I've been fooling around with some new designs, and looking at some of  
the great mouthpieces others have made. I see quite a few with bullet  
chambers, and wonder
if there is something inherent in this design.





Steve Goodson
Saxophone Designer to the Stars
our products are all rated





sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc





Steve is a member of




PLEASE VISIT MY WEBSITES
http://www.nationofmusic.com/ (retail sales and discussion forum)
http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/SaxophoneRepair/  (discussion  
group)
http://www.saxgourmet.com/  (saxophone history and information)
http://saxophonethoughts.blogspot.com/  (my personal saxophone blog)

READ MY ARTICLES ON SAXOPHONE DESIGN IN EACH ISSUE OF THE SAXOPHONE  
JOURNAL

BASIC SHOP RATE................$100/HR
IF YOU WATCH.....................$125/HR
IF YOU ASK QUESTIONS......$150/HR
IF I HAVE TO LISTEN TO A CONCERT
LONGER THAN FIVE MINUTES WHEN
YOU PICK UP YOUR HORN....$250/HR

The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic  
hallway where thieves and pimps run free and good men die like dogs.  
There's also a negative side." Hunter S. Thompson

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any  
attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may  
contain confidential and privileged information or otherwise protected  
by law. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is  
prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the  
sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.

I wrote up this FAQ answer years ago.  Not real scientific, but it was my 
thoughts:

Q.  What’s the difference in sound between bullet chambers, wedge baffles, and 
ramp baffles. 

 
A.  Some mouthpieces with a high baffle have a bullet-shaped cutout from the end 
of the baffle going into the chamber while others are flat across the mouthpiece 
(side rail to side rail) with a big almost 90 degree step-down. Others are flat 
with a change in angle that ramps down into the chamber (Dukoff D). 


It is difficult to get a handle on these different types of baffles. When you 
compare one type to another by using different mouthpieces, there are often 
other factors that are different that affect the comparison. Factors such as the 
facing curve, the baffle near the tip rail (rollover, lake, etc). 


A good way to check it out is to get a no baffle or small baffle mouthpiece 
(like a Link) and some temporary putty and try out some shapes for yourself. Be 
aware that the height and length of the baffle are major factors too. 


My impressions are as follows. As a baffle is lengthened, the low notes get 
brighter and bratty sounding. The bullet and round nose chambers soften this 
effect some as compared to the steep 90deg-drop design. The steep drop design, 
and other sharp edges in a piece, can add some mid-range grit sound to the tone. 
Some players like the sound, some do not. 


If a drop off baffle is made longer by adding a ramp, then the low notes get a 
little brighter. If part of a long drop off baffle is cut away to make a ramp or 
a bullet, the mid/lower notes get rounder. But the main effect is that you are 
making the baffle shorter. 


If a drop off baffle is made longer by making a longer wedge before dropping 
off, then the low notes get a lot brighter. If you took half of the putty away 
and made a ramp instead, the brightness would be cut by more than half. It is 
not a linear relationship. The closer the baffle is to the reed, the more 
sensitive the sound is to small changes. Small changes to a rollover baffle near 
the tip rail can have a big effect.



      

that's pretty much my experience, Keith.....I've been ruining a bunch  
of blanks experimenting with different shapes and configurations. I  
was hoping somebody could
give me some basis in science on why these things are the way they  
are. Your anecdotal report is right on the money.




On Dec 16, 2010, at 11:00 AM, Keith Bradbury wrote:

>
> I wrote up this FAQ answer years ago.  Not real scientific, but it  
> was my thoughts:
>
> Q.  What’s the difference in sound between bullet chambers, wedge  
> baffles, and ramp baffles.
>
> A.  Some mouthpieces with a high baffle have a bullet-shaped cutout  
> from the end of the baffle going into the chamber while others are  
> flat across the mouthpiece (side rail to side rail) with a big  
> almost 90 degree step-down. Others are flat with a change in angle  
> that ramps down into the chamber (Dukoff D).
>
> It is difficult to get a handle on these different types of baffles.  
> When you compare one type to another by using different mouthpieces,  
> there are often other factors that are different that affect the  
> comparison. Factors such as the facing curve, the baffle near the  
> tip rail (rollover, lake, etc).
>
> A good way to check it out is to get a no baffle or small baffle  
> mouthpiece (like a Link) and some temporary putty and try out some  
> shapes for yourself. Be aware that the height and length of the  
> baffle are major factors too.
>
> My impressions are as follows. As a baffle is lengthened, the low  
> notes get brighter and bratty sounding. The bullet and round nose  
> chambers soften this effect some as compared to the steep 90deg-drop  
> design. The steep drop design, and other sharp edges in a piece, can  
> add some mid-range grit sound to the tone. Some players like the  
> sound, some do not.
>
> If a drop off baffle is made longer by adding a ramp, then the low  
> notes get a little brighter. If part of a long drop off baffle is  
> cut away to make a ramp or a bullet, the mid/lower notes get  
> rounder. But the main effect is that you are making the baffle  
> shorter.
>
> If a drop off baffle is made longer by making a longer wedge before  
> dropping off, then the low notes get a lot brighter. If you took  
> half of the putty away and made a ramp instead, the brightness would  
> be cut by more than half. It is not a linear relationship. The  
> closer the baffle is to the reed, the more sensitive the sound is to  
> small changes. Small changes to a rollover baffle near the tip rail  
> can have a big effect.
>
>
> 

