > mouthpiece of the alto sax
> > > >
> > > > produces close to a written F2 (Ab concert)
> would
> > > indicate that the
> > > Frs
> > > >
> > > > is approximately the first mode frequency of
> the
> > > shortest tube note
> > > and
> > > >
> > > > not the second as Benade states in his typed
> class
> > > notes.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > By the way, using the "airy sound" created by
> > > blowing across the small
> > > >
> > > > end and a tuner I found the pitch of my alto
> neck
> > > used in the study to
> > > >
> > > > be Ab concert + 40 cents which comes out to a
> > > frequency of  about 851
> > > >
> > > > hz.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The calculated frequency using the measured
> length
> > > of the neck  is  f
> > > > > > >
> > > > 346/ 2*197  =   878 hz
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Since the formula uses 2 x l,  that indicates
> that
> > > the wave turns
> > > around
> > > >
> > > > and goes back  which suggests an end
> correction at
> > > the large end.  
> > > The
> > > >
> 
== $B0J2<$N%a%C%;!<%8$O>JN,$5$l$^$7$?(B =

We make NO apology for making a profit on the products we manufacture. This
is how we make a living. I rather doubt that any members of this group who
are not self employed labor for free, so they are most certainly profiting
from their labor.

 

We know that to succeed in this business we have to offer high quality
innovative products. This is particularly true for a small company such as
ours, which has no aspirations toward significant growth beyond our present
size. We have been quite successful (much to the consternation of some
members of this group!) because we have offered and sold products that are
desired by the saxophone community at a price they are willing to pay. It's
really a pretty democratic process: if the saxophone community likes what we
are doing and are willing to pay the prices we ask, they essentially get to
vote about whether or not we stay in business every day.

 

We are very proud of our products and the reception they have received. We
don't just sit around and talk about saxophones and saxophone products, we
actually make them and offer them to the world for public evaluation. If
there is any doubt in your mind, let me assure you that our goal is to
maximize the profit we make on everything we sell (so we don't have to get
day jobs) and to put any excess over and above our costs in our pockets. Any
questions?

 

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of John
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 8:26 PM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: MCV Comparison Study Revised

 

  

The use of the word "profitable" in the second sentence says it all.

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> , "STEVE GOODSON" <saxgourmet@...>
wrote:
>
> Please read my post again: I said PRACTICAL applications, not commercial
> applications...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, if somebody doesn't find an application to be ultimately
> profitable, then it will not be produced and made available to the
saxophone
> community. I don't know of anybody who offers improved products to the
> community strictly for the sake of their health...
> 
> 
> 
> From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> ]
> On Behalf Of John
> Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 10:41 AM
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> 
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: MCV Comparison Study Revised
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steve,
> 
> The whole world is not just about the commercial application of ideas and
> information in order to make money. That may be the entire narrow view of
> things of some folks in the music industry, but the same is not true for
the
> rest of us. 
> 
> Knowledge for knowledge sake to gain a better understanding of why things
> work the way they do has an intrinsic value all its own. It is not always
> about "taking as much money out of other peoples pockets and putting it
into
> your own " as some people have said. At least that is how I see it.
> Others may view it differently, and have the right to do so.
> 
> John
> 
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> , "STEVE GOODSON" <saxgourmet@>
> wrote:
> >
> > What is the practical application of this?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> 
> [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> ]
> > On Behalf Of kymarto123@
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 4:23 AM
> > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> 
> > Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: MCV Comparison Study Revised
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Yep. The point is that you never have a tube length as
> > short as the mpc+neck alone. The exercise is to play the
> > octave lower and then "cut the wave in half" so to speak,
> > by playing the second mode via the register key. That
> > forms a pressure node at the halfway point, and that
> > should be at exactly the same point as the pressure node
> > at the end of the neck when the neck is blown apart from
> > the body.
> > 
> > If the pressure node in the second register using the body
> > is indeed at the end of the neck when the horn is played,
> > it shows that the tube resonances (at least the second
> > peak) is in the right place, and the cone profile is
> > correct.
> > 
> > Toby
> > 
> > --- MartinMods lancelotburt@ <mailto:lancelotburt%40yahoo.com> >
> > wrote:
> > 
> > > "In FMA p. 470 Benade writes that there will be
> > > 
> > > a pressure node of the Frs (on a sax) inside the
> > > neck for frequencies
> > > 
> > > just above Frs and below the junction of where the
> > > neck goes inside the
> > > 
> > > body for frequencies just below Frs. [paraphrased
> > > to fit the
> > > 
> > > saxophone].
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > This along with the fact that the neck and
> > > mouthpiece of the alto sax
> > > 
> > > produces close to a written F2 (Ab concert) would
> > > indicate that the Frs
> > > 
> > > is approximately the first mode frequency of the
> > > shortest tube note and
> > > 
> > > not the second as Benade states in his typed class
> > > notes."
> > > 
> > > I would beg to differ. On page 470, in FMA, as Toby
> > > has explained, Benade describes the the location of
> > > the pressure node for played tones of frequencies
> > > equal to the mouthpiece + entire neck resonance, and
> > > those nodes for played notes higher and lower than
> > > that.  In the class notes, he describes the actual
> > > independent resonance of the cavity + constriction,
> > > almost one octave higher.  
> > > 
> > > The alto's mouthpiece + neck frequency is then
> > > concert Ab (830.61Hz).  The shortest tube without
> > > octave key produces ca. a concert G (783.99Hz) and
> > > it's second mode, one octave higher is 1567.98Hz.  
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > >
> >
>

