Those of us who own multiple mouthpieces all know that there is a  
significant variation between brands in the diameter of the shank,  
resulting in poor fit for some on the neck and the lack of  
interchangeability without applying teflon tape or paper as a spacer.  
Even though this variation is slight, it is sufficient to cause  
problems. It is most unlikely that mouthpiece manufacturers will ever  
agree upon a standard diameter UNLESS some legitimate reason can be  
given to do so.

I got a complaint this morning from a customer who had purchased one  
of our mouthpieces and found that the shank diameter was larger than  
the mouthpieces he had previously used. I have also gotten complaints  
in the past that our mouthpieces were SMALLER than the mouthpiece the  
customer was using! This set me to thinking: is there an acoustic  
reason that one size is better than another? I can find nothing in my  
files which addresses this issue.

Chamber size I understand. I'm speaking ONLY about the diameter of the  
shank itself with regard to the fit on the neck cork.




STEVE GOODSON
saxophone designer to the stars
sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc

It would be nice if someone would address the physics of this.  It seems to me that the greater the surface area @ the front of the tube, the more turbulance it would produce.  I think that to do the testing right, you would need a series of identical necks with differing thicknesses of cork, and a series of mouthpieces which were identical in all specs except shank diameter.

This actually brings up a bit of idle curiosity on my part.  Has anyone on this board had the opportunity to try/analyze the interchangeable venturi system developed by Ken Warburton?  It was brought about due to a request by his sax playing brother.  Ken's research of saxophone physics has led him to focus on the mouthpiece to horn connection or "initiation point" as he would say.

Like I said, just a bit of curiosity.

Robert 
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: STEVE GOODSON 
  To: mouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com ; MouthpieceWork2_Acoustics@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2010 1:15 PM
  Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Shank Diameter


  Those of us who own multiple mouthpieces all know that there is a significant variation between brands in the diameter of the shank, resulting in poor fit for some on the neck and the lack of interchangeability without applying teflon tape or paper as a spacer. Even though this variation is slight, it is sufficient to cause problems. It is most unlikely that mouthpiece manufacturers will ever agree upon a standard diameter UNLESS some legitimate reason can be given to do so. 


  I got a complaint this morning from a customer who had purchased one of our mouthpieces and found that the shank diameter was larger than the mouthpieces he had previously used. I have also gotten complaints in the past that our mouthpieces were SMALLER than the mouthpiece the customer was using! This set me to thinking: is there an acoustic reason that one size is better than another? I can find nothing in my files which addresses this issue.


  Chamber size I understand. I'm speaking ONLY about the diameter of the shank itself with regard to the fit on the neck cork.







  STEVE GOODSON
  saxophone designer to the stars
  sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc 

We manufacture a product (our neck enhancer) which reduces turbulence,  
adds mass, and increases the velocity of the air stream. Details at www.nationofmusic.com 
   I think the Warburton idea has some merit





On Apr 4, 2010, at 4:46 PM, Robert W. Smith wrote:

>
> It would be nice if someone would address the physics of this.  It  
> seems to me that the greater the surface area @ the front of the  
> tube, the more turbulance it would produce.  I think that to do the  
> testing right, you would need a series of identical necks with  
> differing thicknesses of cork, and a series of mouthpieces which  
> were identical in all specs except shank diameter.
>
> This actually brings up a bit of idle curiosity on my part.  Has  
> anyone on this board had the opportunity to try/analyze the  
> interchangeable venturi system developed by Ken Warburton?  It was  
> brought about due to a request by his sax playing brother.  Ken's  
> research of saxophone physics has led him to focus on the mouthpiece  
> to horn connection or "initiation point" as he would say.
>
> Like I said, just a bit of curiosity.
>
> Robert
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: STEVE GOODSON
> To: mouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com ; MouthpieceWork2_Acoustics@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2010 1:15 PM
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Shank Diameter
>
> Those of us who own multiple mouthpieces all know that there is a  
> significant variation between brands in the diameter of the shank,  
> resulting in poor fit for some on the neck and the lack of  
> interchangeability without applying teflon tape or paper as a  
> spacer. Even though this variation is slight, it is sufficient to  
> cause problems. It is most unlikely that mouthpiece manufacturers  
> will ever agree upon a standard diameter UNLESS some legitimate  
> reason can be given to do so.
>
> I got a complaint this morning from a customer who had purchased one  
> of our mouthpieces and found that the shank diameter was larger than  
> the mouthpieces he had previously used. I have also gotten  
> complaints in the past that our mouthpieces were SMALLER than the  
> mouthpiece the customer was using! This set me to thinking: is there  
> an acoustic reason that one size is better than another? I can find  
> nothing in my files which addresses this issue.
>
> Chamber size I understand. I'm speaking ONLY about the diameter of  
> the shank itself with regard to the fit on the neck cork.
>
>
>
>
> STEVE GOODSON
> saxophone designer to the stars
> sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc<steve_lo-res copy.jpg>
>
>
> 