Thanks for this, Keith, very informative.

John Korchok

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:
>
> I wrote up this FAQ answer years ago.  Not real scientific, but it was my 
> thoughts:
> 
> Q.  What’s the difference in sound between bullet chambers, wedge baffles, and 
> ramp baffles. 
> 
>  
> A.  Some mouthpieces with a high baffle have a bullet-shaped cutout from the end 
> of the baffle going into the chamber while others are flat across the mouthpiece 
> (side rail to side rail) with a big almost 90 degree step-down. Others are flat 
> with a change in angle that ramps down into the chamber (Dukoff D). 
> 
> 
> It is difficult to get a handle on these different types of baffles. When you 
> compare one type to another by using different mouthpieces, there are often 
> other factors that are different that affect the comparison. Factors such as the 
> facing curve, the baffle near the tip rail (rollover, lake, etc). 
> 
> 
> A good way to check it out is to get a no baffle or small baffle mouthpiece 
> (like a Link) and some temporary putty and try out some shapes for yourself. Be 
> aware that the height and length of the baffle are major factors too. 
> 
> 
> My impressions are as follows. As a baffle is lengthened, the low notes get 
> brighter and bratty sounding. The bullet and round nose chambers soften this 
> effect some as compared to the steep 90deg-drop design. The steep drop design, 
> and other sharp edges in a piece, can add some mid-range grit sound to the tone. 
> Some players like the sound, some do not. 
> 
> 
> If a drop off baffle is made longer by adding a ramp, then the low notes get a 
> little brighter. If part of a long drop off baffle is cut away to make a ramp or 
> a bullet, the mid/lower notes get rounder. But the main effect is that you are 
> making the baffle shorter. 
> 
> 
> If a drop off baffle is made longer by making a longer wedge before dropping 
> off, then the low notes get a lot brighter. If you took half of the putty away 
> and made a ramp instead, the brightness would be cut by more than half. It is 
> not a linear relationship. The closer the baffle is to the reed, the more 
> sensitive the sound is to small changes. Small changes to a rollover baffle near 
> the tip rail can have a big effect.
>

Here goes as far as I understand it:
   
  Let's assume a given tip rail and rail geometry. Obvioulsy these things affect the way a reed responds to the the pressure variations that cause it to vibrate.
   
  There is a Bernoulli effect that influences the behavior of the reed when it is close to closed. A high baffle increases the effect and causes the reed to accelerate and snap shut sooner in the cycle: it "clips" the cycle and thus gives more high harmonic content: less like a sine wave and more
 like a sawtooth. The first two millimeters after the tip rail are the most critical here. It is near impossible to quantify the effects, but we all know that the baffle is quite critical, especially at the top.
   
  The acoustic behavior of the mpc turns out to be quite complex in the reed channel, and it appears that nobody has a good handle on the finer details. For a good summary of the state of the art, see here:
   
  http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/25/27/96/PDF/ajp-jp4199404C5120.pdf
   
  This is about clarinet, but the reed and mpc details generally apply to the sax as well.
   
  The interior shape of the chamber (and of course the back of the baffle) have some effects on the tone color, as we know. Scavone says that the mouthpiece appears to impose formants on the air column resonance structure, but also says that because of the complexity of what happens in the mpc
 interior, all attempts to determine the specific relationships between interior geometry and acoustic properties have failed. 
   
  So time to roll up the sleeves and give it a try. If I were to do this, I think I would create two or three very oversized blanks, but with decent tip and rails. I would then use blu-tack or putty to form the interior geometry, including at least the back end of the baffle and the chamber. 
   
  I would make two more or less identical, and then start playing with one, leaving the other as a control for comparison. This would allow you to continually mold the interior and see what effects ensue, while having something to compare it to: for direct A/B comparison instead of trying to rely
 on memory.
   