Good for you Steve.  The best of luck with that.  The fact that your
world centers around selling things for profit doesn't mean that is true
for the rest of us.  Nor does it make you any better than or less than
anyone else on this forum who make a comfortable living doing other
things.  The fact that you fail to see a "profit application" in these
theoretical discussions does not in any way diminish the value of the
information the rest of us are learning by participating.  If you really
feel what we are discussing is a waste of time, then I would advise you
to not waste your time by reading and and continually making negative
comments about the discussion.


--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "STEVE GOODSON" <saxgourmet@...>
wrote:
>
> We make NO apology for making a profit on the products we manufacture.
This
> is how we make a living. I rather doubt that any members of this group
who
> are not self employed labor for free, so they are most certainly
profiting
> from their labor.
>
>
>
> We know that to succeed in this business we have to offer high quality
> innovative products. This is particularly true for a small company
such as
> ours, which has no aspirations toward significant growth beyond our
present
> size. We have been quite successful (much to the consternation of some
> members of this group!) because we have offered and sold products that
are
> desired by the saxophone community at a price they are willing to pay.
It's
> really a pretty democratic process: if the saxophone community likes
what we
> are doing and are willing to pay the prices we ask, they essentially
get to
> vote about whether or not we stay in business every day.
>
>
>
> We are very proud of our products and the reception they have
received. We
> don't just sit around and talk about saxophones and saxophone
products, we
> actually make them and offer them to the world for public evaluation.
If
> there is any doubt in your mind, let me assure you that our goal is to
> maximize the profit we make on everything we sell (so we don't have to
get
> day jobs) and to put any excess over and above our costs in our
pockets. Any
> questions?
>
>
>
> From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of John
> Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 8:26 PM
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: MCV Comparison Study Revised
>
>
>
>
>
> The use of the word "profitable" in the second sentence says it all.
>
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> , "STEVE GOODSON"
saxgourmet@
> wrote:
> >
> > Please read my post again: I said PRACTICAL applications, not
commercial
> > applications...
> >
> >
> >
> > Of course, if somebody doesn't find an application to be ultimately
> > profitable, then it will not be produced and made available to the
> saxophone
> > community. I don't know of anybody who offers improved products to
the
> > community strictly for the sake of their health...
> >
> >
> >
> > From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
> [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> ]
> > On Behalf Of John
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 10:41 AM
> > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: MCV Comparison Study Revised
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Steve,
> >
> > The whole world is not just about the commercial application of
ideas and
> > information in order to make money. That may be the entire narrow
view of
> > things of some folks in the music industry, but the same is not true
for
> the
> > rest of us.
> >
> > Knowledge for knowledge sake to gain a better understanding of why
things
> > work the way they do has an intrinsic value all its own. It is not
always
> > about "taking as much money out of other peoples pockets and putting
it
> into
> > your own " as some people have said. At least that is how I see it.
> > Others may view it differently, and have the right to do so.
> >
> > John
> >
> >
> > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> , "STEVE GOODSON"
