If overly large chambers in alto mouthpieces cause intonation issues what of the Meyer small chamber mouthpieces?  Is this the optimum size chamber or is it too small creating other pitch issues?    What is the general concept here?  If the chamber is very large and we have to push in all the way, making the total instrument length short what is the result vs playing mouthpieces that you have to pull out to where they are wobbling at the end of the neck?    Succinctly,  what are the separate tuning issues of too large a chamber vs too small a chamber?

If you search the newsgroup for "chamber volume" and look at the extensive
discussions from the last year or two, you can probably find more
information than you'll ever need about the volume/length issue.  (you can
see the dates of the threads - there's one from April 2011 and some older
ones).

The general ideas that were mentioned: Short-tube notes (e.g., palm keys)
tune more by length to the tip of the mouthpiece, longer-tube notes (middle
& bottom of the horn) tune more by chamber volume.

Dan

On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 10:26 AM, John <john_w_price33@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> If overly large chambers in alto mouthpieces cause intonation issues what
> of the Meyer small chamber mouthpieces? Is this the optimum size chamber or
> is it too small creating other pitch issues? What is the general concept
> here? If the chamber is very large and we have to push in all the way,
> making the total instrument length short what is the result vs playing
> mouthpieces that you have to pull out to where they are wobbling at the end
> of the neck? Succinctly, what are the separate tuning issues of too large a
> chamber vs too small a chamber?
>
>  
>

"Succinctly,  what are the separate tuning issues of too large a chamber vs too small a chamber?"

As Dan posted, if you do a search through the messages, you can find more than you might care to read on the subject, although, IMO, there isn't one thing that can help you solve and avoid mouthpiece and saxophone suffering more, than a complete understanding of this issue.  It is important to realize that the effects go far beyond just tuning, to the core of every aspect of how the saxophone works, or doesn't work.  Too often, players look first, and often unsuccessfully, to new mouthpieces, refacing, chamber design, and tip opening changes for what they think their sound/response is missing, when a simple redistribution of mouthpiece volume in the old piece would make them ecstatically happy.  






  

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "John" <john_w_price33@...> wrote:
>
> If overly large chambers in alto mouthpieces cause intonation issues what of the Meyer small chamber mouthpieces?  Is this the optimum size chamber or is it too small creating other pitch issues?    What is the general concept here?  If the chamber is very large and we have to push in all the way, making the total instrument length short what is the result vs playing mouthpieces that you have to pull out to where they are wobbling at the end of the neck?    Succinctly,  what are the separate tuning issues of too large a chamber vs too small a chamber?
>

John, this issue is seen on all saxes from bass to sopranino.

First, the overtones lay in the sax and mouthpiece differently in the low and upper register.  The low register tunes by the volume in the mouthpiece... that is, all volume past the end of the neck pipe.  So this chamber volume also includes some of the mouthpiece's bore.

But the upper register tunes more by length past the end of the neck pipe.

As you mentioned, a too large chamber mouthpiece requires it to be pushed very far onto the neck cork, which gets the volume past the end of the neck correct (equal to the volume of the missing cone) to get the low register in tune.  But now the mouthpiece is "short" on the neck.  The instrument plays well in the low register, and on up into the midrange, but as you approach high C, and into the palm keys, these notes become progressively sharper.  

One "large chamber" bass sax mouthpiece we tried to use was more than a semitone sharp on palm D.  It could not be "lipped down" into tune.

But what happens when you go the other way, too small chamber?  We've all seen the guy with the peashooter special, nice bright, edgy tone, but the poor guy's sax is designed wrong, he says, they made his neck too short.  He may even come into your shop wanting some more brass tubing soldered to the end of the neck.  His mouthpiece is about to fall off the end of the neck cork.  

And this setup might work to an extent, as some player's tendency to "bite" or increase embouchure pressure as they play higher somewhat compensates for the natural tendency of this setup to become flat in the upper register due to the "too long" mouthpiece.  He has great difficulty getting the palm key notes in tune, and bites through his lower lip trying to lip up.

But his intonation is all over the place in both registers.

And like Goldilocks, the "just right" medium chamber volume gets the job done, suddenly the instrument plays well in tune in both registers, on up into the palm keys, with very little "favoring" of any notes.

A mistaken concept.  A bigger chamber is not louder or more powerful.  It does diminish the strength of the upper overtones in comparison to the fundamental and 2nd overtone (which is usually equal or stronger than the fundamental in all saxes!!!), so the tone is darker.  A large chamber does not give more volume or more "powerful" tone.

Here's an interesting fact... as you play from ppp to fff, there is very little change in the strength of the fundamental and 2nd overtone.  What increases is the strength and number of the higher overtones.  That's where most all of the volume increase comes from.

The small chamber does increase the strength of the higher overtones, resulting in a "brighter" tone.  So it actually sounds "louder".  It is also difficult to sound softer with this setup.

You can still have good edge and upper overtones with a medium chamber size by having a short, high baffle.  It is that first 1/4" after the tip rail that makes most of the difference.  Or take that edgy tone right off by filing down the baffle just being the tip rail.

Paul C.

Hello Mr. Paul,

Merry Christmas & Happy New Year to you. If you get a chance take a look at this video, I am curious as to what mp he is playing on, do you have any idea?

Also, several years ago Mr. Steve sent me a file on Fake Books, thousands of songs. My computer crashed a while ago and I lost the file. 


I have written to Mr. Steve a week ago, I realize he and you are very busy with the holidays etc. If you know what I am talking about please see if you send the file to me. This time I will back up everything, which I started to do since my computer problem.

Best regards,

Joe Petrof  in Belize, with Buescher Alto 400.





________________________________
 From: tenorman1952 <tenorman1952@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Friday, 30 December 2011, 9:49
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
 

  


--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "John" <john_w_price33@...> wrote:
>
> If overly large chambers in alto mouthpieces cause intonation issues what of the Meyer small chamber mouthpieces?  Is this the optimum size chamber or is it too small creating other pitch issues?    What is the general concept here?  If the chamber is very large and we have to push in all the way, making the total instrument length short what is the result vs playing mouthpieces that you have to pull out to where they are wobbling at the end of the neck?    Succinctly,  what are the separate tuning issues of too large a chamber vs too small a chamber?
>

John, this issue is seen on all saxes from bass to sopranino.

First, the overtones lay in the sax and mouthpiece differently in the low and upper register.  The low register tunes by the volume in the mouthpiece... that is, all volume past the end of the neck pipe.  So this chamber volume also includes some of the mouthpiece's bore.

But the upper register tunes more by length past the end of the neck pipe.

As you mentioned, a too large chamber mouthpiece requires it to be pushed very far onto the neck cork, which gets the volume past the end of the neck correct (equal to the volume of the missing cone) to get the low register in tune.  But now the mouthpiece is "short" on the neck.  The instrument plays well in the low register, and on up into the midrange, but as you approach high C, and into the palm keys, these notes become progressively sharper. 

One "large chamber" bass sax mouthpiece we tried to use was more than a semitone sharp on palm D.  It could not be "lipped down" into tune.

But what happens when you go the other way, too small chamber?  We've all seen the guy with the peashooter special, nice bright, edgy tone, but the poor guy's sax is designed wrong, he says, they made his neck too short.  He may even come into your shop wanting some more brass tubing soldered to the end of the neck.  His mouthpiece is about to fall off the end of the neck cork. 

And this setup might work to an extent, as some player's tendency to "bite" or increase embouchure pressure as they play higher somewhat compensates for the natural tendency of this setup to become flat in the upper register due to the "too long" mouthpiece.  He has great difficulty getting the palm key notes in tune, and bites through his lower lip trying to lip up.

But his intonation is all over the place in both registers.

And like Goldilocks, the "just right" medium chamber volume gets the job done, suddenly the instrument plays well in tune in both registers, on up into the palm keys, with very little "favoring" of any notes.

A mistaken concept.  A bigger chamber is not louder or more powerful.  It does diminish the strength of the upper overtones in comparison to the fundamental and 2nd overtone (which is usually equal or stronger than the fundamental in all saxes!!!), so the tone is darker.  A large chamber does not give more volume or more "powerful" tone.

Here's an interesting fact... as you play from ppp to fff, there is very little change in the strength of the fundamental and 2nd overtone.  What increases is the strength and number of the higher overtones.  That's where most all of the volume increase comes from.

The small chamber does increase the strength of the higher overtones, resulting in a "brighter" tone.  So it actually sounds "louder".  It is also difficult to sound softer with this setup.

You can still have good edge and upper overtones with a medium chamber size by having a short, high baffle.  It is that first 1/4" after the tip rail that makes most of the difference.  Or take that edgy tone right off by filing down the baffle just being the tip rail.

Paul C.


 

 

Hello Mr. Paul,

Merry Christmas & Happy New Year to you. If you get a chance take a look at this video, I am curious as to what mp he is playing on, do you have any idea?
                        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFSgF1xZc-U


Also, several years ago Mr. Steve sent me a file on Fake Books, thousands of songs. My computer crashed a while ago and I lost the file. 


I have written to Mr. Steve a week ago, I realize he and you are very busy with the holidays etc. If you know what I am talking about please see if you send the file to me. This time I will back up everything, which I started to do since my computer problem.

Best regards,

Joe Petrof  in Belize, with Buescher Alto 400.




________________________________
 From: tenorman1952 <tenorman1952@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Friday, 30 December 2011, 9:49
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
 

  


--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "John" <john_w_price33@...> wrote:
>
> If overly large chambers in alto mouthpieces cause intonation issues what of the Meyer small chamber mouthpieces?  Is this the optimum size chamber or is it too small creating other pitch issues?    What is the general concept here?  If the chamber is very large and we have to push in all the way, making the total instrument length short what is the result vs playing mouthpieces that you have to pull out to where they are wobbling at the end of the neck?    Succinctly,  what are the separate tuning issues of too large a chamber vs too small a chamber?
>

John, this issue is seen on all saxes from bass to sopranino.

First, the overtones lay in the sax and mouthpiece differently in the low and upper register.  The low register tunes by the volume in the mouthpiece... that is, all volume past the end of the neck pipe.  So this chamber volume also includes some of the mouthpiece's bore.

But the upper register tunes more by length past the end of the neck pipe.

As you mentioned, a too large chamber mouthpiece requires it to be pushed very far onto the neck cork, which gets the volume past the end of the neck correct (equal to the volume of the missing cone) to get the low register in tune.  But now the mouthpiece is "short" on the neck.  The instrument plays well in the low register, and on up into the midrange, but as you approach high C, and into the palm keys, these notes become progressively sharper. 

One "large chamber" bass sax mouthpiece we tried to use was more than a semitone sharp on palm D.  It could not be "lipped down" into tune.

But what happens when you go the other way, too small chamber?  We've all seen the guy with the peashooter special, nice bright, edgy tone, but the poor guy's sax is designed wrong, he says, they made his neck too short.  He may even come into your shop wanting some more brass tubing soldered to the end of the neck.  His mouthpiece is about to fall off the end of the neck cork. 

And this setup might work to an extent, as some player's tendency to "bite" or increase embouchure pressure as they play higher somewhat compensates for the natural tendency of this setup to become flat in the upper register due to the "too long" mouthpiece.  He has great difficulty getting the palm key notes in tune, and bites through his lower lip trying to lip up.

But his intonation is all over the place in both registers.

And like Goldilocks, the "just right" medium chamber volume gets the job done, suddenly the instrument plays well in tune in both registers, on up into the palm keys, with very little "favoring" of any notes.

A mistaken concept.  A bigger chamber is not louder or more powerful.  It does diminish the strength of the upper overtones in comparison to the fundamental and 2nd overtone (which is usually equal or stronger than the fundamental in all saxes!!!), so the tone is darker.  A large chamber does not give more volume or more "powerful" tone.

Here's an interesting fact... as you play from ppp to fff, there is very little change in the strength of the fundamental and 2nd overtone.  What increases is the strength and number of the higher overtones.  That's where most all of the volume increase comes from.

The small chamber does increase the strength of the higher overtones, resulting in a "brighter" tone.  So it actually sounds "louder".  It is also difficult to sound softer with this setup.

You can still have good edge and upper overtones with a medium chamber size by having a short, high baffle.  It is that first 1/4" after the tip rail that makes most of the difference.  Or take that edgy tone right off by filing down the baffle just being the tip rail.

Paul C.


 

Thanks for this explanation Paul.  Well done. 
 I wonder has anyone created a variable chamber mouthpiece much like Strathon did with the baffle?  Not sure how useful it would be but just curious.   

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "tenorman1952" <tenorman1952@...> wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "John" <john_w_price33@> wrote:
> >
> > If overly large chambers in alto mouthpieces cause intonation issues what of the Meyer small chamber mouthpieces?  Is this the optimum size chamber or is it too small creating other pitch issues?    What is the general concept here?  If the chamber is very large and we have to push in all the way, making the total instrument length short what is the result vs playing mouthpieces that you have to pull out to where they are wobbling at the end of the neck?    Succinctly,  what are the separate tuning issues of too large a chamber vs too small a chamber?
> >
> 
> John, this issue is seen on all saxes from bass to sopranino.
> 
> First, the overtones lay in the sax and mouthpiece differently in the low and upper register.  The low register tunes by the volume in the mouthpiece... that is, all volume past the end of the neck pipe.  So this chamber volume also includes some of the mouthpiece's bore.
> 
> But the upper register tunes more by length past the end of the neck pipe.
> 
> As you mentioned, a too large chamber mouthpiece requires it to be pushed very far onto the neck cork, which gets the volume past the end of the neck correct (equal to the volume of the missing cone) to get the low register in tune.  But now the mouthpiece is "short" on the neck.  The instrument plays well in the low register, and on up into the midrange, but as you approach high C, and into the palm keys, these notes become progressively sharper.  
> 
> One "large chamber" bass sax mouthpiece we tried to use was more than a semitone sharp on palm D.  It could not be "lipped down" into tune.
> 
> But what happens when you go the other way, too small chamber?  We've all seen the guy with the peashooter special, nice bright, edgy tone, but the poor guy's sax is designed wrong, he says, they made his neck too short.  He may even come into your shop wanting some more brass tubing soldered to the end of the neck.  His mouthpiece is about to fall off the end of the neck cork.  
> 
> And this setup might work to an extent, as some player's tendency to "bite" or increase embouchure pressure as they play higher somewhat compensates for the natural tendency of this setup to become flat in the upper register due to the "too long" mouthpiece.  He has great difficulty getting the palm key notes in tune, and bites through his lower lip trying to lip up.
> 
> But his intonation is all over the place in both registers.
> 
> And like Goldilocks, the "just right" medium chamber volume gets the job done, suddenly the instrument plays well in tune in both registers, on up into the palm keys, with very little "favoring" of any notes.
> 
> A mistaken concept.  A bigger chamber is not louder or more powerful.  It does diminish the strength of the upper overtones in comparison to the fundamental and 2nd overtone (which is usually equal or stronger than the fundamental in all saxes!!!), so the tone is darker.  A large chamber does not give more volume or more "powerful" tone.
> 
> Here's an interesting fact... as you play from ppp to fff, there is very little change in the strength of the fundamental and 2nd overtone.  What increases is the strength and number of the higher overtones.  That's where most all of the volume increase comes from.
> 
> The small chamber does increase the strength of the higher overtones, resulting in a "brighter" tone.  So it actually sounds "louder".  It is also difficult to sound softer with this setup.
> 
> You can still have good edge and upper overtones with a medium chamber size by having a short, high baffle.  It is that first 1/4" after the tip rail that makes most of the difference.  Or take that edgy tone right off by filing down the baffle just being the tip rail.
> 
> Paul C.
>

This design used by Conn - http://www.mouthpiecemuseum.com/MouthpieceMuseum/Conn.html - patented in the '20's, and now in the public domain, enables easy and accurate adjustment of the volume/frequency relationship by the player, which would solve all kinds of problems if the player knew how to use it.  Obviously, they didn't back then, probably using it like a neck micro-tuner.  

I make a custom version of this design on special order, with instructions on how to use it effectively.

--- On Sat, 12/31/11, John <john_w_price33@...> wrote:

From: John <john_w_price33@hotmail.com>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto
 mouthpieces
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, December 31, 2011, 1:03 AM








 



  


    
      
      
      Thanks for this explanation Paul.  Well done. 

 I wonder has anyone created a variable chamber mouthpiece much like Strathon did with the baffle?  Not sure how useful it would be but just curious.   



--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "tenorman1952" <tenorman1952@...> wrote:

>

> 

> 

> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "John" <john_w_price33@> wrote:

> >

> > If overly large chambers in alto mouthpieces cause intonation issues what of the Meyer small chamber mouthpieces?  Is this the optimum size chamber or is it too small creating other pitch issues?    What is the general concept here?  If the chamber is very large and we have to push in all the way, making the total instrument length short what is the result vs playing mouthpieces that you have to pull out to where they are wobbling at the end of the neck?    Succinctly,  what are the separate tuning issues of too large a chamber vs too small a chamber?

> >

> 

> John, this issue is seen on all saxes from bass to sopranino.

> 

> First, the overtones lay in the sax and mouthpiece differently in the low and upper register.  The low register tunes by the volume in the mouthpiece... that is, all volume past the end of the neck pipe.  So this chamber volume also includes some of the mouthpiece's bore.

> 

> But the upper register tunes more by length past the end of the neck pipe.

> 

> As you mentioned, a too large chamber mouthpiece requires it to be pushed very far onto the neck cork, which gets the volume past the end of the neck correct (equal to the volume of the missing cone) to get the low register in tune.  But now the mouthpiece is "short" on the neck.  The instrument plays well in the low register, and on up into the midrange, but as you approach high C, and into the palm keys, these notes become progressively sharper.  

> 

> One "large chamber" bass sax mouthpiece we tried to use was more than a semitone sharp on palm D.  It could not be "lipped down" into tune.

> 

> But what happens when you go the other way, too small chamber?  We've all seen the guy with the peashooter special, nice bright, edgy tone, but the poor guy's sax is designed wrong, he says, they made his neck too short.  He may even come into your shop wanting some more brass tubing soldered to the end of the neck.  His mouthpiece is about to fall off the end of the neck cork.  

> 

> And this setup might work to an extent, as some player's tendency to "bite" or increase embouchure pressure as they play higher somewhat compensates for the natural tendency of this setup to become flat in the upper register due to the "too long" mouthpiece.  He has great difficulty getting the palm key notes in tune, and bites through his lower lip trying to lip up.

> 

> But his intonation is all over the place in both registers.

> 

> And like Goldilocks, the "just right" medium chamber volume gets the job done, suddenly the instrument plays well in tune in both registers, on up into the palm keys, with very little "favoring" of any notes.

> 

> A mistaken concept.  A bigger chamber is not louder or more powerful.  It does diminish the strength of the upper overtones in comparison to the fundamental and 2nd overtone (which is usually equal or stronger than the fundamental in all saxes!!!), so the tone is darker.  A large chamber does not give more volume or more "powerful" tone.

> 

> Here's an interesting fact... as you play from ppp to fff, there is very little change in the strength of the fundamental and 2nd overtone.  What increases is the strength and number of the higher overtones.  That's where most all of the volume increase comes from.

> 

> The small chamber does increase the strength of the higher overtones, resulting in a "brighter" tone.  So it actually sounds "louder".  It is also difficult to sound softer with this setup.

> 

> You can still have good edge and upper overtones with a medium chamber size by having a short, high baffle.  It is that first 1/4" after the tip rail that makes most of the difference.  Or take that edgy tone right off by filing down the baffle just being the tip rail.

> 

> Paul C.

>





    
     

    
    






  

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, rhondine petrof <rpetrof@...> wrote:
  
> 
> Hello Mr. Paul,
> 
> Merry Christmas & Happy New Year to you. If you get a chance take a look at this video, I am curious as to what mp he is playing on, do you have any idea?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFSgF1xZc-U
> 
> 

Sorry, I looked at the video but cannot tell what mouthpiece he is using.  

Paul C.

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "John" <john_w_price33@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks for this explanation Paul.  Well done. 
>  I wonder has anyone created a variable chamber mouthpiece much like Strathon did with the baffle?  Not sure how useful it would be but just curious.   
> 

In trying to solve some intonation issues with a soprano sax, I made a mouthpiece by drilling in from the shank end, extending the bore toward the tip, a bit right up to the window area.  It then had the appearance of a "high baffle" mouthpiece, though the baffle angle had not changed.

Then I machined a tube, or rather, several tubes, of Delrin to precisely fit into the bore, with an inner diameter approximately the same cross sectional area as the previous "throat" of the mouthpiece.

These tubes were of varying length.  Inserting the long tube produced a "small volume" mouthpiece.  Substituting shorter tubes created larger chamber volumes.  No tube at all, larger chamber volume.

It was then easy to see the effect on intonation tendencies of various chamber sizes with an otherwise identically playing mouthpiece.

That soprano was crap... never did get it playing well, though I was able to improve it some.  But on other sopranos, that mouthpiece was an excellent experimental model.  I have some larger Delrin rod now, and should probably make similar mouthpieces for alto and tenor saxes.

Paul C.

My PCs often locks up when visiting the Mouthpiece Museum site.  Not a problem on my new iPad2.  Anyone else have this problem?   Any solutions for the PCs?


________________________________
From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Friday, December 30, 2011 9:54 PM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces

  
This design used by Conn - http://www.mouthpiecemuseum.com/MouthpieceMuseum/Conn.html - patented in the '20's, and now in the public domain, enables easy and accurate adjustment of the volume/frequency relationship by the player, which would solve all kinds of problems if the player knew how to use it.  Obviously, they didn't back then, probably using it like a neck micro-tuner.  

I make a custom version of this design on special order, with instructions on how to use it effectively.

--- On Sat, 12/31/11, John <john_w_price33@...> wrote:


>From: John <john_w_price33@...>
>Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
>To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>Date: Saturday, December 31, 2011, 1:03 AM
>
>
>  
>Thanks for this explanation Paul. Well done. 
>I wonder has anyone created a variable chamber mouthpiece much like Strathon did with the baffle? Not sure how useful it would be but just curious. 
>
>--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "tenorman1952" <tenorman1952@...> wrote:
>>
>> 
>> 
>> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "John" <john_w_price33@> wrote:
>> >
>> > If overly large chambers in alto mouthpieces cause intonation issues what of the Meyer small chamber mouthpieces? Is this the optimum size chamber or is it too small creating other pitch issues? What is the general concept here? If the chamber is very large and we have to push in all the way, making the total instrument length short what is the result vs playing mouthpieces that you have to pull out to where they are wobbling at the end of the neck? Succinctly, what are the separate tuning issues of too large a chamber vs too small a chamber?
>> >
>> 
>> John, this issue is seen on all saxes from bass to sopranino.
>> 
>> First, the overtones lay in the sax and mouthpiece differently in the low and upper register. The low register tunes by the volume in the mouthpiece... that is, all volume past the end of the neck pipe. So this chamber volume also includes some of the mouthpiece's bore.
>> 
>> But the upper register tunes more by length past the end of the neck pipe.
>> 
>> As you mentioned, a too large chamber mouthpiece requires it to be pushed very far onto the neck cork, which gets the volume past the end of the neck correct (equal to the volume of the missing cone) to get the low register in tune. But now the mouthpiece is "short" on the neck. The instrument plays well in the low register, and on up into the midrange, but as you approach high C, and into the palm keys, these notes become progressively sharper. 
>> 
>> One "large chamber" bass sax mouthpiece we tried to use was more than a semitone sharp on palm D. It could not be "lipped down" into tune.
>> 
>> But what happens when you go the other way, too small chamber? We've all seen the guy with the peashooter special, nice bright, edgy tone, but the poor guy's sax is designed wrong, he says, they made his neck too short. He may even come into your shop wanting some more brass tubing soldered to the end of the neck. His mouthpiece is about to fall off the end of the neck cork. 
>> 
>> And this setup might work to an extent, as some player's tendency to "bite" or increase embouchure pressure as they play higher somewhat compensates for the natural tendency of this setup to become flat in the upper register due to the "too long" mouthpiece. He has great difficulty getting the palm key notes in tune, and bites through his lower lip trying to lip up.
>> 
>> But his intonation is all over the place in both registers.
>> 
>> And like Goldilocks, the "just right" medium chamber volume gets the job done, suddenly the instrument plays well in tune in both registers, on up into the palm keys, with very little "favoring" of any notes.
>> 
>> A mistaken concept. A bigger chamber is not louder or more powerful. It does diminish the strength of the upper overtones in comparison to the fundamental and 2nd overtone (which is usually equal or stronger than the fundamental in all saxes!!!), so the tone is darker. A large chamber does not give more volume or more "powerful" tone.
>> 
>> Here's an interesting fact... as you play from ppp to fff, there is very little change in the strength of the fundamental and 2nd overtone. What increases is the strength and number of the higher overtones. That's where most all of the volume increase comes from.
>> 
>> The small chamber does increase the strength of the higher overtones, resulting in a "brighter" tone. So it actually sounds "louder". It is also difficult to sound softer with this setup.
>> 
>> You can still have good edge and upper overtones with a medium chamber size by having a short, high baffle. It is that first 1/4" after the tip rail that makes most of the difference. Or take that edgy tone right off by filing down the baffle just being the tip rail.
>> 
>> Paul C.
>>
>
>  

Have you seen the article Curt (MusicMedic) has in the current issue of Sax Journal?  He explains how neck inserts can be made and used for some intonation problems.  


________________________________
From: tenorman1952 <tenorman1952@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2011 11:07 AM
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces


  


--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "John" <john_w_price33@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks for this explanation Paul. Well done. 
> I wonder has anyone created a variable chamber mouthpiece much like Strathon did with the baffle? Not sure how useful it would be but just curious. 
> 

In trying to solve some intonation issues with a soprano sax, I made a mouthpiece by drilling in from the shank end, extending the bore toward the tip, a bit right up to the window area. It then had the appearance of a "high baffle" mouthpiece, though the baffle angle had not changed.

Then I machined a tube, or rather, several tubes, of Delrin to precisely fit into the bore, with an inner diameter approximately the same cross sectional area as the previous "throat" of the mouthpiece.

These tubes were of varying length. Inserting the long tube produced a "small volume" mouthpiece. Substituting shorter tubes created larger chamber volumes. No tube at all, larger chamber volume.

It was then easy to see the effect on intonation tendencies of various chamber sizes with an otherwise identically playing mouthpiece.

That soprano was crap... never did get it playing well, though I was able to improve it some. But on other sopranos, that mouthpiece was an excellent experimental model. I have some larger Delrin rod now, and should probably make similar mouthpieces for alto and tenor saxes.

Paul C.

get a Mac, fool.......




On Dec 31, 2011, at 3:09 PM, Keith Bradbury wrote:

>
> My PCs often locks up when visiting the Mouthpiece Museum site.  Not  
> a problem on my new iPad2.  Anyone else have this problem?   Any  
> solutions for the PCs?
>
> From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, December 30, 2011 9:54 PM
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
>
> This design used by Conn - http://www.mouthpiecemuseum.com/MouthpieceMuseum/Conn.html 
>  - patented in the '20's, and now in the public domain, enables easy  
> and accurate adjustment of the volume/frequency relationship by the  
> player, which would solve all kinds of problems if the player knew  
> how to use it.  Obviously, they didn't back then, probably using it  
> like a neck micro-tuner.
>
> I make a custom version of this design on special order, with  
> instructions on how to use it effectively.
>
> --- On Sat, 12/31/11, John <john_w_price33@...> wrote:
>
> From: John <john_w_price33@...>
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Saturday, December 31, 2011, 1:03 AM
>
>
> Thanks for this explanation Paul. Well done.
> I wonder has anyone created a variable chamber mouthpiece much like  
> Strathon did with the baffle? Not sure how useful it would be but  
> just curious.
>
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "tenorman1952"  
> <tenorman1952@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "John" <john_w_price33@>  
> wrote:
> > >
> > > If overly large chambers in alto mouthpieces cause intonation  
> issues what of the Meyer small chamber mouthpieces? Is this the  
> optimum size chamber or is it too small creating other pitch issues?  
> What is the general concept here? If the chamber is very large and  
> we have to push in all the way, making the total instrument length  
> short what is the result vs playing mouthpieces that you have to  
> pull out to where they are wobbling at the end of the neck?  
> Succinctly, what are the separate tuning issues of too large a  
> chamber vs too small a chamber?
> > >
> >
> > John, this issue is seen on all saxes from bass to sopranino.
> >
> > First, the overtones lay in the sax and mouthpiece differently in  
> the low and upper register. The low register tunes by the volume in  
> the mouthpiece... that is, all volume past the end of the neck pipe.  
> So this chamber volume also includes some of the mouthpiece's bore.
> >
> > But the upper register tunes more by length past the end of the  
> neck pipe.
> >
> > As you mentioned, a too large chamber mouthpiece requires it to be  
> pushed very far onto the neck cork, which gets the volume past the  
> end of the neck correct (equal to the volume of the missing cone) to  
> get the low register in tune. But now the mouthpiece is "short" on  
> the neck. The instrument plays well in the low register, and on up  
> into the midrange, but as you approach high C, and into the palm  
> keys, these notes become progressively sharper.
> >
> > One "large chamber" bass sax mouthpiece we tried to use was more  
> than a semitone sharp on palm D. It could not be "lipped down" into  
> tune.
> >
> > But what happens when you go the other way, too small chamber?  
> We've all seen the guy with the peashooter special, nice bright,  
> edgy tone, but the poor guy's sax is designed wrong, he says, they  
> made his neck too short. He may even come into your shop wanting  
> some more brass tubing soldered to the end of the neck. His  
> mouthpiece is about to fall off the end of the neck cork.
> >
> > And this setup might work to an extent, as some player's tendency  
> to "bite" or increase embouchure pressure as they play higher  
> somewhat compensates for the natural tendency of this setup to  
> become flat in the upper register due to the "too long" mouthpiece.  
> He has great difficulty getting the palm key notes in tune, and  
> bites through his lower lip trying to lip up.
> >
> > But his intonation is all over the place in both registers.
> >
> > And like Goldilocks, the "just right" medium chamber volume gets  
> the job done, suddenly the instrument plays well in tune in both  
> registers, on up into the palm keys, with very little "favoring" of  
> any notes.
> >
> > A mistaken concept. A bigger chamber is not louder or more  
> powerful. It does diminish the strength of the upper overtones in  
> comparison to the fundamental and 2nd overtone (which is usually  
> equal or stronger than the fundamental in all saxes!!!), so the tone  
> is darker. A large chamber does not give more volume or more  
> "powerful" tone.
> >
> > Here's an interesting fact... as you play from ppp to fff, there  
> is very little change in the strength of the fundamental and 2nd  
> overtone. What increases is the strength and number of the higher  
> overtones. That's where most all of the volume increase comes from.
> >
> > The small chamber does increase the strength of the higher  
> overtones, resulting in a "brighter" tone. So it actually sounds  
> "louder". It is also difficult to sound softer with this setup.
> >
> > You can still have good edge and upper overtones with a medium  
> chamber size by having a short, high baffle. It is that first 1/4"  
> after the tip rail that makes most of the difference. Or take that  
> edgy tone right off by filing down the baffle just being the tip rail.
> >
> > Paul C.
> >
>
>
> 

On a PC, Windows XP, Firefox - no problems here.

DT

On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> My PCs often locks up when visiting the Mouthpiece Museum site.  Not a
> problem on my new iPad2.  Anyone else have this problem?   Any solutions
> for the PCs?
>
>  *From:* MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
> *To:* MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> *Sent:* Friday, December 30, 2011 9:54 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
> **
>
>      This design used by Conn -
> http://www.mouthpiecemuseum.com/MouthpieceMuseum/Conn.html - patented in
> the '20's, and now in the public domain, enables easy and accurate
> adjustment of the volume/frequency relationship by the player, which would
> solve all kinds of problems if the player knew how to use it.  Obviously,
> they didn't back then, probably using it like a neck micro-tuner.
>
> I make a custom version of this design on special order, with instructions
> on how to use it effectively.
>
> --- On *Sat, 12/31/11, John <john_w_price33@...>* wrote:
>
>
> From: John <john_w_price33@hotmail.com>
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Saturday, December 31, 2011, 1:03 AM
>
>
> Thanks for this explanation Paul. Well done.
> I wonder has anyone created a variable chamber mouthpiece much like
> Strathon did with the baffle? Not sure how useful it would be but just
> curious.
>
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "tenorman1952" <tenorman1952@...>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "John" <john_w_price33@> wrote:
> > >
> > > If overly large chambers in alto mouthpieces cause intonation issues
> what of the Meyer small chamber mouthpieces? Is this the optimum size
> chamber or is it too small creating other pitch issues? What is the general
> concept here? If the chamber is very large and we have to push in all the
> way, making the total instrument length short what is the result vs playing
> mouthpieces that you have to pull out to where they are wobbling at the end
> of the neck? Succinctly, what are the separate tuning issues of too large a
> chamber vs too small a chamber?
> > >
> >
> > John, this issue is seen on all saxes from bass to sopranino.
> >
> > First, the overtones lay in the sax and mouthpiece differently in the
> low and upper register. The low register tunes by the volume in the
> mouthpiece... that is, all volume past the end of the neck pipe. So this
> chamber volume also includes some of the mouthpiece's bore.
> >
> > But the upper register tunes more by length past the end of the neck
> pipe.
> >
> > As you mentioned, a too large chamber mouthpiece requires it to be
> pushed very far onto the neck cork, which gets the volume past the end of
> the neck correct (equal to the volume of the missing cone) to get the low
> register in tune. But now the mouthpiece is "short" on the neck. The
> instrument plays well in the low register, and on up into the midrange, but
> as you approach high C, and into the palm keys, these notes become
> progressively sharper.
> >
> > One "large chamber" bass sax mouthpiece we tried to use was more than a
> semitone sharp on palm D. It could not be "lipped down" into tune.
> >
> > But what happens when you go the other way, too small chamber? We've all
> seen the guy with the peashooter special, nice bright, edgy tone, but the
> poor guy's sax is designed wrong, he says, they made his neck too short. He
> may even come into your shop wanting some more brass tubing soldered to the
> end of the neck. His mouthpiece is about to fall off the end of the neck
> cork.
> >
> > And this setup might work to an extent, as some player's tendency to
> "bite" or increase embouchure pressure as they play higher somewhat
> compensates for the natural tendency of this setup to become flat in the
> upper register due to the "too long" mouthpiece. He has great difficulty
> getting the palm key notes in tune, and bites through his lower lip trying
> to lip up.
> >
> > But his intonation is all over the place in both registers.
> >
> > And like Goldilocks, the "just right" medium chamber volume gets the job
> done, suddenly the instrument plays well in tune in both registers, on up
> into the palm keys, with very little "favoring" of any notes.
> >
> > A mistaken concept. A bigger chamber is not louder or more powerful. It
> does diminish the strength of the upper overtones in comparison to the
> fundamental and 2nd overtone (which is usually equal or stronger than the
> fundamental in all saxes!!!), so the tone is darker. A large chamber does
> not give more volume or more "powerful" tone.
> >
> > Here's an interesting fact... as you play from ppp to fff, there is very
> little change in the strength of the fundamental and 2nd overtone. What
> increases is the strength and number of the higher overtones. That's where
> most all of the volume increase comes from.
> >
> > The small chamber does increase the strength of the higher overtones,
> resulting in a "brighter" tone. So it actually sounds "louder". It is also
> difficult to sound softer with this setup.
> >
> > You can still have good edge and upper overtones with a medium chamber
> size by having a short, high baffle. It is that first 1/4" after the tip
> rail that makes most of the difference. Or take that edgy tone right off by
> filing down the baffle just being the tip rail.
> >
> > Paul C.
> >
>
> ****
>
>  
>

This html message parsed with html2text ---------------------------We don't need answers like this.

On 12/31/11, STEVE GOODSON wrote:

**get a Mac, fool.......**

  

  

  

  

On Dec 31, 2011, at 3:09 PM, Keith Bradbury wrote:

  

>  
>
>
> My PCs often locks up when visiting the Mouthpiece Museum site. Not a
> problem on my new iPad2. Anyone else have this problem? Any solutions for
> the PCs?
>
>  
>
>
> **From:** MartinMods <[lancelotburt@...](mailto:lancelotburt@yahoo.com)>  
> **To:**
> [MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com](mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com)  
> **Sent:** Friday, December 30, 2011 9:54 PM  
> **Subject:** Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces  
>
>
> | This design used by Conn -  \\- patented in the '20's, and now in the public domain, enables easy and accurate adjustment of the volume/frequency relationship by the player, which would solve all kinds of problems if the player knew how to use it. Obviously, they didn't back then, probably using it like a neck micro-tuner.    
>  
> I make a custom version of this design on special order, with instructions
> on how to use it effectively.  
>  
> \\--- On **Sat, 12/31/11, John
> _<[john_w_price33@...](mailto:john_w_price33@...)>_** wrote:  
>
>

>>  
> From: John <[john_w_price33@...](mailto:john_w_price33@...)>  
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces  
> To: [MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com](mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com)  
> Date: Saturday, December 31, 2011, 1:03 AM  
>  
>  Thanks for this explanation Paul. Well done.  
> I wonder has anyone created a variable chamber mouthpiece much like Strathon
> did with the baffle? Not sure how useful it would be but just curious.  
>  
> \\--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "tenorman1952"  wrote:  
> >  
> >  
> >  
> > \\--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:  
> > >  
> > > If overly large chambers in alto mouthpieces cause intonation issues
> what of the Meyer small chamber mouthpieces? Is this the optimum size
> chamber or is it too small creating other pitch issues? What is the general
> concept here? If the chamber is very large and we have to push in all the
> way, making the total instrument length short what is the result vs playing
> mouthpieces that you have to pull out to where they are wobbling at the end
> of the neck? Succinctly, what are the separate tuning issues of too large a
> chamber vs too small a chamber?  
> > >  
> >  
> > John, this issue is seen on all saxes from bass to sopranino.  
> >  
> > First, the overtones lay in the sax and mouthpiece differently in the low
> and upper register. The low register tunes by the volume in the
> mouthpiece... that is, all volume past the end of the neck pipe. So this
> chamber volume also includes some of the mouthpiece's bore.  
> >  
> > But the upper register tunes more by length past the end of the neck pipe.  
> >  
> > As you mentioned, a too large chamber mouthpiece requires it to be pushed
> very far onto the neck cork, which gets the volume past the end of the neck
> correct (equal to the volume of the missing cone) to get the low register in
> tune. But now the mouthpiece is "short" on the neck. The instrument plays
> well in the low register, and on up into the midrange, but as you approach
> high C, and into the palm keys, these notes become progressively sharper.  
> >  
> > One "large chamber" bass sax mouthpiece we tried to use was more than a
> semitone sharp on palm D. It could not be "lipped down" into tune.  
> >  
> > But what happens when you go the other way, too small chamber? We've all
> seen the guy with the peashooter special, nice bright, edgy tone, but the
> poor guy's sax is designed wrong, he says, they made his neck too short. He
> may even come into your shop wanting some more brass tubing soldered to the
> end of the neck. His mouthpiece is about to fall off the end of the neck
> cork.  
> >  
> > And this setup might work to an extent, as some player's tendency to
> "bite" or increase embouchure pressure as they play higher somewhat
> compensates for the natural tendency of this setup to become flat in the
> upper register due to the "too long" mouthpiece. He has great difficulty
> getting the palm key notes in tune, and bites through his lower lip trying
> to lip up.  
> >  
> > But his intonation is all over the place in both registers.  
> >  
> > And like Goldilocks, the "just right" medium chamber volume gets the job
> done, suddenly the instrument plays well in tune in both registers, on up
> into the palm keys, with very little "favoring" of any notes.  
> >  
> > A mistaken concept. A bigger chamber is not louder or more powerful. It
> does diminish the strength of the upper overtones in comparison to the
> fundamental and 2nd overtone (which is usually equal or stronger than the
> fundamental in all saxes!!!), so the tone is darker. A large chamber does
> not give more volume or more "powerful" tone.  
> >  
> > Here's an interesting fact... as you play from ppp to fff, there is very
> little change in the strength of the fundamental and 2nd overtone. What
> increases is the strength and number of the higher overtones. That's where
> most all of the volume increase comes from.  
> >  
> > The small chamber does increase the strength of the higher overtones,
> resulting in a "brighter" tone. So it actually sounds "louder". It is also
> difficult to sound softer with this setup.  
> >  
> > You can still have good edge and upper overtones with a medium chamber
> size by having a short, high baffle. It is that first 1/4" after the tip
> rail that makes most of the difference. Or take that edgy tone right off by
> filing down the baffle just being the tip rail.  
> >  
> > Paul C.  
> >  
>  
>  
>  
> ---  
>  
>  
>

  

It probably has to do with your internet security settings.  If you 
block 3rd party cookies you may get this problem.