I doubt turbulence enters into the equation at all, except where there are sharp edges. The air jet through the reed slit detaches from the reed channel within a cm or so of the tip and breaks up into vortexes, and there might be a slight difference depending on mpc design, but my guess is that
 the effect is minimal. Basically a larger shank is going to give more internal volume, necessitating pushing the mpc slightly further on the cork to get the tuning correct. There might be a just-noticeable difference in the harmonic spectrum (just guessing) due to the differing bore profile of
 the mpc, but my feeling is that it would be insignificant overall.

The Warburton system is interesting, and probably has a noticeable effect on intonation, timbre and response. If you want to play with an analog, take a bit of chewing gum (adequately chewed) and make a ring of it inside the end of your neck. Change the thickness and profile of the gum ring and
 see what happens.

Toby

"Robert W. Smith" <rwpsmith@...> wrote:                                              
It would be nice if someone would address the  physics of this.  It seems to me that the greater the surface area @ the  front of the tube, the more turbulance it would produce.  I think that to  do the testing right, you would need a series of identical necks with differing  thicknesses of cork,
 and a series of mouthpieces which were identical in all  specs except shank diameter.
  
 This actually brings up a bit of idle curiosity on  my part.  Has anyone on this board had the opportunity to try/analyze the  interchangeable venturi system developed by Ken Warburton?  It was brought  about due to a request by his sax playing brother.  Ken's research of  saxophone physics has
 led him to focus on the mouthpiece to horn connection or  "initiation point" as he would say.
  
 Like I said, just a bit of curiosity.
  
 Robert 
    ----- Original Message ----- 
   From:    STEVE GOODSON    
   To: mouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com    ; MouthpieceWork2_Acoustics@yahoogroups.com    
   Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2010 1:15  PM
   Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Shank    Diameter
   

Those of us who own multiple mouthpieces all know that there is    a significant variation between brands in the diameter of the shank, resulting    in poor fit for some on the neck and the lack of interchangeability without    applying teflon tape or paper as a spacer. Even though this variation
 is    slight, it is sufficient to cause problems. It is most unlikely that    mouthpiece manufacturers will ever agree upon a standard diameter UNLESS some    legitimate reason can be given to do so.    

   I got a complaint this morning from a customer who had purchased one of    our mouthpieces and found that the shank diameter was larger than the    mouthpieces he had previously used. I have also gotten complaints in the past    that our mouthpieces were SMALLER than the mouthpiece the customer
 was using!    This set me to thinking: is there an acoustic reason that one size is better    than another? I can find nothing in my files which addresses this issue.
   

   Chamber size I understand. I'm speaking ONLY about the diameter of the    shank itself with regard to the fit on the neck cork.
   

   



         STEVE GOODSON
   saxophone designer to the stars
   sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc    



 
      
                 
                 
 

I think you may all be thinking too hard on this.  Ideally, there should be a standard-size shank, designed to be a universal fit for all of each size of sax.  Even if there is variation in the sax neck sizes, that can be compensated for by cork.  The object is that a player could freely substitute one mouthpiece for another.  However, some mouthpiece makers, either through sloppiness or orneriness, mis-size their shanks.  I'd like to believe it is just a matter of being off the specs a bit, but I suppose a maker COULD deliberately design his piece to be smaller or larger, necessitating the cork to be built up or shaved down to the point that it becomes difficult to try competing mouthpieces.  Of course, that also makes it difficult to try HIS mouthpiece, so...   I have a couple of Sugal acrylic mouthpieces that were essentially unfinished blanks when I got them.  They make playable mouthpieces, but the shanks are too large so they have gotten
 very little use.  Wrapping paper around the cork is a pain.