<saxgourmet@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > What is the practical application of this?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
> > [mailto:MouthpieceWork@...m
> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> ]
> > > On Behalf Of kymarto123@
> > > Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 4:23 AM
> > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: MCV Comparison Study Revised
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yep. The point is that you never have a tube length as
> > > short as the mpc+neck alone. The exercise is to play the
> > > octave lower and then "cut the wave in half" so to speak,
> > > by playing the second mode via the register key. That
> > > forms a pressure node at the halfway point, and that
> > > should be at exactly the same point as the pressure node
> > > at the end of the neck when the neck is blown apart from
> > > the body.
> > >
> > > If the pressure node in the second register using the body
> > > is indeed at the end of the neck when the horn is played,
> > > it shows that the tube resonances (at least the second
> > > peak) is in the right place, and the cone profile is
> > > correct.
> > >
> > > Toby
> > >
> > > --- MartinMods lancelotburt@ <mailto:lancelotburt%40yahoo.com> >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > "In FMA p. 470 Benade writes that there will be
> > > >
> > > > a pressure node of the Frs (on a sax) inside the
> > > > neck for frequencies
> > > >
> > > > just above Frs and below the junction of where the
> > > > neck goes inside the
> > > >
> > > > body for frequencies just below Frs. [paraphrased
> > > > to fit the
> > > >
> > > > saxophone].
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > This along with the fact that the neck and
> > > > mouthpiece of the alto sax
> > > >
> > > > produces close to a written F2 (Ab concert) would
> > > > indicate that the Frs
> > > >
> > > > is approximately the first mode frequency of the
> > > > shortest tube note and
> > > >
> > > > not the second as Benade states in his typed class
> > > > notes."
> > > >
> > > > I would beg to differ. On page 470, in FMA, as Toby
> > > > has explained, Benade describes the the location of
> > > > the pressure node for played tones of frequencies
> > > > equal to the mouthpiece + entire neck resonance, and
> > > > those nodes for played notes higher and lower than
> > > > that.  In the class notes, he describes the actual
> > > > independent resonance of the cavity + constriction,
> > > > almost one octave higher. 
> > > >
> > > > The alto's mouthpiece + neck frequency is then
> > > > concert Ab (830.61Hz).  The shortest tube without
> > > > octave key produces ca. a concert G (783.99Hz) and
> > > > it's second mode, one octave higher is 1567.98Hz. 
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

I have said MANY times I think the discussion should continue...I have also
tried to make clear my belief that the ideas put forth have very, very
little practical application in the real world of saxophone/mouthpiece
design and manufacture, and that the processes described by the posters are
not, AFAIK, employed by ANY manufacturers of saxophone products because they
do not yield any useable results. I think that manufacturers who are trying
to advance the technology do so by actually building products and evaluating
them rather than just talking about them. I would strongly urge you guys to
put your ideas into production and let the world see whether or not you know
what you are talking about. If you lack the resources or the inclination to
actually produce products which are representative of your ideas yourself,
sell them to existing manufacturers. I've made a lot of money over the years
doing design consulting for numerous companies. They are always looking for
good, valid ideas. It looks from here like your only purpose is to "self
appoint" yourself as an expert without putting yourself to the only valid
test: build something and see how it plays!