On 12/31/2011 3:09 PM, Keith Bradbury wrote:
> My PCs often locks up when visiting the Mouthpiece Museum site.  Not a 
> problem on my new iPad2.  Anyone else have this problem?   Any 
> solutions for the PCs?
>
> *From:* MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
> *To:* MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> *Sent:* Friday, December 30, 2011 9:54 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
> This design used by Conn - 
> http://www.mouthpiecemuseum.com/MouthpieceMuseum/Conn.html - patented 
> in the '20's, and now in the public domain, enables easy and accurate 
> adjustment of the volume/frequency relationship by the player, which 
> would solve all kinds of problems if the player knew how to use it.  
> Obviously, they didn't back then, probably using it like a neck 
> micro-tuner.
>
> I make a custom version of this design on special order, with 
> instructions on how to use it effectively.
>
> --- On *Sat, 12/31/11, John /<john_w_price33@...>/* wrote:
>
>
>     From: John <john_w_price33@...>
>     Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
>     To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>     Date: Saturday, December 31, 2011, 1:03 AM
>
>     Thanks for this explanation Paul. Well done.
>     I wonder has anyone created a variable chamber mouthpiece much
>     like Strathon did with the baffle? Not sure how useful it would be
>     but just curious.
>
>     --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "tenorman1952"
>     <tenorman1952@...> wrote:
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "John" <john_w_price33@>
>     wrote:
>     > >
>     > > If overly large chambers in alto mouthpieces cause intonation
>     issues what of the Meyer small chamber mouthpieces? Is this the
>     optimum size chamber or is it too small creating other pitch
>     issues? What is the general concept here? If the chamber is very
>     large and we have to push in all the way, making the total
>     instrument length short what is the result vs playing mouthpieces
>     that you have to pull out to where they are wobbling at the end of
>     the neck? Succinctly, what are the separate tuning issues of too
>     large a chamber vs too small a chamber?
>     > >
>     >
>     > John, this issue is seen on all saxes from bass to sopranino.
>     >
>     > First, the overtones lay in the sax and mouthpiece differently
>     in the low and upper register. The low register tunes by the
>     volume in the mouthpiece... that is, all volume past the end of
>     the neck pipe. So this chamber volume also includes some of the
>     mouthpiece's bore.
>     >
>     > But the upper register tunes more by length past the end of the
>     neck pipe.
>     >
>     > As you mentioned, a too large chamber mouthpiece requires it to
>     be pushed very far onto the neck cork, which gets the volume past
>     the end of the neck correct (equal to the volume of the missing
>     cone) to get the low register in tune. But now the mouthpiece is
>     "short" on the neck. The instrument plays well in the low
>     register, and on up into the midrange, but as you approach high C,
>     and into the palm keys, these notes become progressively sharper.
>     >
>     > One "large chamber" bass sax mouthpiece we tried to use was more
>     than a semitone sharp on palm D. It could not be "lipped down"
>     into tune.
>     >
>     > But what happens when you go the other way, too small chamber?
>     We've all seen the guy with the peashooter special, nice bright,
>     edgy tone, but the poor guy's sax is designed wrong, he says, they
>     made his neck too short. He may even come into your shop wanting
>     some more brass tubing soldered to the end of the neck. His
>     mouthpiece is about to fall off the end of the neck cork.
>     >
>     > And this setup might work to an extent, as some player's
>     tendency to "bite" or increase embouchure pressure as they play
>     higher somewhat compensates for the natural tendency of this setup
>     to become flat in the upper register due to the "too long"
>     mouthpiece. He has great difficulty getting the palm key notes in
>     tune, and bites through his lower lip trying to lip up.
>     >
>     > But his intonation is all over the place in both registers.
>     >
>     > And like Goldilocks, the "just right" medium chamber volume gets
>     the job done, suddenly the instrument plays well in tune in both
>     registers, on up into the palm keys, with very little "favoring"
>     of any notes.
>     >
>     > A mistaken concept. A bigger chamber is not louder or more
>     powerful. It does diminish the strength of the upper overtones in
>     comparison to the fundamental and 2nd overtone (which is usually
>     equal or stronger than the fundamental in all saxes!!!), so the
>     tone is darker. A large chamber does not give more volume or more
>     "powerful" tone.
>     >
>     > Here's an interesting fact... as you play from ppp to fff, there
>     is very little change in the strength of the fundamental and 2nd
>     overtone. What increases is the strength and number of the higher
>     overtones. That's where most all of the volume increase comes from.
>     >
>     > The small chamber does increase the strength of the higher
>     overtones, resulting in a "brighter" tone. So it actually sounds
>     "louder". It is also difficult to sound softer with this setup.
>     >
>     > You can still have good edge and upper overtones with a medium
>     chamber size by having a short, high baffle. It is that first 1/4"
>     after the tip rail that makes most of the difference. Or take that
>     edgy tone right off by filing down the baffle just being the tip rail.
>     >
>     > Paul C.
>     >
>
> 

Windows 7, Firefox - no problems.

On 12/31/2011 3:39 PM, dan torosian wrote:
>
> On a PC, Windows XP, Firefox - no problems here.
>
> DT
>
> On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@... 
> <mailto:kwbradbury@...>> wrote:
>
>     My PCs often locks up when visiting the Mouthpiece Museum site. 
>     Not a problem on my new iPad2.  Anyone else have this problem?  
>     Any solutions for the PCs?
>
>     *From:* MartinMods <lancelotburt@...
>     <mailto:lancelotburt@...>>
>     *To:* MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>     <mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com>
>     *Sent:* Friday, December 30, 2011 9:54 PM
>     *Subject:* Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
>     This design used by Conn -
>     http://www.mouthpiecemuseum.com/MouthpieceMuseum/Conn.html -
>     patented in the '20's, and now in the public domain, enables easy
>     and accurate adjustment of the volume/frequency relationship by
>     the player, which would solve all kinds of problems if the player
>     knew how to use it.  Obviously, they didn't back then, probably
>     using it like a neck micro-tuner.
>
>     I make a custom version of this design on special order, with
>     instructions on how to use it effectively.
>
>     --- On *Sat, 12/31/11, John /<john_w_price33@...
>     <mailto:john_w_price33@...>>/* wrote:
>
>
>         From: John <john_w_price33@...
>         <mailto:john_w_price33@...>>
>         Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
>         To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>         <mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com>
>         Date: Saturday, December 31, 2011, 1:03 AM
>
>         Thanks for this explanation Paul. Well done.
>         I wonder has anyone created a variable chamber mouthpiece much
>         like Strathon did with the baffle? Not sure how useful it
>         would be but just curious.
>
>         --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "tenorman1952"
>         <tenorman1952@...> wrote:
>         >
>         >
>         >
>         > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "John"
>         <john_w_price33@> wrote:
>         > >
>         > > If overly large chambers in alto mouthpieces cause
>         intonation issues what of the Meyer small chamber mouthpieces?
>         Is this the optimum size chamber or is it too small creating
>         other pitch issues? What is the general concept here? If the
>         chamber is very large and we have to push in all the way,
>         making the total instrument length short what is the result vs
>         playing mouthpieces that you have to pull out to where they
>         are wobbling at the end of the neck? Succinctly, what are the
>         separate tuning issues of too large a chamber vs too small a
>         chamber?
>         > >
>         >
>         > John, this issue is seen on all saxes from bass to sopranino.
>         >
>         > First, the overtones lay in the sax and mouthpiece
>         differently in the low and upper register. The low register
>         tunes by the volume in the mouthpiece... that is, all volume
>         past the end of the neck pipe. So this chamber volume also
>         includes some of the mouthpiece's bore.
>         >
>         > But the upper register tunes more by length past the end of
>         the neck pipe.
>         >
>         > As you mentioned, a too large chamber mouthpiece requires it
>         to be pushed very far onto the neck cork, which gets the
>         volume past the end of the neck correct (equal to the volume
>         of the missing cone) to get the low register in tune. But now
>         the mouthpiece is "short" on the neck. The instrument plays
>         well in the low register, and on up into the midrange, but as
>         you approach high C, and into the palm keys, these notes
>         become progressively sharper.
>         >
>         > One "large chamber" bass sax mouthpiece we tried to use was
>         more than a semitone sharp on palm D. It could not be "lipped
>         down" into tune.
>         >
>         > But what happens when you go the other way, too small
>         chamber? We've all seen the guy with the peashooter special,
>         nice bright, edgy tone, but the poor guy's sax is designed
>         wrong, he says, they made his neck too short. He may even come
>         into your shop wanting some more brass tubing soldered to the
>         end of the neck. His mouthpiece is about to fall off the end
>         of the neck cork.
>         >
>         > And this setup might work to an extent, as some player's
>         tendency to "bite" or increase embouchure pressure as they
>         play higher somewhat compensates for the natural tendency of
>         this setup to become flat in the upper register due to the
>         "too long" mouthpiece. He has great difficulty getting the
>         palm key notes in tune, and bites through his lower lip trying
>         to lip up.
>         >
>         > But his intonation is all over the place in both registers.
>         >
>         > And like Goldilocks, the "just right" medium chamber volume
>         gets the job done, suddenly the instrument plays well in tune
>         in both registers, on up into the palm keys, with very little
>         "favoring" of any notes.
>         >
>         > A mistaken concept. A bigger chamber is not louder or more
>         powerful. It does diminish the strength of the upper overtones
>         in comparison to the fundamental and 2nd overtone (which is
>         usually equal or stronger than the fundamental in all
>         saxes!!!), so the tone is darker. A large chamber does not
>         give more volume or more "powerful" tone.
>         >
>         > Here's an interesting fact... as you play from ppp to fff,
>         there is very little change in the strength of the fundamental
>         and 2nd overtone. What increases is the strength and number of
>         the higher overtones. That's where most all of the volume
>         increase comes from.
>         >
>         > The small chamber does increase the strength of the higher
>         overtones, resulting in a "brighter" tone. So it actually
>         sounds "louder". It is also difficult to sound softer with
>         this setup.
>         >
>         > You can still have good edge and upper overtones with a
>         medium chamber size by having a short, high baffle. It is that
>         first 1/4" after the tip rail that makes most of the
>         difference. Or take that edgy tone right off by filing down
>         the baffle just being the tip rail.
>         >
>         > Paul C.
>         >
>
>
> 

ditto.

On 12/31/2011 4:10 PM, kenlphotos@... wrote:
> We don't need answers like this.
> On 12/31/11, STEVE GOODSON<saxgourmet@...> wrote:
>
> *get a Mac, fool.......*
>
>
>
>
>
> On Dec 31, 2011, at 3:09 PM, Keith Bradbury wrote:
>
>>
>> My PCs often locks up when visiting the Mouthpiece Museum site.  Not 
>> a problem on my new iPad2.  Anyone else have this problem?   Any 
>> solutions for the PCs?
>>
>> *From:*MartinMods <lancelotburt@... 
>> <mailto:lancelotburt@...>>
>> *To:*MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
>> <mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com>
>> *Sent:*Friday, December 30, 2011 9:54 PM
>> *Subject:*Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
>> This design used by Conn 
>> -http://www.mouthpiecemuseum.com/MouthpieceMuseum/Conn.html- patented 
>> in the '20's, and now in the public domain, enables easy and accurate 
>> adjustment of the volume/frequency relationship by the player, which 
>> would solve all kinds of problems if the player knew how to use it.  
>> Obviously, they didn't back then, probably using it like a neck 
>> micro-tuner.
>>
>> I make a custom version of this design on special order, with 
>> instructions on how to use it effectively.
>>
>> --- On*Sat, 12/31/11, John/<john_w_price33@... 
>> <mailto:john_w_price33@...>>/*wrote:
>>
>>
>>     From: John <john_w_price33@...
>>     <mailto:john_w_price33@...>>
>>     Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
>>     To:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>>     <mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com>
>>     Date: Saturday, December 31, 2011, 1:03 AM
>>
>>     Thanks for this explanation Paul. Well done.
>>     I wonder has anyone created a variable chamber mouthpiece much
>>     like Strathon did with the baffle? Not sure how useful it would
>>     be but just curious.
>>
>>     --- InMouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "tenorman1952"
>>     <tenorman1952@...> wrote:
>>     >
>>     >
>>     >
>>     > --- InMouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "John" <john_w_price33@>
>>     wrote:
>>     > >
>>     > > If overly large chambers in alto mouthpieces cause intonation
>>     issues what of the Meyer small chamber mouthpieces? Is this the
>>     optimum size chamber or is it too small creating other pitch
>>     issues? What is the general concept here? If the chamber is very
>>     large and we have to push in all the way, making the total
>>     instrument length short what is the result vs playing mouthpieces
>>     that you have to pull out to where they are wobbling at the end
>>     of the neck? Succinctly, what are the separate tuning issues of
>>     too large a chamber vs too small a chamber?
>>     > >
>>     >
>>     > John, this issue is seen on all saxes from bass to sopranino.
>>     >
>>     > First, the overtones lay in the sax and mouthpiece differently
>>     in the low and upper register. The low register tunes by the
>>     volume in the mouthpiece... that is, all volume past the end of
>>     the neck pipe. So this chamber volume also includes some of the
>>     mouthpiece's bore.
>>     >
>>     > But the upper register tunes more by length past the end of the
>>     neck pipe.
>>     >
>>     > As you mentioned, a too large chamber mouthpiece requires it to
>>     be pushed very far onto the neck cork, which gets the volume past
>>     the end of the neck correct (equal to the volume of the missing
>>     cone) to get the low register in tune. But now the mouthpiece is
>>     "short" on the neck. The instrument plays well in the low
>>     register, and on up into the midrange, but as you approach high
>>     C, and into the palm keys, these notes become progressively sharper.
>>     >
>>     > One "large chamber" bass sax mouthpiece we tried to use was more
>>     than a semitone sharp on palm D. It could not be "lipped down"
>>     into tune.
>>     >
>>     > But what happens when you go the other way, too small chamber?
>>     We've all seen the guy with the peashooter special, nice bright,
>>     edgy tone, but the poor guy's sax is designed wrong, he says,
>>     they made his neck too short. He may even come into your shop
>>     wanting some more brass tubing soldered to the end of the neck.
>>     His mouthpiece is about to fall off the end of the neck cork.
>>     >
>>     > And this setup might work to an extent, as some player's
>>     tendency to "bite" or increase embouchure pressure as they play
>>     higher somewhat compensates for the natural tendency of this
>>     setup to become flat in the upper register due to the "too long"
>>     mouthpiece. He has great difficulty getting the palm key notes in
>>     tune, and bites through his lower lip trying to lip up.
>>     >
>>     > But his intonation is all over the place in both registers.
>>     >
>>     > And like Goldilocks, the "just right" medium chamber volume gets
>>     the job done, suddenly the instrument plays well in tune in both
>>     registers, on up into the palm keys, with very little "favoring"
>>     of any notes.
>>     >
>>     > A mistaken concept. A bigger chamber is not louder or more
>>     powerful. It does diminish the strength of the upper overtones in
>>     comparison to the fundamental and 2nd overtone (which is usually
>>     equal or stronger than the fundamental in all saxes!!!), so the
>>     tone is darker. A large chamber does not give more volume or more
>>     "powerful" tone.
>>     >
>>     > Here's an interesting fact... as you play from ppp to fff, there
>>     is very little change in the strength of the fundamental and 2nd
>>     overtone. What increases is the strength and number of the higher
>>     overtones. That's where most all of the volume increase comes from.
>>     >
>>     > The small chamber does increase the strength of the higher
>>     overtones, resulting in a "brighter" tone. So it actually sounds
>>     "louder". It is also difficult to sound softer with this setup.
>>     >
>>     > You can still have good edge and upper overtones with a medium
>>     chamber size by having a short, high baffle. It is that first
>>     1/4" after the tip rail that makes most of the difference. Or
>>     take that edgy tone right off by filing down the baffle just
>>     being the tip rail.
>>     >
>>     > Paul C.
>>     >
>>
>>
>
> 

On my IPhone 4s it often crashes Safari, sending me back to the home screen. No problems on Firefox on Win 7.
--- dan torosian <dantorosian@...> wrote:
> On a PC, Windows XP, Firefox - no problems here.
> 
> DT
> 
> On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...>wrote:
> 
> > **
> >
> >
> > My PCs often locks up when visiting the Mouthpiece Museum site.  Not a
> > problem on my new iPad2.  Anyone else have this problem?   Any solutions
> > for the PCs?
> >
> >  *From:* MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
> > *To:* MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> > *Sent:* Friday, December 30, 2011 9:54 PM
> > *Subject:* Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
> > **
> >
> >      This design used by Conn -
> > http://www.mouthpiecemuseum.com/MouthpieceMuseum/Conn.html - patented in
> > the '20's, and now in the public domain, enables easy and accurate
> > adjustment of the volume/frequency relationship by the player, which would
> > solve all kinds of problems if the player knew how to use it.  Obviously,
> > they didn't back then, probably using it like a neck micro-tuner.
> >
> > I make a custom version of this design on special order, with instructions
> > on how to use it effectively.
> >
> > --- On *Sat, 12/31/11, John <john_w_price33@...>* wrote:
> >
> >
> > From: John <john_w_price33@hotmail.com>
> > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
> > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> > Date: Saturday, December 31, 2011, 1:03 AM
> >
> >
> > Thanks for this explanation Paul. Well done.
> > I wonder has anyone created a variable chamber mouthpiece much like
> > Strathon did with the baffle? Not sure how useful it would be but just
> > curious.
> >
> > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "tenorman1952" <tenorman1952@...>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "John" <john_w_price33@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > If overly large chambers in alto mouthpieces cause intonation issues
> > what of the Meyer small chamber mouthpieces? Is this the optimum size
> > chamber or is it too small creating other pitch issues? What is the general
> > concept here? If the chamber is very large and we have to push in all the
> > way, making the total instrument length short what is the result vs playing
> > mouthpieces that you have to pull out to where they are wobbling at the end
> > of the neck? Succinctly, what are the separate tuning issues of too large a
> > chamber vs too small a chamber?
> > > >
> > >
> > > John, this issue is seen on all saxes from bass to sopranino.
> > >
> > > First, the overtones lay in the sax and mouthpiece differently in the
> > low and upper register. The low register tunes by the volume in the
> > mouthpiece... that is, all volume past the end of the neck pipe. So this
> > chamber volume also includes some of the mouthpiece's bore.
> > >
> > > But the upper register tunes more by length past the end of the neck
> > pipe.
> > >
> > > As you mentioned, a too large chamber mouthpiece requires it to be
> > pushed very far onto the neck cork, which gets the volume past the end of
> > the neck correct (equal to the volume of the missing cone) to get the low
> > register in tune. But now the mouthpiece is "short" on the neck. The
> > instrument plays well in the low register, and on up into the midrange, but
> > as you approach high C, and into the palm keys, these notes become
> > progressively sharper.
> > >
> > > One "large chamber" bass sax mouthpiece we tried to use was more than a
> > semitone sharp on palm D. It could not be "lipped down" into tune.
> > >
> > > But what happens when you go the other way, too small chamber? We've all
> > seen the guy with the peashooter special, nice bright, edgy tone, but the
> > poor guy's sax is designed wrong, he says, they made his neck too short. He
> > may even come into your shop wanting some more brass tubing soldered to the
> > end of the neck. His mouthpiece is about to fall off the end of the neck
> > cork.
> > >
> > > And this setup might work to an extent, as some player's tendency to
> > "bite" or increase embouchure pressure as they play higher somewhat
> > compensates for the natural tendency of this setup to become flat in the
> > upper register due to the "too long" mouthpiece. He has great difficulty
> > getting the palm key notes in tune, and bites through his lower lip trying
> > to lip up.
> > >
> > > But his intonation is all over the place in both registers.
> > >
> > > And like Goldilocks, the "just right" medium chamber volume gets the job
> > done, suddenly the instrument plays well in tune in both registers, on up
> > into the palm keys, with very little "favoring" of any notes.
> > >
> > > A mistaken concept. A bigger chamber is not louder or more powerful. It
> > does diminish the strength of the upper overtones in comparison to the
> > fundamental and 2nd overtone (which is usually equal or stronger than the
> > fundamental in all saxes!!!), so the tone is darker. A large chamber does
> > not give more volume or more "powerful" tone.
> > >
> > > Here's an interesting fact... as you play from ppp to fff, there is very
> > little change in the strength of the fundamental and 2nd overtone. What
> > increases is the strength and number of the higher overtones. That's where
> > most all of the volume increase comes from.
> > >
> > > The small chamber does increase the strength of the higher overtones,
> > resulting in a "brighter" tone. So it actually sounds "louder". It is also
> > difficult to sound softer with this setup.
> > >
> > > You can still have good edge and upper overtones with a medium chamber
> > size by having a short, high baffle. It is that first 1/4" after the tip
> > rail that makes most of the difference. Or take that edgy tone right off by
> > filing down the baffle just being the tip rail.
> > >
> > > Paul C.
> > >
> >
> > ****
> >
> >  
> >
> 

I have no problems on my I Mac, Macbook Pro, or I Pad....This sort of problem is virtually unheard of on Macs....of course, not everyone wants to hear this

Sent from my iPad

STEVE  GOODSON
Saxophone Guru and Visionary
New Orleans
www.nationofmusic.com



On Dec 31, 2011, at 5:21 PM, kymarto123@ybb.ne.jp wrote:

> On my IPhone 4s it often crashes Safari, sending me back to the home screen. No problems on Firefox on Win 7.
> --- dan torosian <dantorosian@...> wrote:
> > On a PC, Windows XP, Firefox - no problems here.
> > 
> > DT
> > 
> > On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...>wrote:
> > 
> > > **
> > >
> > >
> > > My PCs often locks up when visiting the Mouthpiece Museum site. Not a
> > > problem on my new iPad2. Anyone else have this problem? Any solutions
> > > for the PCs?
> > >
> > > *From:* MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
> > > *To:* MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> > > *Sent:* Friday, December 30, 2011 9:54 PM
> > > *Subject:* Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
> > > **
> > >
> > > This design used by Conn -
> > > http://www.mouthpiecemuseum.com/MouthpieceMuseum/Conn.html - patented in
> > > the '20's, and now in the public domain, enables easy and accurate
> > > adjustment of the volume/frequency relationship by the player, which would
> > > solve all kinds of problems if the player knew how to use it. Obviously,
> > > they didn't back then, probably using it like a neck micro-tuner.
> > >
> > > I make a custom version of this design on special order, with instructions
> > > on how to use it effectively.
> > >
> > > --- On *Sat, 12/31/11, John <john_w_price33@...>* wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > From: John <john_w_price33@hotmail.com>
> > > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
> > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> > > Date: Saturday, December 31, 2011, 1:03 AM
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks for this explanation Paul. Well done.
> > > I wonder has anyone created a variable chamber mouthpiece much like
> > > Strathon did with the baffle? Not sure how useful it would be but just
> > > curious.
> > >
> > > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "tenorman1952" <tenorman1952@...>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "John" <john_w_price33@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > If overly large chambers in alto mouthpieces cause intonation issues
> > > what of the Meyer small chamber mouthpieces? Is this the optimum size
> > > chamber or is it too small creating other pitch issues? What is the general
> > > concept here? If the chamber is very large and we have to push in all the
> > > way, making the total instrument length short what is the result vs playing
> > > mouthpieces that you have to pull out to where they are wobbling at the end
> > > of the neck? Succinctly, what are the separate tuning issues of too large a
> > > chamber vs too small a chamber?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > John, this issue is seen on all saxes from bass to sopranino.
> > > >
> > > > First, the overtones lay in the sax and mouthpiece differently in the
> > > low and upper register. The low register tunes by the volume in the
> > > mouthpiece... that is, all volume past the end of the neck pipe. So this
> > > chamber volume also includes some of the mouthpiece's bore.
> > > >
> > > > But the upper register tunes more by length past the end of the neck
> > > pipe.
> > > >
> > > > As you mentioned, a too large chamber mouthpiece requires it to be
> > > pushed very far onto the neck cork, which gets the volume past the end of
> > > the neck correct (equal to the volume of the missing cone) to get the low
> > > register in tune. But now the mouthpiece is "short" on the neck. The
> > > instrument plays well in the low register, and on up into the midrange, but
> > > as you approach high C, and into the palm keys, these notes become
> > > progressively sharper.
> > > >
> > > > One "large chamber" bass sax mouthpiece we tried to use was more than a
> > > semitone sharp on palm D. It could not be "lipped down" into tune.
> > > >
> > > > But what happens when you go the other way, too small chamber? We've all
> > > seen the guy with the peashooter special, nice bright, edgy tone, but the
> > > poor guy's sax is designed wrong, he says, they made his neck too short. He
> > > may even come into your shop wanting some more brass tubing soldered to the
> > > end of the neck. His mouthpiece is about to fall off the end of the neck
> > > cork.
> > > >
> > > > And this setup might work to an extent, as some player's tendency to
> > > "bite" or increase embouchure pressure as they play higher somewhat
> > > compensates for the natural tendency of this setup to become flat in the
> > > upper register due to the "too long" mouthpiece. He has great difficulty
> > > getting the palm key notes in tune, and bites through his lower lip trying
> > > to lip up.
> > > >
> > > > But his intonation is all over the place in both registers.
> > > >
> > > > And like Goldilocks, the "just right" medium chamber volume gets the job
> > > done, suddenly the instrument plays well in tune in both registers, on up
> > > into the palm keys, with very little "favoring" of any notes.
> > > >
> > > > A mistaken concept. A bigger chamber is not louder or more powerful. It
> > > does diminish the strength of the upper overtones in comparison to the
> > > fundamental and 2nd overtone (which is usually equal or stronger than the
> > > fundamental in all saxes!!!), so the tone is darker. A large chamber does
> > > not give more volume or more "powerful" tone.
> > > >
> > > > Here's an interesting fact... as you play from ppp to fff, there is very
> > > little change in the strength of the fundamental and 2nd overtone. What
> > > increases is the strength and number of the higher overtones. That's where
> > > most all of the volume increase comes from.
> > > >
> > > > The small chamber does increase the strength of the higher overtones,
> > > resulting in a "brighter" tone. So it actually sounds "louder". It is also
> > > difficult to sound softer with this setup.
> > > >
> > > > You can still have good edge and upper overtones with a medium chamber
> > > size by having a short, high baffle. It is that first 1/4" after the tip
> > > rail that makes most of the difference. Or take that edgy tone right off by
> > > filing down the baffle just being the tip rail.
> > > >
> > > > Paul C.
> > > >
> > >
> > > ****
> > >
> > > 
> > >
> > 
> 

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

But it crashes my Mac iPhone. It's a problem with the coding, not the hardware.
 
Sent from my sometimes-crashing Mac iPhone.

--- Steve Goodson <saxgourmet@...> wrote:
> I have no problems on my I Mac, Macbook Pro, or I Pad....This sort of problem is virtually unheard of on Macs....of course, not everyone wants to hear this
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
> STEVE  GOODSON
> Saxophone Guru and Visionary
> New Orleans
> www.nationofmusic.com
> 
> 
> 
> On Dec 31, 2011, at 5:21 PM, kymarto123@... wrote:
> 
> > On my IPhone 4s it often crashes Safari, sending me back to the home screen. No problems on Firefox on Win 7.
> > --- dan torosian <dantorosian@...> wrote:
> > > On a PC, Windows XP, Firefox - no problems here.
> > > 
> > > DT
> > > 
> > > On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@yahoo.com>wrote:
> > > 
> > > > **
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > My PCs often locks up when visiting the Mouthpiece Museum site. Not a
> > > > problem on my new iPad2. Anyone else have this problem? Any solutions
> > > > for the PCs?
> > > >
> > > > *From:* MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
> > > > *To:* MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> > > > *Sent:* Friday, December 30, 2011 9:54 PM
> > > > *Subject:* Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
> > > > **
> > > >
> > > > This design used by Conn -
> > > > http://www.mouthpiecemuseum.com/MouthpieceMuseum/Conn.html - patented in
> > > > the '20's, and now in the public domain, enables easy and accurate
> > > > adjustment of the volume/frequency relationship by the player, which would
> > > > solve all kinds of problems if the player knew how to use it. Obviously,
> > > > they didn't back then, probably using it like a neck micro-tuner.
> > > >
> > > > I make a custom version of this design on special order, with instructions
> > > > on how to use it effectively.
> > > >
> > > > --- On *Sat, 12/31/11, John <john_w_price33@...>* wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From: John <john_w_price33@...>
> > > > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
> > > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Date: Saturday, December 31, 2011, 1:03 AM
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for this explanation Paul. Well done.
> > > > I wonder has anyone created a variable chamber mouthpiece much like
> > > > Strathon did with the baffle? Not sure how useful it would be but just
> > > > curious.
> > > >
> > > > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "tenorman1952" <tenorman1952@...>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "John" <john_w_price33@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If overly large chambers in alto mouthpieces cause intonation issues
> > > > what of the Meyer small chamber mouthpieces? Is this the optimum size
> > > > chamber or is it too small creating other pitch issues? What is the general
> > > > concept here? If the chamber is very large and we have to push in all the
> > > > way, making the total instrument length short what is the result vs playing
> > > > mouthpieces that you have to pull out to where they are wobbling at the end
> > > > of the neck? Succinctly, what are the separate tuning issues of too large a
> > > > chamber vs too small a chamber?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > John, this issue is seen on all saxes from bass to sopranino.
> > > > >
> > > > > First, the overtones lay in the sax and mouthpiece differently in the
> > > > low and upper register. The low register tunes by the volume in the
> > > > mouthpiece... that is, all volume past the end of the neck pipe. So this
> > > > chamber volume also includes some of the mouthpiece's bore.
> > > > >
> > > > > But the upper register tunes more by length past the end of the neck
> > > > pipe.
> > > > >
> > > > > As you mentioned, a too large chamber mouthpiece requires it to be
> > > > pushed very far onto the neck cork, which gets the volume past the end of
> > > > the neck correct (equal to the volume of the missing cone) to get the low
> > > > register in tune. But now the mouthpiece is "short" on the neck. The
> > > > instrument plays well in the low register, and on up into the midrange, but
> > > > as you approach high C, and into the palm keys, these notes become
> > > > progressively sharper.
> > > > >
> > > > > One "large chamber" bass sax mouthpiece we tried to use was more than a
> > > > semitone sharp on palm D. It could not be "lipped down" into tune.
> > > > >
> > > > > But what happens when you go the other way, too small chamber? We've all
> > > > seen the guy with the peashooter special, nice bright, edgy tone, but the
> > > > poor guy's sax is designed wrong, he says, they made his neck too short. He
> > > > may even come into your shop wanting some more brass tubing soldered to the
> > > > end of the neck. His mouthpiece is about to fall off the end of the neck
> > > > cork.
> > > > >
> > > > > And this setup might work to an extent, as some player's tendency to
> > > > "bite" or increase embouchure pressure as they play higher somewhat
> > > > compensates for the natural tendency of this setup to become flat in the
> > > > upper register due to the "too long" mouthpiece. He has great difficulty
> > > > getting the palm key notes in tune, and bites through his lower lip trying
> > > > to lip up.
> > > > >
> > > > > But his intonation is all over the place in both registers.
> > > > >
> > > > > And like Goldilocks, the "just right" medium chamber volume gets the job
> > > > done, suddenly the instrument plays well in tune in both registers, on up
> > > > into the palm keys, with very little "favoring" of any notes.
> > > > >
> > > > > A mistaken concept. A bigger chamber is not louder or more powerful. It
> > > > does diminish the strength of the upper overtones in comparison to the
> > > > fundamental and 2nd overtone (which is usually equal or stronger than the
> > > > fundamental in all saxes!!!), so the tone is darker. A large chamber does
> > > > not give more volume or more "powerful" tone.
> > > > >
> > > > > Here's an interesting fact... as you play from ppp to fff, there is very
> > > > little change in the strength of the fundamental and 2nd overtone. What
> > > > increases is the strength and number of the higher overtones. That's where
> > > > most all of the volume increase comes from.
> > > > >
> > > > > The small chamber does increase the strength of the higher overtones,
> > > > resulting in a "brighter" tone. So it actually sounds "louder". It is also
> > > > difficult to sound softer with this setup.
> > > > >
> > > > > You can still have good edge and upper overtones with a medium chamber
> > > > size by having a short, high baffle. It is that first 1/4" after the tip
> > > > rail that makes most of the difference. Or take that edgy tone right off by
> > > > filing down the baffle just being the tip rail.
> > > > >
> > > > > Paul C.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > ****
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > >
> > > 
> > 
> 

It is 100% a problem with the coding. It's not that the images are large (although they are), but the way something is implemented that causes problems for some older browsers.   It's something like: IE7 and older webkit browsers can't handle one of the javascripts properly, and since all the scripts are at the top of the page it crashes the whole thing (or NO browsers can interpret the buggy script, and Keith's and Toby's browser versions are just the ones that fault most inelegantly).  

Upgrade to the most recent stable version of your browser should help, the site works for me under chrome, safari, firefox, IE9, IE8, all on Windows.


Morgan


--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, kymarto123@... wrote:
>
> But it crashes my Mac iPhone. It's a problem with the coding, not the hardware.
>  
> Sent from my sometimes-crashing Mac iPhone.
> 
> --- Steve Goodson <saxgourmet@...> wrote:
> > I have no problems on my I Mac, Macbook Pro, or I Pad....This sort of problem is virtually unheard of on Macs....of course, not everyone wants to hear this
> > 
> > Sent from my iPad
> > 
> > STEVE  GOODSON
> > Saxophone Guru and Visionary
> > New Orleans
> > www.nationofmusic.com
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Dec 31, 2011, at 5:21 PM, kymarto123@... wrote:
> > 
> > > On my IPhone 4s it often crashes Safari, sending me back to the home screen. No problems on Firefox on Win 7.
> > > --- dan torosian <dantorosian@...> wrote:
> > > > On a PC, Windows XP, Firefox - no problems here.
> > > > 
> > > > DT
> > > > 
> > > > On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...>wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > **
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > My PCs often locks up when visiting the Mouthpiece Museum site. Not a
> > > > > problem on my new iPad2. Anyone else have this problem? Any solutions
> > > > > for the PCs?
> > > > >
> > > > > *From:* MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
> > > > > *To:* MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > *Sent:* Friday, December 30, 2011 9:54 PM
> > > > > *Subject:* Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
> > > > > **
> > > > >
> > > > > This design used by Conn -
> > > > > http://www.mouthpiecemuseum.com/MouthpieceMuseum/Conn.html - patented in
> > > > > the '20's, and now in the public domain, enables easy and accurate
> > > > > adjustment of the volume/frequency relationship by the player, which would
> > > > > solve all kinds of problems if the player knew how to use it. Obviously,
> > > > > they didn't back then, probably using it like a neck micro-tuner.
> > > > >
> > > > > I make a custom version of this design on special order, with instructions
> > > > > on how to use it effectively.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- On *Sat, 12/31/11, John <john_w_price33@...>* wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > From: John <john_w_price33@...>
> > > > > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
> > > > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Date: Saturday, December 31, 2011, 1:03 AM
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for this explanation Paul. Well done.
> > > > > I wonder has anyone created a variable chamber mouthpiece much like
> > > > > Strathon did with the baffle? Not sure how useful it would be but just
> > > > > curious.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "tenorman1952" <tenorman1952@>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "John" <john_w_price33@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If overly large chambers in alto mouthpieces cause intonation issues
> > > > > what of the Meyer small chamber mouthpieces? Is this the optimum size
> > > > > chamber or is it too small creating other pitch issues? What is the general
> > > > > concept here? If the chamber is very large and we have to push in all the
> > > > > way, making the total instrument length short what is the result vs playing
> > > > > mouthpieces that you have to pull out to where they are wobbling at the end
> > > > > of the neck? Succinctly, what are the separate tuning issues of too large a
> > > > > chamber vs too small a chamber?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > John, this issue is seen on all saxes from bass to sopranino.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > First, the overtones lay in the sax and mouthpiece differently in the
> > > > > low and upper register. The low register tunes by the volume in the
> > > > > mouthpiece... that is, all volume past the end of the neck pipe. So this
> > > > > chamber volume also includes some of the mouthpiece's bore.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But the upper register tunes more by length past the end of the neck
> > > > > pipe.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As you mentioned, a too large chamber mouthpiece requires it to be
> > > > > pushed very far onto the neck cork, which gets the volume past the end of
> > > > > the neck correct (equal to the volume of the missing cone) to get the low
> > > > > register in tune. But now the mouthpiece is "short" on the neck. The
> > > > > instrument plays well in the low register, and on up into the midrange, but
> > > > > as you approach high C, and into the palm keys, these notes become
> > > > > progressively sharper.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > One "large chamber" bass sax mouthpiece we tried to use was more than a
> > > > > semitone sharp on palm D. It could not be "lipped down" into tune.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But what happens when you go the other way, too small chamber? We've all
> > > > > seen the guy with the peashooter special, nice bright, edgy tone, but the
> > > > > poor guy's sax is designed wrong, he says, they made his neck too short. He
> > > > > may even come into your shop wanting some more brass tubing soldered to the
> > > > > end of the neck. His mouthpiece is about to fall off the end of the neck
> > > > > cork.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And this setup might work to an extent, as some player's tendency to
> > > > > "bite" or increase embouchure pressure as they play higher somewhat
> > > > > compensates for the natural tendency of this setup to become flat in the
> > > > > upper register due to the "too long" mouthpiece. He has great difficulty
> > > > > getting the palm key notes in tune, and bites through his lower lip trying
> > > > > to lip up.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But his intonation is all over the place in both registers.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And like Goldilocks, the "just right" medium chamber volume gets the job
> > > > > done, suddenly the instrument plays well in tune in both registers, on up
> > > > > into the palm keys, with very little "favoring" of any notes.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A mistaken concept. A bigger chamber is not louder or more powerful. It
> > > > > does diminish the strength of the upper overtones in comparison to the
> > > > > fundamental and 2nd overtone (which is usually equal or stronger than the
> > > > > fundamental in all saxes!!!), so the tone is darker. A large chamber does
> > > > > not give more volume or more "powerful" tone.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Here's an interesting fact... as you play from ppp to fff, there is very
> > > > > little change in the strength of the fundamental and 2nd overtone. What
> > > > > increases is the strength and number of the higher overtones. That's where
> > > > > most all of the volume increase comes from.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The small chamber does increase the strength of the higher overtones,
> > > > > resulting in a "brighter" tone. So it actually sounds "louder". It is also
> > > > > difficult to sound softer with this setup.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You can still have good edge and upper overtones with a medium chamber
> > > > > size by having a short, high baffle. It is that first 1/4" after the tip
> > > > > rail that makes most of the difference. Or take that edgy tone right off by
> > > > > filing down the baffle just being the tip rail.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Paul C.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ****
> > > > >
> > > > > 
> > > > >
> > > > 
> > > 
> >
>

Paul did the experiment well but it is also to some extent the shape of the chamber that matters, because the upper register tunes not exactly by length, but by the Helmholtz resonance frequency of the mpc at the neck opening. This does have a correlation with length, but since the mpc is not a true cylinder it is only approximate. 