  If you have a number of blanks, and you come up with something that seems nice, you could set that one aside and start working on another. When you think the new one has something going for it, you could then save it as well and start, perhaps on yet another. 
   
  At the end of the day, you might end up with four or five "blu-tack" prototypes that you could then A/B compare, and perhaps refine further.
   
  Toby
   
   STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...> wrote:
            that's pretty much my experience, Keith.....I've been ruining a bunch of blanks experimenting with different shapes and configurations. I was hoping somebody could  give me some basis in science on why these things are the way they are. Your anecdotal report is right on the money.
  

  

  

  
    On Dec 16, 2010, at 11:00 AM, Keith Bradbury wrote:

            

    I wrote up this FAQ answer years ago.  Not real scientific, but it was my thoughts:
   
  Q.  What$B!G(Bs the difference in sound between bullet chambers, wedge baffles, and ramp baffles.   
  A.  Some mouthpieces with a high baffle have a bullet-shaped cutout from the end of the baffle going into the chamber while others are flat across the mouthpiece (side rail to side rail) with a big almost 90 degree step-down. Others are flat with a change in angle that ramps down into the
 chamber (Dukoff D). 

It is difficult to get a handle on these different types of baffles. When you compare one type to another by using different mouthpieces, there are often other factors that are different that affect the comparison. Factors such as the facing curve, the baffle near the tip rail (rollover, lake,
 etc). 

A good way to check it out is to get a no baffle or small baffle mouthpiece (like a Link) and some temporary putty and try out some shapes for yourself. Be aware that the height and length of the baffle are major factors too. 

My impressions are as follows. As a baffle is lengthened, the low notes get brighter and bratty sounding. The bullet and round nose chambers soften this effect some as compared to the steep 90deg-drop design. The steep drop design, and other sharp edges in a piece, can add some mid-range grit
 sound to the tone. Some players like the sound, some do not. 

If a drop off baffle is made longer by adding a ramp, then the low notes get a little brighter. If part of a long drop off baffle is cut away to make a ramp or a bullet, the mid/lower notes get rounder. But the main effect is that you are making the baffle shorter. 

If a drop off baffle is made longer by making a longer wedge before dropping off, then the low notes get a lot brighter. If you took half of the putty away and made a ramp instead, the brightness would be cut by more than half. It is not a linear relationship. The closer the baffle is to the reed,
 the more sensitive the sound is to small changes. Small changes to a rollover baffle near the tip rail can have a big effect.




  


  






  

  
            
 

>Scavone says ... all attempts to determine the specific relationships between 
>interior geometry and acoustic properties have failed. 
>

Are we also doomed to failure?  Is there too much "noise" to determine 
relationships or is the key word "specific" here?  We should be able to 
determine some general relationships, but not specific (mathematical) ones.  


The biggest issue I see is dealing with the baffle length and height while 
studying chamber geometries.  Adding a bullet chamber with putty to a step 
baffle will not sound the same as grinding one out of the step baffle with a 
rotary tool.   Adding putty lengthens the baffle and makes the chamber smaller 
and grinding goes the other way.

It might be good to make a putty bullet chamber then use push around the same 
amount of putty to make a step baffle and a ramp baffle.  I may have done this 
with my testing years ago, but I do not remember.  


      

Actually, it is more a manufacturing method than anything else.

Metal mouthpieces are machined.  Until the age of CNC, only certain shapes could be made easily and consistently, cones, cylinders (inside or outside), planes, etc.  The things you can do by manipulating the wheels on a lathe or mill.

The outside is turned on a lathe, the basic "blank".

The bore is done on a lathe from the shank end, and extends into the window area somewhat.  The bore, on metal mouthpieces, is also part of the chamber... as it is on any mouthpiece in reality.

Then the window is milled out, and the baffle, chamber roof, all milled as a sloping plane going down to intersect the bore.

If one wishes to remove more material, to form a larger chamber, the material can only come from two places... the bore, or the baffle.  

So, the bullet shape is removal of baffle material.  And that shape is an easy one to do, forming a somewhat smooth flow into the bore.

The alternative is to extend the bore further into the window area, leaving a sharp drop off from the baffle / roof of the chamber, like the Brilhart Levelaire.

Actually, in that region of the mouthpiece (what we would call the "throat" in a more conventional design), the air velocity had fallen way down, and the volume of that area (or more properly, cross sectional area) is more important than actual shape as compared to the baffle closer to the tip.  

The "bullet chamber" is more the result of the methods used to form the mouthpiece.

I think.

Paul C.