 

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of John
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2010 12:26 PM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: "profitable"

 

  

Good for you Steve.  The best of luck with that.  The fact that your world
centers around selling things for profit doesn't mean that is true for the
rest of us.  Nor does it make you any better than or less than anyone else
on this forum who make a comfortable living doing other things.  The fact
that you fail to see a "profit application" in these theoretical discussions
does not in any way diminish the value of the information the rest of us are
learning by participating.  If you really feel what we are discussing is a
waste of time, then I would advise you to not waste your time by reading and
and continually making negative comments about the discussion. 


--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "STEVE GOODSON" <saxgourmet@...>
wrote:
>
> We make NO apology for making a profit on the products we manufacture.
This
> is how we make a living. I rather doubt that any members of this group who
> are not self employed labor for free, so they are most certainly profiting
> from their labor.
> 
> 
> 
> We know that to succeed in this business we have to offer high quality
> innovative products. This is particularly true for a small company such as
> ours, which has no aspirations toward significant growth beyond our
present
> size. We have been quite successful (much to the consternation of some
> members of this group!) because we have offered and sold products that are
> desired by the saxophone community at a price they are willing to pay.
It's
> really a pretty democratic process: if the saxophone community likes what
we
> are doing and are willing to pay the prices we ask, they essentially get
to
> vote about whether or not we stay in business every day.
> 
> 
> 
> We are very proud of our products and the reception they have received. We
> don't just sit around and talk about saxophones and saxophone products, we
> actually make them and offer them to the world for public evaluation. If
> there is any doubt in your mind, let me assure you that our goal is to
> maximize the profit we make on everything we sell (so we don't have to get
> day jobs) and to put any excess over and above our costs in our pockets.
Any
> questions?
> 
> 
> 
> From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of John
> Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 8:26 PM
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: MCV Comparison Study Revised
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The use of the word "profitable" in the second sentence says it all.
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> , "STEVE GOODSON" saxgourmet@
> wrote:
> >
> > Please read my post again: I said PRACTICAL applications, not commercial
> > applications...
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Of course, if somebody doesn't find an application to be ultimately
> > profitable, then it will not be produced and made available to the
> saxophone
> > community. I don't know of anybody who offers improved products to the
> > community strictly for the sake of their health...
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
> [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> ]
> > On Behalf Of John
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 10:41 AM
> > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> 
> > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: MCV Comparison Study Revised
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Steve,
> > 
> > The whole world is not just about the commercial application of ideas
and
> > information in order to make money. That may be the entire narrow view
of
> > things of some folks in the music industry, but the same is not true for
> the
> > rest of us. 
> > 
> > Knowledge for knowledge sake to gain a better understanding of why
things
> > work the way they do has an intrinsic value all its own. It is not
always
> > about "taking as much money out of other peoples pockets and putting it
> into
> > your own " as some people have said. At least that is how I see it.
> > Others may view it differently, and have the right to do so.
> > 
> > John
> > 
> > 
> > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> , "STEVE GOODSON" <saxgourmet@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > What is the practical application of this?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> 
> > [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> ]
> > > On Behalf Of kymarto123@
> > > Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 4:23 AM
> > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> 
> > > Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: MCV Comparison Study Revised
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Yep. The point is that you never have a tube length as
> > > short as the mpc+neck alone. The exercise is to play the
> > > octave lower and then "cut the wave in half" so to speak,
> > > by playing the second mode via the register key. That
> > > forms a pressure node at the halfway point, and that
> > > should be at exactly the same point as the pressure node
> > > at the end of the neck when the neck is blown apart from
> > > the body.
> > > 
> > > If the pressure node in the second register using the body
> > > is indeed at the end of the neck when the horn is played,
> > > it shows that the tube resonances (at least the second
> > > peak) is in the right place, and the cone profile is
> > > correct.
> > > 
> > > Toby
> > > 
> > > --- MartinMods lancelotburt@ <mailto:lancelotburt%40yahoo.com> >
> > > wrote:
> > > 
> > > > "In FMA p. 470 Benade writes that there will be
> > > > 
> > > > a pressure node of the Frs (on a sax) inside the
> > > > neck for frequencies
> > > > 
> > > > just above Frs and below the junction of where the
> > > > neck goes inside the
> > > > 
> > > > body for frequencies just below Frs. [paraphrased
> > > > to fit the
> > > > 
> > > > saxophone].
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > This along with the fact that the neck and
> > > > mouthpiece of the alto sax
> > > > 
> > > > produces close to a written F2 (Ab concert) would
> > > > indicate that the Frs
> > > > 
> > > > is approximately the first mode frequency of the
> > > > shortest tube note and
> > > > 
> > > > not the second as Benade states in his typed class
> > > > notes."
> > > > 
> > > > I would beg to differ. On page 470, in FMA, as Toby
> > > > has explained, Benade describes the the location of
> > > > the pressure node for played tones of frequencies
> > > > equal to the mouthpiece + entire neck resonance, and
> > > > those nodes for played notes higher and lower than
> > > > that.  In the class notes, he describes the actual
> > > > independent resonance of the cavity + constriction,
> > > > almost one octave higher.  
> > > > 
> > > > The alto's mouthpiece + neck frequency is then
> > > > concert Ab (830.61Hz).  The shortest tube without
> > > > octave key produces ca. a concert G (783.99Hz) and
> > > > it's second mode, one octave higher is 1567.98Hz.  
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