Basically speaking the overall horn tunes by mpc effective volume, but the registers react differently to volume errors. Too small a volume will widen the octaves; too large will narrow them. This can be roughly understood by realizing that the octave wavelength is half that of the fundamental, but "length-like" errors based on a volume mismatch at the top of the horn remain constant. 

This all has to do with trying to mimic not only so much the volume of the missing conic apex, but its impedance structure: the more closely you manage this the more harmonic the partials will be. The first-order impedance match is based on volume; the second-order match is based on the resonant frequency of that volume, which normally will only significantly start affecting tuning from around A2 upwards. Matches for impedance peaks above that are basically impossible, because the mpc shape is just too far from a cone, but luckily the horn does not play high enough where that becomes an issue.

It is also worth realizing that the mpc effective volume is strongly affected by tip opening, reed strength and lip damping by the player, so mpc volume--and hence intonation and octave relationships are dynamically and continuously being determined in real time by the player via embouchure adjustment.

Of course it is better if the various factors in play are well lined-up to avoid a lot of extra work, but it is not like there is a magic point where the stars all line up perfectly and everything just falls into place. As an analogy: no matter how good the wheel alignment on your car--you still have to steer to keep it on the road.

If you have a fairly large chamber mpc you can use some chewing gum or putty to temporarily change the size and shape of the chamber to get a experiential feel for how this all works, and just how much difference it does or does not make.

<john_w_price33@...> wrote:
> Thanks for this explanation Paul.  Well done. 
>  I wonder has anyone created a variable chamber mouthpiece much like Strathon did with the baffle?  Not sure how useful it would be but just curious.   
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "tenorman1952" <tenorman1952@...> wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "John" <john_w_price33@> wrote:
> > >
> > > If overly large chambers in alto mouthpieces cause intonation issues what of the Meyer small chamber mouthpieces?  Is this the optimum size chamber or is it too small creating other pitch issues?    What is the general concept here?  If the chamber is very large and we have to push in all the way, making the total instrument length short what is the result vs playing mouthpieces that you have to pull out to where they are wobbling at the end of the neck?    Succinctly,  what are the separate tuning issues of too large a chamber vs too small a chamber?
> > >
> > 
> > John, this issue is seen on all saxes from bass to sopranino.
> > 
> > First, the overtones lay in the sax and mouthpiece differently in the low and upper register.  The low register tunes by the volume in the mouthpiece... that is, all volume past the end of the neck pipe.  So this chamber volume also includes some of the mouthpiece's bore.
> > 
> > But the upper register tunes more by length past the end of the neck pipe.
> > 
> > As you mentioned, a too large chamber mouthpiece requires it to be pushed very far onto the neck cork, which gets the volume past the end of the neck correct (equal to the volume of the missing cone) to get the low register in tune.  But now the mouthpiece is "short" on the neck.  The instrument plays well in the low register, and on up into the midrange, but as you approach high C, and into the palm keys, these notes become progressively sharper.  
> > 
> > One "large chamber" bass sax mouthpiece we tried to use was more than a semitone sharp on palm D.  It could not be "lipped down" into tune.
> > 
> > But what happens when you go the other way, too small chamber?  We've all seen the guy with the peashooter special, nice bright, edgy tone, but the poor guy's sax is designed wrong, he says, they made his neck too short.  He may even come into your shop wanting some more brass tubing soldered to the end of the neck.  His mouthpiece is about to fall off the end of the neck cork.  
> > 
> > And this setup might work to an extent, as some player's tendency to "bite" or increase embouchure pressure as they play higher somewhat compensates for the natural tendency of this setup to become flat in the upper register due to the "too long" mouthpiece.  He has great difficulty getting the palm key notes in tune, and bites through his lower lip trying to lip up.
> > 
> > But his intonation is all over the place in both registers.
> > 
> > And like Goldilocks, the "just right" medium chamber volume gets the job done, suddenly the instrument plays well in tune in both registers, on up into the palm keys, with very little "favoring" of any notes.
> > 
> > A mistaken concept.  A bigger chamber is not louder or more powerful.  It does diminish the strength of the upper overtones in comparison to the fundamental and 2nd overtone (which is usually equal or stronger than the fundamental in all saxes!!!), so the tone is darker.  A large chamber does not give more volume or more "powerful" tone.
> > 
> > Here's an interesting fact... as you play from ppp to fff, there is very little change in the strength of the fundamental and 2nd overtone.  What increases is the strength and number of the higher overtones.  That's where most all of the volume increase comes from.
> > 
> > The small chamber does increase the strength of the higher overtones, resulting in a "brighter" tone.  So it actually sounds "louder".  It is also difficult to sound softer with this setup.
> > 
> > You can still have good edge and upper overtones with a medium chamber size by having a short, high baffle.  It is that first 1/4" after the tip rail that makes most of the difference.  Or take that edgy tone right off by filing down the baffle just being the tip rail.
> > 
> > Paul C.
> >
> 
> 
> 

I'm using IE8 on the PCs.  But I had a several files/programs open too so it may be a memory issue.  If I do get in/out of the MM site, my speed is often so slow I need to reboot anyway.  Like my memory is bogged down. 


________________________________
From: Morgan <frymorgan@yahoo.com>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Sunday, January 1, 2012 7:44 AM
Subject: Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Mouthpiece Museum crashing browsers


  
It is 100% a problem with the coding. It's not that the images are large (although they are), but the way something is implemented that causes problems for some older browsers. It's something like: IE7 and older webkit browsers can't handle one of the javascripts properly, and since all the scripts are at the top of the page it crashes the whole thing (or NO browsers can interpret the buggy script, and Keith's and Toby's browser versions are just the ones that fault most inelegantly). 

Upgrade to the most recent stable version of your browser should help, the site works for me under chrome, safari, firefox, IE9, IE8, all on Windows.

Morgan

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, kymarto123@... wrote:
>
> But it crashes my Mac iPhone. It's a problem with the coding, not the hardware.
> 
> Sent from my sometimes-crashing Mac iPhone.
> 
> --- Steve Goodson <saxgourmet@...> wrote:
> > I have no problems on my I Mac, Macbook Pro, or I Pad....This sort of problem is virtually unheard of on Macs....of course, not everyone wants to hear this
> > 
> > Sent from my iPad
> > 
> > STEVE GOODSON
> > Saxophone Guru and Visionary
> > New Orleans
> > www.nationofmusic.com
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Dec 31, 2011, at 5:21 PM, kymarto123@... wrote:
> > 
> > > On my IPhone 4s it often crashes Safari, sending me back to the home screen. No problems on Firefox on Win 7.
> > > --- dan torosian <dantorosian@...> wrote:
> > > > On a PC, Windows XP, Firefox - no problems here.
> > > > 
> > > > DT
> > > > 
> > > > On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...>wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > **
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > My PCs often locks up when visiting the Mouthpiece Museum site. Not a
> > > > > problem on my new iPad2. Anyone else have this problem? Any solutions
> > > > > for the PCs?
> > > > >
> > > > > *From:* MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
> > > > > *To:* MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > *Sent:* Friday, December 30, 2011 9:54 PM
> > > > > *Subject:* Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
> > > > > **
> > > > >
> > > > > This design used by Conn -
> > > > > http://www.mouthpiecemuseum.com/MouthpieceMuseum/Conn.html - patented in
> > > > > the '20's, and now in the public domain, enables easy and accurate
> > > > > adjustment of the volume/frequency relationship by the player, which would
> > > > > solve all kinds of problems if the player knew how to use it. Obviously,
> > > > > they didn't back then, probably using it like a neck micro-tuner.
> > > > >
> > > > > I make a custom version of this design on special order, with instructions
> > > > > on how to use it effectively.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- On *Sat, 12/31/11, John <john_w_price33@...>* wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > From: John <john_w_price33@...>
> > > > > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
> > > > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Date: Saturday, December 31, 2011, 1:03 AM
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for this explanation Paul. Well done.
> > > > > I wonder has anyone created a variable chamber mouthpiece much like
> > > > > Strathon did with the baffle? Not sure how useful it would be but just
> > > > > curious.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "tenorman1952" <tenorman1952@>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "John" <john_w_price33@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If overly large chambers in alto mouthpieces cause intonation issues
> > > > > what of the Meyer small chamber mouthpieces? Is this the optimum size
> > > > > chamber or is it too small creating other pitch issues? What is the general
> > > > > concept here? If the chamber is very large and we have to push in all the
> > > > > way, making the total instrument length short what is the result vs playing
> > > > > mouthpieces that you have to pull out to where they are wobbling at the end
> > > > > of the neck? Succinctly, what are the separate tuning issues of too large a
> > > > > chamber vs too small a chamber?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > John, this issue is seen on all saxes from bass to sopranino.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > First, the overtones lay in the sax and mouthpiece differently in the
> > > > > low and upper register. The low register tunes by the volume in the
> > > > > mouthpiece... that is, all volume past the end of the neck pipe. So this
> > > > > chamber volume also includes some of the mouthpiece's bore.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But the upper register tunes more by length past the end of the neck
> > > > > pipe.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As you mentioned, a too large chamber mouthpiece requires it to be
> > > > > pushed very far onto the neck cork, which gets the volume past the end of
> > > > > the neck correct (equal to the volume of the missing cone) to get the low
> > > > > register in tune. But now the mouthpiece is "short" on the neck. The
> > > > > instrument plays well in the low register, and on up into the midrange, but
> > > > > as you approach high C, and into the palm keys, these notes become
> > > > > progressively sharper.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > One "large chamber" bass sax mouthpiece we tried to use was more than a
> > > > > semitone sharp on palm D. It could not be "lipped down" into tune.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But what happens when you go the other way, too small chamber? We've all
> > > > > seen the guy with the peashooter special, nice bright, edgy tone, but the
> > > > > poor guy's sax is designed wrong, he says, they made his neck too short. He
> > > > > may even come into your shop wanting some more brass tubing soldered to the
> > > > > end of the neck. His mouthpiece is about to fall off the end of the neck
> > > > > cork.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And this setup might work to an extent, as some player's tendency to
> > > > > "bite" or increase embouchure pressure as they play higher somewhat
> > > > > compensates for the natural tendency of this setup to become flat in the
> > > > > upper register due to the "too long" mouthpiece. He has great difficulty
> > > > > getting the palm key notes in tune, and bites through his lower lip trying
> > > > > to lip up.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But his intonation is all over the place in both registers.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And like Goldilocks, the "just right" medium chamber volume gets the job
> > > > > done, suddenly the instrument plays well in tune in both registers, on up
> > > > > into the palm keys, with very little "favoring" of any notes.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A mistaken concept. A bigger chamber is not louder or more powerful. It
> > > > > does diminish the strength of the upper overtones in comparison to the
> > > > > fundamental and 2nd overtone (which is usually equal or stronger than the
> > > > > fundamental in all saxes!!!), so the tone is darker. A large chamber does
> > > > > not give more volume or more "powerful" tone.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Here's an interesting fact... as you play from ppp to fff, there is very
> > > > > little change in the strength of the fundamental and 2nd overtone. What
> > > > > increases is the strength and number of the higher overtones. That's where
> > > > > most all of the volume increase comes from.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The small chamber does increase the strength of the higher overtones,
> > > > > resulting in a "brighter" tone. So it actually sounds "louder". It is also
> > > > > difficult to sound softer with this setup.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You can still have good edge and upper overtones with a medium chamber
> > > > > size by having a short, high baffle. It is that first 1/4" after the tip
> > > > > rail that makes most of the difference. Or take that edgy tone right off by
> > > > > filing down the baffle just being the tip rail.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Paul C.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ****
> > > > >
> > > > > 
> > > > >
> > > > 
> > > 
> >
>

Maybe it is just the size after all.  The conn page causes IE to use 280MB of memory (chrome uses 56MB in the same situation), but it stops there so no leak, just a lot of stuff and bad memory management.  IE9 is better.  

 
--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:
>
> I'm using IE8 on the PCs.  But I had a several files/programs open too so it may be a memory issue.  If I do get in/out of the MM site, my speed is often so slow I need to reboot anyway.  Like my memory is bogged down. 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: Morgan <frymorgan@...>
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Sunday, January 1, 2012 7:44 AM
> Subject: Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Mouthpiece Museum crashing browsers
> 
> 
>   
> It is 100% a problem with the coding. It's not that the images are large (although they are), but the way something is implemented that causes problems for some older browsers. It's something like: IE7 and older webkit browsers can't handle one of the javascripts properly, and since all the scripts are at the top of the page it crashes the whole thing (or NO browsers can interpret the buggy script, and Keith's and Toby's browser versions are just the ones that fault most inelegantly). 
> 
> Upgrade to the most recent stable version of your browser should help, the site works for me under chrome, safari, firefox, IE9, IE8, all on Windows.
> 
> Morgan
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, kymarto123@ wrote:
> >
> > But it crashes my Mac iPhone. It's a problem with the coding, not the hardware.
> > 
> > Sent from my sometimes-crashing Mac iPhone.
> > 
> > --- Steve Goodson <saxgourmet@> wrote:
> > > I have no problems on my I Mac, Macbook Pro, or I Pad....This sort of problem is virtually unheard of on Macs....of course, not everyone wants to hear this
> > > 
> > > Sent from my iPad
> > > 
> > > STEVE GOODSON
> > > Saxophone Guru and Visionary
> > > New Orleans
> > > www.nationofmusic.com
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Dec 31, 2011, at 5:21 PM, kymarto123@ wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On my IPhone 4s it often crashes Safari, sending me back to the home screen. No problems on Firefox on Win 7.
> > > > --- dan torosian <dantorosian@> wrote:
> > > > > On a PC, Windows XP, Firefox - no problems here.
> > > > > 
> > > > > DT
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@>wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > **
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My PCs often locks up when visiting the Mouthpiece Museum site. Not a
> > > > > > problem on my new iPad2. Anyone else have this problem? Any solutions
> > > > > > for the PCs?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *From:* MartinMods <lancelotburt@>
> > > > > > *To:* MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > *Sent:* Friday, December 30, 2011 9:54 PM
> > > > > > *Subject:* Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
> > > > > > **
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This design used by Conn -
> > > > > > http://www.mouthpiecemuseum.com/MouthpieceMuseum/Conn.html - patented in
> > > > > > the '20's, and now in the public domain, enables easy and accurate
> > > > > > adjustment of the volume/frequency relationship by the player, which would
> > > > > > solve all kinds of problems if the player knew how to use it. Obviously,
> > > > > > they didn't back then, probably using it like a neck micro-tuner.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I make a custom version of this design on special order, with instructions
> > > > > > on how to use it effectively.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- On *Sat, 12/31/11, John <john_w_price33@>* wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: John <john_w_price33@>
> > > > > > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
> > > > > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > Date: Saturday, December 31, 2011, 1:03 AM
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks for this explanation Paul. Well done.
> > > > > > I wonder has anyone created a variable chamber mouthpiece much like
> > > > > > Strathon did with the baffle? Not sure how useful it would be but just
> > > > > > curious.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "tenorman1952" <tenorman1952@>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "John" <john_w_price33@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If overly large chambers in alto mouthpieces cause intonation issues
> > > > > > what of the Meyer small chamber mouthpieces? Is this the optimum size
> > > > > > chamber or is it too small creating other pitch issues? What is the general
> > > > > > concept here? If the chamber is very large and we have to push in all the
> > > > > > way, making the total instrument length short what is the result vs playing
> > > > > > mouthpieces that you have to pull out to where they are wobbling at the end
> > > > > > of the neck? Succinctly, what are the separate tuning issues of too large a
> > > > > > chamber vs too small a chamber?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > John, this issue is seen on all saxes from bass to sopranino.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > First, the overtones lay in the sax and mouthpiece differently in the
> > > > > > low and upper register. The low register tunes by the volume in the
> > > > > > mouthpiece... that is, all volume past the end of the neck pipe. So this
> > > > > > chamber volume also includes some of the mouthpiece's bore.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But the upper register tunes more by length past the end of the neck
> > > > > > pipe.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As you mentioned, a too large chamber mouthpiece requires it to be
> > > > > > pushed very far onto the neck cork, which gets the volume past the end of
> > > > > > the neck correct (equal to the volume of the missing cone) to get the low
> > > > > > register in tune. But now the mouthpiece is "short" on the neck. The
> > > > > > instrument plays well in the low register, and on up into the midrange, but
> > > > > > as you approach high C, and into the palm keys, these notes become
> > > > > > progressively sharper.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > One "large chamber" bass sax mouthpiece we tried to use was more than a
> > > > > > semitone sharp on palm D. It could not be "lipped down" into tune.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But what happens when you go the other way, too small chamber? We've all
> > > > > > seen the guy with the peashooter special, nice bright, edgy tone, but the
> > > > > > poor guy's sax is designed wrong, he says, they made his neck too short. He
> > > > > > may even come into your shop wanting some more brass tubing soldered to the
> > > > > > end of the neck. His mouthpiece is about to fall off the end of the neck
> > > > > > cork.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And this setup might work to an extent, as some player's tendency to
> > > > > > "bite" or increase embouchure pressure as they play higher somewhat
> > > > > > compensates for the natural tendency of this setup to become flat in the
> > > > > > upper register due to the "too long" mouthpiece. He has great difficulty
> > > > > > getting the palm key notes in tune, and bites through his lower lip trying
> > > > > > to lip up.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But his intonation is all over the place in both registers.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And like Goldilocks, the "just right" medium chamber volume gets the job
> > > > > > done, suddenly the instrument plays well in tune in both registers, on up
> > > > > > into the palm keys, with very little "favoring" of any notes.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > A mistaken concept. A bigger chamber is not louder or more powerful. It
> > > > > > does diminish the strength of the upper overtones in comparison to the
> > > > > > fundamental and 2nd overtone (which is usually equal or stronger than the
> > > > > > fundamental in all saxes!!!), so the tone is darker. A large chamber does
> > > > > > not give more volume or more "powerful" tone.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Here's an interesting fact... as you play from ppp to fff, there is very
> > > > > > little change in the strength of the fundamental and 2nd overtone. What
> > > > > > increases is the strength and number of the higher overtones. That's where
> > > > > > most all of the volume increase comes from.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The small chamber does increase the strength of the higher overtones,
> > > > > > resulting in a "brighter" tone. So it actually sounds "louder". It is also
> > > > > > difficult to sound softer with this setup.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You can still have good edge and upper overtones with a medium chamber
> > > > > > size by having a short, high baffle. It is that first 1/4" after the tip
> > > > > > rail that makes most of the difference. Or take that edgy tone right off by
> > > > > > filing down the baffle just being the tip rail.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Paul C.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ****
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > >
> >
>

Regarding the Conn Mouthpiece Museum, down the page to the Conn Comets.

The Comet was designed and manufactured by Runyon Products for the Conn company.  They were offered in the two, at that time, standard Runyon colors, black and ivory, and a third color, transparent amber.  That was Conn's idea, to have them match the color of the gold lacquer on their saxes.

One photo refers to the similarity of the Comet to the Runyon 22.  The two Runyons shown are not Runyon Model 22's, but rather, Comets with the Runyon logo.

More to the relationship of these two companies...

The Conn Precision, not shown on that site, was in fact a Runyon Model 22, with a different shank.  The shank, body, bore core, chamber core dies are all separate pieces, and Runyon made a number of interchangeable differently shaped shanks to change the appearance of that model.

The Runyon 22, in an ivory color, was also played by Charlie Parker, and is visible in many photos.

Because the 22 has a good tone, easy response, and excellent intonation on most all instruments, it was widely used as a student mouthpiece.  It was sold for use by instrument companies as the King, Conn Precision, and many more.  Only the shank die and logo stamps differ.

The 22 is a larger "standard size" diameter and shape, like a Selmer or Brihart.  The Comet is a more "slimline" design, and is noticeably smaller diameter.

While the Conn Comet appears to be quite similar to the Runyon Model 88, where the 88 lacks the "fluting" on the shank, the chambers are different.  These two models do play and sound quite similar, however, so if looking for that tone, the 88 is a good choice.

I still have some Comet style alto and tenor mouthpieces here, but with the Runyon logo.

Paul

This html message parsed with html2text ---------------------------Keith: It is most likely spyware issues bogging down your response time.
Spyware Doctor from [www.pctools.com](http://www.pctools.com) has worked the
best for me and it will debug the ol' PC. Steve - RESPECT DUE. \\---
kwbradbury@yahoo.com wrote: From: Keith Bradbury  To:
"MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com"  Subject: Re: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Mouthpiece
Museum crashing browsers Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2012 08:34:09 -0800 (PST) I'm using
IE8 on the PCs. But I had a several files/programs open too so it may be a
memory issue. If I do get in/out of the MM site, my speed is often so slow I
need to reboot anyway. Like my memory is bogged down. **From:** Morgan
**To:** MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com **Sent:** Sunday, January 1, 2012 7:44
AM **Subject:** Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Mouthpiece Museum crashing browsers It
is 100% a problem with the coding. It's not that the images are large
(although they are), but the way something is implemented that causes problems
for some older browsers. It's something like: IE7 and older webkit browsers
can't handle one of the javascripts properly, and since all the scripts are at
the top of the page it crashes the whole thing (or NO browsers can interpret
the buggy script, and Keith's and Toby's browser versions are just the ones
that fault most inelegantly). Upgrade to the most recent stable version of
your browser should help, the site works for me under chrome, safari, firefox,
IE9, IE8, all on Windows. Morgan \\--- In
[MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com](mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com),
kymarto123@... wrote: > > But it crashes my Mac iPhone. It's a problem with
the coding, not the > hardware. > > Sent from my sometimes-crashing Mac
iPhone. > > \\--- Steve Goodson  wrote: > > I have no problems on my I Mac,
Macbook Pro, or I Pad....This sort of > problem is virtually unheard of on
Macs....of course, not everyone wants to > hear this > > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > > STEVE GOODSON > > Saxophone Guru and Visionary > > New Orleans > >
[www.nationofmusic.com](http://www.nationofmusic.com/) > > > > > > > > On Dec
31, 2011, at 5:21 PM, kymarto123@... wrote: > > > > > On my IPhone 4s it often
crashes Safari, sending me back to the home > screen. No problems on Firefox
on Win 7. > > > \\--- dan torosian  wrote: > > > > On a PC, Windows XP,
Firefox - no problems here. > > > > > > > > DT > > > > > > > > On Sat, Dec 31,
2011 at 3:09 PM, Keith Bradbury wrote: > > > > > > > > > ** > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > My PCs often locks up when visiting the Mouthpiece Museum site.
Not > a > > > > > problem on my new iPad2. Anyone else have this problem? Any
> solutions > > > > > for the PCs? > > > > > > > > > > *From:* MartinMods  > >
> > > *To:* >
[MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com](mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com) > >
> > > *Sent:* Friday, December 30, 2011 9:54 PM > > > > > *Subject:* Re:
[MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces > > > > > ** > > > > > > >
> > > This design used by Conn - > > > > >
http://www.mouthpiecemuseum.com/MouthpieceMuseum/Conn.html - > patented in > >
> > > the '20's, and now in the public domain, enables easy and accurate > > >
> > adjustment of the volume/frequency relationship by the player, which >
would > > > > > solve all kinds of problems if the player knew how to use it.
> Obviously, > > > > > they didn't back then, probably using it like a neck
micro-tuner. > > > > > > > > > > I make a custom version of this design on
special order, with > instructions > > > > > on how to use it effectively. > >
> > > > > > > > \\--- On *Sat, 12/31/11, John * wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > From: John  > > > > > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto
mouthpieces > > > > > To: >
[MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com](mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com) > >
> > > Date: Saturday, December 31, 2011, 1:03 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Thanks for this explanation Paul. Well done. > > > > > I wonder has anyone
created a variable chamber mouthpiece much like > > > > > Strathon did with
the baffle? Not sure how useful it would be but > just > > > > > curious. > >
> > > > > > > > \\--- In >
[MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com](mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com), >
"tenorman1952"  > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> \\--- In >
[MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com](mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com), >
"John"  wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If overly large chambers in alto
mouthpieces cause intonation > issues > > > > > what of the Meyer small
chamber mouthpieces? Is this the optimum > size > > > > > chamber or is it too
small creating other pitch issues? What is the > general > > > > > concept
here? If the chamber is very large and we have to push in > all the > > > > >
way, making the total instrument length short what is the result vs > playing
> > > > > mouthpieces that you have to pull out to where they are wobbling at
> the end > > > > > of the neck? Succinctly, what are the separate tuning
issues of too > large a > > > > > chamber vs too small a chamber? > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > John, this issue is seen on all saxes from bass to
sopranino. > > > > > > > > > > > > First, the overtones lay in the sax and
mouthpiece differently in > the > > > > > low and upper register. The low
register tunes by the volume in the > > > > > mouthpiece... that is, all
volume past the end of the neck pipe. So > this > > > > > chamber volume also
includes some of the mouthpiece's bore. > > > > > > > > > > > > But the upper
register tunes more by length past the end of the > neck > > > > > pipe. > > >
> > > > > > > > > As you mentioned, a too large chamber mouthpiece requires it
to be > > > > > pushed very far onto the neck cork, which gets the volume past
the > end of > > > > > the neck correct (equal to the volume of the missing
cone) to get > the low > > > > > register in tune. But now the mouthpiece is
"short" on the neck. The > > > > > instrument plays well in the low register,
and on up into the > midrange, but > > > > > as you approach high C, and into
the palm keys, these notes become > > > > > progressively sharper. > > > > > >
> > > > > > One "large chamber" bass sax mouthpiece we tried to use was more >
than a > > > > > semitone sharp on palm D. It could not be "lipped down" into
tune. > > > > > > > > > > > > But what happens when you go the other way, too
small chamber? > We've all > > > > > seen the guy with the peashooter special,
nice bright, edgy tone, > but the > > > > > poor guy's sax is designed wrong,
he says, they made his neck too > short. He > > > > > may even come into your
shop wanting some more brass tubing soldered > to the > > > > > end of the
neck. His mouthpiece is about to fall off the end of the > neck > > > > >
cork. > > > > > > > > > > > > And this setup might work to an extent, as some
player's tendency > to > > > > > "bite" or increase embouchure pressure as
they play higher somewhat > > > > > compensates for the natural tendency of
this setup to become flat in > the > > > > > upper register due to the "too
long" mouthpiece. He has great > difficulty > > > > > getting the palm key
notes in tune, and bites through his lower lip > trying > > > > > to lip up. >
> > > > > > > > > > > But his intonation is all over the place in both
registers. > > > > > > > > > > > > And like Goldilocks, the "just right"
medium chamber volume gets > the job > > > > > done, suddenly the instrument
plays well in tune in both registers, > on up > > > > > into the palm keys,
with very little "favoring" of any notes. > > > > > > > > > > > > A mistaken
concept. A bigger chamber is not louder or more > powerful. It > > > > > does
diminish the strength of the upper overtones in comparison to > the > > > > >
fundamental and 2nd overtone (which is usually equal or stronger > than the >
> > > > fundamental in all saxes!!!), so the tone is darker. A large chamber >
does > > > > > not give more volume or more "powerful" tone. > > > > > > > > >
> > > Here's an interesting fact... as you play from ppp to fff, there > is
very > > > > > little change in the strength of the fundamental and 2nd
overtone. > What > > > > > increases is the strength and number of the higher
overtones. That's > where > > > > > most all of the volume increase comes
from. > > > > > > > > > > > > The small chamber does increase the strength of
the higher > overtones, > > > > > resulting in a "brighter" tone. So it
actually sounds "louder". It > is also > > > > > difficult to sound softer
with this setup. > > > > > > > > > > > > You can still have good edge and
upper overtones with a medium > chamber > > > > > size by having a short, high
baffle. It is that first 1/4" after the > tip > > > > > rail that makes most
of the difference. Or take that edgy tone right > off by > > > > > filing down
the baffle just being the tip rail. > > > > > > > > > > > > Paul C. > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > **** > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *
* * Netscape. Just the Net You Need.

That's sort-of it, Toby.

Equivalent Volume varies with frequency actually, a subject we debated
 some time ago.  Antoine Lefebvre has some work on this in his interesting thesis, http://www.music.mcgill.ca/caml/lib/exe/fetch.php?media=publications:phd_lefebvre_2010.pdf..  

Mouthpiece volume discrepancies (physical length remaining constant) affect the scale exponentially related to truncation ratio, frequency, and harmonic mode.  That means when when the
 volume < that of the missing cone, the scale from a sharp Bb1 will get exponentially sharper up through C#2.  When we go to the second mode (second register) at D2, the pitch drops down suddenly, but will still be higher than the first mode D1. From D2, the pitch will again get exponentially sharper as we go up the scale.

If mouthpiece
 volume is > that of the missing cone, we have the inverse effect.  From a flat Bb1 the scale will get increasingly flatter up through C#2.   When we go to the second mode (second register) at D2, the pitch raises suddenly, but will still be flatter than the first mode D1. From D2,
 the pitch will again get exponentially flatter as we go up the scale, until around the palm keys, where it starts to get sharper again, due to the weird characteristics of high frequencies and volume.  In both <> cases, the magnitude of the exponential effect is proportional to the amount of the discrepancy.   Optimal volume is approximately the same as that of the missing cone.

With volume remaining constant, changing the length of the mouthpiece chamber (the playing frequency of the mouthpiece) from the ideal, gives the scale a linear slope, proportional to the degree of change, the mode, and the truncation ratio.  Too short and from a sharp Bb1 the scale gets sharper up through C#2, though the increase is again, linear - a straight line.  At second mode D2, the pitch suddenly drops, but remains sharper than first mode D1, and increases as we go up the scale, with the same linear slope. 
 If the mouthpiece is too long we have the inverse effect.  From a flat Bb1, the scale gets flatter in a linear fashion, up through C#2.  At second mode D2, it suddenly rises, but remains flatter than first mode D1, and then gets progressively flatter as we go up the scale.  The larger the length (pitch) discrepancy, the steeper the slope.

So, both volume and length affect the pitch of the entire instrument, they both affect the short tube notes much more than the long tube notes, and there is for both, a big difference in the effect between registers.  Volume has an exponential curve and length's is linear.  How can we possibly get an even scale then?

Conveniently, within a certain range of discrepancy, the shapes of the overlapping volume and length effects are almost identical, so a slight + discrepancy in volume can be canceled out by a slight inverse  - discrepancy in length.  Getting a "meticulous" balance between the two, at the player's point of embouchure equilibrium = mouthpiece magic.







,
 All we need to be aware of when working with mouthpieces is that 

--- On Sun, 1/1/12, kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...> wrote:

From: kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...>
Subject: Re:[MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, January 1, 2012, 3:29 PM








 



  


    
      
      
      Paul did the experiment well but it is also to some extent the shape of the chamber that matters, because the upper register tunes not exactly by length, but by the Helmholtz resonance frequency of the mpc at the neck opening. This does have a correlation with length, but since the mpc is not a true cylinder it is only approximate. 



Basically speaking the overall horn tunes by mpc effective volume, but the registers react differently to volume errors. Too small a volume will widen the octaves; too large will narrow them. This can be roughly understood by realizing that the octave wavelength is half that of the fundamental, but "length-like" errors based on a volume mismatch at the top of the horn remain constant. 



This all has to do with trying to mimic not only so much the volume of the missing conic apex, but its impedance structure: the more closely you manage this the more harmonic the partials will be. The first-order impedance match is based on volume; the second-order match is based on the resonant frequency of that volume, which normally will only significantly start affecting tuning from around A2 upwards. Matches for impedance peaks above that are basically impossible, because the mpc shape is just too far from a cone, but luckily the horn does not play high enough where that becomes an issue.



It is also worth realizing that the mpc effective volume is strongly affected by tip opening, reed strength and lip damping by the player, so mpc volume--and hence intonation and octave relationships are dynamically and continuously being determined in real time by the player via embouchure adjustment.



Of course it is better if the various factors in play are well lined-up to avoid a lot of extra work, but it is not like there is a magic point where the stars all line up perfectly and everything just falls into place. As an analogy: no matter how good the wheel alignment on your car--you still have to steer to keep it on the road.



If you have a fairly large chamber mpc you can use some chewing gum or putty to temporarily change the size and shape of the chamber to get a experiential feel for how this all works, and just how much difference it does or does not make.



<john_w_price33@...> wrote:

> Thanks for this explanation Paul.  Well done. 

>  I wonder has anyone created a variable chamber mouthpiece much like Strathon did with the baffle?  Not sure how useful it would be but just curious.   

> 

> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "tenorman1952" <tenorman1952@...> wrote:

> >

> > 

> > 

> > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "John" <john_w_price33@> wrote:

> > >

> > > If overly large chambers in alto mouthpieces cause intonation issues what of the Meyer small chamber mouthpieces?  Is this the optimum size chamber or is it too small creating other pitch issues?    What is the general concept here?  If the chamber is very large and we have to push in all the way, making the total instrument length short what is the result vs playing mouthpieces that you have to pull out to where they are wobbling at the end of the neck?    Succinctly,  what are the separate tuning issues of too large a chamber vs too small a chamber?

> > >

> > 

> > John, this issue is seen on all saxes from bass to sopranino.

> > 

> > First, the overtones lay in the sax and mouthpiece differently in the low and upper register.  The low register tunes by the volume in the mouthpiece... that is, all volume past the end of the neck pipe.  So this chamber volume also includes some of the mouthpiece's bore.

> > 

> > But the upper register tunes more by length past the end of the neck pipe.

> > 

> > As you mentioned, a too large chamber mouthpiece requires it to be pushed very far onto the neck cork, which gets the volume past the end of the neck correct (equal to the volume of the missing cone) to get the low register in tune.  But now the mouthpiece is "short" on the neck.  The instrument plays well in the low register, and on up into the midrange, but as you approach high C, and into the palm keys, these notes become progressively sharper.  

> > 

> > One "large chamber" bass sax mouthpiece we tried to use was more than a semitone sharp on palm D.  It could not be "lipped down" into tune.

> > 

> > But what happens when you go the other way, too small chamber?  We've all seen the guy with the peashooter special, nice bright, edgy tone, but the poor guy's sax is designed wrong, he says, they made his neck too short.  He may even come into your shop wanting some more brass tubing soldered to the end of the neck.  His mouthpiece is about to fall off the end of the neck cork.  

> > 

> > And this setup might work to an extent, as some player's tendency to "bite" or increase embouchure pressure as they play higher somewhat compensates for the natural tendency of this setup to become flat in the upper register due to the "too long" mouthpiece.  He has great difficulty getting the palm key notes in tune, and bites through his lower lip trying to lip up.

> > 

> > But his intonation is all over the place in both registers.

> > 

> > And like Goldilocks, the "just right" medium chamber volume gets the job done, suddenly the instrument plays well in tune in both registers, on up into the palm keys, with very little "favoring" of any notes.

> > 

> > A mistaken concept.  A bigger chamber is not louder or more powerful.  It does diminish the strength of the upper overtones in comparison to the fundamental and 2nd overtone (which is usually equal or stronger than the fundamental in all saxes!!!), so the tone is darker.  A large chamber does not give more volume or more "powerful" tone.

> > 

> > Here's an interesting fact... as you play from ppp to fff, there is very little change in the strength of the fundamental and 2nd overtone.  What increases is the strength and number of the higher overtones.  That's where most all of the volume increase comes from.

> > 

> > The small chamber does increase the strength of the higher overtones, resulting in a "brighter" tone.  So it actually sounds "louder".  It is also difficult to sound softer with this setup.

> > 

> > You can still have good edge and upper overtones with a medium chamber size by having a short, high baffle.  It is that first 1/4" after the tip rail that makes most of the difference.  Or take that edgy tone right off by filing down the baffle just being the tip rail.

> > 

> > Paul C.

> >

> 

> 

> 



    
     

    
    






  

> From: <gregwier@...>
> Reply-To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2012 09:44:39 -0800
> To: <MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Mouthpiece Museum crashing browsers

> 
> Keith:
> 
> It is most likely spyware issues bogging down your response time.  Spyware
> Doctor from www.pctools.com <http://www.pctools.com>  has worked the best for
> me and it will debug the ol' PC.
> 
> Steve - RESPECT DUE.

Some additional info courtesy of my computer-savvy son.

Inasmuch as every few weeks it seems that someone also gets infected or
phished in someway (when everyone in the newsgroup gets an email with a link
to an alleged online pharmacy, for example), here's more info.

Free online antivirus scanners include:

 - ESET online scanner (works only in Internet Explorer):
http://www.eset.com/us/online-scanner/

 - F-Secure online scanner (needs Java):
 http://www.f-secure.com/en/web/labs_global/removal/online-scanner
 
 - Trend Micro Housecall (requires a file to be downloaded and run):
 http://housecall.trendmicro.com/

None of these is perfect; a well-designed virus can evade detection by any
or all of them. 

Another approach is to use the Avira Antivir rescue CD:
http://www.avira.com/en/support-download-avira-antivir-rescue-system

This is a "live" CD that contains its own operating system in addition to
the antivirus. Since the infection is not active on the CD's operating
system, the antivirus can detect and remove infections on a Windows
installation very effectively and with complete impunity.

To burn the CD (if you have a CD burner), just download the EXE version
and double-click on it; it will burn the CD automatically. If for some
reason that doesn't work, you can download the ISO version; this is a CD
image, which must be burned "raw" to the CD using dedicated burning
software.

Once the CD is burned, the computer must be booted from it. Most PCs have
a key that brings up a boot device selection menu; failing that, the boot
drive can be selected in the BIOS setup screen. When boot has completed,
the rescue CD should present you with a simple graphical interface, from
which you can scan your Windows installation.

Barry

Wow, thanks for the great info.

So the white streamlined piece sold with the King altos were manufactured by Runyon and essentially the same as the 22 (and Comet). Am I understanding that correctly?

Happy New Year.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

-----Original Message-----
From: "tenorman1952" 
Sender: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sun, 01 Jan 2012 17:18:38 
To: 
Reply-To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Mouthpiece Museum


Regarding the Conn Mouthpiece Museum, down the page to the Conn Comets.

The Comet was designed and manufactured by Runyon Products for the Conn company.  They were offered in the two, at that time, standard Runyon colors, black and ivory, and a third color, transparent amber.  That was Conn's idea, to have them match the color of the gold lacquer on their saxes.

One photo refers to the similarity of the Comet to the Runyon 22.  The two Runyons shown are not Runyon Model 22's, but rather, Comets with the Runyon logo.

More to the relationship of these two companies...

The Conn Precision, not shown on that site, was in fact a Runyon Model 22, with a different shank.  The shank, body, bore core, chamber core dies are all separate pieces, and Runyon made a number of interchangeable differently shaped shanks to change the appearance of that model.

The Runyon 22, in an ivory color, was also played by Charlie Parker, and is visible in many photos.

Because the 22 has a good tone, easy response, and excellent intonation on most all instruments, it was widely used as a student mouthpiece.  It was sold for use by instrument companies as the King, Conn Precision, and many more.  Only the shank die and logo stamps differ.