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...> wrote:
>
> I've been fooling around with some new designs, and looking at some of  
> the great mouthpieces others have made. I see quite a few with bullet  
> chambers, and wonder
> if there is something inherent in this design.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steve Goodson
> Saxophone Designer to the Stars
> our products are all rated
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steve is a member of
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLEASE VISIT MY WEBSITES
> http://www.nationofmusic.com/ (retail sales and discussion forum)
> http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/SaxophoneRepair/  (discussion  
> group)
> http://www.saxgourmet.com/  (saxophone history and information)
> http://saxophonethoughts.blogspot.com/  (my personal saxophone blog)
> 
> READ MY ARTICLES ON SAXOPHONE DESIGN IN EACH ISSUE OF THE SAXOPHONE  
> JOURNAL
> 
> BASIC SHOP RATE................$100/HR
> IF YOU WATCH.....................$125/HR
> IF YOU ASK QUESTIONS......$150/HR
> IF I HAVE TO LISTEN TO A CONCERT
> LONGER THAN FIVE MINUTES WHEN
> YOU PICK UP YOUR HORN....$250/HR
> 
> The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic  
> hallway where thieves and pimps run free and good men die like dogs.  
> There's also a negative side." Hunter S. Thompson
> 
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any  
> attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may  
> contain confidential and privileged information or otherwise protected  
> by law. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is  
> prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the  
> sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
>

With modern mouthpieces, I think the ease of making a bullet chamber is a major 
consideration.  You might invest in a custom bullet-tipped reamer but they 
should not be too pricey (compared to investing in a mold).

I think the first bullet chambers appeared in the now vintage Bergs.  But if you 
look at these, they appear to be made by "hand" with some type of grinding tip.  
On them, the bullet usually does not transition seamlessly into the bore.




________________________________
From: tenorman1952 <tenorman1952@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, December 17, 2010 8:47:00 AM
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Bullet Chambers

  
Actually, it is more a manufacturing method than anything else.

Metal mouthpieces are machined. Until the age of CNC, only certain shapes could 
be made easily and consistently, cones, cylinders (inside or outside), planes, 
etc. The things you can do by manipulating the wheels on a lathe or mill.

The outside is turned on a lathe, the basic "blank".

The bore is done on a lathe from the shank end, and extends into the window area 
somewhat. The bore, on metal mouthpieces, is also part of the chamber... as it 
is on any mouthpiece in reality.

Then the window is milled out, and the baffle, chamber roof, all milled as a 
sloping plane going down to intersect the bore.

If one wishes to remove more material, to form a larger chamber, the material 
can only come from two places... the bore, or the baffle. 


So, the bullet shape is removal of baffle material. And that shape is an easy 
one to do, forming a somewhat smooth flow into the bore.

The alternative is to extend the bore further into the window area, leaving a 
sharp drop off from the baffle / roof of the chamber, like the Brilhart 
Levelaire.

Actually, in that region of the mouthpiece (what we would call the "throat" in a 
more conventional design), the air velocity had fallen way down, and the volume 
of that area (or more properly, cross sectional area) is more important than 
actual shape as compared to the baffle closer to the tip. 


The "bullet chamber" is more the result of the methods used to form the 
mouthpiece.

I think.

Paul C.

--- In MouthpieceWork@...m, STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...> wrote:
>
> I've been fooling around with some new designs, and looking at some of 
> the great mouthpieces others have made. I see quite a few with bullet 
> chambers, and wonder
> if there is something inherent in this design.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steve Goodson
> Saxophone Designer to the Stars
> our products are all rated
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steve is a member of
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLEASE VISIT MY WEBSITES
> http://www.nationofmusic.com/ (retail sales and discussion forum)
> http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/SaxophoneRepair/ (discussion 
> group)
> http://www.saxgourmet.com/ (saxophone history and information)
> http://saxophonethoughts.blogspot.com/ (my personal saxophone blog)
> 
> READ MY ARTICLES ON SAXOPHONE DESIGN IN EACH ISSUE OF THE SAXOPHONE 
> JOURNAL
> 
> BASIC SHOP RATE................$100/HR
> IF YOU WATCH.....................$125/HR
> IF YOU ASK QUESTIONS......$150/HR
> IF I HAVE TO LISTEN TO A CONCERT
> LONGER THAN FIVE MINUTES WHEN
> YOU PICK UP YOUR HORN....$250/HR
> 
> The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic 
> hallway where thieves and pimps run free and good men die like dogs. 
> There's also a negative side." Hunter S. Thompson
> 
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any 
> attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may 
> contain confidential and privileged information or otherwise protected 
> by law. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is 
> prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the 
> sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
>