"From: Ross and Helen McIntyre:







 



  


    
      
      
      



So ,if you were able to work on 
your theory, Toby, 
you could take a certain model horn  and work out the 
following. With say a Selmer Mk6 and a good 
embouchure,not 
pinched,blown up or down, you should have the volume(capacity) of the of
 
a mouthpiece (with reed closed) between a certain range. This should 
give correct tuning for most Selmer Mk6's.  Keeping the volume the same 
but 
changing the internal shape would make the piece sound different and 
play 
different but keep it in tune without moving it on the cork.
I don't think that volume(capacity) 
would be too 
hard to measure on a mouthpiece. 


Would this be too hard for you theory 
guys to work 
out?  Is someone willing to try this on some 
working 
models?  Better still , has someone done this? 
If so,what 
were the results?"

This is exactly what we are trying to figure out, in a scientific way.  The experiments will come when the theory is clear.  We have difficulties in discussing it since there are different views on what certain things mean, and how some theoretical ideas should be applied.



      

Please don't misunderstand me.  I am all for knowledge for its own sake, I am merely saying that I think it is time for The Three Acoustics-teers to lighten up on the innuendo and personal attacks.

John chided me for my use of the term self-aggrandizement, and I agree it was probably a little over the top; I apologize to you all.

However, my main point still stands.  You guys can't even agree on the meaning of the most basic term in this whole missing cone concept (Frs).  That seems to me a sine qua non to developing a theory that can be tested.  Instead of arguing about it, why not do a few tests and see what happens?  

I'm not a professional scientist, but I know some.  And you have to do preliminary experiments in the development of any theory.  So far as I can tell, John is the only one doing that, but he is also the one shouting the loudest in this discussion.  (For example, John, why go to the trouble of analyzing the posts over the last three months just to zing Mr. Goodson?  Pointless and noisy...)

I would really like it if you guys would just try to be more professional and civilized in your exchanges.  I have been reading these threads for a long long time, and will continue to do so (because I am VERY interested in acoustics and mouthpieces!), but it's difficult to find the wheat of information in the chaff of diatribe.