Bill Hausmann

If you have to mic a saxophone, the rest of the band is TOO LOUD!

--- On Mon, 4/5/10, kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...> wrote:


From: kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Shank Diameter
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, April 5, 2010, 1:47 AM












I doubt turbulence enters into the equation at all, except where there are sharp edges. The air jet through the reed slit detaches from the reed channel within a cm or so of the tip and breaks up into vortexes, and there might be a slight difference depending on mpc design, but my guess is that the effect is minimal. Basically a larger shank is going to give more internal volume, necessitating pushing the mpc slightly further on the cork to get the tuning correct. There might be a just-noticeable difference in the harmonic spectrum (just guessing) due to the differing bore profile of the mpc, but my feeling is that it would be insignificant overall.

The Warburton system is interesting, and probably has a noticeable effect on intonation, timbre and response. If you want to play with an analog, take a bit of chewing gum (adequately chewed) and make a ring of it inside the end of your neck. Change the thickness and profile of the gum ring and see what happens.

Toby

"Robert W. Smith" <rwpsmith@...> wrote:
  


It would be nice if someone would address the physics of this.  It seems to me that the greater the surface area @ the front of the tube, the more turbulance it would produce.  I think that to do the testing right, you would need a series of identical necks with differing thicknesses of cork, and a series of mouthpieces which were identical in all specs except shank diameter.
 
This actually brings up a bit of idle curiosity on my part.  Has anyone on this board had the opportunity to try/analyze the interchangeable venturi system developed by Ken Warburton?  It was brought about due to a request by his sax playing brother.  Ken's research of saxophone physics has led him to focus on the mouthpiece to horn connection or "initiation point" as he would say.
 
Like I said, just a bit of curiosity.
 
Robert 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: STEVE GOODSON 
To: mouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com ; MouthpieceWork2_ Acoustics@ yahoogroups. com 
Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2010 1:15 PM
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Shank Diameter

Those of us who own multiple mouthpieces all know that there is a significant variation between brands in the diameter of the shank, resulting in poor fit for some on the neck and the lack of interchangeability without applying teflon tape or paper as a spacer. Even though this variation is slight, it is sufficient to cause problems. It is most unlikely that mouthpiece manufacturers will ever agree upon a standard diameter UNLESS some legitimate reason can be given to do so.  


I got a complaint this morning from a customer who had purchased one of our mouthpieces and found that the shank diameter was larger than the mouthpieces he had previously used. I have also gotten complaints in the past that our mouthpieces were SMALLER than the mouthpiece the customer was using! This set me to thinking: is there an acoustic reason that one size is better than another? I can find nothing in my files which addresses this issue.


Chamber size I understand. I'm speaking ONLY about the diameter of the shank itself with regard to the fit on the neck cork.








STEVE GOODSON
saxophone designer to the stars
sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc 



 





      

I totally agree. I think that the only real reason that shank sizes vary are because there is no standard and cork is forgiving.

Toby

Bill Hausmann <zoot51@...> wrote: I think you may all be thinking too hard on this.  Ideally, there should be a standard-size shank, designed to be a universal fit for all of each size of sax.  Even if there is variation in the sax neck sizes, that can be compensated for by cork.  The object
 is that a player could freely substitute one mouthpiece for another.  However, some mouthpiece makers, either through sloppiness or orneriness, mis-size their shanks.  I'd like to believe it is just a matter of being off the specs a bit, but I suppose a maker COULD deliberately design his piece
 to be smaller or larger, necessitating the cork to be built up or shaved down to the point that it becomes difficult to try competing mouthpieces.  Of course, that also makes it difficult to try HIS mouthpiece, so...   I have a couple of Sugal acrylic mouthpieces that were essentially unfinished
 blanks when I got them.  They make playable mouthpieces, but the shanks are too large so they have gotten
 very little use.  Wrapping paper around the cork is a pain.