The 22 is a larger "standard size" diameter and shape, like a Selmer or Brihart.  The Comet is a more "slimline" design, and is noticeably smaller diameter.

While the Conn Comet appears to be quite similar to the Runyon Model 88, where the 88 lacks the "fluting" on the shank, the chambers are different.  These two models do play and sound quite similar, however, so if looking for that tone, the 88 is a good choice.

I still have some Comet style alto and tenor mouthpieces here, but with the Runyon logo.

Paul

It would be great to see some evidence.

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
>
> That's sort-of it, Toby.
> 
> Equivalent Volume varies with frequency actually, a subject we debated
>  some time ago.  Antoine Lefebvre has some work on this in his interesting thesis, http://www.music.mcgill.ca/caml/lib/exe/fetch.php?media=publications:phd_lefebvre_2010.pdf..  
> 
> Mouthpiece volume discrepancies (physical length remaining constant) affect the scale exponentially related to truncation ratio, frequency, and harmonic mode.  That means when when the
>  volume < that of the missing cone, the scale from a sharp Bb1 will get exponentially sharper up through C#2.  When we go to the second mode (second register) at D2, the pitch drops down suddenly, but will still be higher than the first mode D1. From D2, the pitch will again get exponentially sharper as we go up the scale.
> 
> If mouthpiece
>  volume is > that of the missing cone, we have the inverse effect.  From a flat Bb1 the scale will get increasingly flatter up through C#2.   When we go to the second mode (second register) at D2, the pitch raises suddenly, but will still be flatter than the first mode D1. From D2,
>  the pitch will again get exponentially flatter as we go up the scale, until around the palm keys, where it starts to get sharper again, due to the weird characteristics of high frequencies and volume.  In both <> cases, the magnitude of the exponential effect is proportional to the amount of the discrepancy.   Optimal volume is approximately the same as that of the missing cone.
> 
> With volume remaining constant, changing the length of the mouthpiece chamber (the playing frequency of the mouthpiece) from the ideal, gives the scale a linear slope, proportional to the degree of change, the mode, and the truncation ratio.  Too short and from a sharp Bb1 the scale gets sharper up through C#2, though the increase is again, linear - a straight line.  At second mode D2, the pitch suddenly drops, but remains sharper than first mode D1, and increases as we go up the scale, with the same linear slope. 
>  If the mouthpiece is too long we have the inverse effect.  From a flat Bb1, the scale gets flatter in a linear fashion, up through C#2.  At second mode D2, it suddenly rises, but remains flatter than first mode D1, and then gets progressively flatter as we go up the scale.  The larger the length (pitch) discrepancy, the steeper the slope.
> 
> So, both volume and length affect the pitch of the entire instrument, they both affect the short tube notes much more than the long tube notes, and there is for both, a big difference in the effect between registers.  Volume has an exponential curve and length's is linear.  How can we possibly get an even scale then?
> 
> Conveniently, within a certain range of discrepancy, the shapes of the overlapping volume and length effects are almost identical, so a slight + discrepancy in volume can be canceled out by a slight inverse  - discrepancy in length.  Getting a "meticulous" balance between the two, at the player's point of embouchure equilibrium = mouthpiece magic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ,
>  All we need to be aware of when working with mouthpieces is that 
> 
> --- On Sun, 1/1/12, kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...> wrote:
> 
> From: kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...>
> Subject: Re:[MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Sunday, January 1, 2012, 3:29 PM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
>   
> 
> 
>     
>       
>       
>       Paul did the experiment well but it is also to some extent the shape of the chamber that matters, because the upper register tunes not exactly by length, but by the Helmholtz resonance frequency of the mpc at the neck opening. This does have a correlation with length, but since the mpc is not a true cylinder it is only approximate. 
> 
> 
> 
> Basically speaking the overall horn tunes by mpc effective volume, but the registers react differently to volume errors. Too small a volume will widen the octaves; too large will narrow them. This can be roughly understood by realizing that the octave wavelength is half that of the fundamental, but "length-like" errors based on a volume mismatch at the top of the horn remain constant. 
> 
> 
> 
> This all has to do with trying to mimic not only so much the volume of the missing conic apex, but its impedance structure: the more closely you manage this the more harmonic the partials will be. The first-order impedance match is based on volume; the second-order match is based on the resonant frequency of that volume, which normally will only significantly start affecting tuning from around A2 upwards. Matches for impedance peaks above that are basically impossible, because the mpc shape is just too far from a cone, but luckily the horn does not play high enough where that becomes an issue.
> 
> 
> 
> It is also worth realizing that the mpc effective volume is strongly affected by tip opening, reed strength and lip damping by the player, so mpc volume--and hence intonation and octave relationships are dynamically and continuously being determined in real time by the player via embouchure adjustment.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it is better if the various factors in play are well lined-up to avoid a lot of extra work, but it is not like there is a magic point where the stars all line up perfectly and everything just falls into place. As an analogy: no matter how good the wheel alignment on your car--you still have to steer to keep it on the road.
> 
> 
> 
> If you have a fairly large chamber mpc you can use some chewing gum or putty to temporarily change the size and shape of the chamber to get a experiential feel for how this all works, and just how much difference it does or does not make.
> 
> 
> 
> <john_w_price33@...> wrote:
> 
> > Thanks for this explanation Paul.  Well done. 
> 
> >  I wonder has anyone created a variable chamber mouthpiece much like Strathon did with the baffle?  Not sure how useful it would be but just curious.   
> 
> > 
> 
> > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "tenorman1952" <tenorman1952@> wrote:
> 
> > >
> 
> > > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "John" <john_w_price33@> wrote:
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > If overly large chambers in alto mouthpieces cause intonation issues what of the Meyer small chamber mouthpieces?  Is this the optimum size chamber or is it too small creating other pitch issues?    What is the general concept here?  If the chamber is very large and we have to push in all the way, making the total instrument length short what is the result vs playing mouthpieces that you have to pull out to where they are wobbling at the end of the neck?    Succinctly,  what are the separate tuning issues of too large a chamber vs too small a chamber?
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > 
> 
> > > John, this issue is seen on all saxes from bass to sopranino.
> 
> > > 
> 
> > > First, the overtones lay in the sax and mouthpiece differently in the low and upper register.  The low register tunes by the volume in the mouthpiece... that is, all volume past the end of the neck pipe.  So this chamber volume also includes some of the mouthpiece's bore.
> 
> > > 
> 
> > > But the upper register tunes more by length past the end of the neck pipe.
> 
> > > 
> 
> > > As you mentioned, a too large chamber mouthpiece requires it to be pushed very far onto the neck cork, which gets the volume past the end of the neck correct (equal to the volume of the missing cone) to get the low register in tune.  But now the mouthpiece is "short" on the neck.  The instrument plays well in the low register, and on up into the midrange, but as you approach high C, and into the palm keys, these notes become progressively sharper.  
> 
> > > 
> 
> > > One "large chamber" bass sax mouthpiece we tried to use was more than a semitone sharp on palm D.  It could not be "lipped down" into tune.
> 
> > > 
> 
> > > But what happens when you go the other way, too small chamber?  We've all seen the guy with the peashooter special, nice bright, edgy tone, but the poor guy's sax is designed wrong, he says, they made his neck too short.  He may even come into your shop wanting some more brass tubing soldered to the end of the neck.  His mouthpiece is about to fall off the end of the neck cork.  
> 
> > > 
> 
> > > And this setup might work to an extent, as some player's tendency to "bite" or increase embouchure pressure as they play higher somewhat compensates for the natural tendency of this setup to become flat in the upper register due to the "too long" mouthpiece.  He has great difficulty getting the palm key notes in tune, and bites through his lower lip trying to lip up.
> 
> > > 
> 
> > > But his intonation is all over the place in both registers.
> 
> > > 
> 
> > > And like Goldilocks, the "just right" medium chamber volume gets the job done, suddenly the instrument plays well in tune in both registers, on up into the palm keys, with very little "favoring" of any notes.
> 
> > > 
> 
> > > A mistaken concept.  A bigger chamber is not louder or more powerful.  It does diminish the strength of the upper overtones in comparison to the fundamental and 2nd overtone (which is usually equal or stronger than the fundamental in all saxes!!!), so the tone is darker.  A large chamber does not give more volume or more "powerful" tone.
> 
> > > 
> 
> > > Here's an interesting fact... as you play from ppp to fff, there is very little change in the strength of the fundamental and 2nd overtone.  What increases is the strength and number of the higher overtones.  That's where most all of the volume increase comes from.
> 
> > > 
> 
> > > The small chamber does increase the strength of the higher overtones, resulting in a "brighter" tone.  So it actually sounds "louder".  It is also difficult to sound softer with this setup.
> 
> > > 
> 
> > > You can still have good edge and upper overtones with a medium chamber size by having a short, high baffle.  It is that first 1/4" after the tip rail that makes most of the difference.  Or take that edgy tone right off by filing down the baffle just being the tip rail.
> 
> > > 
> 
> > > Paul C.
> 
> > >
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> >
>

Have you done a virus and malware scan recently, and is your anti-virus software up to date? Sounds like possibly a malware problem. Also, have you defragged your hard drive? I don’t have any problems with the site.

Tony F.

 

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Keith Bradbury
Sent: Monday, 2 January 2012 3:34 AM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Mouthpiece Museum crashing browsers

 

  

I'm using IE8 on the PCs.  But I had a several files/programs open too so it may be a memory issue.  If I do get in/out of the MM site, my speed is often so slow I need to reboot anyway.  Like my memory is bogged down. 

 

Small matter.  Nederveen provides formulas and plots a graph of volume deviation effects in his book as do others.  Calculating the effect of changing the physical length of the air column for any fingering/mode is simple and straight forward, though here we must realize that we are dealing with 4 transits of the mouthpiece cavity, due to the properties of truncated conical air columns and the resonance of the mouthpiece, even though there are only 2 transits of the body tube.  These are all basic established characteristics of conical air columns.   I'll be posting graphs and further elaboration on my website in the next few days.  

Once you see the volume curve superimposed over the length slope, and move them this way and that, you see all the typical intonation profiles of various mouthpiece problem scenarios.  That was kind of thrilling for my visually oriented mind center, even though I've been hearing/experiencing these profiles distinctly for 45 years.  

Provided you have attained a certain embouchure/voicing  proficiency, you only have to experience moving a mouthpiece from discrepancy to balance once, for it to become perfectly clear to you what is going on - like riding a bike.  Without that proficiency, you will keep falling off the bike and never have the experience.  It's worth the pain of practicing.


--- On Sun, 1/1/12, crunchie_nuts <andrewhdonaldson@...> wrote:

From: crunchie_nuts <andrewhdonaldson@...>
Subject: Re:[MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, January 1, 2012, 9:05 PM








 



  


    
      
      
      It would be great to see some evidence.



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

>

> That's sort-of it, Toby.

> 

> Equivalent Volume varies with frequency actually, a subject we debated

>  some time ago.  Antoine Lefebvre has some work on this in his interesting thesis, http://www.music.mcgill.ca/caml/lib/exe/fetch.php?media=publications:phd_lefebvre_2010.pdf..  

> 

> Mouthpiece volume discrepancies (physical length remaining constant) affect the scale exponentially related to truncation ratio, frequency, and harmonic mode.  That means when when the

>  volume < that of the missing cone, the scale from a sharp Bb1 will get exponentially sharper up through C#2.  When we go to the second mode (second register) at D2, the pitch drops down suddenly, but will still be higher than the first mode D1. From D2, the pitch will again get exponentially sharper as we go up the scale.

> 

> If mouthpiece

>  volume is > that of the missing cone, we have the inverse effect.  From a flat Bb1 the scale will get increasingly flatter up through C#2.   When we go to the second mode (second register) at D2, the pitch raises suddenly, but will still be flatter than the first mode D1. From D2,

>  the pitch will again get exponentially flatter as we go up the scale, until around the palm keys, where it starts to get sharper again, due to the weird characteristics of high frequencies and volume.  In both <> cases, the magnitude of the exponential effect is proportional to the amount of the discrepancy.   Optimal volume is approximately the same as that of the missing cone.

> 

> With volume remaining constant, changing the length of the mouthpiece chamber (the playing frequency of the mouthpiece) from the ideal, gives the scale a linear slope, proportional to the degree of change, the mode, and the truncation ratio.  Too short and from a sharp Bb1 the scale gets sharper up through C#2, though the increase is again, linear - a straight line.  At second mode D2, the pitch suddenly drops, but remains sharper than first mode D1, and increases as we go up the scale, with the same linear slope. 

>  If the mouthpiece is too long we have the inverse effect.  From a flat Bb1, the scale gets flatter in a linear fashion, up through C#2.  At second mode D2, it suddenly rises, but remains flatter than first mode D1, and then gets progressively flatter as we go up the scale.  The larger the length (pitch) discrepancy, the steeper the slope.

> 

> So, both volume and length affect the pitch of the entire instrument, they both affect the short tube notes much more than the long tube notes, and there is for both, a big difference in the effect between registers.  Volume has an exponential curve and length's is linear.  How can we possibly get an even scale then?

> 

> Conveniently, within a certain range of discrepancy, the shapes of the overlapping volume and length effects are almost identical, so a slight + discrepancy in volume can be canceled out by a slight inverse  - discrepancy in length.  Getting a "meticulous" balance between the two, at the player's point of embouchure equilibrium = mouthpiece magic.

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> ,

>  All we need to be aware of when working with mouthpieces is that 

> 

> --- On Sun, 1/1/12, kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...> wrote:

> 

> From: kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...>

> Subject: Re:[MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces

> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com

> Date: Sunday, January 1, 2012, 3:29 PM

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

>  

> 

> 

> 

>   

> 

> 

>     

>       

>       

>       Paul did the experiment well but it is also to some extent the shape of the chamber that matters, because the upper register tunes not exactly by length, but by the Helmholtz resonance frequency of the mpc at the neck opening. This does have a correlation with length, but since the mpc is not a true cylinder it is only approximate. 

> 

> 

> 

> Basically speaking the overall horn tunes by mpc effective volume, but the registers react differently to volume errors. Too small a volume will widen the octaves; too large will narrow them. This can be roughly understood by realizing that the octave wavelength is half that of the fundamental, but "length-like" errors based on a volume mismatch at the top of the horn remain constant. 

> 

> 

> 

> This all has to do with trying to mimic not only so much the volume of the missing conic apex, but its impedance structure: the more closely you manage this the more harmonic the partials will be. The first-order impedance match is based on volume; the second-order match is based on the resonant frequency of that volume, which normally will only significantly start affecting tuning from around A2 upwards. Matches for impedance peaks above that are basically impossible, because the mpc shape is just too far from a cone, but luckily the horn does not play high enough where that becomes an issue.

> 

> 

> 

> It is also worth realizing that the mpc effective volume is strongly affected by tip opening, reed strength and lip damping by the player, so mpc volume--and hence intonation and octave relationships are dynamically and continuously being determined in real time by the player via embouchure adjustment.

> 

> 

> 

> Of course it is better if the various factors in play are well lined-up to avoid a lot of extra work, but it is not like there is a magic point where the stars all line up perfectly and everything just falls into place. As an analogy: no matter how good the wheel alignment on your car--you still have to steer to keep it on the road.

> 

> 

> 

> If you have a fairly large chamber mpc you can use some chewing gum or putty to temporarily change the size and shape of the chamber to get a experiential feel for how this all works, and just how much difference it does or does not make.

> 

> 

> 

> <john_w_price33@...> wrote:

> 

> > Thanks for this explanation Paul.  Well done. 

> 

> >  I wonder has anyone created a variable chamber mouthpiece much like Strathon did with the baffle?  Not sure how useful it would be but just curious.   

> 

> > 

> 

> > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "tenorman1952" <tenorman1952@> wrote:

> 

> > >

> 

> > > 

> 

> > > 

> 

> > > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "John" <john_w_price33@> wrote:

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > If overly large chambers in alto mouthpieces cause intonation issues what of the Meyer small chamber mouthpieces?  Is this the optimum size chamber or is it too small creating other pitch issues?    What is the general concept here?  If the chamber is very large and we have to push in all the way, making the total instrument length short what is the result vs playing mouthpieces that you have to pull out to where they are wobbling at the end of the neck?    Succinctly,  what are the separate tuning issues of too large a chamber vs too small a chamber?

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > 

> 

> > > John, this issue is seen on all saxes from bass to sopranino.

> 

> > > 

> 

> > > First, the overtones lay in the sax and mouthpiece differently in the low and upper register.  The low register tunes by the volume in the mouthpiece... that is, all volume past the end of the neck pipe.  So this chamber volume also includes some of the mouthpiece's bore.

> 

> > > 

> 

> > > But the upper register tunes more by length past the end of the neck pipe.

> 

> > > 

> 

> > > As you mentioned, a too large chamber mouthpiece requires it to be pushed very far onto the neck cork, which gets the volume past the end of the neck correct (equal to the volume of the missing cone) to get the low register in tune.  But now the mouthpiece is "short" on the neck.  The instrument plays well in the low register, and on up into the midrange, but as you approach high C, and into the palm keys, these notes become progressively sharper.  

> 

> > > 

> 

> > > One "large chamber" bass sax mouthpiece we tried to use was more than a semitone sharp on palm D.  It could not be "lipped down" into tune.

> 

> > > 

> 

> > > But what happens when you go the other way, too small chamber?  We've all seen the guy with the peashooter special, nice bright, edgy tone, but the poor guy's sax is designed wrong, he says, they made his neck too short.  He may even come into your shop wanting some more brass tubing soldered to the end of the neck.  His mouthpiece is about to fall off the end of the neck cork.  

> 

> > > 

> 

> > > And this setup might work to an extent, as some player's tendency to "bite" or increase embouchure pressure as they play higher somewhat compensates for the natural tendency of this setup to become flat in the upper register due to the "too long" mouthpiece.  He has great difficulty getting the palm key notes in tune, and bites through his lower lip trying to lip up.

> 

> > > 

> 

> > > But his intonation is all over the place in both registers.

> 

> > > 

> 

> > > And like Goldilocks, the "just right" medium chamber volume gets the job done, suddenly the instrument plays well in tune in both registers, on up into the palm keys, with very little "favoring" of any notes.

> 

> > > 

> 

> > > A mistaken concept.  A bigger chamber is not louder or more powerful.  It does diminish the strength of the upper overtones in comparison to the fundamental and 2nd overtone (which is usually equal or stronger than the fundamental in all saxes!!!), so the tone is darker.  A large chamber does not give more volume or more "powerful" tone.

> 

> > > 

> 

> > > Here's an interesting fact... as you play from ppp to fff, there is very little change in the strength of the fundamental and 2nd overtone.  What increases is the strength and number of the higher overtones.  That's where most all of the volume increase comes from.

> 

> > > 

> 

> > > The small chamber does increase the strength of the higher overtones, resulting in a "brighter" tone.  So it actually sounds "louder".  It is also difficult to sound softer with this setup.

> 

> > > 

> 

> > > You can still have good edge and upper overtones with a medium chamber size by having a short, high baffle.  It is that first 1/4" after the tip rail that makes most of the difference.  Or take that edgy tone right off by filing down the baffle just being the tip rail.

> 

> > > 

> 

> > > Paul C.

> 

> > >

> 

> > 

> 

> > 

> 

> >

>





    
     

    
    






  

To be fair, this is not the only site which crashes my iPhone browser. I find iOS 5 quite buggy.


--- Tony Fairbridge <tfairbri@...> wrote:
> Have you done a virus and malware scan recently, and is your anti-virus software up to date? Sounds like possibly a malware problem. Also, have you defragged your hard drive? I don$B!G(Bt have any problems with the site.
> 
> Tony F.
> 
>  
> 
> From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Keith Bradbury
> Sent: Monday, 2 January 2012 3:34 AM
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Mouthpiece Museum crashing browsers
> 
>  
> 
>   
> 
> I'm using IE8 on the PCs.  But I had a several files/programs open too so it may be a memory issue.  If I do get in/out of the MM site, my speed is often so slow I need to reboot anyway.  Like my memory is bogged down. 
> 
>  
> 
> 

That's an elegant explanation, but I think it misses out on the fact that the mpc Helmholtz resonant frequency only affects notes "in its neighborhood" as Benade says. Where did you get the information that the change is linear?


--- MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
> That's sort-of it, Toby.
> 
> Equivalent Volume varies with frequency actually, a subject we debated
>  some time ago.  Antoine Lefebvre has some work on this in his interesting thesis, http://www.music.mcgill.ca/caml/lib/exe/fetch.php?media=publications:phd_lefebvre_2010.pdf..  
> 
> Mouthpiece volume discrepancies (physical length remaining constant) affect the scale exponentially related to truncation ratio, frequency, and harmonic mode.  That means when when the
>  volume < that of the missing cone, the scale from a sharp Bb1 will get exponentially sharper up through C#2.  When we go to the second mode (second register) at D2, the pitch drops down suddenly, but will still be higher than the first mode D1. From D2, the pitch will again get exponentially sharper as we go up the scale.
> 
> If mouthpiece
>  volume is > that of the missing cone, we have the inverse effect.  From a flat Bb1 the scale will get increasingly flatter up through C#2.   When we go to the second mode (second register) at D2, the pitch raises suddenly, but will still be flatter than the first mode D1. From D2,
>  the pitch will again get exponentially flatter as we go up the scale, until around the palm keys, where it starts to get sharper again, due to the weird characteristics of high frequencies and volume.  In both <> cases, the magnitude of the exponential effect is proportional to the amount of the discrepancy.   Optimal volume is approximately the same as that of the missing cone.
> 
> With volume remaining constant, changing the length of the mouthpiece chamber (the playing frequency of the mouthpiece) from the ideal, gives the scale a linear slope, proportional to the degree of change, the mode, and the truncation ratio.  Too short and from a sharp Bb1 the scale gets sharper up through C#2, though the increase is again, linear - a straight line.  At second mode D2, the pitch suddenly drops, but remains sharper than first mode D1, and increases as we go up the scale, with the same linear slope. 
>  If the mouthpiece is too long we have the inverse effect.  From a flat Bb1, the scale gets flatter in a linear fashion, up through C#2.  At second mode D2, it suddenly rises, but remains flatter than first mode D1, and then gets progressively flatter as we go up the scale.  The larger the length (pitch) discrepancy, the steeper the slope.
> 
> So, both volume and length affect the pitch of the entire instrument, they both affect the short tube notes much more than the long tube notes, and there is for both, a big difference in the effect between registers.  Volume has an exponential curve and length's is linear.  How can we possibly get an even scale then?
> 
> Conveniently, within a certain range of discrepancy, the shapes of the overlapping volume and length effects are almost identical, so a slight + discrepancy in volume can be canceled out by a slight inverse  - discrepancy in length.  Getting a "meticulous" balance between the two, at the player's point of embouchure equilibrium = mouthpiece magic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ,
>  All we need to be aware of when working with mouthpieces is that 
> 
> --- On Sun, 1/1/12, kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...> wrote:
> 
> From: kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...>
> Subject: Re:[MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Sunday, January 1, 2012, 3:29 PM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
>   
> 
> 
>     
>       
>       
>       Paul did the experiment well but it is also to some extent the shape of the chamber that matters, because the upper register tunes not exactly by length, but by the Helmholtz resonance frequency of the mpc at the neck opening. This does have a correlation with length, but since the mpc is not a true cylinder it is only approximate. 
> 
> 
> 
> Basically speaking the overall horn tunes by mpc effective volume, but the registers react differently to volume errors. Too small a volume will widen the octaves; too large will narrow them. This can be roughly understood by realizing that the octave wavelength is half that of the fundamental, but "length-like" errors based on a volume mismatch at the top of the horn remain constant. 
> 
> 
> 
> This all has to do with trying to mimic not only so much the volume of the missing conic apex, but its impedance structure: the more closely you manage this the more harmonic the partials will be. The first-order impedance match is based on volume; the second-order match is based on the resonant frequency of that volume, which normally will only significantly start affecting tuning from around A2 upwards. Matches for impedance peaks above that are basically impossible, because the mpc shape is just too far from a cone, but luckily the horn does not play high enough where that becomes an issue.
> 
> 
> 
> It is also worth realizing that the mpc effective volume is strongly affected by tip opening, reed strength and lip damping by the player, so mpc volume--and hence intonation and octave relationships are dynamically and continuously being determined in real time by the player via embouchure adjustment.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it is better if the various factors in play are well lined-up to avoid a lot of extra work, but it is not like there is a magic point where the stars all line up perfectly and everything just falls into place. As an analogy: no matter how good the wheel alignment on your car--you still have to steer to keep it on the road.
> 
> 
> 
> If you have a fairly large chamber mpc you can use some chewing gum or putty to temporarily change the size and shape of the chamber to get a experiential feel for how this all works, and just how much difference it does or does not make.
> 
> 
> 
> <john_w_price33@...> wrote:
> 
> > Thanks for this explanation Paul.  Well done. 
> 
> >  I wonder has anyone created a variable chamber mouthpiece much like Strathon did with the baffle?  Not sure how useful it would be but just curious.   
> 
> > 
> 
> > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "tenorman1952" <tenorman1952@...> wrote:
> 
> > >
> 
> > > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "John" <john_w_price33@> wrote:
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > If overly large chambers in alto mouthpieces cause intonation issues what of the Meyer small chamber mouthpieces?  Is this the optimum size chamber or is it too small creating other pitch issues?    What is the general concept here?  If the chamber is very large and we have to push in all the way, making the total instrument length short what is the result vs playing mouthpieces that you have to pull out to where they are wobbling at the end of the neck?    Succinctly,  what are the separate tuning issues of too large a chamber vs too small a chamber?
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > 
> 
> > > John, this issue is seen on all saxes from bass to sopranino.
> 
> > > 
> 
> > > First, the overtones lay in the sax and mouthpiece differently in the low and upper register.  The low register tunes by the volume in the mouthpiece... that is, all volume past the end of the neck pipe.  So this chamber volume also includes some of the mouthpiece's bore.
> 
> > > 
> 
> > > But the upper register tunes more by length past the end of the neck pipe.
> 
> > > 
> 
> > > As you mentioned, a too large chamber mouthpiece requires it to be pushed very far onto the neck cork, which gets the volume past the end of the neck correct (equal to the volume of the missing cone) to get the low register in tune.  But now the mouthpiece is "short" on the neck.  The instrument plays well in the low register, and on up into the midrange, but as you approach high C, and into the palm keys, these notes become progressively sharper.  
> 
> > > 
> 
> > > One "large chamber" bass sax mouthpiece we tried to use was more than a semitone sharp on palm D.  It could not be "lipped down" into tune.
> 
> > > 
> 
> > > But what happens when you go the other way, too small chamber?  We've all seen the guy with the peashooter special, nice bright, edgy tone, but the poor guy's sax is designed wrong, he says, they made his neck too short.  He may even come into your shop wanting some more brass tubing soldered to the end of the neck.  His mouthpiece is about to fall off the end of the neck cork.  
> 
> > > 
> 
> > > And this setup might work to an extent, as some player's tendency to "bite" or increase embouchure pressure as they play higher somewhat compensates for the natural tendency of this setup to become flat in the upper register due to the "too long" mouthpiece.  He has great difficulty getting the palm key notes in tune, and bites through his lower lip trying to lip up.
> 
> > > 
> 
> > > But his intonation is all over the place in both registers.
> 
> > > 
> 
> > > And like Goldilocks, the "just right" medium chamber volume gets the job done, suddenly the instrument plays well in tune in both registers, on up into the palm keys, with very little "favoring" of any notes.
> 
> > > 
> 
> > > A mistaken concept.  A bigger chamber is not louder or more powerful.  It does diminish the strength of the upper overtones in comparison to the fundamental and 2nd overtone (which is usually equal or stronger than the fundamental in all saxes!!!), so the tone is darker.  A large chamber does not give more volume or more "powerful" tone.
> 
> > > 
> 
> > > Here's an interesting fact... as you play from ppp to fff, there is very little change in the strength of the fundamental and 2nd overtone.  What increases is the strength and number of the higher overtones.  That's where most all of the volume increase comes from.
> 
> > > 
> 
> > > The small chamber does increase the strength of the higher overtones, resulting in a "brighter" tone.  So it actually sounds "louder".  It is also difficult to sound softer with this setup.
> 
> > > 
> 
> > > You can still have good edge and upper overtones with a medium chamber size by having a short, high baffle.  It is that first 1/4" after the tip rail that makes most of the difference.  Or take that edgy tone right off by filing down the baffle just being the tip rail.
> 
> > > 
> 
> > > Paul C.
> 
> > >
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
>     
>      
> 
>     
>     
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   
> 
> 
> 
> 

Perhaps, as I didn't include the effect of the Helmholtz resonance that you are referring to at all.  It is insignificant for our purposes, in the manner that you are concerned with.

My experiments from some time ago, and calculations indicate it is linear.  You will just have to wait until I have time to post them.  Do you have information on it being otherwise?



--- On Mon, 1/2/12, kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...> wrote:

From: kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...>
Subject: Re:Re:[MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, January 2, 2012, 12:43 AM








 



  


    
      
      
      That's an elegant explanation, but I think it misses out on the fact that the mpc Helmholtz resonant frequency only affects notes "in its neighborhood" as Benade says. Where did you get the information that the change is linear?



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

> That's sort-of it, Toby.

> 

> Equivalent Volume varies with frequency actually, a subject we debated

>  some time ago.  Antoine Lefebvre has some work on this in his interesting thesis, http://www.music.mcgill.ca/caml/lib/exe/fetch.php?media=publications:phd_lefebvre_2010.pdf..  

> 

> Mouthpiece volume discrepancies (physical length remaining constant) affect the scale exponentially related to truncation ratio, frequency, and harmonic mode.  That means when when the

>  volume < that of the missing cone, the scale from a sharp Bb1 will get exponentially sharper up through C#2.  When we go to the second mode (second register) at D2, the pitch drops down suddenly, but will still be higher than the first mode D1. From D2, the pitch will again get exponentially sharper as we go up the scale.

> 

> If mouthpiece

>  volume is > that of the missing cone, we have the inverse effect.  From a flat Bb1 the scale will get increasingly flatter up through C#2.   When we go to the second mode (second register) at D2, the pitch raises suddenly, but will still be flatter than the first mode D1. From D2,

>  the pitch will again get exponentially flatter as we go up the scale, until around the palm keys, where it starts to get sharper again, due to the weird characteristics of high frequencies and volume.  In both <> cases, the magnitude of the exponential effect is proportional to the amount of the discrepancy.   Optimal volume is approximately the same as that of the missing cone.

> 

> With volume remaining constant, changing the length of the mouthpiece chamber (the playing frequency of the mouthpiece) from the ideal, gives the scale a linear slope, proportional to the degree of change, the mode, and the truncation ratio.  Too short and from a sharp Bb1 the scale gets sharper up through C#2, though the increase is again, linear - a straight line.  At second mode D2, the pitch suddenly drops, but remains sharper than first mode D1, and increases as we go up the scale, with the same linear slope. 

>  If the mouthpiece is too long we have the inverse effect.  From a flat Bb1, the scale gets flatter in a linear fashion, up through C#2.  At second mode D2, it suddenly rises, but remains flatter than first mode D1, and then gets progressively flatter as we go up the scale.  The larger the length (pitch) discrepancy, the steeper the slope.

> 

> So, both volume and length affect the pitch of the entire instrument, they both affect the short tube notes much more than the long tube notes, and there is for both, a big difference in the effect between registers.  Volume has an exponential curve and length's is linear.  How can we possibly get an even scale then?

> 

> Conveniently, within a certain range of discrepancy, the shapes of the overlapping volume and length effects are almost identical, so a slight + discrepancy in volume can be canceled out by a slight inverse  - discrepancy in length.  Getting a "meticulous" balance between the two, at the player's point of embouchure equilibrium = mouthpiece magic.

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> ,

>  All we need to be aware of when working with mouthpieces is that 

> 

> --- On Sun, 1/1/12, kymarto123@ybb.ne.jp <kymarto123@...> wrote:

> 

> From: kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...>

> Subject: Re:[MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces

> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com

> Date: Sunday, January 1, 2012, 3:29 PM

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

>  

> 

> 

> 

>   

> 

> 

>     

>       

>       

>       Paul did the experiment well but it is also to some extent the shape of the chamber that matters, because the upper register tunes not exactly by length, but by the Helmholtz resonance frequency of the mpc at the neck opening. This does have a correlation with length, but since the mpc is not a true cylinder it is only approximate. 

> 

> 

> 

> Basically speaking the overall horn tunes by mpc effective volume, but the registers react differently to volume errors. Too small a volume will widen the octaves; too large will narrow them. This can be roughly understood by realizing that the octave wavelength is half that of the fundamental, but "length-like" errors based on a volume mismatch at the top of the horn remain constant. 

> 

> 

> 

> This all has to do with trying to mimic not only so much the volume of the missing conic apex, but its impedance structure: the more closely you manage this the more harmonic the partials will be. The first-order impedance match is based on volume; the second-order match is based on the resonant frequency of that volume, which normally will only significantly start affecting tuning from around A2 upwards. Matches for impedance peaks above that are basically impossible, because the mpc shape is just too far from a cone, but luckily the horn does not play high enough where that becomes an issue.

> 

> 

> 

> It is also worth realizing that the mpc effective volume is strongly affected by tip opening, reed strength and lip damping by the player, so mpc volume--and hence intonation and octave relationships are dynamically and continuously being determined in real time by the player via embouchure adjustment.

> 

> 

> 

> Of course it is better if the various factors in play are well lined-up to avoid a lot of extra work, but it is not like there is a magic point where the stars all line up perfectly and everything just falls into place. As an analogy: no matter how good the wheel alignment on your car--you still have to steer to keep it on the road.

> 

> 

> 

> If you have a fairly large chamber mpc you can use some chewing gum or putty to temporarily change the size and shape of the chamber to get a experiential feel for how this all works, and just how much difference it does or does not make.

> 

> 

> 

> <john_w_price33@...> wrote:

> 

> > Thanks for this explanation Paul.  Well done. 

> 

> >  I wonder has anyone created a variable chamber mouthpiece much like Strathon did with the baffle?  Not sure how useful it would be but just curious.   

> 

> > 

> 

> > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "tenorman1952" <tenorman1952@...> wrote:

> 

> > >

> 

> > > 

> 

> > > 

> 

> > > --- In MouthpieceWork@...m, "John" <john_w_price33@> wrote:

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > If overly large chambers in alto mouthpieces cause intonation issues what of the Meyer small chamber mouthpieces?  Is this the optimum size chamber or is it too small creating other pitch issues?    What is the general concept here?  If the chamber is very large and we have to push in all the way, making the total instrument length short what is the result vs playing mouthpieces that you have to pull out to where they are wobbling at the end of the neck?    Succinctly,  what are the separate tuning issues of too large a chamber vs too small a chamber?

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > 

> 

> > > John, this issue is seen on all saxes from bass to sopranino.

> 

> > > 

> 

> > > First, the overtones lay in the sax and mouthpiece differently in the low and upper register.  The low register tunes by the volume in the mouthpiece... that is, all volume past the end of the neck pipe.  So this chamber volume also includes some of the mouthpiece's bore.

> 

> > > 

> 

> > > But the upper register tunes more by length past the end of the neck pipe.

> 

> > > 

> 

> > > As you mentioned, a too large chamber mouthpiece requires it to be pushed very far onto the neck cork, which gets the volume past the end of the neck correct (equal to the volume of the missing cone) to get the low register in tune.  But now the mouthpiece is "short" on the neck.  The instrument plays well in the low register, and on up into the midrange, but as you approach high C, and into the palm keys, these notes become progressively sharper.  

> 

> > > 

> 

> > > One "large chamber" bass sax mouthpiece we tried to use was more than a semitone sharp on palm D.  It could not be "lipped down" into tune.

> 

> > > 

> 

> > > But what happens when you go the other way, too small chamber?  We've all seen the guy with the peashooter special, nice bright, edgy tone, but the poor guy's sax is designed wrong, he says, they made his neck too short.  He may even come into your shop wanting some more brass tubing soldered to the end of the neck.  His mouthpiece is about to fall off the end of the neck cork.  

> 

> > > 

> 

> > > And this setup might work to an extent, as some player's tendency to "bite" or increase embouchure pressure as they play higher somewhat compensates for the natural tendency of this setup to become flat in the upper register due to the "too long" mouthpiece.  He has great difficulty getting the palm key notes in tune, and bites through his lower lip trying to lip up.

> 

> > > 

> 

> > > But his intonation is all over the place in both registers.

> 

> > > 

> 

> > > And like Goldilocks, the "just right" medium chamber volume gets the job done, suddenly the instrument plays well in tune in both registers, on up into the palm keys, with very little "favoring" of any notes.

> 

> > > 

> 

> > > A mistaken concept.  A bigger chamber is not louder or more powerful.  It does diminish the strength of the upper overtones in comparison to the fundamental and 2nd overtone (which is usually equal or stronger than the fundamental in all saxes!!!), so the tone is darker.  A large chamber does not give more volume or more "powerful" tone.

> 

> > > 

> 

> > > Here's an interesting fact... as you play from ppp to fff, there is very little change in the strength of the fundamental and 2nd overtone.  What increases is the strength and number of the higher overtones.  That's where most all of the volume increase comes from.

> 

> > > 

> 

> > > The small chamber does increase the strength of the higher overtones, resulting in a "brighter" tone.  So it actually sounds "louder".  It is also difficult to sound softer with this setup.

> 

> > > 

> 

> > > You can still have good edge and upper overtones with a medium chamber size by having a short, high baffle.  It is that first 1/4" after the tip rail that makes most of the difference.  Or take that edgy tone right off by filing down the baffle just being the tip rail.

> 

> > > 

> 

> > > Paul C.

> 

> > >

> 

> > 

> 

> > 

> 

> > 

> 

> 

> 

>     

>      

> 

>     

>     

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

>   

> 

> 

> 

> 



    
     

    
    






  

Besides,  it really doesn't matter if the effect of changing length (and I assume this is a changing diameter/length cylindrical throat section) is exactly linear or not.  In practice, from the viewpoint of the mouthpiece tech doing volume/length optimization according to this method, it appears to be linear,  Once the D1/D2 octave is correct, a degree of that placement is due to the existing length discrepancy.  With each successive length adjustment, that D1/D2 octave is readjusted to the diminished remaining length discrepancy.  When both D and C# octaves are perfect, then optimization is complete.  Since the D1/D2 octave is kept perfect throughout, the effect of length adjustments appears to be linear.   




--- On Mon, 1/2/12, kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...> wrote:

From: kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...>
Subject: Re:Re:[MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, January 2, 2012, 12:43 AM








 



  


    
      
      
      That's an elegant explanation, but I think it misses out on the fact that the mpc Helmholtz resonant frequency only affects notes "in its neighborhood" as Benade says. Where did you get the information that the change is linear?



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

> That's sort-of it, Toby.

> 

> Equivalent Volume varies with frequency actually, a subject we debated

>  some time ago.  Antoine Lefebvre has some work on this in his interesting thesis, http://www.music.mcgill.ca/caml/lib/exe/fetch.php?media=publications:phd_lefebvre_2010.pdf..  

> 

> Mouthpiece volume discrepancies (physical length remaining constant) affect the scale exponentially related to truncation ratio, frequency, and harmonic mode.  That means when when the

>  volume < that of the missing cone, the scale from a sharp Bb1 will get exponentially sharper up through C#2.  When we go to the second mode (second register) at D2, the pitch drops down suddenly, but will still be higher than the first mode D1. From D2, the pitch will again get exponentially sharper as we go up the scale.