Now I will really shut up :)

-Steve Keller

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
>
> "From: Ross and Helen McIntyre:
> 
> 
> So ,if you were able to work on 
> your theory, Toby, 
> you could take a certain model horn  and work out the 
> following. With say a Selmer Mk6 and a good 
> embouchure,not 
> pinched,blown up or down, you should have the volume(capacity) of the of
>  
> a mouthpiece (with reed closed) between a certain range. This should 
> give correct tuning for most Selmer Mk6's.  Keeping the volume the same 
> but 
> changing the internal shape would make the piece sound different and 
> play 
> different but keep it in tune without moving it on the cork.
> I don't think that volume(capacity) 
> would be too 
> hard to measure on a mouthpiece. 
> 
> 
> Would this be too hard for you theory 
> guys to work 
> out?  Is someone willing to try this on some 
> working 
> models?  Better still , has someone done this? 
> If so,what 
> were the results?"
> 
> This is exactly what we are trying to figure out, in a scientific way.  The experiments will come when the theory is clear.  We have difficulties in discussing it since there are different views on what certain things mean, and how some theoretical ideas should be applied.
>

"I would really like it if you guys would just try to be more 
professional and civilized in your exchanges.  I have been reading these
 threads for a long long time, and will continue to do so (because I am 
VERY interested in acoustics and mouthpieces! ), but it's difficult to 
find the wheat of information in the chaff of diatribe."

I'd like to see you quiet guys get more involved.  We all learned the scientific method in Jr High, and we all have computers.  Here are two guys (John and I) proposing to accomplish the same thing (mouthpiece volume matching and frs matching) using two different methods.  Everything needs to be examined.  You don't have to understand everything about acoustics in order to recognize calculation errors, unaccounted for real world elements, false logical formulas, erroneous deductive reasoning, contradictions, etc.   You should be all over us and every word we post.  Then it wouldn't seem like we were at each others throat so much, perhaps.

"Hey, wait a minute Lance, 2 + 2 = 4, not 5."  Hey John, if you say a = b, and c = d, you can't conclude that a = c.




      

For example, John, why go to the trouble of analyzing the posts over the
last three months just to zing Mr. Goodson?

For starters to show his hypocrisy when 76% of his own posts are not on
topic by his own definition when he is continuously deriding the three
of us for not adhering to the so called "topic" of this forum.

Pointless and noisy... he (John)  is also the one shouting the loudest
in this discussion

Now I will really shut up :)

Hopefully  you mean it this time.








--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Keller"
<esteban_cadenza@...> wrote:
>
> Please don't misunderstand me.  I am all for knowledge for its own
sake, I am merely saying that I think it is time for The Three
Acoustics-teers to lighten up on the innuendo and personal attacks.
>
> John chided me for my use of the term self-aggrandizement, and I agree
it was probably a little over the top; I apologize to you all.
>
> However, my main point still stands.  You guys can't even agree on the
meaning of the most basic term in this whole missing cone concept (Frs).
That seems to me a sine qua non to developing a theory that can be
tested.  Instead of arguing about it, why not do a few tests and see
what happens?
>
> I'm not a professional scientist, but I know some.  And you have to do
preliminary experiments in the development of any theory.  So far as I
can tell, John is the only one doing that, but he is also the one
shouting the loudest in this discussion.  (For example, John, why go to
the trouble of analyzing the posts over the last three months just to
zing Mr. Goodson?  Pointless and noisy...)
>
> I would really like it if you guys would just try to be more
professional and civilized in your exchanges.  I have been reading these
threads for a long long time, and will continue to do so (because I am
VERY interested in acoustics and mouthpieces!), but it's difficult to
find the wheat of information in the chaff of diatribe.
>
> Now I will really shut up :)
>
> -Steve Keller
>
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods lancelotburt@ wrote:
> >
> > "From: Ross and Helen McIntyre:
> >
> >
> > So ,if you were able to work on
> > your theory, Toby,
> > you could take a certain model horn  and work out the
> > following. With say a Selmer Mk6 and a good
> > embouchure,not
> > pinched,blown up or down, you should have the volume(capacity) of
the of
> >
> > a mouthpiece (with reed closed) between a certain range. This should
> > give correct tuning for most Selmer Mk6's.  Keeping the volume the
same
> > but
> > changing the internal shape would make the piece sound different and
> > play
> > different but keep it in tune without moving it on the cork.
> > I don't think that volume(capacity)
> > would be too
> > hard to measure on a mouthpiece.
> >
> >
> > Would this be too hard for you theory
> > guys to work
> > out?  Is someone willing to try this on some
> > working
> > models?  Better still , has someone done this?
> > If so,what
> > were the results?"
> >
> > This is exactly what we are trying to figure out, in a scientific
way.  The experiments will come when the theory is clear.  We have
difficulties in discussing it since there are different views on what
certain things mean, and how some theoretical ideas should be applied.
> >
>

John, with all due respect, this does not forward the
discussion and does not appear to be helpful in any way.