Bill Hausmann

If you have to mic a saxophone, the rest of the band is TOO LOUD!

--- On Mon, 4/5/10, kymarto123@...  wrote:


From: kymarto123@... 
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Shank Diameter
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, April 5, 2010, 1:47 AM












I doubt turbulence enters into the equation at all, except where there are sharp edges. The air jet through the reed slit detaches from the reed channel within a cm or so of the tip and breaks up into vortexes, and there might be a slight difference depending on mpc design, but my guess is that
 the effect is minimal. Basically a larger shank is going to give more internal volume, necessitating pushing the mpc slightly further on the cork to get the tuning correct. There might be a just-noticeable difference in the harmonic spectrum (just guessing) due to the differing bore profile of
 the mpc, but my feeling is that it would be insignificant overall.

The Warburton system is interesting, and probably has a noticeable effect on intonation, timbre and response. If you want to play with an analog, take a bit of chewing gum (adequately chewed) and make a ring of it inside the end of your neck. Change the thickness and profile of the gum ring and
 see what happens.

Toby

"Robert W. Smith"  wrote:
  


It would be nice if someone would address the physics of this.  It seems to me that the greater the surface area @ the front of the tube, the more turbulance it would produce.  I think that to do the testing right, you would need a series of identical necks with differing thicknesses of cork, and
 a series of mouthpieces which were identical in all specs except shank diameter.
 
This actually brings up a bit of idle curiosity on my part.  Has anyone on this board had the opportunity to try/analyze the interchangeable venturi system developed by Ken Warburton?  It was brought about due to a request by his sax playing brother.  Ken's research of saxophone physics has led
 him to focus on the mouthpiece to horn connection or "initiation point" as he would say.
 
Like I said, just a bit of curiosity.
 
Robert 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: STEVE GOODSON 
To: mouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com ; MouthpieceWork2_ Acoustics@ yahoogroups. com 
Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2010 1:15 PM
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Shank Diameter

Those of us who own multiple mouthpieces all know that there is a significant variation between brands in the diameter of the shank, resulting in poor fit for some on the neck and the lack of interchangeability without applying teflon tape or paper as a spacer. Even though this variation is
 slight, it is sufficient to cause problems. It is most unlikely that mouthpiece manufacturers will ever agree upon a standard diameter UNLESS some legitimate reason can be given to do so.  


I got a complaint this morning from a customer who had purchased one of our mouthpieces and found that the shank diameter was larger than the mouthpieces he had previously used. I have also gotten complaints in the past that our mouthpieces were SMALLER than the mouthpiece the customer was using!
 This set me to thinking: is there an acoustic reason that one size is better than another? I can find nothing in my files which addresses this issue.


Chamber size I understand. I'm speaking ONLY about the diameter of the shank itself with regard to the fit on the neck cork.








STEVE GOODSON
saxophone designer to the stars
sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc 



 





      
 

I totally agree that thin cork (or other material, the choice is  
yours) is FAR superior. I don't know if anyone knows of any real  
answer to this question which is based in science. I know I certainly  
don't. I suspect that within reasonable tolerances, it simply doesn't  
make any difference whatsoever, and will be happy to stand for  
correction if proven wrong.

On Apr 9, 2010, at 7:29 AM, fidlershorns wrote:

> Steve,
>     Were you looking for, or did you get any answer out of this  
> besides the same old "general scientific consensus says"?
>     I think a standard ID with a thinner cork would be the best -  
> like what most clarinets have gone to. The old clarinet tenons with  
> really thick cork rock, slip, and end up leaking easier than the  
> closer fit style.
>    I would be interested if you are on to something or if it was  
> just a "I wonder why?" thought.
>
> Everett Fidler
>
> PS I spent part of the last two days chasing down an electrical  
> glitch on two circuts. I narrowed it down and will have to call an  
> electrical professional so I can see what I'm working on. I suspect  
> squirrels, gremlins or lightning.
>