> 

> If mouthpiece

>  volume is > that of the missing cone, we have the inverse effect.  From a flat Bb1 the scale will get increasingly flatter up through C#2.   When we go to the second mode (second register) at D2, the pitch raises suddenly, but will still be flatter than the first mode D1. From D2,

>  the pitch will again get exponentially flatter as we go up the scale, until around the palm keys, where it starts to get sharper again, due to the weird characteristics of high frequencies and volume.  In both <> cases, the magnitude of the exponential effect is proportional to the amount of the discrepancy.   Optimal volume is approximately the same as that of the missing cone.

> 

> With volume remaining constant, changing the length of the mouthpiece chamber (the playing frequency of the mouthpiece) from the ideal, gives the scale a linear slope, proportional to the degree of change, the mode, and the truncation ratio.  Too short and from a sharp Bb1 the scale gets sharper up through C#2, though the increase is again, linear - a straight line.  At second mode D2, the pitch suddenly drops, but remains sharper than first mode D1, and increases as we go up the scale, with the same linear slope. 

>  If the mouthpiece is too long we have the inverse effect.  From a flat Bb1, the scale gets flatter in a linear fashion, up through C#2.  At second mode D2, it suddenly rises, but remains flatter than first mode D1, and then gets progressively flatter as we go up the scale.  The larger the length (pitch) discrepancy, the steeper the slope.

> 

> So, both volume and length affect the pitch of the entire instrument, they both affect the short tube notes much more than the long tube notes, and there is for both, a big difference in the effect between registers.  Volume has an exponential curve and length's is linear.  How can we possibly get an even scale then?

> 

> Conveniently, within a certain range of discrepancy, the shapes of the overlapping volume and length effects are almost identical, so a slight + discrepancy in volume can be canceled out by a slight inverse  - discrepancy in length.  Getting a "meticulous" balance between the two, at the player's point of embouchure equilibrium = mouthpiece magic.

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> ,

>  All we need to be aware of when working with mouthpieces is that 

> 

> --- On Sun, 1/1/12, kymarto123@ybb.ne.jp <kymarto123@...> wrote:

> 

> From: kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...>

> Subject: Re:[MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces

> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com

> Date: Sunday, January 1, 2012, 3:29 PM

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

>  

> 

> 

> 

>   

> 

> 

>     

>       

>       

>       Paul did the experiment well but it is also to some extent the shape of the chamber that matters, because the upper register tunes not exactly by length, but by the Helmholtz resonance frequency of the mpc at the neck opening. This does have a correlation with length, but since the mpc is not a true cylinder it is only approximate. 

> 

> 

> 

> Basically speaking the overall horn tunes by mpc effective volume, but the registers react differently to volume errors. Too small a volume will widen the octaves; too large will narrow them. This can be roughly understood by realizing that the octave wavelength is half that of the fundamental, but "length-like" errors based on a volume mismatch at the top of the horn remain constant. 

> 

> 

> 

> This all has to do with trying to mimic not only so much the volume of the missing conic apex, but its impedance structure: the more closely you manage this the more harmonic the partials will be. The first-order impedance match is based on volume; the second-order match is based on the resonant frequency of that volume, which normally will only significantly start affecting tuning from around A2 upwards. Matches for impedance peaks above that are basically impossible, because the mpc shape is just too far from a cone, but luckily the horn does not play high enough where that becomes an issue.

> 

> 

> 

> It is also worth realizing that the mpc effective volume is strongly affected by tip opening, reed strength and lip damping by the player, so mpc volume--and hence intonation and octave relationships are dynamically and continuously being determined in real time by the player via embouchure adjustment.

> 

> 

> 

> Of course it is better if the various factors in play are well lined-up to avoid a lot of extra work, but it is not like there is a magic point where the stars all line up perfectly and everything just falls into place. As an analogy: no matter how good the wheel alignment on your car--you still have to steer to keep it on the road.

> 

> 

> 

> If you have a fairly large chamber mpc you can use some chewing gum or putty to temporarily change the size and shape of the chamber to get a experiential feel for how this all works, and just how much difference it does or does not make.

> 

> 

> 

> <john_w_price33@...> wrote:

> 

> > Thanks for this explanation Paul.  Well done. 

> 

> >  I wonder has anyone created a variable chamber mouthpiece much like Strathon did with the baffle?  Not sure how useful it would be but just curious.   

> 

> > 

> 

> > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "tenorman1952" <tenorman1952@...> wrote:

> 

> > >

> 

> > > 

> 

> > > 

> 

> > > --- In MouthpieceWork@...m, "John" <john_w_price33@> wrote:

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > If overly large chambers in alto mouthpieces cause intonation issues what of the Meyer small chamber mouthpieces?  Is this the optimum size chamber or is it too small creating other pitch issues?    What is the general concept here?  If the chamber is very large and we have to push in all the way, making the total instrument length short what is the result vs playing mouthpieces that you have to pull out to where they are wobbling at the end of the neck?    Succinctly,  what are the separate tuning issues of too large a chamber vs too small a chamber?

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > 

> 

> > > John, this issue is seen on all saxes from bass to sopranino.

> 

> > > 

> 

> > > First, the overtones lay in the sax and mouthpiece differently in the low and upper register.  The low register tunes by the volume in the mouthpiece... that is, all volume past the end of the neck pipe.  So this chamber volume also includes some of the mouthpiece's bore.

> 

> > > 

> 

> > > But the upper register tunes more by length past the end of the neck pipe.

> 

> > > 

> 

> > > As you mentioned, a too large chamber mouthpiece requires it to be pushed very far onto the neck cork, which gets the volume past the end of the neck correct (equal to the volume of the missing cone) to get the low register in tune.  But now the mouthpiece is "short" on the neck.  The instrument plays well in the low register, and on up into the midrange, but as you approach high C, and into the palm keys, these notes become progressively sharper.  

> 

> > > 

> 

> > > One "large chamber" bass sax mouthpiece we tried to use was more than a semitone sharp on palm D.  It could not be "lipped down" into tune.

> 

> > > 

> 

> > > But what happens when you go the other way, too small chamber?  We've all seen the guy with the peashooter special, nice bright, edgy tone, but the poor guy's sax is designed wrong, he says, they made his neck too short.  He may even come into your shop wanting some more brass tubing soldered to the end of the neck.  His mouthpiece is about to fall off the end of the neck cork.  

> 

> > > 

> 

> > > And this setup might work to an extent, as some player's tendency to "bite" or increase embouchure pressure as they play higher somewhat compensates for the natural tendency of this setup to become flat in the upper register due to the "too long" mouthpiece.  He has great difficulty getting the palm key notes in tune, and bites through his lower lip trying to lip up.

> 

> > > 

> 

> > > But his intonation is all over the place in both registers.

> 

> > > 

> 

> > > And like Goldilocks, the "just right" medium chamber volume gets the job done, suddenly the instrument plays well in tune in both registers, on up into the palm keys, with very little "favoring" of any notes.

> 

> > > 

> 

> > > A mistaken concept.  A bigger chamber is not louder or more powerful.  It does diminish the strength of the upper overtones in comparison to the fundamental and 2nd overtone (which is usually equal or stronger than the fundamental in all saxes!!!), so the tone is darker.  A large chamber does not give more volume or more "powerful" tone.

> 

> > > 

> 

> > > Here's an interesting fact... as you play from ppp to fff, there is very little change in the strength of the fundamental and 2nd overtone.  What increases is the strength and number of the higher overtones.  That's where most all of the volume increase comes from.

> 

> > > 

> 

> > > The small chamber does increase the strength of the higher overtones, resulting in a "brighter" tone.  So it actually sounds "louder".  It is also difficult to sound softer with this setup.

> 

> > > 

> 

> > > You can still have good edge and upper overtones with a medium chamber size by having a short, high baffle.  It is that first 1/4" after the tip rail that makes most of the difference.  Or take that edgy tone right off by filing down the baffle just being the tip rail.

> 

> > > 

> 

> > > Paul C.

> 

> > >

> 

> > 

> 

> > 

> 

> > 

> 

> 

> 

>     

>      

> 

>     

>     

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

>   

> 

> 

> 

> 



    
     

    
    






  

The best thing I have seen on the subject is post #25 in this SOTW thread:

http://forum.saxontheweb.net/showthread.php?159723-Effects-of-mouthpiece-chamber-size-and-length-on-tuning/page2

It's worth noting that in a very extreme case of theoretical mpcs with equivalent volumes (small chamber: 12mm ID x 65mm length vs large chamber: 16mm ID x 37mm length) the second register is raised only 14 cents more in the large chamber piece (44 cents vs 30 cents). Antoine points out that both play sharp in the upper modes--in the third register the small chamber is 80 cents sharp vs 115 cents for the large chamber.

In a more realistic case (there is generally no more than 10mm length difference between mpcs) tuning differences would be much smaller than 14 cents, and in any case would be significantly sharp, all else being equal.

Antoine also points out that the effect occurs mostly in the upper part of the second register, which is in line with what Benade, Fletcher and Scavone have said.


--- MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
> Besides,  it really doesn't matter if the effect of changing length (and I assume this is a changing diameter/length cylindrical throat section) is exactly linear or not.  In practice, from the viewpoint of the mouthpiece tech doing volume/length optimization according to this method, it appears to be linear,  Once the D1/D2 octave is correct, a degree of that placement is due to the existing length discrepancy.  With each successive length adjustment, that D1/D2 octave is readjusted to the diminished remaining length discrepancy.  When both D and C# octaves are perfect, then optimization is complete.  Since the D1/D2 octave is kept perfect throughout, the effect of length adjustments appears to be linear.   
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- On Mon, 1/2/12, kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...> wrote:
> 
> From: kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...>
> Subject: Re:Re:[MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
> To: MouthpieceWork@...m
> Date: Monday, January 2, 2012, 12:43 AM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
>   
> 
> 
>     
>       
>       
>       That's an elegant explanation, but I think it misses out on the fact that the mpc Helmholtz resonant frequency only affects notes "in its neighborhood" as Benade says. Where did you get the information that the change is linear?
> 
> 
> 
> --- MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
> 
> > That's sort-of it, Toby.
> 
> > 
> 
> > Equivalent Volume varies with frequency actually, a subject we debated
> 
> >  some time ago.  Antoine Lefebvre has some work on this in his interesting thesis, http://www.music.mcgill.ca/caml/lib/exe/fetch.php?media=publications:phd_lefebvre_2010.pdf..  
> 
> > 
> 
> > Mouthpiece volume discrepancies (physical length remaining constant) affect the scale exponentially related to truncation ratio, frequency, and harmonic mode.  That means when when the
> 
> >  volume < that of the missing cone, the scale from a sharp Bb1 will get exponentially sharper up through C#2.  When we go to the second mode (second register) at D2, the pitch drops down suddenly, but will still be higher than the first mode D1. From D2, the pitch will again get exponentially sharper as we go up the scale.
> 
> > 
> 
> > If mouthpiece
> 
> >  volume is > that of the missing cone, we have the inverse effect.  From a flat Bb1 the scale will get increasingly flatter up through C#2.   When we go to the second mode (second register) at D2, the pitch raises suddenly, but will still be flatter than the first mode D1. From D2,
> 
> >  the pitch will again get exponentially flatter as we go up the scale, until around the palm keys, where it starts to get sharper again, due to the weird characteristics of high frequencies and volume.  In both <> cases, the magnitude of the exponential effect is proportional to the amount of the discrepancy.   Optimal volume is approximately the same as that of the missing cone.
> 
> > 
> 
> > With volume remaining constant, changing the length of the mouthpiece chamber (the playing frequency of the mouthpiece) from the ideal, gives the scale a linear slope, proportional to the degree of change, the mode, and the truncation ratio.  Too short and from a sharp Bb1 the scale gets sharper up through C#2, though the increase is again, linear - a straight line.  At second mode D2, the pitch suddenly drops, but remains sharper than first mode D1, and increases as we go up the scale, with the same linear slope. 
> 
> >  If the mouthpiece is too long we have the inverse effect.  From a flat Bb1, the scale gets flatter in a linear fashion, up through C#2.  At second mode D2, it suddenly rises, but remains flatter than first mode D1, and then gets progressively flatter as we go up the scale.  The larger the length (pitch) discrepancy, the steeper the slope.
> 
> > 
> 
> > So, both volume and length affect the pitch of the entire instrument, they both affect the short tube notes much more than the long tube notes, and there is for both, a big difference in the effect between registers.  Volume has an exponential curve and length's is linear.  How can we possibly get an even scale then?
> 
> > 
> 
> > Conveniently, within a certain range of discrepancy, the shapes of the overlapping volume and length effects are almost identical, so a slight + discrepancy in volume can be canceled out by a slight inverse  - discrepancy in length.  Getting a "meticulous" balance between the two, at the player's point of embouchure equilibrium = mouthpiece magic.
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > ,
> 
> >  All we need to be aware of when working with mouthpieces is that 
> 
> > 
> 
> > --- On Sun, 1/1/12, kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...> wrote:
> 
> > 
> 
> > From: kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...>
> 
> > Subject: Re:[MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
> 
> > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> 
> > Date: Sunday, January 1, 2012, 3:29 PM
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> >  
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> >   
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> >     
> 
> >       
> 
> >       
> 
> >       Paul did the experiment well but it is also to some extent the shape of the chamber that matters, because the upper register tunes not exactly by length, but by the Helmholtz resonance frequency of the mpc at the neck opening. This does have a correlation with length, but since the mpc is not a true cylinder it is only approximate. 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > Basically speaking the overall horn tunes by mpc effective volume, but the registers react differently to volume errors. Too small a volume will widen the octaves; too large will narrow them. This can be roughly understood by realizing that the octave wavelength is half that of the fundamental, but "length-like" errors based on a volume mismatch at the top of the horn remain constant. 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > This all has to do with trying to mimic not only so much the volume of the missing conic apex, but its impedance structure: the more closely you manage this the more harmonic the partials will be. The first-order impedance match is based on volume; the second-order match is based on the resonant frequency of that volume, which normally will only significantly start affecting tuning from around A2 upwards. Matches for impedance peaks above that are basically impossible, because the mpc shape is just too far from a cone, but luckily the horn does not play high enough where that becomes an issue.
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > It is also worth realizing that the mpc effective volume is strongly affected by tip opening, reed strength and lip damping by the player, so mpc volume--and hence intonation and octave relationships are dynamically and continuously being determined in real time by the player via embouchure adjustment.
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > Of course it is better if the various factors in play are well lined-up to avoid a lot of extra work, but it is not like there is a magic point where the stars all line up perfectly and everything just falls into place. As an analogy: no matter how good the wheel alignment on your car--you still have to steer to keep it on the road.
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > If you have a fairly large chamber mpc you can use some chewing gum or putty to temporarily change the size and shape of the chamber to get a experiential feel for how this all works, and just how much difference it does or does not make.
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > <john_w_price33@...> wrote:
> 
> > 
> 
> > > Thanks for this explanation Paul.  Well done. 
> 
> > 
> 
> > >  I wonder has anyone created a variable chamber mouthpiece much like Strathon did with the baffle?  Not sure how useful it would be but just curious.   
> 
> > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "tenorman1952" <tenorman1952@...> wrote:
> 
> > 
> 
> > > >
> 
> > 
> 
> > > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > > > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "John" <john_w_price33@> wrote:
> 
> > 
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > 
> 
> > > > > If overly large chambers in alto mouthpieces cause intonation issues what of the Meyer small chamber mouthpieces?  Is this the optimum size chamber or is it too small creating other pitch issues?    What is the general concept here?  If the chamber is very large and we have to push in all the way, making the total instrument length short what is the result vs playing mouthpieces that you have to pull out to where they are wobbling at the end of the neck?    Succinctly,  what are the separate tuning issues of too large a chamber vs too small a chamber?
> 
> > 
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > 
> 
> > > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > > > John, this issue is seen on all saxes from bass to sopranino.
> 
> > 
> 
> > > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > > > First, the overtones lay in the sax and mouthpiece differently in the low and upper register.  The low register tunes by the volume in the mouthpiece... that is, all volume past the end of the neck pipe.  So this chamber volume also includes some of the mouthpiece's bore.
> 
> > 
> 
> > > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > > > But the upper register tunes more by length past the end of the neck pipe.
> 
> > 
> 
> > > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > > > As you mentioned, a too large chamber mouthpiece requires it to be pushed very far onto the neck cork, which gets the volume past the end of the neck correct (equal to the volume of the missing cone) to get the low register in tune.  But now the mouthpiece is "short" on the neck.  The instrument plays well in the low register, and on up into the midrange, but as you approach high C, and into the palm keys, these notes become progressively sharper.  
> 
> > 
> 
> > > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > > > One "large chamber" bass sax mouthpiece we tried to use was more than a semitone sharp on palm D.  It could not be "lipped down" into tune.
> 
> > 
> 
> > > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > > > But what happens when you go the other way, too small chamber?  We've all seen the guy with the peashooter special, nice bright, edgy tone, but the poor guy's sax is designed wrong, he says, they made his neck too short.  He may even come into your shop wanting some more brass tubing soldered to the end of the neck.  His mouthpiece is about to fall off the end of the neck cork.  
> 
> > 
> 
> > > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > > > And this setup might work to an extent, as some player's tendency to "bite" or increase embouchure pressure as they play higher somewhat compensates for the natural tendency of this setup to become flat in the upper register due to the "too long" mouthpiece.  He has great difficulty getting the palm key notes in tune, and bites through his lower lip trying to lip up.
> 
> > 
> 
> > > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > > > But his intonation is all over the place in both registers.
> 
> > 
> 
> > > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > > > And like Goldilocks, the "just right" medium chamber volume gets the job done, suddenly the instrument plays well in tune in both registers, on up into the palm keys, with very little "favoring" of any notes.
> 
> > 
> 
> > > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > > > A mistaken concept.  A bigger chamber is not louder or more powerful.  It does diminish the strength of the upper overtones in comparison to the fundamental and 2nd overtone (which is usually equal or stronger than the fundamental in all saxes!!!), so the tone is darker.  A large chamber does not give more volume or more "powerful" tone.
> 
> > 
> 
> > > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > > > Here's an interesting fact... as you play from ppp to fff, there is very little change in the strength of the fundamental and 2nd overtone.  What increases is the strength and number of the higher overtones.  That's where most all of the volume increase comes from.
> 
> > 
> 
> > > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > > > The small chamber does increase the strength of the higher overtones, resulting in a "brighter" tone.  So it actually sounds "louder".  It is also difficult to sound softer with this setup.
> 
> > 
> 
> > > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > > > You can still have good edge and upper overtones with a medium chamber size by having a short, high baffle.  It is that first 1/4" after the tip rail that makes most of the difference.  Or take that edgy tone right off by filing down the baffle just being the tip rail.
> 
> > 
> 
> > > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > > > Paul C.
> 
> > 
> 
> > > >
> 
> > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> >     
> 
> >      
> 
> > 
> 
> >     
> 
> >     
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> >   
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
>     
>      
> 
>     
>     
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   
> 
> 
> 
> 

Dear all,

I'm no acoustician, just a player trying to gain some practical tips from the acoustics insofar as I can understand it, so please forgive the elementary nature of my question.

Given A) that the short tube notes tune by length, while long tube notes tune by volume,

and given B) that it is probably easier to modify the inner volume of your mpc than to modify its length...

wouldn't it be better to tune the palm keys first, to see if the length of the mouthpiece can be correct? That has the advantage that you are playing the palm key notes then with an embouchure that is free from the constraint of "trying to adjust" the note, which will also give them a fatter, fuller sound.

Once you have established the correct place on the cork in terms of length, you can then test whether that place coincides with good tuning in the long tube notes. If it does not, then you know, depending on whether the long tube notes are sharp or flat, that you need either to add chamber volume by subtracting material, or reduce volume by adding material. And again, this would seem to be easier than changing the length of the mouthpiece.

This might help avoid tuning by compromise, because compromise means that the sound, the acoustic product is compromised--at least, in the ideal.

Does this make any sense at all? I had printed out a tuning routine that Lance had posted, but I have been looking for it and can't find it. I also can't find it in prior posts in this group.

Thanks, Jeff

Very interesting SOTW post.  I agree with everything Antoine said. More real world data is needed for his mathematical model.  In this area, I think the theoretical understanding lags behind the successful practical application still.

Nederveen agrees that it works :-)







  

It's actually much easier to adjust the length - push or pull the
mouthpiece on the neck cork.  We do it every day.

Dan

On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 9:39 AM, jeff <jdtoddjazz@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Dear all,
>
> I'm no acoustician, just a player trying to gain some practical tips from
> the acoustics insofar as I can understand it, so please forgive the
> elementary nature of my question.
>
> Given A) that the short tube notes tune by length, while long tube notes
> tune by volume,
>
> and given B) that it is probably easier to modify the inner volume of your
> mpc than to modify its length...
>
> wouldn't it be better to tune the palm keys first, to see if the length of
> the mouthpiece can be correct? That has the advantage that you are playing
> the palm key notes then with an embouchure that is free from the constraint
> of "trying to adjust" the note, which will also give them a fatter, fuller
> sound.
>
> Once you have established the correct place on the cork in terms of
> length, you can then test whether that place coincides with good tuning in
> the long tube notes. If it does not, then you know, depending on whether
> the long tube notes are sharp or flat, that you need either to add chamber
> volume by subtracting material, or reduce volume by adding material. And
> again, this would seem to be easier than changing the length of the
> mouthpiece.
>
> This might help avoid tuning by compromise, because compromise means that
> the sound, the acoustic product is compromised--at least, in the ideal.
>
> Does this make any sense at all? I had printed out a tuning routine that
> Lance had posted, but I have been looking for it and can't find it. I also
> can't find it in prior posts in this group.
>
> Thanks, Jeff
>
>  
>

To clarify - we don't adjust the length of the mouthpiece by modifying the
mouthpiece; we adjust it on the neck cork.  We adjust chamber volume by
modifying the mouthpiece in some way.  If it's in tune on the body of the
instrument, but the palm keys are flat, you need more chamber volume so
that the "body" notes drop in pitch, which makes you have to push the
mouthpiece farther onto the cork to tune them, which makes the mouthpiece
shorter, which pulls up the palm key pitches.

DT

On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 9:56 AM, dan torosian <dantorosian@...> wrote:

> It's actually much easier to adjust the length - push or pull the
> mouthpiece on the neck cork.  We do it every day.
>
> Dan
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 9:39 AM, jeff <jdtoddjazz@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I'm no acoustician, just a player trying to gain some practical tips from
>> the acoustics insofar as I can understand it, so please forgive the
>> elementary nature of my question.
>>
>> Given A) that the short tube notes tune by length, while long tube notes
>> tune by volume,
>>
>> and given B) that it is probably easier to modify the inner volume of
>> your mpc than to modify its length...
>>
>> wouldn't it be better to tune the palm keys first, to see if the length
>> of the mouthpiece can be correct? That has the advantage that you are
>> playing the palm key notes then with an embouchure that is free from the
>> constraint of "trying to adjust" the note, which will also give them a
>> fatter, fuller sound.
>>
>> Once you have established the correct place on the cork in terms of
>> length, you can then test whether that place coincides with good tuning in
>> the long tube notes. If it does not, then you know, depending on whether
>> the long tube notes are sharp or flat, that you need either to add chamber
>> volume by subtracting material, or reduce volume by adding material. And
>> again, this would seem to be easier than changing the length of the
>> mouthpiece.
>>
>> This might help avoid tuning by compromise, because compromise means that
>> the sound, the acoustic product is compromised--at least, in the ideal.
>>
>> Does this make any sense at all? I had printed out a tuning routine that
>> Lance had posted, but I have been looking for it and can't find it. I also
>> can't find it in prior posts in this group.
>>
>> Thanks, Jeff
>>
>>  
>>
>
>

Jeff,

Email me if you want some elaboration on this.

Lance


--- On Mon, 1/2/12, jeff <jdtoddjazz@...> wrote:

From: jeff <jdtoddjazz@...m>
Subject: Re:Re:Re:[MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, January 2, 2012, 3:39 PM








 



  


    
      
      
      Dear all,



I'm no acoustician, just a player trying to gain some practical tips from the acoustics insofar as I can understand it, so please forgive the elementary nature of my question.



Given A) that the short tube notes tune by length, while long tube notes tune by volume,



and given B) that it is probably easier to modify the inner volume of your mpc than to modify its length...



wouldn't it be better to tune the palm keys first, to see if the length of the mouthpiece can be correct? That has the advantage that you are playing the palm key notes then with an embouchure that is free from the constraint of "trying to adjust" the note, which will also give them a fatter, fuller sound.



Once you have established the correct place on the cork in terms of length, you can then test whether that place coincides with good tuning in the long tube notes. If it does not, then you know, depending on whether the long tube notes are sharp or flat, that you need either to add chamber volume by subtracting material, or reduce volume by adding material. And again, this would seem to be easier than changing the length of the mouthpiece.



This might help avoid tuning by compromise, because compromise means that the sound, the acoustic product is compromised--at least, in the ideal.



Does this make any sense at all? I had printed out a tuning routine that Lance had posted, but I have been looking for it and can't find it. I also can't find it in prior posts in this group.



Thanks, Jeff





    
     

    
    






  

Dan,

Thanks for your response. 

It may help if I clarify my end goal. I want to find a mouthpiece which will tune optimally in both registers. It may be that that mouthpiece is actually in my possession. So, this is a way of testing that. I want to test it in a way that shows any defect. Hence I was starting with the (for me at least) unusual tack of tuning the length first. Then I could see if the volume was also right.

So I am trying to "test" the mouthpiece's tuning, rather than "tuning up." The approach is different in both cases. In the first case, I am trying to see exactly how a given mouthpiece tunes, to see whether it tunes optimally; in the second case, I need to practice and perform, and am trying to find the place where the mouthpiece I am about to play plays best on the horn, accepting any compromises in tuning that might arise.

So with this way of tuning I am trying to eliminate the problem of compromise between tuning short tube and long tube notes. I want to test the palm key intonation which shows me the correct length of the tube + mpc. Once that is really and truly correct, any change would be a compromise. I want to avoid that compromise. So, if the volume is not right, then it has to be changed, either by adding or subtracting material.

Does that help to understand what I want to do? Does it make sense acoustically?

Thanks, Jeff



--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, dan torosian <dantorosian@...> wrote:
>
> To clarify - we don't adjust the length of the mouthpiece by modifying the
> mouthpiece; we adjust it on the neck cork.  We adjust chamber volume by
> modifying the mouthpiece in some way.  If it's in tune on the body of the
> instrument, but the palm keys are flat, you need more chamber volume so
> that the "body" notes drop in pitch, which makes you have to push the
> mouthpiece farther onto the cork to tune them, which makes the mouthpiece
> shorter, which pulls up the palm key pitches.
> 
> DT
> 
> On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 9:56 AM, dan torosian <dantorosian@...> wrote:
> 
> > It's actually much easier to adjust the length - push or pull the
> > mouthpiece on the neck cork.  We do it every day.
> >
> > Dan
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 9:39 AM, jeff <jdtoddjazz@...> wrote:
> >
> >> **
> >>
> >>
> >> Dear all,
> >>
> >> I'm no acoustician, just a player trying to gain some practical tips from
> >> the acoustics insofar as I can understand it, so please forgive the
> >> elementary nature of my question.
> >>
> >> Given A) that the short tube notes tune by length, while long tube notes
> >> tune by volume,
> >>
> >> and given B) that it is probably easier to modify the inner volume of
> >> your mpc than to modify its length...
> >>
> >> wouldn't it be better to tune the palm keys first, to see if the length
> >> of the mouthpiece can be correct? That has the advantage that you are
> >> playing the palm key notes then with an embouchure that is free from the
> >> constraint of "trying to adjust" the note, which will also give them a
> >> fatter, fuller sound.
> >>
> >> Once you have established the correct place on the cork in terms of
> >> length, you can then test whether that place coincides with good tuning in
> >> the long tube notes. If it does not, then you know, depending on whether
> >> the long tube notes are sharp or flat, that you need either to add chamber
> >> volume by subtracting material, or reduce volume by adding material. And
> >> again, this would seem to be easier than changing the length of the
> >> mouthpiece.
> >>
> >> This might help avoid tuning by compromise, because compromise means that
> >> the sound, the acoustic product is compromised--at least, in the ideal.
> >>
> >> Does this make any sense at all? I had printed out a tuning routine that
> >> Lance had posted, but I have been looking for it and can't find it. I also
> >> can't find it in prior posts in this group.
> >>
> >> Thanks, Jeff
> >>
> >>  
> >>
> >
> >
>

If find tuning to palm key notes difficult.  Especially on sop sax.  If is too easy to bend the notes with your embouchure.  



On Jan 2, 2012, at 11:27 AM, "jeff" <jdtoddjazz@...> wrote:

> Dan,
> 
> Thanks for your response. 
> 
> It may help if I clarify my end goal. I want to find a mouthpiece which will tune optimally in both registers. It may be that that mouthpiece is actually in my possession. So, this is a way of testing that. I want to test it in a way that shows any defect. Hence I was starting with the (for me at least) unusual tack of tuning the length first. Then I could see if the volume was also right.
> 
> So I am trying to "test" the mouthpiece's tuning, rather than "tuning up." The approach is different in both cases. In the first case, I am trying to see exactly how a given mouthpiece tunes, to see whether it tunes optimally; in the second case, I need to practice and perform, and am trying to find the place where the mouthpiece I am about to play plays best on the horn, accepting any compromises in tuning that might arise.
> 
> So with this way of tuning I am trying to eliminate the problem of compromise between tuning short tube and long tube notes. I want to test the palm key intonation which shows me the correct length of the tube + mpc. Once that is really and truly correct, any change would be a compromise. I want to avoid that compromise. So, if the volume is not right, then it has to be changed, either by adding or subtracting material.
> 
> Does that help to understand what I want to do? Does it make sense acoustically?
> 
> Thanks, Jeff
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, dan torosian <dantorosian@...> wrote:
> >
> > To clarify - we don't adjust the length of the mouthpiece by modifying the
> > mouthpiece; we adjust it on the neck cork. We adjust chamber volume by
> > modifying the mouthpiece in some way. If it's in tune on the body of the
> > instrument, but the palm keys are flat, you need more chamber volume so
> > that the "body" notes drop in pitch, which makes you have to push the
> > mouthpiece farther onto the cork to tune them, which makes the mouthpiece
> > shorter, which pulls up the palm key pitches.
> > 
> > DT
> > 
> > On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 9:56 AM, dan torosian <dantorosian@...> wrote:
> > 
> > > It's actually much easier to adjust the length - push or pull the
> > > mouthpiece on the neck cork. We do it every day.
> > >
> > > Dan
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 9:39 AM, jeff <jdtoddjazz@...> wrote:
> > >
> > >> **
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Dear all,
> > >>
> > >> I'm no acoustician, just a player trying to gain some practical tips from
> > >> the acoustics insofar as I can understand it, so please forgive the
> > >> elementary nature of my question.
> > >>
> > >> Given A) that the short tube notes tune by length, while long tube notes
> > >> tune by volume,
> > >>
> > >> and given B) that it is probably easier to modify the inner volume of
> > >> your mpc than to modify its length...
> > >>
> > >> wouldn't it be better to tune the palm keys first, to see if the length
> > >> of the mouthpiece can be correct? That has the advantage that you are
> > >> playing the palm key notes then with an embouchure that is free from the
> > >> constraint of "trying to adjust" the note, which will also give them a
> > >> fatter, fuller sound.
> > >>
> > >> Once you have established the correct place on the cork in terms of
> > >> length, you can then test whether that place coincides with good tuning in
> > >> the long tube notes. If it does not, then you know, depending on whether
> > >> the long tube notes are sharp or flat, that you need either to add chamber
> > >> volume by subtracting material, or reduce volume by adding material. And
> > >> again, this would seem to be easier than changing the length of the
> > >> mouthpiece.
> > >>
> > >> This might help avoid tuning by compromise, because compromise means that
> > >> the sound, the acoustic product is compromised--at least, in the ideal.
> > >>
> > >> Does this make any sense at all? I had printed out a tuning routine that
> > >> Lance had posted, but I have been looking for it and can't find it. I also
> > >> can't find it in prior posts in this group.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks, Jeff
> > >>
> > >> 
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
> 
> 

 Tuning  by the palm keys first to me is intuitively wrong for a multitude of reasons.  Obviously once the low notes are in tune  some finagling is  needed to  balance off low and high end tuning but surely you have to start with the lowest Bb.   The notion that ideal tuning can be reached with some ideal mouthpiece seems rather odd to me too, when we all know that tuning problems are due to the very imperfect design of our instruments.  An ideal saxophone would need several more octave vent keys placed at more optimal locations on the tube. Probably reducing  the flare of the conical bore would also improve tuning, probably at the cost of losing the saxophone sound. Adolph Sax was a very complex, difficult person and his crowning achievement, the instrument we all love, shares the same  traits with him.      As any good sax player will tell you the key to tuning is in the players ear and his or her  ability to correct off notes. Just
 watch a video of  Johnny Hodges to get a perfect lesson in how to play this brass  beast in tune.  Peter

see our Category Five tenor saxophone with FOUR octave vents at www.nationofmusic.com


On Jan 2, 2012, at 11:38 AM, Peter Deley wrote:

>
>  Tuning  by the palm keys first to me is intuitively wrong for a  
> multitude of reasons.
>   Obviously once the low notes are in tune  some finagling is   
> needed to  balance off low and high end tuning but surely you have  
> to start with the lowest Bb.
>    The notion that ideal tuning can be reached with some ideal  
> mouthpiece seems rather odd to me too, when we all know that tuning  
> problems are due to the very imperfect design of our instruments.
>   An ideal saxophone would need several more octave vent keys placed  
> at more optimal locations on the tube. Probably reducing  the flare  
> of the conical bore would also improve tuning, probably at the cost  
> of losing the saxophone sound. Adolph Sax was a very complex,  
> difficult person and his crowning achievement, the instrument we all  
> love, shares the same  traits with him.
>   As any good sax player will tell you the key to tuning is in the  
> players ear and his or her  ability to correct off notes. Just watch  
> a video of  Johnny Hodges to get a perfect lesson in how to play  
> this brass  beast in tune.  Peter
>
> 

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, matthewvossjazz@... wrote:
>
> Wow, thanks for the great info.
> 
> So the white streamlined piece sold with the King altos were manufactured by Runyon and essentially the same as the 22 (and Comet). Am I understanding that correctly?

I don't know about the white Kings, I'd have to see one.

The Model 22 and Comet were distinctly different mouthpieces.  The photo on the Conn mouthpiece site with four amber mouthpiece, two marked Conn, two marked Runyon... those are not 22's, but made from the same dies as the Comet.

The 22 is a larger outer diameter mouthpiece, and a distinctly different chamber.

The 22 is still in production today, and widely sold with the Runyon and other logos.

Paul

Paul
I've got a couple of those white Kings, and a couple of Runyon  
22's......they appear to be identical





On Jan 2, 2012, at 11:56 AM, tenorman1952 wrote:

>
>
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, matthewvossjazz@... wrote:
> >
> > Wow, thanks for the great info.
> >
> > So the white streamlined piece sold with the King altos were  
> manufactured by Runyon and essentially the same as the 22 (and  
> Comet). Am I understanding that correctly?
>
> I don't know about the white Kings, I'd have to see one.
>
> The Model 22 and Comet were distinctly different mouthpieces. The  
> photo on the Conn mouthpiece site with four amber mouthpiece, two  
> marked Conn, two marked Runyon... those are not 22's, but made from  
> the same dies as the Comet.
>
> The 22 is a larger outer diameter mouthpiece, and a distinctly  
> different chamber.
>
> The 22 is still in production today, and widely sold with the Runyon  
> and other logos.
>
> Paul
>
>
> 

Thanks Steve.

I have a Comet and also a similar Runyon amber. They are almost identical with the Runyon having a seemingly tighter chamber. The Comet is more of the amber color while the Runyon blank is a darker orange.

I was especially curious about the white King piece as it is becoming increasingly clear this was the mouthpiece found in Bird's case in his daughter's possession and recently copied by Drake for the "Legend" series.

Thanks again.

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

-----Original Message-----
From: STEVE GOODSON 
Sender: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2012 12:08:05 
To: 
Reply-To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Mouthpiece Museum

Paul
I've got a couple of those white Kings, and a couple of Runyon  
22's......they appear to be identical





On Jan 2, 2012, at 11:56 AM, tenorman1952 wrote:

>
>
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, matthewvossjazz@... wrote:
> >
> > Wow, thanks for the great info.
> >
> > So the white streamlined piece sold with the King altos were  
> manufactured by Runyon and essentially the same as the 22 (and  
> Comet). Am I understanding that correctly?
>
> I don't know about the white Kings, I'd have to see one.
>
> The Model 22 and Comet were distinctly different mouthpieces. The  
> photo on the Conn mouthpiece site with four amber mouthpiece, two  
> marked Conn, two marked Runyon... those are not 22's, but made from  
> the same dies as the Comet.
>
> The 22 is a larger outer diameter mouthpiece, and a distinctly  
> different chamber.
>
> The 22 is still in production today, and widely sold with the Runyon  
> and other logos.
>
> Paul
>
>
> 

I am EXTREMELY skeptical of the claims of "recently discovered"  
saxophone artifacts......and frankly, the "Legends" concept strikes me  
as bogus



On Jan 2, 2012, at 12:33 PM, matthewvossjazz@... wrote:

> Thanks Steve.
>
> I have a Comet and also a similar Runyon amber. They are almost  
> identical with the Runyon having a seemingly tighter chamber. The  
> Comet is more of the amber color while the Runyon blank is a darker  
> orange.
>
> I was especially curious about the white King piece as it is  
> becoming increasingly clear this was the mouthpiece found in Bird's  
> case in his daughter's possession and recently copied by Drake for  
> the "Legend" series.
>
> Thanks again.
>
> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
> From: STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...>
> Sender: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2012 12:08:05 -0600
> To: <MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com>
> ReplyTo: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Mouthpiece Museum
>
>
> Paul
>
> I've got a couple of those white Kings, and a couple of Runyon  
> 22's......they appear to be identical
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jan 2, 2012, at 11:56 AM, tenorman1952 wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, matthewvossjazz@... wrote:
>> >
>> > Wow, thanks for the great info.
>> >
>> > So the white streamlined piece sold with the King altos were  
>> manufactured by Runyon and essentially the same as the 22 (and  
>> Comet). Am I understanding that correctly?
>>
>> I don't know about the white Kings, I'd have to see one.
>>
>> The Model 22 and Comet were distinctly different mouthpieces. The  
>> photo on the Conn mouthpiece site with four amber mouthpiece, two  
>> marked Conn, two marked Runyon... those are not 22's, but made from  
>> the same dies as the Comet.
>>
>> The 22 is a larger outer diameter mouthpiece, and a distinctly  
>> different chamber.
>>
>> The 22 is still in production today, and widely sold with the  
>> Runyon and other logos.
>>
>> Paul
>>
>>
>
>
>
> 

These people have surviving family.  I don't really think it unreasonable
that Kim Parker and Beverly Getz would have a couple of mouthpieces.  This
is not exactly the Valley of the Kings we're talking about here.