Toby

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

> For example, John, why go to the trouble of
> analyzing the posts over the
> last three months just to zing Mr. Goodson?
> 
> For starters to show his hypocrisy when 76% of his
> own posts are not on
> topic by his own definition when he is continuously
> deriding the three
> of us for not adhering to the so called "topic" of
> this forum.
> 
> Pointless and noisy... he (John)  is also the one
> shouting the loudest
> in this discussion
> 
> Now I will really shut up :)
> 
> Hopefully  you mean it this time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "Steve
> Keller"
> <esteban_cadenza@...> wrote:
> >
> > Please don't misunderstand me.  I am all for
> knowledge for its own
> sake, I am merely saying that I think it is time for
> The Three
> Acoustics-teers to lighten up on the innuendo and
> personal attacks.
> >
> > John chided me for my use of the term
> self-aggrandizement, and I agree
> it was probably a little over the top; I apologize
> to you all.
> >
> > However, my main point still stands.  You guys
> can't even agree on the
> meaning of the most basic term in this whole missing
> cone concept (Frs).
> That seems to me a sine qua non to developing a
> theory that can be
> tested.  Instead of arguing about it, why not do a
> few tests and see
> what happens?
> >
> > I'm not a professional scientist, but I know some.
>  And you have to do
> preliminary experiments in the development of any
> theory.  So far as I
> can tell, John is the only one doing that, but he is
> also the one
> shouting the loudest in this discussion.  (For
> example, John, why go to
> the trouble of analyzing the posts over the last
> three months just to
> zing Mr. Goodson?  Pointless and noisy...)
> >
> > I would really like it if you guys would just try
> to be more
> professional and civilized in your exchanges.  I
> have been reading these
> threads for a long long time, and will continue to
> do so (because I am
> VERY interested in acoustics and mouthpieces!), but
> it's difficult to
> find the wheat of information in the chaff of
> diatribe.
> >
> > Now I will really shut up :)
> >
> > -Steve Keller
> >
> > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods
> lancelotburt@ wrote:
> > >
> > > "From: Ross and Helen McIntyre:
> > >
> > >
> > > So ,if you were able to work on
> > > your theory, Toby,
> > > you could take a certain model horn  and work
> out the
> > > following. With say a Selmer Mk6 and a good
> > > embouchure,not
> > > pinched,blown up or down, you should have the
> volume(capacity) of
> the of
> > >
> > > a mouthpiece (with reed closed) between a
> certain range. This should
> > > give correct tuning for most Selmer Mk6's. 
> Keeping the volume the
> same
> > > but
> > > changing the internal shape would make the piece
> sound different and
> > > play
> > > different but keep it in tune without moving it
> on the cork.
> > > I don't think that volume(capacity)
> > > would be too
> > > hard to measure on a mouthpiece.
> > >
> > >
> > > Would this be too hard for you theory
> > > guys to work
> > > out?  Is someone willing to try this on some
> > > working
> > > models?  Better still , has someone done this?
> > > If so,what
> > > were the results?"
> > >
> > > This is exactly what we are trying to figure
> out, in a scientific
> way.  The experiments will come when the theory is
> clear.  We have
> difficulties in discussing it since there are
> different views on what
> certain things mean, and how some theoretical ideas
> should be applied.
> > >
> >
> 
> 

Regarding Tolerances:

Toby,  

You mentioned that you felt it was senseless to haggle over a mm here or a 25 cents there.  What then do you consider the critical limits of good frs and volume adjustments to be?  