On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 1:43 PM, STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> *I am EXTREMELY skeptical of the claims of "recently discovered"
> saxophone artifacts......and frankly, the "Legends" concept strikes me as
> bogus*
>
>
>
> On Jan 2, 2012, at 12:33 PM, matthewvossjazz@... wrote:
>
> Thanks Steve.
>
> I have a Comet and also a similar Runyon amber. They are almost identical
> with the Runyon having a seemingly tighter chamber. The Comet is more of
> the amber color while the Runyon blank is a darker orange.
>
> I was especially curious about the white King piece as it is becoming
> increasingly clear this was the mouthpiece found in Bird's case in his
> daughter's possession and recently copied by Drake for the "Legend" series.
>
> Thanks again.
> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
> ------------------------------
> *From: *STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...>
> *Sender: *MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> *Date: *Mon, 2 Jan 2012 12:08:05 -0600
> *To: *<MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com>
> *ReplyTo: *MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> *Subject: *Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Mouthpiece Museum
>
>
>
> *Paul*
> *I've got a couple of those white Kings, and a couple of Runyon
> 22's......they appear to be identical*
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jan 2, 2012, at 11:56 AM, tenorman1952 wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, matthewvossjazz@... wrote:
> >
> > Wow, thanks for the great info.
> >
> > So the white streamlined piece sold with the King altos were
> manufactured by Runyon and essentially the same as the 22 (and Comet). Am I
> understanding that correctly?
>
> I don't know about the white Kings, I'd have to see one.
>
> The Model 22 and Comet were distinctly different mouthpieces. The photo on
> the Conn mouthpiece site with four amber mouthpiece, two marked Conn, two
> marked Runyon... those are not 22's, but made from the same dies as the
> Comet.
>
> The 22 is a larger outer diameter mouthpiece, and a distinctly different
> chamber.
>
> The 22 is still in production today, and widely sold with the Runyon and
> other logos.
>
> Paul
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>



-- 
Matt
www.matthewvossjazz.com

the "surviving family" of Charlie Parker has a little cottage industry  
going.....has for years......they've NEVER been able to document  
actual ownership (as far as I know), just their claims.....I'd want to  
see some repair tickets/insurance documents with the right dates and  
serial numbers.....the sale of the Grafton to the museum in Kansas  
City for BIG bucks is a classic example.....none of their transactions  
passes the smell test.......it would certainly be very easy to acquire  
artifacts from the era and pass them off as belonging to somebody  
famous.....the real deal stuff has a nice paper trail associated with  
it.....if it doesn't, let the buyer beware



On Jan 2, 2012, at 1:50 PM, Matthew Voss wrote:

> These people have surviving family.  I don't really think it  
> unreasonable that Kim Parker and Beverly Getz would have a couple of  
> mouthpieces.  This is not exactly the Valley of the Kings we're  
> talking about here.
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 1:43 PM, STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...>  
> wrote:
>
> I am EXTREMELY skeptical of the claims of "recently discovered"  
> saxophone artifacts......and frankly, the "Legends" concept strikes  
> me as bogus
>
>
>
>
> On Jan 2, 2012, at 12:33 PM, matthewvossjazz@... wrote:
>
>> Thanks Steve.
>>
>> I have a Comet and also a similar Runyon amber. They are almost  
>> identical with the Runyon having a seemingly tighter chamber. The  
>> Comet is more of the amber color while the Runyon blank is a darker  
>> orange.
>>
>> I was especially curious about the white King piece as it is  
>> becoming increasingly clear this was the mouthpiece found in Bird's  
>> case in his daughter's possession and recently copied by Drake for  
>> the "Legend" series.
>>
>> Thanks again.
>>
>> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
>> From: STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...>
>> Sender: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>> Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2012 12:08:05 -0600
>> To: <MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com>
>> ReplyTo: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Mouthpiece Museum
>>
>>
>> Paul
>>
>> I've got a couple of those white Kings, and a couple of Runyon  
>> 22's......they appear to be identical
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jan 2, 2012, at 11:56 AM, tenorman1952 wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, matthewvossjazz@... wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Wow, thanks for the great info.
>>> >
>>> > So the white streamlined piece sold with the King altos were  
>>> manufactured by Runyon and essentially the same as the 22 (and  
>>> Comet). Am I understanding that correctly?
>>>
>>> I don't know about the white Kings, I'd have to see one.
>>>
>>> The Model 22 and Comet were distinctly different mouthpieces. The  
>>> photo on the Conn mouthpiece site with four amber mouthpiece, two  
>>> marked Conn, two marked Runyon... those are not 22's, but made  
>>> from the same dies as the Comet.
>>>
>>> The 22 is a larger outer diameter mouthpiece, and a distinctly  
>>> different chamber.
>>>
>>> The 22 is still in production today, and widely sold with the  
>>> Runyon and other logos.
>>>
>>> Paul
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Matt
> www.matthewvossjazz.com
>
>
>
> 

Peter,

Thanks for your response.

I'm just trying to take seriously the notion that a) palm keys tune by length, and b) long tube notes tune by volume, and drawing conclusions for my tuning routine as well as for my mouthpiece choice. If we can't take any of that stuff seriously, then it's of no use whatever, it seems to me.

Thanks again, Jeff


--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Peter Deley <pfdeley@...> wrote:
>
>  Tuning  by the palm keys first to me is intuitively wrong for a multitude of reasons.  Obviously once the low notes are in tune  some finagling is  needed to  balance off low and high end tuning but surely you have to start with the lowest Bb.   The notion that ideal tuning can be reached with some ideal mouthpiece seems rather odd to me too, when we all know that tuning problems are due to the very imperfect design of our instruments.  An ideal saxophone would need several more octave vent keys placed at more optimal locations on the tube. Probably reducing  the flare of the conical bore would also improve tuning, probably at the cost of losing the saxophone sound. Adolph Sax was a very complex, difficult person and his crowning achievement, the instrument we all love, shares the same  traits with him.      As any good sax player will tell you the key to tuning is in the players ear and his or her  ability to correct off notes. Just
>  watch a video of  Johnny Hodges to get a perfect lesson in how to play this brass  beast in tune.  Peter
>

You can experiment with any mouthpiece and see if these ideas hold water.
Get some putty/ clay/ chewing gum/ beeswax or whatever.  Smoosh some around
the walls of the mouthpiece chamber.  See if the expected intonation
changes are real.

The rigorous math applied to this mouthpiece/saxophone problem is
interesting, but the guys on this group who understand it seem to be the
first to admit that sax/mpc acoustics don't follow one single mathematical
model - several major physics phenomena come into play.

Long and short of it - if we can get our mouthpieces to be closer to "in
tune", then we're not working as hard to make the notes "ring" while we're
playing.  We make many adjustments naturally to play the sax in tune, so
the mathematical model of the mouthpiece doesn't have to be perfect in
order for it to work well for a given player.

Dan

On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 2:50 PM, jeff <jdtoddjazz@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Peter,
>
> Thanks for your response.
>
> I'm just trying to take seriously the notion that a) palm keys tune by
> length, and b) long tube notes tune by volume, and drawing conclusions for
> my tuning routine as well as for my mouthpiece choice. If we can't take any
> of that stuff seriously, then it's of no use whatever, it seems to me.
>
> Thanks again, Jeff
>
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Peter Deley <pfdeley@...> wrote:
> >
> >  Tuning  by the palm keys first to me is intuitively wrong for a
> multitude of reasons.  Obviously once the low notes are in tune  some
> finagling is  needed to  balance off low and high end tuning but surely you
> have to start with the lowest Bb.   The notion that ideal tuning can be
> reached with some ideal mouthpiece seems rather odd to me too, when we all
> know that tuning problems are due to the very imperfect design of our
> instruments.  An ideal saxophone would need several more octave vent keys
> placed at more optimal locations on the tube. Probably reducing  the flare
> of the conical bore would also improve tuning, probably at the cost of
> losing the saxophone sound. Adolph Sax was a very complex, difficult person
> and his crowning achievement, the instrument we all love, shares the
> same  traits with him.      As any good sax player will tell you the key to
> tuning is in the players ear and his or her  ability to correct off notes.
> Just
> > watch a video of  Johnny Hodges to get a perfect lesson in how to play
> this brass  beast in tune.  Peter
> >
>
>  
>

One complication in real- life situations is that it is all interactive--make the mpc longer by pulling off the cork and you also change the volume. I was thinking at one point that it might be interesting to make a mpc where the chamber section was made of rubber hose with a hose clamp around it do that you could vary the volume independent of length, but really it is easier just to put some chewed gum in the chamber and retune (the volume has changed) to see what effect that has on the register/short & long tube relationships.
--- jeff <jdtoddjazz@...> wrote:
> Peter,
> 
> Thanks for your response.
> 
> I'm just trying to take seriously the notion that a) palm keys tune by length, and b) long tube notes tune by volume, and drawing conclusions for my tuning routine as well as for my mouthpiece choice. If we can't take any of that stuff seriously, then it's of no use whatever, it seems to me.
> 
> Thanks again, Jeff
> 
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Peter Deley <pfdeley@...> wrote:
> >
> >  Tuning  by the palm keys first to me is intuitively wrong for a multitude of reasons.  Obviously once the low notes are in tune  some finagling is  needed to  balance off low and high end tuning but surely you have to start with the lowest Bb.   The notion that ideal tuning can be reached with some ideal mouthpiece seems rather odd to me too, when we all know that tuning problems are due to the very imperfect design of our instruments.  An ideal saxophone would need several more octave vent keys placed at more optimal locations on the tube. Probably reducing  the flare of the conical bore would also improve tuning, probably at the cost of losing the saxophone sound. Adolph Sax was a very complex, difficult person and his crowning achievement, the instrument we all love, shares the same  traits with him.      As any good sax player will tell you the key to tuning is in the players ear and his or her  ability to correct off notes. Just
> >  watch a video of  Johnny Hodges to get a perfect lesson in how to play this brass  beast in tune.  Peter
> >
> 
> 
> 

"I'm just trying to take seriously the notion that a) palm keys tune by length, and b) long tube notes tune by volume,..."
 
This is a simplification of what is going on, but it is real.  Considering more complex aspects of the physics tends to muddy the waters rather than bring more things you can try IMO.
 
All pitches are affected by length and mouthpiece volume.  It is useful to know that palm key pitches move more than low notes do when the mouthpiece is pushed in/out.  But both do get sharp/flat.
 
So you can push in/out to get the sax in tune with itself, but the entire sax may be sharp or flat.  Mouthpiece volume can be altered to help.  Usually by trying a different mouthpiece until you get better results.  Moving from a large chamber design (like Links) to a medium (most mouthpieces) to a small (squeeze throat, like Selmers) and everything in-between.  
 
But most players prefer to pick a mouthpiece design for sound rather than ease of intonation.  Embouchure changes are used for intonation control.  I'm not saying it has to be this way, just that it is (for most players).

Just grab a large chamber mouthpiece and play around with some temporary putty inside it to see what it does.  You can find out what a large baffle does.   Then you can take the same material and push it deeper into the chamber.  

In each case I would try tuning to F1 and F2 or F#1 and F#2 on the sax.  Then check your high and low notes without moving your embouchure (a lot).


________________________________
From: jeff <jdtoddjazz@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Monday, January 2, 2012 3:50 PM
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces


  
Peter,

Thanks for your response.

I'm just trying to take seriously the notion that a) palm keys tune by length, and b) long tube notes tune by volume, and drawing conclusions for my tuning routine as well as for my mouthpiece choice. If we can't take any of that stuff seriously, then it's of no use whatever, it seems to me.

Thanks again, Jeff

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Peter Deley <pfdeley@...> wrote:
>
>  Tuning  by the palm keys first to me is intuitively wrong for a multitude of reasons.  Obviously once the low notes are in tune  some finagling is  needed to  balance off low and high end tuning but surely you have to start with the lowest Bb.   The notion that ideal tuning can be reached with some ideal mouthpiece seems rather odd to me too, when we all know that tuning problems are due to the very imperfect design of our instruments.  An ideal saxophone would need several more octave vent keys placed at more optimal locations on the tube. Probably reducing  the flare of the conical bore would also improve tuning, probably at the cost of losing the saxophone sound. Adolph Sax was a very complex, difficult person and his crowning achievement, the instrument we all love, shares the same  traits with him.      As any good sax player will tell you the key to tuning is in the players ear and his or her  ability to correct off notes. Just
> watch a video of  Johnny Hodges to get a perfect lesson in how to play this brass  beast in tune.  Peter
>

As I informed Toby quite a few times, just sticking stuff in the mouthpiece will not yield intelligible results.  The latter half of that sentence can not be repeated enough.  One must first determine the exact, inherent volume/frequency relationship the mouthpiece has, due to it's particular geometry, with one specific horn.  The course of action (stick stuff in or take stuff out - only one option can possibly improve the situation) depends upon  the nature of that relationship. Then, one of the parameters must be established correctly and that "correctness" maintained.  Then, and only then, can you alter the geometry to make improvements in the other parameter.  I'll have the routine posted later tonite.



--- On Mon, 1/2/12, dan torosian <dantorosian@...> wrote:

From: dan torosian <dantorosian@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, January 2, 2012, 9:35 PM








 



  


    
      
      
      You can experiment with any mouthpiece and see if these ideas hold water.  Get some putty/ clay/ chewing gum/ beeswax or whatever.  Smoosh some around the walls of the mouthpiece chamber.  See if the expected intonation changes are real.


The rigorous math applied to this mouthpiece/saxophone problem is interesting, but the guys on this group who understand it seem to be the first to admit that sax/mpc acoustics don't follow one single mathematical model - several major physics phenomena come into play.


Long and short of it - if we can get our mouthpieces to be closer to "in tune", then we're not working as hard to make the notes "ring" while we're playing.  We make many adjustments naturally to play the sax in tune, so the mathematical model of the mouthpiece doesn't have to be perfect in order for it to work well for a given player.


Dan

On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 2:50 PM, jeff <jdtoddjazz@...> wrote:
















 



  


    
      
      
      Peter,



Thanks for your response.



I'm just trying to take seriously the notion that a) palm keys tune by length, and b) long tube notes tune by volume, and drawing conclusions for my tuning routine as well as for my mouthpiece choice. If we can't take any of that stuff seriously, then it's of no use whatever, it seems to me.




Thanks again, Jeff



--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Peter Deley <pfdeley@...> wrote:

>

>  Tuning  by the palm keys first to me is intuitively wrong for a multitude of reasons.  Obviously once the low notes are in tune  some finagling is  needed to  balance off low and high end tuning but surely you have to start with the lowest Bb.   The notion that ideal tuning can be reached with some ideal mouthpiece seems rather odd to me too, when we all know that tuning problems are due to the very imperfect design of our instruments.  An ideal saxophone would need several more octave vent keys placed at more optimal locations on the tube. Probably reducing  the flare of the conical bore would also improve tuning, probably at the cost of losing the saxophone sound. Adolph Sax was a very complex, difficult person and his crowning achievement, the instrument we all love, shares the same  traits with him.      As any good sax player will tell you the key to tuning is in the players ear and his or her  ability to correct off notes. Just


>  watch a video of  Johnny Hodges to get a perfect lesson in how to play this brass  beast in tune.  Peter

>





    
     

    
    






  










    
     

    
    






  

uh, call me stupid, but why don't you just play the horn? Seems to me  
you ought to be able to figure it out......



On Jan 2, 2012, at 5:19 PM, MartinMods wrote:

>
> As I informed Toby quite a few times, just sticking stuff in the  
> mouthpiece will not yield intelligible results.  The latter half of  
> that sentence can not be repeated enough.  One must first determine  
> the exact, inherent volume/frequency relationship the mouthpiece  
> has, due to it's particular geometry, with one specific horn.  The  
> course of action (stick stuff in or take stuff out - only one option  
> can possibly improve the situation) depends upon  the nature of that  
> relationship. Then, one of the parameters must be established  
> correctly and that "correctness" maintained.  Then, and only then,  
> can you alter the geometry to make improvements in the other  
> parameter.  I'll have the routine posted later tonite.
>
>
>
> --- On Mon, 1/2/12, dan torosian <dantorosian@...> wrote:
>
> From: dan torosian <dantorosian@...>
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Monday, January 2, 2012, 9:35 PM
>
>
> You can experiment with any mouthpiece and see if these ideas hold  
> water.  Get some putty/ clay/ chewing gum/ beeswax or whatever.   
> Smoosh some around the walls of the mouthpiece chamber.  See if the  
> expected intonation changes are real.
>
> The rigorous math applied to this mouthpiece/saxophone problem is  
> interesting, but the guys on this group who understand it seem to be  
> the first to admit that sax/mpc acoustics don't follow one single  
> mathematical model - several major physics phenomena come into play.
>
> Long and short of it - if we can get our mouthpieces to be closer to  
> "in tune", then we're not working as hard to make the notes "ring"  
> while we're playing.  We make many adjustments naturally to play the  
> sax in tune, so the mathematical model of the mouthpiece doesn't  
> have to be perfect in order for it to work well for a given player.
>
> Dan
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 2:50 PM, jeff <jdtoddjazz@...> wrote:
>
> Peter,
>
> Thanks for your response.
>
> I'm just trying to take seriously the notion that a) palm keys tune  
> by length, and b) long tube notes tune by volume, and drawing  
> conclusions for my tuning routine as well as for my mouthpiece  
> choice. If we can't take any of that stuff seriously, then it's of  
> no use whatever, it seems to me.
>
> Thanks again, Jeff
>
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Peter Deley <pfdeley@...>  
> wrote:
> >
> >  Tuning  by the palm keys first to me is intuitively wrong for a  
> multitude of reasons.  Obviously once the low notes are in tune   
> some finagling is  needed to  balance off low and high end tuning  
> but surely you have to start with the lowest Bb.   The notion that  
> ideal tuning can be reached with some ideal mouthpiece seems rather  
> odd to me too, when we all know that tuning problems are due to the  
> very imperfect design of our instruments.  An ideal saxophone would  
> need several more octave vent keys placed at more optimal locations  
> on the tube. Probably reducing  the flare of the conical bore would  
> also improve tuning, probably at the cost of losing the saxophone  
> sound. Adolph Sax was a very complex, difficult person and his  
> crowning achievement, the instrument we all love, shares the same   
> traits with him.      As any good sax player will tell you the key  
> to tuning is in the players ear and his or her  ability to correct  
> off notes. Just
> > watch a video of  Johnny Hodges to get a perfect lesson in how to  
> play this brass  beast in tune.  Peter
> >
>
>
>
>
> 

That is exactly how I do it.  It takes 4 notes to figure out what is what.

--- On Mon, 1/2/12, STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...> wrote:

From: STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, January 2, 2012, 11:25 PM








 



  


    
      
      
      uh, call me stupid, but why don't you just play the horn? Seems to me you ought to be able to figure it out......


On Jan 2, 2012, at 5:19 PM, MartinMods wrote:

As I informed Toby quite a few times, just sticking stuff in the mouthpiece will not yield intelligible results.  The latter half of that sentence can not be repeated enough.  One must first determine the exact, inherent volume/frequency relationship the mouthpiece has, due to it's particular geometry, with one specific horn.  The course of action (stick stuff in or take stuff out - only one option can possibly improve the situation) depends upon  the nature of that relationship. Then, one of the parameters must be established correctly and that "correctness" maintained.  Then, and only then, can you alter the geometry to make improvements in the other parameter.  I'll have the routine posted later tonite.



--- On Mon, 1/2/12, dan torosian <dantorosian@gmail.com> wrote:

From: dan torosian <dantorosian@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, January 2, 2012, 9:35 PM

 You can experiment with any mouthpiece and see if these ideas hold water.  Get some putty/ clay/ chewing gum/ beeswax or whatever.  Smoosh some around the walls of the mouthpiece chamber.  See if the expected intonation changes are real.

The rigorous math applied to this mouthpiece/saxophone problem is interesting, but the guys on this group who understand it seem to be the first to admit that sax/mpc acoustics don't follow one single mathematical model - several major physics phenomena come into play.

Long and short of it - if we can get our mouthpieces to be closer to "in tune", then we're not working as hard to make the notes "ring" while we're playing.  We make many adjustments naturally to play the sax in tune, so the mathematical model of the mouthpiece doesn't have to be perfect in order for it to work well for a given player.

Dan

On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 2:50 PM, jeff <jdtoddjazz@...> wrote:
 Peter,

Thanks for your response.

I'm just trying to take seriously the notion that a) palm keys tune by length, and b) long tube notes tune by volume, and drawing conclusions for my tuning routine as well as for my mouthpiece choice. If we can't take any of that stuff seriously, then it's of no use whatever, it seems to me.

Thanks again, Jeff

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Peter Deley <pfdeley@...> wrote:
>
>  Tuning  by the palm keys first to me is intuitively wrong for a multitude of reasons.  Obviously once the low notes are in tune  some finagling is  needed to  balance off low and high end tuning but surely you have to start with the lowest Bb.   The notion that ideal tuning can be reached with some ideal mouthpiece seems rather odd to me too, when we all know that tuning problems are due to the very imperfect design of our instruments.  An ideal saxophone would need several more octave vent keys placed at more optimal locations on the tube. Probably reducing  the flare of the conical bore would also improve tuning, probably at the cost of losing the saxophone sound. Adolph Sax was a very complex, difficult person and his crowning achievement, the instrument we all love, shares the same  traits with him.      As any good sax player will tell you the key to tuning is in the players ear and his or her  ability to correct off notes. Just
> watch a video of  Johnny Hodges to get a perfect lesson in how to play this brass  beast in tune.  Peter
>






    
     

    
    






  

I recently acquired a lovely tárogató. Sax players have no idea how lucky they are in terms of intonation and pitch stability in a single-reed conical instrument. You have no idea how bad it can be. 

Sax was a genius; he overcame a number of inherent acoustical problems that most players don't even realize exist in conical woodwinds. As Antoine Lefebvre says, no mpc design overcomes problems inherent in a real-world conical bore. I agree absolutely with Steve: find a setup that suits you; love the one you're with, and get on with it.

--- Peter Deley <pfdeley@...> wrote:
>  Tuning  by the palm keys first to me is intuitively wrong for a multitude of reasons.  Obviously once the low notes are in tune  some finagling is  needed to  balance off low and high end tuning but surely you have to start with the lowest Bb.   The notion that ideal tuning can be reached with some ideal mouthpiece seems rather odd to me too, when we all know that tuning problems are due to the very imperfect design of our instruments.  An ideal saxophone would need several more octave vent keys placed at more optimal locations on the tube. Probably reducing  the flare of the conical bore would also improve tuning, probably at the cost of losing the saxophone sound. Adolph Sax was a very complex, difficult person and his crowning achievement, the instrument we all love, shares the same  traits with him.      As any good sax player will tell you the key to tuning is in the players ear and his or her  ability to correct off notes. Just
>  watch a video of  Johnny Hodges to get a perfect lesson in how to play this brass  beast in tune.  Peter

I remember my visits with Paul Coats and Santy Runyon. You would go into Santy's studio and he would have a dozen mouthpieces out that he was experimenting with. Not a calculator in sight. No formulas. He just made mouthpieces, played them, and kept changing them until they stopped getting better with every adjustment. Occasionally, he would ask Paul for his opinion on how one sounded. Usually, Santy just knew.   

Sent from my iPad

STEVE  GOODSON
Saxophone Guru and Visionary
New Orleans
www.nationofmusic.com



On Jan 2, 2012, at 8:17 PM, kymarto123@... wrote:

> I recently acquired a lovely tárogató. Sax players have no idea how lucky they are in terms of intonation and pitch stability in a single-reed conical instrument. You have no idea how bad it can be. 
> 
> Sax was a genius; he overcame a number of inherent acoustical problems that most players don't even realize exist in conical woodwinds. As Antoine Lefebvre says, no mpc design overcomes problems inherent in a real-world conical bore. I agree absolutely with Steve: find a setup that suits you; love the one you're with, and get on with it.
> 
> --- Peter Deley <pfdeley@...> wrote:
> >  Tuning  by the palm keys first to me is intuitively wrong for a multitude with Paul Coats  of reasons.  Obviously once the low notes are in tune  some finagling is  needed to  balance off low and high end tuning but surely you have to start with the lowest Bb.   The notion that ideal tuning can be reached with some ideal mouthpiece seems rather odd to me too, when we all know that tuning problems are due to the very imperfect design of our instruments.  An ideal saxophone would need several more octave vent keys placed at more optimal locations on the tube. Probably reducing  the flare of the conical bore would also improve tuning, probably at the cost of losing the saxophone sound. Adolph Sax was a very complex, difficult person and his crowning achievement, the instrument we all love, shares the same  traits with him.      As any good sax player will tell you the key to tuning is in the players ear and his or her  ability to correct off notes. Just
> > watch a video of  Johnny Hodges to get a perfect lesson in how to play this brass  beast in tune.  Peter
> 

Happy New Year!!
Try to work with the subject matter, I enclose something about it, because all the diaphragms are not equal, nor all the tracheas, all have their special mouths, teeth are not always in place (when they are hehe) the tongue is thinner or plumper and we say once and, saxophonist sometimes not always know what you are doing.
fraternally
Silverio

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, matthewvossjazz@... wrote:
>
> Thanks Steve.
> 
> I have a Comet and also a similar Runyon amber. They are almost identical with the Runyon having a seemingly tighter chamber. The Comet is more of the amber color while the Runyon blank is a darker orange.
> 
> I was especially curious about the white King piece as it is becoming increasingly clear this was the mouthpiece found in Bird's case in his daughter's possession and recently copied by Drake for the "Legend" series.
> 
> Thanks again.
> 

Charlie Parker took lessons from Santy Runyon at the famous Runyon Studio in Chicago, as did Sonny Stitt, and many other legends.  Charlie played, and is seen in many of his publicity photos with a Runyon 22 in the ivory color.  Somewhere around here I have a photo taken in Santy's studio with Parker's photo framed on the wall.  Though not visible, I remember it being autographed something to the effect, "To the worlds greatest teacher" or somesuch.

The color difference you saw between the amber Conns and the dark, almost orange Runyons, those alto blanks were from a batch run in which they put too much of the amber tint.  They were experimenting with how much it took to get the right color.  Though they were too dark to use for the Conns, they still made perfectly good mouthpieces. They found a barrel of blanks at the factory up in the "loft" of the old too dark alto blanks, which is where those you have come from.

Paul

Those are nice exercises to get to know your mouthpiece.

--- On Tue, 1/3/12, Silverio <silpopaar@...> wrote:

From: Silverio <silpopaar@yahoo.com.ar>
Subject: Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces [1 Attachment]
To: "MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com" <MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Tuesday, January 3, 2012, 2:34 AM








 



  


    
      
              
        [Attachment(s) from Silverio included below]
        
      
      Happy New Year!!
Try to work with the subject matter, I enclose something about it, because all the diaphragms are not equal, nor all the tracheas, all have their special mouths, teeth are not always in place (when they are hehe) the tongue is thinner or plumper and we say once and, saxophonist sometimes not always know what you are doing.
fraternally
Silverio

    
     

    
    






  

Keith, 

I tried tuning the short tube notes first, proceeding in octaves and comparing C#2 to C#3 as Lance suggested to me, and I agree with you that it is impracticable to start with the palm key notes. Especially C#3 is too flexible to serve as a first point of reference. I don't have the same issue with C#2. Better to tune the long tube notes first, as tradition would dictate. 

Thanks for your input. Jeff



--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:
>
> If find tuning to palm key notes difficult.  Especially on sop sax.  If is too easy to bend the notes with your embouchure.  
> 
> 

Jeff,

According to this, it appears you are not quite clear on the sequence of steps or the purpose of the evaluation routine I sent you. 


--- On Tue, 1/3/12, jeff <jdtoddjazz@...> wrote:

From: jeff <jdtoddjazz@yahoo.com>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, January 3, 2012, 5:30 AM








 



  


    
      
      
      Keith, 



I tried tuning the short tube notes first, proceeding in octaves and comparing C#2 to C#3 as Lance suggested to me, and I agree with you that it is impracticable to start with the palm key notes. Especially C#3 is too flexible to serve as a first point of reference. I don't have the same issue with C#2. Better to tune the long tube notes first, as tradition would dictate. 



Thanks for your input. Jeff



--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:

>

> If find tuning to palm key notes difficult.  Especially on sop sax.  If is too easy to bend the notes with your embouchure.  

> 

> 





    
     

    
    






  

...:-) and to clarify :-)  There are some very important prerequisites for doing this with any degree of success.

1. horn in good condition with no leaks
2. no crescents or other bore/tone hole modifications
3. original or sensible and even venting
4. mouthpiece with playable facing/tip opening/baffle
5. and most, most, most important - you must have sufficient embouchure development so you can play C#3,  with a steady tone, on whichever size horn you are testing.  You don't have to hold it for 16 bars, but you have to be able to play it, without problems, long enough to evaluate it's pitch.  If you can't do that, don't worry about your mouthpiece.  It is not your problem.  Just go have fun playing your horn the way it is. 

If you can get a developed player to do the playing for you though, that will work second best.  Then, if you are serious at some point, your progress on the instrument can be considerably faster.




--- On Tue, 1/3/12, jeff <jdtoddjazz@...> wrote:

From: jeff <jdtoddjazz@...>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, January 3, 2012, 5:30 AM








 



  


    
      
      
      Keith, 



I tried tuning the short tube notes first, proceeding in octaves and comparing C#2 to C#3 as Lance suggested to me, and I agree with you that it is impracticable to start with the palm key notes. Especially C#3 is too flexible to serve as a first point of reference. I don't have the same issue with C#2. Better to tune the long tube notes first, as tradition would dictate. 



Thanks for your input. Jeff



--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:

>

> If find tuning to palm key notes difficult.  Especially on sop sax.  If is too easy to bend the notes with your embouchure.  

> 

> 





    
     

    
    






  

I looked at Antoine's short+fat/long+slender mouthpiece models again and something became clear to me.  While the "numbers" approach gives accurate data, the reason it doesn't equate to real life at all lies in the musically uncharacteristic manner in which that data is interpreted.  Let's take a look at that.  The mouthpiece model data is as follows:

First system (small chamber)



Fundamental resonance: 238.5 Hz

Second resonance: 485.33 Hz (30 cents sharp)

Third resonance: 749.5 Hz (80 cents sharp)



Second system (large chamber)



Fundamental resonance: 238.8 Hz

Second resonance: 490.0 Hz (44 cents sharp)

Third resonance: 765.6 Hz (115 cents sharp)

So, since both mouthpieces have perfect volume and the fundamental frequencies are essentially the same it is concluded that other than the raised second octave, there is no difference between the two, i.e. length has no effect on playing frequency.  

Let's turn these into real mouthpieces though, played by a real player, in a real ensemble, in the real world, and we will see exactly, the two characteristic problems that players can have with mouthpieces.  

There isn't one real wind instrument I know of that uses it's lowest note as it's reference note for overall tuning.  Invariably it's in the second register, so characteristically, let's pick the second resonance of our models as our tuning note.  Our instruments are now 14 cents out of tune.  Being that they are extreme examples, lets pick the mean frequency as the tuning standard of the ensemble.  

The player tries to tune with the long mouthpiece and he is 7 cents flat, so he pushes his mouthpiece onto the cork to  tune up.  His volume is now reduced, his fundamental lowest note raised in pitch, and the overall scale is stretched. 

He now tries the short mouthpiece and finds that he is 7 cents sharp, so he pulls out. His volume is then increased, his fundamental lowest note frequency lowered, and his overall scale is compressed.  

Things now look completely different than they did don't they?  Just because we actually tried to play the models.  Hmmm.    Next I'll show you what matching the mouthpiece does with these two different scenarios.

To put this in perspective, we are talking about seven cents with mpcs that are almost three centimeters different in length. Most players can barely hear seven cents difference absent an external reference. 

Before you start in about professionals vs. amateurs, Coltman did a test with fifty flutists, having them try to repeat a note in various trials. He found that on average, neither amateur flutists nor professionals were able to get closer than six cents on repeated tries, with many not being able to get closer than fifteen cents, including professionals.

So really, seven cents doesn't seem like such a big deal, especially considering the extremity of the example, and the fact that minor embouchure adjustments on sax can easily send a note twenty or thirty cents either side of center.

As the old "Pajama Game" song goes: "Seven and a half cents, doesn't mean a hell of a lot. Seven and a half cents, doesn't mean a thing...."

--- On Tue, 2012/1/3, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:















 
 



  


    
      
      
      I looked at Antoine's short+fat/long+slender mouthpiece models again and something became clear to me.  While the "numbers" approach gives accurate data, the reason it doesn't equate to real life at all lies in the musically uncharacteristic manner in which that data is interpreted.  Let's take a look at that.  The mouthpiece model data is as follows:

First system (small chamber)



Fundamental resonance: 238.5 Hz

Second resonance: 485.33 Hz (30 cents sharp)

Third resonance: 749.5 Hz (80 cents sharp)



Second system (large chamber)



Fundamental resonance: 238.8 Hz

Second resonance: 490.0 Hz (44 cents sharp)

Third resonance: 765.6 Hz (115 cents sharp)

So, since both mouthpieces have perfect volume and the fundamental frequencies are essentially the same it is concluded that other than the raised second octave, there is no difference between the two, i.e. length has no effect on playing frequency.  

Let's turn these into real mouthpieces though, played by a real player, in a real ensemble, in the real world, and we will see exactly, the two characteristic problems that players can have with mouthpieces.  

There isn't one real wind instrument I know of that uses it's lowest note as it's reference note for overall tuning.  Invariably it's in the second register, so characteristically, let's pick the second resonance of our models as our tuning note.  Our instruments are now 14 cents out of tune.  Being that they are extreme examples, lets pick the mean frequency as the tuning standard of the ensemble. 
 

The player tries to tune with the long mouthpiece and he is 7 cents flat, so he pushes his mouthpiece onto the cork to  tune up.  His volume is now reduced, his fundamental lowest note raised in pitch, and the overall scale is stretched. 

He now tries the short mouthpiece and finds that he is 7 cents sharp, so he pulls out. His volume is then increased, his fundamental lowest note frequency lowered, and his overall scale is compressed.  

Things now look completely different than they did don't they?  Just because we actually tried to play the models.  Hmmm.    Next I'll show you what matching the mouthpiece does with these two different scenarios.




    
     

    
    


 



  

:-) The selection of the mean pitch as the standard was arbitrary and intended only to demonstrate that the "numbers" interpretation bears no resemblance to the musician's reality.  To be consistent with real instrument design, the fundamental reflects the standard pitch center (the resonances being integral) so actually, the tuning note of the long mouthpiece is 30 cents sharp and that of the short mouthpiece 44 cents sharp.  Tuning then to the ensemble, destroys any relation to correct volume, throwing both instruments completely out of whack. The models and the conclusions are meaningless unless they can be applied to the musician's real world.  More realistically proportioned cylindrical mouthpiece models on a basic D1 - C#2 conical tube would demonstrate adequately what is going on with mouthpiece volume, length and resultant scale deviations, but only if interpreted from the player's point of view.. 



--- On Tue, 1/3/12, kymarto123@....jp <kymarto123@...> wrote:

From: kymarto123@... <kymarto123@ybb.ne.jp>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, January 3, 2012, 10:25 AM








 



  


    
      
      
      To put this in perspective, we are talking about seven cents with mpcs that are almost three centimeters different in length. Most players can barely hear seven cents difference absent an external reference. 

Before you start in about professionals vs. amateurs, Coltman did a test with fifty flutists, having them try to repeat a note in various trials. He found that on average, neither amateur flutists nor professionals were able to get closer than six cents on repeated tries, with many not being able to get closer than fifteen cents, including professionals.

So really, seven cents doesn't seem like such a big deal, especially considering the extremity of the example, and the fact that minor embouchure adjustments on sax can easily send a note twenty or thirty cents either side of center.

As the old "Pajama Game" song goes: "Seven and a
 half cents, doesn't mean a hell of a lot. Seven and a half cents, doesn't mean a thing...."

--- On Tue, 2012/1/3, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...m> wrote:















 
 



    
      
      
      I looked at Antoine's short+fat/long+slender mouthpiece models again and something became clear to me.  While the "numbers" approach gives accurate data, the reason it doesn't equate to real life at all lies in the musically uncharacteristic manner in which that data is interpreted.  Let's take a look at that.  The mouthpiece model data is as follows:

First system (small chamber)



Fundamental resonance: 238.5 Hz

Second resonance: 485.33 Hz (30 cents sharp)

Third resonance: 749.5 Hz (80 cents sharp)



Second system (large chamber)



Fundamental resonance: 238.8 Hz

Second resonance: 490.0 Hz (44 cents sharp)

Third resonance: 765.6 Hz (115 cents sharp)

So, since both mouthpieces have perfect volume and the fundamental frequencies are essentially the same it is concluded that other than the raised second octave, there is no difference between the two, i.e. length has no effect on playing frequency.  

Let's turn these into real mouthpieces though, played by a real player, in a real ensemble, in the real world, and we will see exactly, the two characteristic problems that players can have with mouthpieces.  

There isn't one real wind instrument I know of that uses it's lowest note as it's reference note for overall tuning.  Invariably it's in the second register, so characteristically, let's pick the second resonance of our models as our tuning note.  Our instruments are now 14 cents out of tune.  Being that they are extreme examples, lets pick the mean frequency as the tuning standard of the ensemble. 
 

The player tries to tune with the long mouthpiece and he is 7 cents flat, so he pushes his mouthpiece onto the cork to  tune up.  His volume is now reduced, his fundamental lowest note raised in pitch, and the overall scale is stretched. 

He now tries the short mouthpiece and finds that he is 7 cents sharp, so he pulls out. His volume is then increased, his fundamental lowest note frequency lowered, and his overall scale is compressed.  

Things now look completely different than they did don't they?  Just because we actually tried to play the models.  Hmmm.    Next I'll show you what matching the mouthpiece does with these two different scenarios.




    
     



 







    
     

    
    






  

I think the key phrase is "external reference". In ensemble, other things
may obtain.

At a jazz gig about a year ago, I remember feeling I could not get in tune
during the first set, and mentioned it to band members after the set.  Our
guitarist discovered he had inadvertently set his tuner to 444 instead of
440.  I would not have thought such a tiny difference would  have been
detectible.  (Haven't tried to reproduce this, however, so this cannot be
called anything but anecdotal).

Barry

> From: kymarto123@...
> Reply-To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 19:25:10 +0900 (JST)
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
> 
> To put this in perspective, we are talking about seven cents with mpcs that
> are almost three centimeters different in length. Most players can barely hear
> seven cents difference absent an external reference.
> 
> Before you start in about professionals vs. amateurs, Coltman did a test with
> fifty flutists, having them try to repeat a note in various trials. He found
> that on average, neither amateur flutists nor professionals were able to get
> closer than six cents on repeated tries, with many not being able to get
> closer than fifteen cents, including professionals.
> 
> So really, seven cents doesn't seem like such a big deal, especially
> considering the extremity of the example, and the fact that minor embouchure
> adjustments on sax can easily send a note twenty or thirty cents either side
> of center.
> 
> As the old "Pajama Game" song goes: "Seven and a half cents, doesn't mean a
> hell of a lot. Seven and a half cents, doesn't mean a thing...."
> 

you were lucky you werent playing for the Berlin symphony orchestra they
tune near 448 Hz or even moscow at 450!

 

Source: NYT article;
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/08/13/nyregion/as-pitch-in-opera-rises-so-does-d
ebate.html?pagewanted=all
<http://www.nytimes.com/1989/08/13/nyregion/as-pitch-in-opera-rises-so-does-
debate.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm> &src=pm

 

Van: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
Namens Barry Levine
Verzonden: dinsdag 3 januari 2012 14:54
Aan: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Onderwerp: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces

 

  

I think the key phrase is "external reference". In ensemble, other things
may obtain.

At a jazz gig about a year ago, I remember feeling I could not get in tune
during the first set, and mentioned it to band members after the set.  Our
guitarist discovered he had inadvertently set his tuner to 444 instead of
440.  I would not have thought such a tiny difference would  have been
detectible.  (Haven't tried to reproduce this, however, so this cannot be
called anything but anecdotal).

Barry


From: kymarto123@...
Reply-To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 19:25:10 +0900 (JST)
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces

To put this in perspective, we are talking about seven cents with mpcs that
are almost three centimeters different in length. Most players can barely
hear seven cents difference absent an external reference. 

Before you start in about professionals vs. amateurs, Coltman did a test
with fifty flutists, having them try to repeat a note in various trials. He
found that on average, neither amateur flutists nor professionals were able
to get closer than six cents on repeated tries, with many not being able to
get closer than fifteen cents, including professionals.

So really, seven cents doesn't seem like such a big deal, especially
considering the extremity of the example, and the fact that minor embouchure
adjustments on sax can easily send a note twenty or thirty cents either side
of center.

As the old "Pajama Game" song goes: "Seven and a half cents, doesn't mean a
hell of a lot. Seven and a half cents, doesn't mean a thing...."

 

Thanks again Paul.

Just to be clear, I wasn't trying to make a case for what Bird actually
played.  And I don't doubt that he played on the Runyon piece as he played
on several pieces.  It appears pretty well documented in photos, video
footage, album art, etc. that Bird was also playing on the Selmer England
piece from somewhere around 1949/50 on.

I was curious about the Drake piece and subsequently Runyon's connection to
Conn and King.

I do think those Comet/Runyon pieces are great.  Andy Farber was playing on
an alto Comet on his most recent release recorded at Sear Sound in NYC last
year.

On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 10:43 PM, tenorman1952 <tenorman1952@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
>
>
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, matthewvossjazz@... wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Steve.
> >
> > I have a Comet and also a similar Runyon amber. They are almost
> identical with the Runyon having a seemingly tighter chamber. The Comet is
> more of the amber color while the Runyon blank is a darker orange.
> >
> > I was especially curious about the white King piece as it is becoming
> increasingly clear this was the mouthpiece found in Bird's case in his
> daughter's possession and recently copied by Drake for the "Legend" series.
> >
> > Thanks again.
> >
>
> Charlie Parker took lessons from Santy Runyon at the famous Runyon Studio
> in Chicago, as did Sonny Stitt, and many other legends. Charlie played, and
> is seen in many of his publicity photos with a Runyon 22 in the ivory
> color. Somewhere around here I have a photo taken in Santy's studio with
> Parker's photo framed on the wall. Though not visible, I remember it being
> autographed something to the effect, "To the worlds greatest teacher" or
> somesuch.
>
> The color difference you saw between the amber Conns and the dark, almost
> orange Runyons, those alto blanks were from a batch run in which they put
> too much of the amber tint. They were experimenting with how much it took
> to get the right color. Though they were too dark to use for the Conns,
> they still made perfectly good mouthpieces. They found a barrel of blanks
> at the factory up in the "loft" of the old too dark alto blanks, which is
> where those you have come from.
>
> Paul
>
>  
>



-- 
Matt
www.matthewvossjazz.com

What more realistic models would demonstrate is less intonational variation, as these are outliers chosen to demonstrate exaggerated effect. 

BTW what is a basic D1-C#2 conical tube, and how does the player's point of view differ from any other point of view as regards intonation?

And here I thought you said you agreed with everything Antoine said...


--- MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
> :-) The selection of the mean pitch as the standard was arbitrary and intended only to demonstrate that the "numbers" interpretation bears no resemblance to the musician's reality.  To be consistent with real instrument design, the fundamental reflects the standard pitch center (the resonances being integral) so actually, the tuning note of the long mouthpiece is 30 cents sharp and that of the short mouthpiece 44 cents sharp.  Tuning then to the ensemble, destroys any relation to correct volume, throwing both instruments completely out of whack. The models and the conclusions are meaningless unless they can be applied to the musician's real world.  More realistically proportioned cylindrical mouthpiece models on a basic D1 - C#2 conical tube would demonstrate adequately what is going on with mouthpiece volume, length and resultant scale deviations, but only if interpreted from the player's point of view.. 
> 
> 
> 
> --- On Tue, 1/3/12, kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...> wrote:
> 
> From: kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...>
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Tuesday, January 3, 2012, 10:25 AM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
>   
> 
> 
>     
>       
>       
>       To put this in perspective, we are talking about seven cents with mpcs that are almost three centimeters different in length. Most players can barely hear seven cents difference absent an external reference. 
> 
> Before you start in about professionals vs. amateurs, Coltman did a test with fifty flutists, having them try to repeat a note in various trials. He found that on average, neither amateur flutists nor professionals were able to get closer than six cents on repeated tries, with many not being able to get closer than fifteen cents, including professionals.
> 
> So really, seven cents doesn't seem like such a big deal, especially considering the extremity of the example, and the fact that minor embouchure adjustments on sax can easily send a note twenty or thirty cents either side of center.
> 
> As the old "Pajama Game" song goes: "Seven and a
>  half cents, doesn't mean a hell of a lot. Seven and a half cents, doesn't mean a thing...."
> 
> --- On Tue, 2012/1/3, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
>  
> 
> 
> 
>     
>       
>       
>       I looked at Antoine's short+fat/long+slender mouthpiece models again and something became clear to me.  While the "numbers" approach gives accurate data, the reason it doesn't equate to real life at all lies in the musically uncharacteristic manner in which that data is interpreted.  Let's take a look at that.  The mouthpiece model data is as follows:
> 
> First system (small chamber)
> 
> 
> 
> Fundamental resonance: 238.5 Hz
> 
> Second resonance: 485.33 Hz (30 cents sharp)
> 
> Third resonance: 749.5 Hz (80 cents sharp)
> 
> 
> 
> Second system (large chamber)
> 
> 
> 
> Fundamental resonance: 238.8 Hz
> 
> Second resonance: 490.0 Hz (44 cents sharp)
> 
> Third resonance: 765.6 Hz (115 cents sharp)
> 
> So, since both mouthpieces have perfect volume and the fundamental frequencies are essentially the same it is concluded that other than the raised second octave, there is no difference between the two, i.e. length has no effect on playing frequency.  
> 
> Let's turn these into real mouthpieces though, played by a real player, in a real ensemble, in the real world, and we will see exactly, the two characteristic problems that players can have with mouthpieces.  
> 
> There isn't one real wind instrument I know of that uses it's lowest note as it's reference note for overall tuning.  Invariably it's in the second register, so characteristically, let's pick the second resonance of our models as our tuning note.  Our instruments are now 14 cents out of tune.  Being that they are extreme examples, lets pick the mean frequency as the tuning standard of the ensemble. 
>  
> 
> The player tries to tune with the long mouthpiece and he is 7 cents flat, so he pushes his mouthpiece onto the cork to  tune up.  His volume is now reduced, his fundamental lowest note raised in pitch, and the overall scale is stretched. 
> 
> He now tries the short mouthpiece and finds that he is 7 cents sharp, so he pulls out. His volume is then increased, his fundamental lowest note frequency lowered, and his overall scale is compressed.  
> 
> Things now look completely different than they did don't they?  Just because we actually tried to play the models.  Hmmm.    Next I'll show you what matching the mouthpiece does with these two different scenarios.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>     
>      
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>     
>      
> 
>     
>     
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   
> 
> 
> 
> 

I'm pretty sure that most experienced musicians automatically and unconsciously match whatever pitch is being played in ensemble. I mean, isn't it torturous when you have somebody near you playing sharp and you can either blend with him and be out of tune with the ensemble, or blend with the rest and clash with him?

If all the notes on a sax were only seven cents apart in terms of their pitch center that would be an unheard of design accomplishment. Take a look at an impedance graph of the passive resonances of even a very good horn and you will find note-to-note discrepancies of close to 20 cents sometimes, and a maximum range of around 40 cents, sometimes more. 10 cent discrepancies should be considered very good.

At least the discrepancies introduced by the mpc are incremental and gradual, except at the C#/D break. This is not to say they are desirable, but most good players compensate automatically, especially when they have an external reference like the rest of the band.

--- Barry Levine <barrylevine@...> wrote:
> I think the key phrase is "external reference". In ensemble, other things
> may obtain.
> 
> At a jazz gig about a year ago, I remember feeling I could not get in tune
> during the first set, and mentioned it to band members after the set.  Our
> guitarist discovered he had inadvertently set his tuner to 444 instead of
> 440.  I would not have thought such a tiny difference would  have been
> detectible.  (Haven't tried to reproduce this, however, so this cannot be
> called anything but anecdotal).
> 
> Barry
> 
> > From: kymarto123@...
> > Reply-To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> > Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 19:25:10 +0900 (JST)
> > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
> > 
> > To put this in perspective, we are talking about seven cents with mpcs that
> > are almost three centimeters different in length. Most players can barely hear
> > seven cents difference absent an external reference.
> > 
> > Before you start in about professionals vs. amateurs, Coltman did a test with
> > fifty flutists, having them try to repeat a note in various trials. He found
> > that on average, neither amateur flutists nor professionals were able to get
> > closer than six cents on repeated tries, with many not being able to get
> > closer than fifteen cents, including professionals.
> > 
> > So really, seven cents doesn't seem like such a big deal, especially
> > considering the extremity of the example, and the fact that minor embouchure
> > adjustments on sax can easily send a note twenty or thirty cents either side
> > of center.
> > 
> > As the old "Pajama Game" song goes: "Seven and a half cents, doesn't mean a
> > hell of a lot. Seven and a half cents, doesn't mean a thing...."
> > 
> 
> 

Barry, 

It is true that five cents either way is considered about the maximum deviation from the designed pitch of the instrument that you want to tune to, since the scale starts getting weird after that. I can well understand that A = 444 would be uncomfortable.

What is interesting is the fact that Antoine found all mpc designs going quite sharp in the upper registers, and yet we quite automatically drop the pitch via our embouchure to stay in tune. It would be interesting to put a sax on an artificial embouchure that is invariant and see how the pitch fares. Might sound like your typical first-year sax student in terms of intonation ;-) 

It's really interesting to see the passive impedance graph of a flute: it starts very flat in the bottom of the first octave and ends up very sharp at the top of the second, but since the change is gradual and progressive, flute players automatically adjust as they move up--in fact the flute is designed (via the contraction in the head joint) to get progressively sharper, in order to facilitate the production of the higher notes. To achieve them with control, it is necessarily to move the lips closer to the blowing edge, and that increases end correction and flattens the pitch. 

Changes in sax embouchure also easily change pitch by changing the effective mpc volume. This will immediately destroy the octave relationships in the best-adjusted mpc. Changes in reed strength also change effective volume, and yet good players, as Steve points out, manage to stay in tune. It's like riding a bicycle--once you have the fine muscle control it just automatically kicks in, and you only really notice it when things get out of your comfort zone, like A at 444...


--- Barry Levine <barrylevine@...> wrote:
> I think the key phrase is "external reference". In ensemble, other things
> may obtain.
> 
> At a jazz gig about a year ago, I remember feeling I could not get in tune
> during the first set, and mentioned it to band members after the set.  Our
> guitarist discovered he had inadvertently set his tuner to 444 instead of
> 440.  I would not have thought such a tiny difference would  have been
> detectible.  (Haven't tried to reproduce this, however, so this cannot be
> called anything but anecdotal).
> 
> Barry
> 
> > From: kymarto123@....jp
> > Reply-To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> > Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 19:25:10 +0900 (JST)
> > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
> > 
> > To put this in perspective, we are talking about seven cents with mpcs that
> > are almost three centimeters different in length. Most players can barely hear
> > seven cents difference absent an external reference.
> > 
> > Before you start in about professionals vs. amateurs, Coltman did a test with
> > fifty flutists, having them try to repeat a note in various trials. He found
> > that on average, neither amateur flutists nor professionals were able to get
> > closer than six cents on repeated tries, with many not being able to get
> > closer than fifteen cents, including professionals.
> > 
> > So really, seven cents doesn't seem like such a big deal, especially
> > considering the extremity of the example, and the fact that minor embouchure
> > adjustments on sax can easily send a note twenty or thirty cents either side
> > of center.
> > 
> > As the old "Pajama Game" song goes: "Seven and a half cents, doesn't mean a
> > hell of a lot. Seven and a half cents, doesn't mean a thing...."
> > 
> 
> 

"What is interesting is the fact that Antoine found all mpc designs going
 quite sharp in the upper registers, and yet we quite automatically drop
 the pitch via our embouchure to stay in tune."



Some more gross misconceptions I'm afraid.  I don't have time to make 
charts now, but if you care to look at p. 39 in Nederveen, Fig. 27.4, 
you'll see his graph of frequency deviation for various mouthpiece 
cavity/missing cone values on a conical tube. It shows the entire scale 
of a bassoon.  The saxophone frequency deviation scale shape is the 
same, only the register break in a different place, so we can easily use
 this graph to understand things.  



I did say I agreed with everything Antoine said.  His numbers are 
accurate....but further, I said he needed more real word data to analyze
 and that the academic, theoretical understanding of mouthpieces lags 
behind the current, successful application of the actual mouthpiece 
making art - a nice way of saying his conclusions are wrong.  



True, both models display the tendency for sharpness in the upper 
registers, exactly as Nederveen's 1/1 ratio line does (observe the pitch
 deviation at notes G3, G4, and D4 - the same data points Antoine uses. 
 Magnitude is less on Nederveen's graph due to the different cone angle,
 but the tendency is the same.).  Insightfully, Nederveen mentions this 
fact and goes on to say, "As a matter of fact, no such deviations are 
experienced in reality. Therefore mechanisms must exist which provide 
compensations."



Indeed.  Besides the effects of reed damping and reed motion, the 
mouthpiece maker knowingly or unknowingly makes compensations by 
manipulating the actual played mouthpiece volume, which is determined by
 cork placement at the middle register tuning note
 and the chamber diameter.  The dynamics which make it possible to both 
cancel out the effects of the conical air column and negate the 
comparatively minor, additional difference between long/narrow and 
short/fat chambers are these:



1. The mouthpiece maker isn't interested in the "numbers".  The only 
thing that matters is what works.  Invariably, the end result is 
anything but an exact 1/1 ratio.  Thus the use of "approximate" in the 
literature.



2.  As we have seen. the two mouthpiece models differ in frequency at 
the second resonance which serves as the tuning reference for the maker 
and the player.  By keeping the played volume constant and altering 
length, the maker takes advantage of this second resonance variance and 
can make further compensations to the effects of the conical air column.
 



3. Depending upon what the actual played volume, the effects of the 
conical air column and/or the #2 length adjustment, can be inverted.



A usable mouthpiece/instrument model for understanding the saxophone 
must consist of a two octave range and enough data points to show what 
happens at changes in register.  Extreme designs in real mouthpiece 
design are either musically uninteresting or don't work.  Extreme model 
designs have the same advantages.  Difference of 5 cents between octave resonance peak alignment are readily apparent to the player in terms of tone, response, dynamic range, besides intonation.  Meticulous compensation adjustments yield really amazing results.   As the nature of these results is mostly a matter of depth and refinement of the instruments qualities, the "less-refined" player will obscure them before noticing them :-)  There. We have something we can use to make better mouthpieces with. 

We don't all lower our jaw to play the upper register.  

Just one note: double reeds are a different animal, as you should remember from Benade. The reed cavity is nowhere near that of the missing cone tip. Benade ascribes this to mechanics of the reeds, and Nederveen gives different formulae for double and single reeds.

--- On Wed, 2012/1/4, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:















 
 



  


    
      
      
      "What is interesting is the fact that Antoine found all mpc designs going
 quite sharp in the upper registers, and yet we quite automatically drop
 the pitch via our embouchure to stay in tune."



Some more gross misconceptions I'm afraid.  I don't have time to make 
charts now, but if you care to look at p. 39 in Nederveen, Fig. 27.4, 
you'll see his graph of frequency deviation for various mouthpiece 
cavity/missing cone values on a conical tube. It shows the entire scale 
of a bassoon.  The saxophone frequency deviation scale shape is the 
same, only the register break in a different place, so we can easily use
 this graph to understand things.  



I did say I agreed with everything Antoine said.  His numbers are 
accurate....but further, I said he needed more real word data to analyze
 and that the academic, theoretical understanding of mouthpieces lags 
behind the current, successful application of the actual mouthpiece 
making art - a nice way of saying his conclusions are wrong.  



True, both models display the tendency for sharpness in the upper 
registers, exactly as Nederveen's 1/1 ratio line does (observe the pitch
 deviation at notes G3, G4, and D4 - the same data points Antoine uses. 
 Magnitude is less on Nederveen's graph due to the different cone angle,
 but the tendency is the same.).  Insightfully, Nederveen mentions this 
fact and goes on to say, "As a matter of fact, no such deviations are 
experienced in reality. Therefore mechanisms must exist which provide 
compensations."



Indeed.  Besides the effects of reed damping and reed motion, the 
mouthpiece maker knowingly or unknowingly makes compensations by 
manipulating the actual played mouthpiece volume, which is determined by
 cork placement at the middle register tuning note
 and the chamber diameter.  The dynamics which make it possible to both 
cancel out the effects of the conical air column and negate the 
comparatively minor, additional difference between long/narrow and 
short/fat chambers are these:



1. The mouthpiece maker isn't interested in the "numbers".  The only 
thing that matters is what works.  Invariably, the end result is 
anything but an exact 1/1 ratio.  Thus the use of "approximate" in the 
literature.



2.  As we have seen. the two mouthpiece models differ in frequency at 
the second resonance which serves as the tuning reference for the maker 
and the player.  By keeping the played volume constant and altering 
length, the maker takes advantage of this second resonance variance and 
can make further compensations to the effects of the conical air column.
 



3. Depending upon what the actual played volume, the effects of the 
conical air column and/or the #2 length adjustment, can be inverted.



A usable mouthpiece/instrument model for understanding the saxophone 
must consist of a two octave range and enough data points to show what 
happens at changes in register.  Extreme designs in real mouthpiece 
design are either musically uninteresting or don't work.  Extreme model 
designs have the same advantages.  Difference of 5 cents between octave resonance peak alignment are readily apparent to the player in terms of tone, response, dynamic range, besides intonation.  Meticulous compensation adjustments yield really amazing results.   As the nature of these results is mostly a matter of depth and refinement of the instruments qualities, the "less-refined" player will obscure them before noticing them :-)  There. We have something we can use to make better mouthpieces with. 

We don't all lower our jaw to play the upper register.  











    
     

    
    


 



  

Not in this model.  It's just a cavity.  Notice the range of the plotted cavity ratios.  At 1/1 the tendency is toward sharpness in the upper registers.  As you increase volume, the curve becomes flat, and then inverse.  A perfectly matched mouthpiece juggles the effects of the conical tube, those of the mouthpiece style, the reed, and the player, within a narrow band in this area.  The results are amazing.  

Make 5 mouthpieces that solve 5 individual player's individual horn/mouthpiece intonation problems, and you will have a good working understanding of what is going on.  

I've lost count.


--- On Wed, 1/4/12, kymarto123@ybb.ne.jp <kymarto123@...> wrote:

From: kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...>
Subject: Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, January 4, 2012, 12:43 AM








 



  


    
      
      
      Just one note: double reeds are a different animal, as you should remember from Benade. The reed cavity is nowhere near that of the missing cone tip. Benade ascribes this to mechanics of the reeds, and Nederveen gives different formulae for double and single reeds.

--- On Wed, 2012/1/4, MartinMods <lancelotburt@yahoo.com> wrote:















 
 



    
      
      
      "What is interesting is the fact that Antoine found all mpc designs going
 quite sharp in the upper registers, and yet we quite automatically drop
 the pitch via our embouchure to stay in tune."



Some more gross misconceptions I'm afraid.  I don't have time to make 
charts now, but if you care to look at p. 39 in Nederveen, Fig. 27.4, 
you'll see his graph of frequency deviation for various mouthpiece 
cavity/missing cone values on a conical tube. It shows the entire scale 
of a bassoon.  The saxophone frequency deviation scale shape is the 
same, only the register break in a different place, so we can easily use
 this graph to understand things.  



I did say I agreed with everything Antoine said.  His numbers are 
accurate....but further, I said he needed more real word data to analyze
 and that the academic, theoretical understanding of mouthpieces lags 
behind the current, successful application of the actual mouthpiece 
making art - a nice way of saying his conclusions are wrong.  



True, both models display the tendency for sharpness in the upper 
registers, exactly as Nederveen's 1/1 ratio line does (observe the pitch
 deviation at notes G3, G4, and D4 - the same data points Antoine uses. 
 Magnitude is less on Nederveen's graph due to the different cone angle,
 but the tendency is the same.).  Insightfully, Nederveen mentions this 
fact and goes on to say, "As a matter of fact, no such deviations are 
experienced in reality. Therefore mechanisms must exist which provide 
compensations."



Indeed.  Besides the effects of reed damping and reed motion, the 
mouthpiece maker knowingly or unknowingly makes compensations by 
manipulating the actual played mouthpiece volume, which is determined by
 cork placement at the middle register tuning note
 and the chamber diameter.  The dynamics which make it possible to both 
cancel out the effects of the conical air column and negate the 
comparatively minor, additional difference between long/narrow and 
short/fat chambers are these:



1. The mouthpiece maker isn't interested in the "numbers".  The only 
thing that matters is what works.  Invariably, the end result is 
anything but an exact 1/1 ratio.  Thus the use of "approximate" in the 
literature.



2.  As we have seen. the two mouthpiece models differ in frequency at 
the second resonance which serves as the tuning reference for the maker 
and the player.  By keeping the played volume constant and altering 
length, the maker takes advantage of this second resonance variance and 
can make further compensations to the effects of the conical air column.
 



3. Depending upon what the actual played volume, the effects of the 
conical air column and/or the #2 length adjustment, can be inverted.



A usable mouthpiece/instrument model for understanding the saxophone 
must consist of a two octave range and enough data points to show what 
happens at changes in register.  Extreme designs in real mouthpiece 
design are either musically uninteresting or don't work.  Extreme model 
designs have the same advantages.  Difference of 5 cents between octave resonance peak alignment are readily apparent to the player in terms of tone, response, dynamic range, besides intonation.  Meticulous compensation adjustments yield really amazing results.   As the nature of these results is mostly a matter of depth and refinement of the instruments qualities, the "less-refined" player will obscure them before noticing them :-)  There. We have something we can use to make better mouthpieces with. 

We don't all lower our jaw to play the upper register.  











    
     



 







    
     

    
    






  

Well, at least we have your word for it.

--- MartinMods <lancelotburt@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Not in this model.  It's just a cavity.  Notice the range of the plotted cavity ratios.  At 1/1 the tendency is toward sharpness in the upper registers.  As you increase volume, the curve becomes flat, and then inverse.  A perfectly matched mouthpiece juggles the effects of the conical tube, those of the mouthpiece style, the reed, and the player, within a narrow band in this area.  The results are amazing.  
> 
> Make 5 mouthpieces that solve 5 individual player's individual horn/mouthpiece intonation problems, and you will have a good working understanding of what is going on.  
> 
> I've lost count.
> 
>

The formula for doing the same is there.  Take advantage of it or not, as you will.



--- On Wed, 1/4/12, kymarto123@... <kymarto123@ybb.ne.jp> wrote:

From: kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...>
Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, January 4, 2012, 2:42 AM








 



  


    
      
      
      Well, at least we have your word for it.



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

> Not in this model.  It's just a cavity.  Notice the range of the plotted cavity ratios.  At 1/1 the tendency is toward sharpness in the upper registers.  As you increase volume, the curve becomes flat, and then inverse.  A perfectly matched mouthpiece juggles the effects of the conical tube, those of the mouthpiece style, the reed, and the player, within a narrow band in this area.  The results are amazing.  

> 

> Make 5 mouthpieces that solve 5 individual player's individual horn/mouthpiece intonation problems, and you will have a good working understanding of what is going on.  

> 

> I've lost count.

> 

>



    
     

    
    






  

I trust the total silence in the group to mean you are all busy trying this out perhaps.  The method I use, which is similar to that which Paul uses, I got for free from Arthur Benade.  It is printed right there in his published papers from the 1970's, and since I first started reading him 4 years ago, I have heard the key phrases tossed back and forth on the various saxophone forums and seen them quoted in many a doctoral thesis, absent of any
 apparent comprehension as to what they actually mean in their practical application.  I'll paraphrase:

1. Saxophone players should be as meticulous in matching their mouthpieces to their horns as oboist/bassoonists are in fiddling with their reeds.  That sounds nice.  We know about volume
 and frs/frequency, but did anyone ever bother to go see just what it is that oboists/bassoonists actually do?   There must be something there we can learn from.  I don't see any orchestras tuning up to the soprano saxophone's concert A.

2. That meticulousness includes tweaking the volume/frs to get the optimal results.  That means that once we got into the ballpark using the numbers, we abandon them to score.

Benade's oboe reed balancing routine boils down to this when related to the saxophone:

We are well aware of the volume induced tendencies of the conical air column - how at a 1/1 volume ratio and lower, they induce sharpness in the upper registers, and a bit lower than 1/1, those tendencies lessen and then become inverted.  We are also aware that a large chambered mouthpiece increases those tendencies in the upper registers compared to a small chambered
 mouthpiece - the frs of the two are different.  To eliminate the conical air column effects for the played instrument we must abandon the A=440 pitch center for a moment, and anchor the mouthpiece volume (i.e. where it is placed on the cork)  so that the low end of our overblown tube (D1/D2) has optimal resonance alignment - it must produce a perfect octave.  Easy.  Pull out (or push in) until D1/D2 is a perfect octave - and here is where "meticulous" comes into play.  Tune the octave using a tuner so that the center of your unavoidable pitch variations is at 0 cents deviation.  One uses a steady, normal embouchure making absolutely no adjustments. No adjustments.  No adjustments.  We are halfway there.

Now, unless we had a perfect mouthpiece to start with, our pitch center is off, as is the resonance alignment of the short end of the overblown tube
 (C#2/C#3).   Whatever we do to fix this, we must maintain the initial, optimal mouthpiece volume alignment (Not the place on the cork, but the perfect D1/D2 octave).  Realize that the initial "pulling out/pushing in" adjustment changed two aspects of the mouthpiece, the volume AND the length, for a pretty gross change in the stretching of the scale. 
 We now make gradual adjustments to the length alone, or frs - the pitch tendency of the chamber type in the upper registers, using the shortest overblown tube as our reference.  Making the chamber fatter while maintaining volume, raises the overall played pitch of the mouthpiece, affecting the upper register more than the lower.  Making the chamber narrower while maintaining volume lowers it.  

Between repeated steps of checking the D1/D2 octave for perfection and then making the appropriate chamber geometry adjustment, raising or lowering the pitch to improve the C#2/C#3 octave, the short tube will come into perfect alignment (same 0 cent deviation at center of pitch wobble) .  With both ends of the basic tube perfectly aligned, the ends (bell tones/palm keys) and in-between (middle register) take care of themselves.  The entire scale is within 5 cents of flat, perfectly situated in the A=440 pitch center. 
 

One experiences a new playing and listening sensation - one voice - no perception of register changes.  The sound gets a silvery "sheen" to it as the horn resonates more perfectly with the cosmos - really.  Now, after you experience this, from both the playing and listening standpoint, it becomes addictive.  You immediately notice the conical air column effect qualities that you left behind, to varied degrees, in the playing of others - everywhere (almost - some got lucky or were smart with their setup).  It sticks out like wrong notes in Mozart.  You can even start listening to the silvery sheen evenness more than the notes they are playing, as you realize that hearing the conical air column effects is tiring, even annoying.

IMO, this is the future of saxophone development - refinement.  



--- On Wed, 1/4/12, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
 wrote:

From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, January 4, 2012, 2:46 AM








 



  


    
      
      
      The formula for doing the same is there.  Take advantage of it or not, as you will.



--- On Wed, 1/4/12, kymarto123@....jp <kymarto123@...> wrote:

From: kymarto123@... <kymarto123@ybb.ne.jp>
Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, January 4, 2012, 2:42 AM








 



    
      
      
      Well, at least we have your word for it.



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

> Not in this model.  It's just a cavity.  Notice the range of the plotted cavity ratios.  At 1/1 the tendency is toward sharpness in the upper registers.  As you increase volume, the curve becomes flat, and then inverse.  A perfectly matched mouthpiece juggles the effects of the conical tube, those of the mouthpiece style, the reed, and the player, within a narrow band in this area.  The results are amazing.  

> 

> Make 5 mouthpieces that solve 5 individual player's individual horn/mouthpiece intonation problems, and you will have a good working understanding of what is going on.  

> 

> I've lost count.

> 

>



    
     








    
     

    
    






  

...one then will also see that there are some extreme mouthpiece designs which can not be balanced.

Well, I have tried it in the past but it never seemed to work for me.  Maybe I was doing it wrong.

It would be great if you could post some evidence of your own results, such as intonation charts showing before and after tuning, such as the type Fred Wyman used in his thesis.

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
>
> I trust the total silence in the group to mean you are all busy trying this out perhaps.  The method I use, which is similar to that which Paul uses, I got for free from Arthur Benade.  It is printed right there in his published papers from the 1970's, and since I first started reading him 4 years ago, I have heard the key phrases tossed back and forth on the various saxophone forums and seen them quoted in many a doctoral thesis, absent of any
>  apparent comprehension as to what they actually mean in their practical application.  I'll paraphrase:
> 
> 1. Saxophone players should be as meticulous in matching their mouthpieces to their horns as oboist/bassoonists are in fiddling with their reeds.  That sounds nice.  We know about volume
>  and frs/frequency, but did anyone ever bother to go see just what it is that oboists/bassoonists actually do?   There must be something there we can learn from.  I don't see any orchestras tuning up to the soprano saxophone's concert A.
> 
> 2. That meticulousness includes tweaking the volume/frs to get the optimal results.  That means that once we got into the ballpark using the numbers, we abandon them to score.
> 
> Benade's oboe reed balancing routine boils down to this when related to the saxophone:
> 
> We are well aware of the volume induced tendencies of the conical air column - how at a 1/1 volume ratio and lower, they induce sharpness in the upper registers, and a bit lower than 1/1, those tendencies lessen and then become inverted.  We are also aware that a large chambered mouthpiece increases those tendencies in the upper registers compared to a small chambered
>  mouthpiece - the frs of the two are different.  To eliminate the conical air column effects for the played instrument we must abandon the A=440 pitch center for a moment, and anchor the mouthpiece volume (i.e. where it is placed on the cork)  so that the low end of our overblown tube (D1/D2) has optimal resonance alignment - it must produce a perfect octave.  Easy.  Pull out (or push in) until D1/D2 is a perfect octave - and here is where "meticulous" comes into play.  Tune the octave using a tuner so that the center of your unavoidable pitch variations is at 0 cents deviation.  One uses a steady, normal embouchure making absolutely no adjustments. No adjustments.  No adjustments.  We are halfway there.
> 
> Now, unless we had a perfect mouthpiece to start with, our pitch center is off, as is the resonance alignment of the short end of the overblown tube
>  (C#2/C#3).   Whatever we do to fix this, we must maintain the initial, optimal mouthpiece volume alignment (Not the place on the cork, but the perfect D1/D2 octave).  Realize that the initial "pulling out/pushing in" adjustment changed two aspects of the mouthpiece, the volume AND the length, for a pretty gross change in the stretching of the scale. 
>  We now make gradual adjustments to the length alone, or frs - the pitch tendency of the chamber type in the upper registers, using the shortest overblown tube as our reference.  Making the chamber fatter while maintaining volume, raises the overall played pitch of the mouthpiece, affecting the upper register more than the lower.  Making the chamber narrower while maintaining volume lowers it.  
> 
> Between repeated steps of checking the D1/D2 octave for perfection and then making the appropriate chamber geometry adjustment, raising or lowering the pitch to improve the C#2/C#3 octave, the short tube will come into perfect alignment (same 0 cent deviation at center of pitch wobble) .  With both ends of the basic tube perfectly aligned, the ends (bell tones/palm keys) and in-between (middle register) take care of themselves.  The entire scale is within 5 cents of flat, perfectly situated in the A=440 pitch center. 
>  
> 
> One experiences a new playing and listening sensation - one voice - no perception of register changes.  The sound gets a silvery "sheen" to it as the horn resonates more perfectly with the cosmos - really.  Now, after you experience this, from both the playing and listening standpoint, it becomes addictive.  You immediately notice the conical air column effect qualities that you left behind, to varied degrees, in the playing of others - everywhere (almost - some got lucky or were smart with their setup).  It sticks out like wrong notes in Mozart.  You can even start listening to the silvery sheen evenness more than the notes they are playing, as you realize that hearing the conical air column effects is tiring, even annoying.
> 
> IMO, this is the future of saxophone development - refinement.  
> 
> 
> 
> --- On Wed, 1/4/12, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
>  wrote:
> 
> From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
> Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Wednesday, January 4, 2012, 2:46 AM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
>   
> 
> 
>     
>       
>       
>       The formula for doing the same is there.  Take advantage of it or not, as you will.
> 
> 
> 
> --- On Wed, 1/4/12, kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...> wrote:
> 
> From: kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...>
> Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Wednesday, January 4, 2012, 2:42 AM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
>     
>       
>       
>       Well, at least we have your word for it.
> 
> 
> 
> --- MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
> 
> > Not in this model.  It's just a cavity.  Notice the range of the plotted cavity ratios.  At 1/1 the tendency is toward sharpness in the upper registers.  As you increase volume, the curve becomes flat, and then inverse.  A perfectly matched mouthpiece juggles the effects of the conical tube, those of the mouthpiece style, the reed, and the player, within a narrow band in this area.  The results are amazing.  
> 
> > 
> 
> > Make 5 mouthpieces that solve 5 individual player's individual horn/mouthpiece intonation problems, and you will have a good working understanding of what is going on.  
> 
> > 
> 
> > I've lost count.
> 
> > 
> 
> >
>

I'd be willing to take you through it, step-by-step.


--- On Thu, 1/5/12, crunchie_nuts <andrewhdonaldson@...> wrote:

From: crunchie_nuts <andrewhdonaldson@...>
Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, January 5, 2012, 12:38 AM








 



  


    
      
      
      Well, I have tried it in the past but it never seemed to work for me.  Maybe I was doing it wrong.



It would be great if you could post some evidence of your own results, such as intonation charts showing before and after tuning, such as the type Fred Wyman used in his thesis.



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

>

> I trust the total silence in the group to mean you are all busy trying this out perhaps.  The method I use, which is similar to that which Paul uses, I got for free from Arthur Benade.  It is printed right there in his published papers from the 1970's, and since I first started reading him 4 years ago, I have heard the key phrases tossed back and forth on the various saxophone forums and seen them quoted in many a doctoral thesis, absent of any

>  apparent comprehension as to what they actually mean in their practical application.  I'll paraphrase:

> 

> 1. Saxophone players should be as meticulous in matching their mouthpieces to their horns as oboist/bassoonists are in fiddling with their reeds.  That sounds nice.  We know about volume

>  and frs/frequency, but did anyone ever bother to go see just what it is that oboists/bassoonists actually do?   There must be something there we can learn from.  I don't see any orchestras tuning up to the soprano saxophone's concert A.

> 

> 2. That meticulousness includes tweaking the volume/frs to get the optimal results.  That means that once we got into the ballpark using the numbers, we abandon them to score.

> 

> Benade's oboe reed balancing routine boils down to this when related to the saxophone:

> 

> We are well aware of the volume induced tendencies of the conical air column - how at a 1/1 volume ratio and lower, they induce sharpness in the upper registers, and a bit lower than 1/1, those tendencies lessen and then become inverted.  We are also aware that a large chambered mouthpiece increases those tendencies in the upper registers compared to a small chambered

>  mouthpiece - the frs of the two are different.  To eliminate the conical air column effects for the played instrument we must abandon the A=440 pitch center for a moment, and anchor the mouthpiece volume (i.e. where it is placed on the cork)  so that the low end of our overblown tube (D1/D2) has optimal resonance alignment - it must produce a perfect octave.  Easy.  Pull out (or push in) until D1/D2 is a perfect octave - and here is where "meticulous" comes into play.  Tune the octave using a tuner so that the center of your unavoidable pitch variations is at 0 cents deviation.  One uses a steady, normal embouchure making absolutely no adjustments. No adjustments.  No adjustments.  We are halfway there.

> 

> Now, unless we had a perfect mouthpiece to start with, our pitch center is off, as is the resonance alignment of the short end of the overblown tube

>  (C#2/C#3).   Whatever we do to fix this, we must maintain the initial, optimal mouthpiece volume alignment (Not the place on the cork, but the perfect D1/D2 octave).  Realize that the initial "pulling out/pushing in" adjustment changed two aspects of the mouthpiece, the volume AND the length, for a pretty gross change in the stretching of the scale. 

>  We now make gradual adjustments to the length alone, or frs - the pitch tendency of the chamber type in the upper registers, using the shortest overblown tube as our reference.  Making the chamber fatter while maintaining volume, raises the overall played pitch of the mouthpiece, affecting the upper register more than the lower.  Making the chamber narrower while maintaining volume lowers it.  

> 

> Between repeated steps of checking the D1/D2 octave for perfection and then making the appropriate chamber geometry adjustment, raising or lowering the pitch to improve the C#2/C#3 octave, the short tube will come into perfect alignment (same 0 cent deviation at center of pitch wobble) .  With both ends of the basic tube perfectly aligned, the ends (bell tones/palm keys) and in-between (middle register) take care of themselves.  The entire scale is within 5 cents of flat, perfectly situated in the A=440 pitch center. 

>  

> 

> One experiences a new playing and listening sensation - one voice - no perception of register changes.  The sound gets a silvery "sheen" to it as the horn resonates more perfectly with the cosmos - really.  Now, after you experience this, from both the playing and listening standpoint, it becomes addictive.  You immediately notice the conical air column effect qualities that you left behind, to varied degrees, in the playing of others - everywhere (almost - some got lucky or were smart with their setup).  It sticks out like wrong notes in Mozart.  You can even start listening to the silvery sheen evenness more than the notes they are playing, as you realize that hearing the conical air column effects is tiring, even annoying.

> 

> IMO, this is the future of saxophone development - refinement.  

> 

> 

> 

> --- On Wed, 1/4/12, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>

>  wrote:

> 

> From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>

> Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces

> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com

> Date: Wednesday, January 4, 2012, 2:46 AM

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

>  

> 

> 

> 

>   

> 

> 

>     

>       

>       

>       The formula for doing the same is there.  Take advantage of it or not, as you will.

> 

> 

> 

> --- On Wed, 1/4/12, kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...> wrote:

> 

> From: kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...>

> Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces

> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com

> Date: Wednesday, January 4, 2012, 2:42 AM

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

>  

> 

> 

> 

>     

>       

>       

>       Well, at least we have your word for it.

> 

> 

> 

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

> 

> > Not in this model.  It's just a cavity.  Notice the range of the plotted cavity ratios.  At 1/1 the tendency is toward sharpness in the upper registers.  As you increase volume, the curve becomes flat, and then inverse.  A perfectly matched mouthpiece juggles the effects of the conical tube, those of the mouthpiece style, the reed, and the player, within a narrow band in this area.  The results are amazing.  

> 

> > 

> 

> > Make 5 mouthpieces that solve 5 individual player's individual horn/mouthpiece intonation problems, and you will have a good working understanding of what is going on.  

> 

> > 

> 

> > I've lost count.