We want both (and actually all) conditions to be as perfect as they can be while using the normal embouchure.  Remember that both requirements are being affected by embouchure adjustments simultaneously.  If the volume is spot on, but the frs is flat by 25 cents, they will never get better matched than that, no matter how the player adjusts his embouchure.

Further, the amount of amplitude that a resonance can contribute to a regime is dependent upon it's degree of integral alignment, and it can only contribute if it lies within 1/2 of it's frequency amplitude bandwidth from "in tune".  The more "out of tune" it is, within it's freq. amp. bandwidth, the more it will cause formation of the regime to shift it's pitch center.  The more the pitch shifts, the more the player adjusts his embouchure.  The more he adjusts his embouchure......

It's not for nothing that Benade warned against neglecting to fix little acoustical problems whenever possible.  The player will subconsciously adjust to compensate, which causes other problems, and so on, until, the player develops bad habits and becomes frustrated.





      

I agree that things should be as good as they can be, no
question. The problem as I see it (and I could be wrong)
is that there are big factors, such as the impedance of
the reed  (controlled by the embouchure) which affect
these parameters that we are trying to measure so
meticulously. It's like trying to sterilize an operating
theatre with a window open. You will notice that Benade
does not say to try to calculate the internal volume or
Frs to the nth degree. He says to see how the instrument
is working and whether it "sings", and knowing what
happens when you change the internal volume or the Frs, to
start adjusting empirically.

I lost the thread at some point when you guys were
discussing measuring the resonance of the neck. I had a
good look at my alto neck and I noticed two or three
things: not only is the tenon cylindrical, the small end
is also cylindrical, for a good two centimeters. Also, at
the top of the tenon, at the curve, it is nothing like a
straight cone. So where does that leave the discussion of
the cone angle extrapolated to find the volume of the
missing cone? It could go a couple of millileters either
way, it seems, depending on where you measure what.

Then, of course, there is the famous question of the
different cone angles across the body, and the torturous
argument about which should be used to find the missing
cone volume.

In my book the answer is clear: all of them, but not even
that: the various cones are nowhere near ideal, because
the bore is full of tone holes, and makers have also
slightly changed cone angles locally here and there. None
of us even knows how to measure the effective cone angle
with all these variables, and we are arguing about
fractions of a millileter based on the missing cone
volume? This seems absurd to me.

If you look closely at Nederveen or Scavone, they are
happy when the measured results are in rough agreement
with theory. I think it is total fantasy land to think
that one can actually do more than get in the ball park
with our methods and knowledge. We are definitely in the
ball park; now is the time to see if what we think we know
is in any way in rough agreement with reality. 

Just my opinion.

Toby

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

> Regarding Tolerances:
> 
> Toby,  
> 
> You mentioned that you felt it was senseless to
> haggle over a mm here or a 25 cents there.  What
> then do you consider the critical limits of good frs
> and volume adjustments to be?  
> 
> We want both (and actually all) conditions to be as
> perfect as they can be while using the normal
> embouchure.  Remember that both requirements are
> being affected by embouchure adjustments
> simultaneously.  If the volume is spot on, but the
> frs is flat by 25 cents, they will never get better
> matched than that, no matter how the player adjusts
> his embouchure.
> 
> Further, the amount of amplitude that a resonance
> can contribute to a regime is dependent upon it's
> degree of integral alignment, and it can only
> contribute if it lies within 1/2 of it's frequency
> amplitude bandwidth from "in tune".  The more "out
> of tune" it is, within it's freq. amp. bandwidth,
> the more it will cause formation of the regime to
> shift it's pitch center.  The more the pitch
shifts,
> the more the player adjusts his embouchure.  The
> more he adjusts his embouchure......
> 
> It's not for nothing that Benade warned against
> neglecting to fix little acoustical problems
> whenever possible.  The player will subconsciously
> adjust to compensate, which causes other problems,
> and so on, until, the player develops bad habits and
> becomes frustrated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>