> 

> > 

> 

> >

>





    
     

    
    






  

 I tried it.  D1,D2  relationship good.....I had to pull out the mouthpiece quite a bit.    C#2,C#3.....works closer to my usual tuning spot.      So does this mean I need a larger chamber mouthpiece to get D1,D2 relationship occuring with a shorter overall tuning length?

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
>
> I'd be willing to take you through it, step-by-step.
> 
> 
> --- On Thu, 1/5/12, crunchie_nuts <andrewhdonaldson@...> wrote:
> 
> From: crunchie_nuts <andrewhdonaldson@...>
> Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Thursday, January 5, 2012, 12:38 AM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
>   
> 
> 
>     
>       
>       
>       Well, I have tried it in the past but it never seemed to work for me.  Maybe I was doing it wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> It would be great if you could post some evidence of your own results, such as intonation charts showing before and after tuning, such as the type Fred Wyman used in his thesis.
> 
> 
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@> wrote:
> 
> >
> 
> > I trust the total silence in the group to mean you are all busy trying this out perhaps.  The method I use, which is similar to that which Paul uses, I got for free from Arthur Benade.  It is printed right there in his published papers from the 1970's, and since I first started reading him 4 years ago, I have heard the key phrases tossed back and forth on the various saxophone forums and seen them quoted in many a doctoral thesis, absent of any
> 
> >  apparent comprehension as to what they actually mean in their practical application.  I'll paraphrase:
> 
> > 
> 
> > 1. Saxophone players should be as meticulous in matching their mouthpieces to their horns as oboist/bassoonists are in fiddling with their reeds.  That sounds nice.  We know about volume
> 
> >  and frs/frequency, but did anyone ever bother to go see just what it is that oboists/bassoonists actually do?   There must be something there we can learn from.  I don't see any orchestras tuning up to the soprano saxophone's concert A.
> 
> > 
> 
> > 2. That meticulousness includes tweaking the volume/frs to get the optimal results.  That means that once we got into the ballpark using the numbers, we abandon them to score.
> 
> > 
> 
> > Benade's oboe reed balancing routine boils down to this when related to the saxophone:
> 
> > 
> 
> > We are well aware of the volume induced tendencies of the conical air column - how at a 1/1 volume ratio and lower, they induce sharpness in the upper registers, and a bit lower than 1/1, those tendencies lessen and then become inverted.  We are also aware that a large chambered mouthpiece increases those tendencies in the upper registers compared to a small chambered
> 
> >  mouthpiece - the frs of the two are different.  To eliminate the conical air column effects for the played instrument we must abandon the A=440 pitch center for a moment, and anchor the mouthpiece volume (i.e. where it is placed on the cork)  so that the low end of our overblown tube (D1/D2) has optimal resonance alignment - it must produce a perfect octave.  Easy.  Pull out (or push in) until D1/D2 is a perfect octave - and here is where "meticulous" comes into play.  Tune the octave using a tuner so that the center of your unavoidable pitch variations is at 0 cents deviation.  One uses a steady, normal embouchure making absolutely no adjustments. No adjustments.  No adjustments.  We are halfway there.
> 
> > 
> 
> > Now, unless we had a perfect mouthpiece to start with, our pitch center is off, as is the resonance alignment of the short end of the overblown tube
> 
> >  (C#2/C#3).   Whatever we do to fix this, we must maintain the initial, optimal mouthpiece volume alignment (Not the place on the cork, but the perfect D1/D2 octave).  Realize that the initial "pulling out/pushing in" adjustment changed two aspects of the mouthpiece, the volume AND the length, for a pretty gross change in the stretching of the scale. 
> 
> >  We now make gradual adjustments to the length alone, or frs - the pitch tendency of the chamber type in the upper registers, using the shortest overblown tube as our reference.  Making the chamber fatter while maintaining volume, raises the overall played pitch of the mouthpiece, affecting the upper register more than the lower.  Making the chamber narrower while maintaining volume lowers it.  
> 
> > 
> 
> > Between repeated steps of checking the D1/D2 octave for perfection and then making the appropriate chamber geometry adjustment, raising or lowering the pitch to improve the C#2/C#3 octave, the short tube will come into perfect alignment (same 0 cent deviation at center of pitch wobble) .  With both ends of the basic tube perfectly aligned, the ends (bell tones/palm keys) and in-between (middle register) take care of themselves.  The entire scale is within 5 cents of flat, perfectly situated in the A=440 pitch center. 
> 
> >  
> 
> > 
> 
> > One experiences a new playing and listening sensation - one voice - no perception of register changes.  The sound gets a silvery "sheen" to it as the horn resonates more perfectly with the cosmos - really.  Now, after you experience this, from both the playing and listening standpoint, it becomes addictive.  You immediately notice the conical air column effect qualities that you left behind, to varied degrees, in the playing of others - everywhere (almost - some got lucky or were smart with their setup).  It sticks out like wrong notes in Mozart.  You can even start listening to the silvery sheen evenness more than the notes they are playing, as you realize that hearing the conical air column effects is tiring, even annoying.
> 
> > 
> 
> > IMO, this is the future of saxophone development - refinement.  
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > --- On Wed, 1/4/12, MartinMods <lancelotburt@>
> 
> >  wrote:
> 
> > 
> 
> > From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@>
> 
> > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
> 
> > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> 
> > Date: Wednesday, January 4, 2012, 2:46 AM
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> >  
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> >   
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> >     
> 
> >       
> 
> >       
> 
> >       The formula for doing the same is there.  Take advantage of it or not, as you will.
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > --- On Wed, 1/4/12, kymarto123@ <kymarto123@> wrote:
> 
> > 
> 
> > From: kymarto123@ <kymarto123@>
> 
> > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
> 
> > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> 
> > Date: Wednesday, January 4, 2012, 2:42 AM
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> >  
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> >     
> 
> >       
> 
> >       
> 
> >       Well, at least we have your word for it.
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > --- MartinMods <lancelotburt@> wrote:
> 
> > 
> 
> > > Not in this model.  It's just a cavity.  Notice the range of the plotted cavity ratios.  At 1/1 the tendency is toward sharpness in the upper registers.  As you increase volume, the curve becomes flat, and then inverse.  A perfectly matched mouthpiece juggles the effects of the conical tube, those of the mouthpiece style, the reed, and the player, within a narrow band in this area.  The results are amazing.  
> 
> > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > > Make 5 mouthpieces that solve 5 individual player's individual horn/mouthpiece intonation problems, and you will have a good working understanding of what is going on.  
> 
> > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > > I've lost count.
> 
> > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > >
> 
> >
>

Find the place on the cork that produces a perfect D1/D2 octave, regardless of how that relates to A=440.  Leave the mouthpiece there.  Then test the C#2/C#3 octave.  The degree to which the C#'s are out of tune to A=440 and each other is the degree of acoustical mismatch between your mouthpiece and your horn.  At that position, your C#'s are flat, so you need to somehow make your chamber or throat larger in diameter, or you need a new mouthpiece that is a closer match - has a fatter chamber.  Enlarging the throat makes the tone somewhat broader or less focused.  One can regain that focus with baffle work.   



--- On Fri, 1/6/12, John <john_w_price33@...> wrote:

From: John <john_w_price33@...>
Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, January 6, 2012, 1:38 AM








 



  


    
      
      
       I tried it.  D1,D2  relationship good.....I had to pull out the mouthpiece quite a bit.    C#2,C#3.....works closer to my usual tuning spot.      So does this mean I need a larger chamber mouthpiece to get D1,D2 relationship occuring with a shorter overall tuning length?



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

>

> I'd be willing to take you through it, step-by-step.

> 

> 

> --- On Thu, 1/5/12, crunchie_nuts <andrewhdonaldson@...> wrote:

> 

> From: crunchie_nuts <andrewhdonaldson@...>

> Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces

> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com

> Date: Thursday, January 5, 2012, 12:38 AM

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

>  

> 

> 

> 

>   

> 

> 

>     

>       

>       

>       Well, I have tried it in the past but it never seemed to work for me.  Maybe I was doing it wrong.

> 

> 

> 

> It would be great if you could post some evidence of your own results, such as intonation charts showing before and after tuning, such as the type Fred Wyman used in his thesis.

> 

> 

> 

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

> 

> >

> 

> > I trust the total silence in the group to mean you are all busy trying this out perhaps.  The method I use, which is similar to that which Paul uses, I got for free from Arthur Benade.  It is printed right there in his published papers from the 1970's, and since I first started reading him 4 years ago, I have heard the key phrases tossed back and forth on the various saxophone forums and seen them quoted in many a doctoral thesis, absent of any

> 

> >  apparent comprehension as to what they actually mean in their practical application.  I'll paraphrase:

> 

> > 

> 

> > 1. Saxophone players should be as meticulous in matching their mouthpieces to their horns as oboist/bassoonists are in fiddling with their reeds.  That sounds nice.  We know about volume

> 

> >  and frs/frequency, but did anyone ever bother to go see just what it is that oboists/bassoonists actually do?   There must be something there we can learn from.  I don't see any orchestras tuning up to the soprano saxophone's concert A.

> 

> > 

> 

> > 2. That meticulousness includes tweaking the volume/frs to get the optimal results.  That means that once we got into the ballpark using the numbers, we abandon them to score.

> 

> > 

> 

> > Benade's oboe reed balancing routine boils down to this when related to the saxophone:

> 

> > 

> 

> > We are well aware of the volume induced tendencies of the conical air column - how at a 1/1 volume ratio and lower, they induce sharpness in the upper registers, and a bit lower than 1/1, those tendencies lessen and then become inverted.  We are also aware that a large chambered mouthpiece increases those tendencies in the upper registers compared to a small chambered

> 

> >  mouthpiece - the frs of the two are different.  To eliminate the conical air column effects for the played instrument we must abandon the A=440 pitch center for a moment, and anchor the mouthpiece volume (i.e. where it is placed on the cork)  so that the low end of our overblown tube (D1/D2) has optimal resonance alignment - it must produce a perfect octave.  Easy.  Pull out (or push in) until D1/D2 is a perfect octave - and here is where "meticulous" comes into play.  Tune the octave using a tuner so that the center of your unavoidable pitch variations is at 0 cents deviation.  One uses a steady, normal embouchure making absolutely no adjustments. No adjustments.  No adjustments.  We are halfway there.

> 

> > 

> 

> > Now, unless we had a perfect mouthpiece to start with, our pitch center is off, as is the resonance alignment of the short end of the overblown tube

> 

> >  (C#2/C#3).   Whatever we do to fix this, we must maintain the initial, optimal mouthpiece volume alignment (Not the place on the cork, but the perfect D1/D2 octave).  Realize that the initial "pulling out/pushing in" adjustment changed two aspects of the mouthpiece, the volume AND the length, for a pretty gross change in the stretching of the scale. 

> 

> >  We now make gradual adjustments to the length alone, or frs - the pitch tendency of the chamber type in the upper registers, using the shortest overblown tube as our reference.  Making the chamber fatter while maintaining volume, raises the overall played pitch of the mouthpiece, affecting the upper register more than the lower.  Making the chamber narrower while maintaining volume lowers it.  

> 

> > 

> 

> > Between repeated steps of checking the D1/D2 octave for perfection and then making the appropriate chamber geometry adjustment, raising or lowering the pitch to improve the C#2/C#3 octave, the short tube will come into perfect alignment (same 0 cent deviation at center of pitch wobble) .  With both ends of the basic tube perfectly aligned, the ends (bell tones/palm keys) and in-between (middle register) take care of themselves.  The entire scale is within 5 cents of flat, perfectly situated in the A=440 pitch center. 

> 

> >  

> 

> > 

> 

> > One experiences a new playing and listening sensation - one voice - no perception of register changes.  The sound gets a silvery "sheen" to it as the horn resonates more perfectly with the cosmos - really.  Now, after you experience this, from both the playing and listening standpoint, it becomes addictive.  You immediately notice the conical air column effect qualities that you left behind, to varied degrees, in the playing of others - everywhere (almost - some got lucky or were smart with their setup).  It sticks out like wrong notes in Mozart.  You can even start listening to the silvery sheen evenness more than the notes they are playing, as you realize that hearing the conical air column effects is tiring, even annoying.

> 

> > 

> 

> > IMO, this is the future of saxophone development - refinement.  

> 

> > 

> 

> > 

> 

> > 

> 

> > --- On Wed, 1/4/12, MartinMods <lancelotburt@>

> 

> >  wrote:

> 

> > 

> 

> > From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@>

> 

> > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces

> 

> > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com

> 

> > Date: Wednesday, January 4, 2012, 2:46 AM

> 

> > 

> 

> > 

> 

> > 

> 

> > 

> 

> > 

> 

> > 

> 

> > 

> 

> > 

> 

> >  

> 

> > 

> 

> > 

> 

> > 

> 

> >   

> 

> > 

> 

> > 

> 

> >     

> 

> >       

> 

> >       

> 

> >       The formula for doing the same is there.  Take advantage of it or not, as you will.

> 

> > 

> 

> > 

> 

> > 

> 

> > --- On Wed, 1/4/12, kymarto123@ <kymarto123@> wrote:

> 

> > 

> 

> > From: kymarto123@ <kymarto123@>

> 

> > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces

> 

> > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com

> 

> > Date: Wednesday, January 4, 2012, 2:42 AM

> 

> > 

> 

> > 

> 

> > 

> 

> > 

> 

> > 

> 

> > 

> 

> > 

> 

> > 

> 

> >  

> 

> > 

> 

> > 

> 

> > 

> 

> >     

> 

> >       

> 

> >       

> 

> >       Well, at least we have your word for it.

> 

> > 

> 

> > 

> 

> > 

> 

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

> 

> > 

> 

> > > Not in this model.  It's just a cavity.  Notice the range of the plotted cavity ratios.  At 1/1 the tendency is toward sharpness in the upper registers.  As you increase volume, the curve becomes flat, and then inverse.  A perfectly matched mouthpiece juggles the effects of the conical tube, those of the mouthpiece style, the reed, and the player, within a narrow band in this area.  The results are amazing.  

> 

> > 

> 

> > > 

> 

> > 

> 

> > > Make 5 mouthpieces that solve 5 individual player's individual horn/mouthpiece intonation problems, and you will have a good working understanding of what is going on.  

> 

> > 

> 

> > > 

> 

> > 

> 

> > > I've lost count.

> 

> > 

> 

> > > 

> 

> > 

> 

> > >

> 

> >

>





    
     

    
    






  

...and after making the chamber larger, you then would push the mouthpiece in to get back (near) the original volume established in the D1/D2 pitch mathching.  Correct?


________________________________
From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2012 9:48 PM
Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces

  
Find the place on the cork that produces a perfect D1/D2 octave, regardless of how that relates to A=440.  Leave the mouthpiece there.  Then test the C#2/C#3 octave.  The degree to which the C#'s are out of tune to A=440 and each other is the degree of acoustical mismatch between your mouthpiece and your horn.  At that position, your C#'s are flat, so you need to somehow make your chamber or throat larger in diameter, or you need a new mouthpiece that is a closer match - has a fatter chamber.  Enlarging the throat makes the tone somewhat broader or less focused.  One can regain that focus with baffle work.   



--- On Fri, 1/6/12, John <john_w_price33@...> wrote:


>From: John <john_w_price33@...>
>Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
>To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>Date: Friday, January 6, 2012, 1:38 AM
>
>
>  
>I tried it. D1,D2 relationship good.....I had to pull out the mouthpiece quite a bit. C#2,C#3.....works closer to my usual tuning spot. So does this mean I need a larger chamber mouthpiece to get D1,D2 relationship occuring with a shorter overall tuning length?
>
>--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
>>
>> I'd be willing to take you through it, step-by-step.
>> 
>> 
>> --- On Thu, 1/5/12, crunchie_nuts <andrewhdonaldson@...> wrote:
>> 
>> From: crunchie_nuts <andrewhdonaldson@...>
>> Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
>> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>> Date: Thursday, January 5, 2012, 12:38 AM
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Well, I have tried it in the past but it never seemed to work for me. Maybe I was doing it wrong.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> It would be great if you could post some evidence of your own results, such as intonation charts showing before and after tuning, such as the type Fred Wyman used in his thesis.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@> wrote:
>> 
>> >
>> 
>> > I trust the total silence in the group to mean you are all busy trying this out perhaps.  The method I use, which is similar to that which Paul uses, I got for free from Arthur Benade.  It is printed right there in his published papers from the 1970's, and since I first started reading him 4 years ago, I have heard the key phrases tossed back and forth on the various saxophone forums and seen them quoted in many a doctoral thesis, absent of any
>> 
>> > apparent comprehension as to what they actually mean in their practical application.  I'll paraphrase:
>> 
>> > 
>> 
>> > 1. Saxophone players should be as meticulous in matching their mouthpieces to their horns as oboist/bassoonists are in fiddling with their reeds.  That sounds nice.  We know about volume
>> 
>> > and frs/frequency, but did anyone ever bother to go see just what it is that oboists/bassoonists actually do?   There must be something there we can learn from.  I don't see any orchestras tuning up to the soprano saxophone's concert A.
>> 
>> > 
>> 
>> > 2. That meticulousness includes tweaking the volume/frs to get the optimal results.  That means that once we got into the ballpark using the numbers, we abandon them to score.
>> 
>> > 
>> 
>> > Benade's oboe reed balancing routine boils down to this when related to the saxophone:
>> 
>> > 
>> 
>> > We are well aware of the volume induced tendencies of the conical air column - how at a 1/1 volume ratio and lower, they induce sharpness in the upper registers, and a bit lower than 1/1, those tendencies lessen and then become inverted.  We are also aware that a large chambered mouthpiece increases those tendencies in the upper registers compared to a small chambered
>> 
>> > mouthpiece - the frs of the two are different.  To eliminate the conical air column effects for the played instrument we must abandon the A=440 pitch center for a moment, and anchor the mouthpiece volume (i.e. where it is placed on the cork)  so that the low end of our overblown tube (D1/D2) has optimal resonance alignment - it must produce a perfect octave.  Easy.  Pull out (or push in) until D1/D2 is a perfect octave - and here is where "meticulous" comes into play.  Tune the octave using a tuner so that the center of your unavoidable pitch variations is at 0 cents deviation.  One uses a steady, normal embouchure making absolutely no adjustments. No adjustments.  No adjustments.  We are halfway there.
>> 
>> > 
>> 
>> > Now, unless we had a perfect mouthpiece to start with, our pitch center is off, as is the resonance alignment of the short end of the overblown tube
>> 
>> > (C#2/C#3).   Whatever we do to fix this, we must maintain the initial, optimal mouthpiece volume alignment (Not the place on the cork, but the perfect D1/D2 octave).  Realize that the initial "pulling out/pushing in" adjustment changed two aspects of the mouthpiece, the volume AND the length, for a pretty gross change in the stretching of the scale. 
>> 
>> > We now make gradual adjustments to the length alone, or frs - the pitch tendency of the chamber type in the upper registers, using the shortest overblown tube as our reference.  Making the chamber fatter while maintaining volume, raises the overall played pitch of the mouthpiece, affecting the upper register more than the lower.  Making the chamber narrower while maintaining volume lowers it.  
>> 
>> > 
>> 
>> > Between repeated steps of checking the D1/D2 octave for perfection and then making the appropriate chamber geometry adjustment, raising or lowering the pitch to improve the C#2/C#3 octave, the short tube will come into perfect alignment (same 0 cent deviation at center of pitch wobble) .  With both ends of the basic tube perfectly aligned, the ends (bell tones/palm keys) and in-between (middle register) take care of themselves.  The entire scale is within 5 cents of flat, perfectly situated in the A=440 pitch center. 
>> 
>> > 
>> 
>> > 
>> 
>> > One experiences a new playing and listening sensation - one voice - no perception of register changes.  The sound gets a silvery "sheen" to it as the horn resonates more perfectly with the cosmos - really.  Now, after you experience this, from both the playing and listening standpoint, it becomes addictive.  You immediately notice the conical air column effect qualities that you left behind, to varied degrees, in the playing of others - everywhere (almost - some got lucky or were smart with their setup).  It sticks out like wrong notes in Mozart.  You can even start listening to the silvery sheen evenness more than the notes they are playing, as you realize that hearing the conical air column effects is tiring, even annoying.
>> 
>> > 
>> 
>> > IMO, this is the future of saxophone development - refinement.  
>> 
>> > 
>> 
>> > 
>> 
>> > 
>> 
>> > --- On Wed, 1/4/12, MartinMods <lancelotburt@>
>> 
>> > wrote:
>> 
>> > 
>> 
>> > From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@>
>> 
>> > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
>> 
>> > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>> 
>> > Date: Wednesday, January 4, 2012, 2:46 AM
>> 
>> > 
>> 
>> > 
>> 
>> > 
>> 
>> > 
>> 
>> > 
>> 
>> > 
>> 
>> > 
>> 
>> > 
>> 
>> >  
>> 
>> > 
>> 
>> > 
>> 
>> > 
>> 
>> > 
>> 
>> > 
>> 
>> > 
>> 
>> > 
>> 
>> > 
>> 
>> > 
>> 
>> > The formula for doing the same is there.  Take advantage of it or not, as you will.
>> 
>> > 
>> 
>> > 
>> 
>> > 
>> 
>> > --- On Wed, 1/4/12, kymarto123@ <kymarto123@> wrote:
>> 
>> > 
>> 
>> > From: kymarto123@ <kymarto123@>
>> 
>> > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
>> 
>> > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>> 
>> > Date: Wednesday, January 4, 2012, 2:42 AM
>> 
>> > 
>> 
>> > 
>> 
>> > 
>> 
>> > 
>> 
>> > 
>> 
>> > 
>> 
>> > 
>> 
>> > 
>> 
>> >  
>> 
>> > 
>> 
>> > 
>> 
>> > 
>> 
>> > 
>> 
>> > 
>> 
>> > 
>> 
>> > Well, at least we have your word for it.
>> 
>> > 
>> 
>> > 
>> 
>> > 
>> 
>> > --- MartinMods <lancelotburt@> wrote:
>> 
>> > 
>> 
>> > > Not in this model.  It's just a cavity.  Notice the range of the plotted cavity ratios.  At 1/1 the tendency is toward sharpness in the upper registers.  As you increase volume, the curve becomes flat, and then inverse.  A perfectly matched mouthpiece juggles the effects of the conical tube, those of the mouthpiece style, the reed, and the player, within a narrow band in this area.  The results are amazing.  
>> 
>> > 
>> 
>> > > 
>> 
>> > 
>> 
>> > > Make 5 mouthpieces that solve 5 individual player's individual horn/mouthpiece intonation problems, and you will have a good working understanding of what is going on.  
>> 
>> > 
>> 
>> > > 
>> 
>> > 
>> 
>> > > I've lost count.
>> 
>> > 
>> 
>> > > 
>> 
>> > 
>> 
>> > >
>> 
>> >
>>
>
> 

I think it very, very odd that D was selected as a reference  
pitch.....this is a very unstable note on saxophones



On Jan 6, 2012, at 10:15 AM, Keith Bradbury wrote:

>
> ...and after making the chamber larger, you then would push the  
> mouthpiece in to get back (near) the original volume established in  
> the D1/D2 pitch mathching.  Correct?
>
> From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2012 9:48 PM
> Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
>
> Find the place on the cork that produces a perfect D1/D2 octave,  
> regardless of how that relates to A=440.  Leave the mouthpiece  
> there.  Then test the C#2/C#3 octave.  The degree to which the C#'s  
> are out of tune to A=440 and each other is the degree of acoustical  
> mismatch between your mouthpiece and your horn.  At that position,  
> your C#'s are flat, so you need to somehow make your chamber or  
> throat larger in diameter, or you need a new mouthpiece that is a  
> closer match - has a fatter chamber.  Enlarging the throat makes the  
> tone somewhat broader or less focused.  One can regain that focus  
> with baffle work.
>
>
>
> --- On Fri, 1/6/12, John <john_w_price33@...> wrote:
>
> From: John <john_w_price33@...>
> Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Friday, January 6, 2012, 1:38 AM
>
>
> I tried it. D1,D2 relationship good.....I had to pull out the  
> mouthpiece quite a bit. C#2,C#3.....works closer to my usual tuning  
> spot. So does this mean I need a larger chamber mouthpiece to get  
> D1,D2 relationship occuring with a shorter overall tuning length?
>
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>  
> wrote:
> >
> > I'd be willing to take you through it, step-by-step.
> >
> >
> > --- On Thu, 1/5/12, crunchie_nuts <andrewhdonaldson@...> wrote:
> >
> > From: crunchie_nuts <andrewhdonaldson@...>
> > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto  
> mouthpieces
> > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> > Date: Thursday, January 5, 2012, 12:38 AM
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Â
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Well, I have tried it in the past but it never seemed to work for  
> me. Maybe I was doing it wrong.
> >
> >
> >
> > It would be great if you could post some evidence of your own  
> results, such as intonation charts showing before and after tuning,  
> such as the type Fred Wyman used in his thesis.
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@>  
> wrote:
> >
> > >
> >
> > > I trust the total silence in the group to mean you are all busy  
> trying this out perhaps.  The method I use, which is similar to  
> that which Paul uses, I got for free from Arthur Benade.  It is  
> printed right there in his published papers from the 1970's, and  
> since I first started reading him 4 years ago, I have heard the key  
> phrases tossed back and forth on the various saxophone forums and  
> seen them quoted in many a doctoral thesis, absent of any
> >
> > > apparent comprehension as to what they actually mean in their  
> practical application.  I'll paraphrase:
> >
> > >
> >
> > > 1. Saxophone players should be as meticulous in matching their  
> mouthpieces to their horns as oboist/bassoonists are in fiddling  
> with their reeds.  That sounds nice.  We know about volume
> >
> > > and frs/frequency, but did anyone ever bother to go see just  
> what it is that oboists/bassoonists actually do?   There must  
> be something there we can learn from.  I don't see any orchestras  
> tuning up to the soprano saxophone's concert A.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > 2. That meticulousness includes tweaking the volume/frs to get  
> the optimal results.  That means that once we got into the  
> ballpark using the numbers, we abandon them to score.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Benade's oboe reed balancing routine boils down to this when  
> related to the saxophone:
> >
> > >
> >
> > > We are well aware of the volume induced tendencies of the  
> conical air column - how at a 1/1 volume ratio and lower, they  
> induce sharpness in the upper registers, and a bit lower than 1/1,  
> those tendencies lessen and then become inverted.  We are also  
> aware that a large chambered mouthpiece increases those tendencies  
> in the upper registers compared to a small chambered
> >
> > > mouthpiece - the frs of the two are different.  To eliminate  
> the conical air column effects for the played instrument we must  
> abandon the A=440 pitch center for a moment, and anchor the  
> mouthpiece volume (i.e. where it is placed on the cork)  so that  
> the low end of our overblown tube (D1/D2) has optimal resonance  
> alignment - it must produce a perfect octave.  Easy.  Pull out  
> (or push in) until D1/D2 is a perfect octave - and here is where  
> "meticulous" comes into play.  Tune the octave using a tuner so  
> that the center of your unavoidable pitch variations is at 0 cents  
> deviation.  One uses a steady, normal embouchure making  
> absolutely no adjustments. No adjustments.  No adjustments.   
> We are halfway there.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Now, unless we had a perfect mouthpiece to start with, our pitch  
> center is off, as is the resonance alignment of the short end of the  
> overblown tube
> >
> > > (C#2/C#3).   Whatever we do to fix this, we must maintain  
> the initial, optimal mouthpiece volume alignment (Not the place on  
> the cork, but the perfect D1/D2 octave).  Realize that the  
> initial "pulling out/pushing in" adjustment changed two aspects of  
> the mouthpiece, the volume AND the length, for a pretty gross change  
> in the stretching of the scale.ÂÂ
> >
> > > We now make gradual adjustments to the length alone, or frs -  
> the pitch tendency of the chamber type in the upper registers, using  
> the shortest overblown tube as our reference.  Making the chamber  
> fatter while maintaining volume, raises the overall played pitch of  
> the mouthpiece, affecting the upper register more than the  
> lower.  Making the chamber narrower while maintaining volume  
> lowers it.ÂÂ
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Between repeated steps of checking the D1/D2 octave for  
> perfection and then making the appropriate chamber geometry  
> adjustment, raising or lowering the pitch to improve the C#2/C#3  
> octave, the short tube will come into perfect alignment (same 0 cent  
> deviation at center of pitch wobble) .  With both ends of the  
> basic tube perfectly aligned, the ends (bell tones/palm keys) and in- 
> between (middle register) take care of themselves.  The entire  
> scale is within 5 cents of flat, perfectly situated in the A=440  
> pitch center.ÂÂ
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > One experiences a new playing and listening sensation - one  
> voice - no perception of register changes.  The sound gets a  
> silvery "sheen" to it as the horn resonates more perfectly with the  
> cosmos - really.  Now, after you experience this, from both the  
> playing and listening standpoint, it becomes addictive.  You  
> immediately notice the conical air column effect qualities that you  
> left behind, to varied degrees, in the playing of others -  
> everywhere (almost - some got lucky or were smart with their  
> setup).  It sticks out like wrong notes in Mozart.  You can  
> even start listening to the silvery sheen evenness more than the  
> notes they are playing, as you realize that hearing the conical air  
> column effects is tiring, even annoying.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > IMO, this is the future of saxophone development - refinement.ÂÂ
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > --- On Wed, 1/4/12, MartinMods <lancelotburt@>
> >
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >
> >
> > > From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@>
> >
> > > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto  
> mouthpieces
> >
> > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > > Date: Wednesday, January 4, 2012, 2:46 AM
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > ÂÂ
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > The formula for doing the same is there.  Take advantage of  
> it or not, as you will.
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > --- On Wed, 1/4/12, kymarto123@ <kymarto123@> wrote:
> >
> > >
> >
> > > From: kymarto123@ <kymarto123@>
> >
> > > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto  
> mouthpieces
> >
> > > To: MouthpieceWork@...m
> >
> > > Date: Wednesday, January 4, 2012, 2:42 AM
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > ÂÂ
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Well, at least we have your word for it.
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > --- MartinMods <lancelotburt@> wrote:
> >
> > >
> >
> > > > Not in this model.  It's just a cavity.  Notice the  
> range of the plotted cavity ratios.  At 1/1 the tendency is  
> toward sharpness in the upper registers.  As you increase volume,  
> the curve becomes flat, and then inverse.  A perfectly matched  
> mouthpiece juggles the effects of the conical tube, those of the  
> mouthpiece style, the reed, and the player, within a narrow band in  
> this area.  The results are amazing.ÂÂ
> >
> > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > > Make 5 mouthpieces that solve 5 individual player's individual  
> horn/mouthpiece intonation problems, and you will have a good  
> working understanding of what is going on.ÂÂ
> >
> > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > > I've lost count.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > >
> >
>
>
> 

Seems that the idea is to compare the 2 notes that have the longest and shortest pipe, excluding tone holes that are used in only one octave.

-Walter Hoehn


On Jan 6, 2012, at 10:22 AM, STEVE GOODSON wrote:

> I think it very, very odd that D was selected as a reference pitch.....this is a very unstable note on saxophones
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Jan 6, 2012, at 10:15 AM, Keith Bradbury wrote:
> 
>>  
>> 
>> ...and after making the chamber larger, you then would push the mouthpiece in to get back (near) the original volume established in the D1/D2 pitch mathching.  Correct?
>> 
>> From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
>> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
>> Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2012 9:48 PM
>> Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
>>  
>> Find the place on the cork that produces a perfect D1/D2 octave, regardless of how that relates to A=440.  Leave the mouthpiece there.  Then test the C#2/C#3 octave.  The degree to which the C#'s are out of tune to A=440 and each other is the degree of acoustical mismatch between your mouthpiece and your horn.  At that position, your C#'s are flat, so you need to somehow make your chamber or throat larger in diameter, or you need a new mouthpiece that is a closer match - has a fatter chamber.  Enlarging the throat makes the tone somewhat broader or less focused.  One can regain that focus with baffle work.   
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --- On Fri, 1/6/12, John <john_w_price33@...> wrote:
>> 
>> From: John <john_w_price33@...>
>> Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
>> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>> Date: Friday, January 6, 2012, 1:38 AM
>> 
>>  
>> I tried it. D1,D2 relationship good.....I had to pull out the mouthpiece quite a bit. C#2,C#3.....works closer to my usual tuning spot. So does this mean I need a larger chamber mouthpiece to get D1,D2 relationship occuring with a shorter overall tuning length?
>> 
>> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
>> >
>> > I'd be willing to take you through it, step-by-step.
>> > 
>> > 
>> > --- On Thu, 1/5/12, crunchie_nuts <andrewhdonaldson@...> wrote:
>> > 
>> > From: crunchie_nuts <andrewhdonaldson@...>
>> > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
>> > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>> > Date: Thursday, January 5, 2012, 12:38 AM
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > Â 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > Well, I have tried it in the past but it never seemed to work for me. Maybe I was doing it wrong.
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > It would be great if you could post some evidence of your own results, such as intonation charts showing before and after tuning, such as the type Fred Wyman used in his thesis.
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@> wrote:
>> > 
>> > >
>> > 
>> > > I trust the total silence in the group to mean you are all busy trying this out perhaps.  The method I use, which is similar to that which Paul uses, I got for free from Arthur Benade.  It is printed right there in his published papers from the 1970's, and since I first started reading him 4 years ago, I have heard the key phrases tossed back and forth on the various saxophone forums and seen them quoted in many a doctoral thesis, absent of any
>> > 
>> > > apparent comprehension as to what they actually mean in their practical application.  I'll paraphrase:
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > 1. Saxophone players should be as meticulous in matching their mouthpieces to their horns as oboist/bassoonists are in fiddling with their reeds.  That sounds nice.  We know about volume
>> > 
>> > > and frs/frequency, but did anyone ever bother to go see just what it is that oboists/bassoonists actually do?   There must be something there we can learn from.  I don't see any orchestras tuning up to the soprano saxophone's concert A.
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > 2. That meticulousness includes tweaking the volume/frs to get the optimal results.  That means that once we got into the ballpark using the numbers, we abandon them to score.
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > Benade's oboe reed balancing routine boils down to this when related to the saxophone:
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > We are well aware of the volume induced tendencies of the conical air column - how at a 1/1 volume ratio and lower, they induce sharpness in the upper registers, and a bit lower than 1/1, those tendencies lessen and then become inverted.  We are also aware that a large chambered mouthpiece increases those tendencies in the upper registers compared to a small chambered
>> > 
>> > > mouthpiece - the frs of the two are different.  To eliminate the conical air column effects for the played instrument we must abandon the A=440 pitch center for a moment, and anchor the mouthpiece volume (i.e. where it is placed on the cork)  so that the low end of our overblown tube (D1/D2) has optimal resonance alignment - it must produce a perfect octave.  Easy.  Pull out (or push in) until D1/D2 is a perfect octave - and here is where "meticulous" comes into play.  Tune the octave using a tuner so that the center of your unavoidable pitch variations is at 0 cents deviation.  One uses a steady, normal embouchure making absolutely no adjustments. No adjustments.  No adjustments.  We are halfway there.
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > Now, unless we had a perfect mouthpiece to start with, our pitch center is off, as is the resonance alignment of the short end of the overblown tube
>> > 
>> > > (C#2/C#3).   Whatever we do to fix this, we must maintain the initial, optimal mouthpiece volume alignment (Not the place on the cork, but the perfect D1/D2 octave).  Realize that the initial "pulling out/pushing in" adjustment changed two aspects of the mouthpiece, the volume AND the length, for a pretty gross change in the stretching of the scale. 
>> > 
>> > > We now make gradual adjustments to the length alone, or frs - the pitch tendency of the chamber type in the upper registers, using the shortest overblown tube as our reference.  Making the chamber fatter while maintaining volume, raises the overall played pitch of the mouthpiece, affecting the upper register more than the lower.  Making the chamber narrower while maintaining volume lowers it.  
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > Between repeated steps of checking the D1/D2 octave for perfection and then making the appropriate chamber geometry adjustment, raising or lowering the pitch to improve the C#2/C#3 octave, the short tube will come into perfect alignment (same 0 cent deviation at center of pitch wobble) .  With both ends of the basic tube perfectly aligned, the ends (bell tones/palm keys) and in-between (middle register) take care of themselves.  The entire scale is within 5 cents of flat, perfectly situated in the A=440 pitch center. 
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > One experiences a new playing and listening sensation - one voice - no perception of register changes.  The sound gets a silvery "sheen" to it as the horn resonates more perfectly with the cosmos - really.  Now, after you experience this, from both the playing and listening standpoint, it becomes addictive.  You immediately notice the conical air column effect qualities that you left behind, to varied degrees, in the playing of others - everywhere (almost - some got lucky or were smart with their setup).  It sticks out like wrong notes in Mozart.  You can even start listening to the silvery sheen evenness more than the notes they are playing, as you realize that hearing the conical air column effects is tiring, even annoying.
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > IMO, this is the future of saxophone development - refinement.  
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > --- On Wed, 1/4/12, MartinMods <lancelotburt@>
>> > 
>> > > wrote:
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@>
>> > 
>> > > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
>> > 
>> > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>> > 
>> > > Date: Wednesday, January 4, 2012, 2:46 AM
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > >  
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > The formula for doing the same is there.  Take advantage of it or not, as you will.
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > --- On Wed, 1/4/12, kymarto123@ <kymarto123@> wrote:
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > From: kymarto123@ <kymarto123@>
>> > 
>> > > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
>> > 
>> > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>> > 
>> > > Date: Wednesday, January 4, 2012, 2:42 AM
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > >  
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > Well, at least we have your word for it.
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > --- MartinMods <lancelotburt@> wrote:
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > > Not in this model.  It's just a cavity.  Notice the range of the plotted cavity ratios.  At 1/1 the tendency is toward sharpness in the upper registers.  As you increase volume, the curve becomes flat, and then inverse.  A perfectly matched mouthpiece juggles the effects of the conical tube, those of the mouthpiece style, the reed, and the player, within a narrow band in this area.  The results are amazing.  
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > > 
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > > Make 5 mouthpieces that solve 5 individual player's individual horn/mouthpiece intonation problems, and you will have a good working understanding of what is going on.  
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > > 
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > > I've lost count.
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > > 
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > >
>> > 
>> > >
>> >
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 

I agree with Steve on this. If the idea is to compare long and short tube notes, then much better to choose Bb as the long tube and overblow to Bb2. That's a sight longer-tube than D.

If you read Nederveen, you'll also see that C#3 is a whanky note--particularly on sop--for various acoustic reasons. It would probably be wiser to go with C 
or even B. 

Possibly even wiser would be to go Bb1/Bb2 overblown for long tube, then Bb2 overblown/Bb2 to get an idea of long vs. short , then Bb2/Bb3 for short tube register relationship. Bb is a much more stable note than C#, and actually you have a bigger difference in long/ short tube: Bb-Bb is an octave; D-C# a semitone less.

And also, that way you stay on the same note across the test, so it all might be aurally clearer.

--- STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...> wrote:
> I think it very, very odd that D was selected as a reference pitch.....this is a very unstable note on saxophones
> 
> 
> 
> On Jan 6, 2012, at 10:15 AM, Keith Bradbury wrote:
> 
> > 
> > ...and after making the chamber larger, you then would push the mouthpiece in to get back (near) the original volume established in the D1/D2 pitch mathching.  Correct?
> > 
> > From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
> > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2012 9:48 PM
> > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
> > 
> > Find the place on the cork that produces a perfect D1/D2 octave, regardless of how that relates to A=440.  Leave the mouthpiece there.  Then test the C#2/C#3 octave.  The degree to which the C#'s are out of tune to A=440 and each other is the degree of acoustical mismatch between your mouthpiece and your horn.  At that position, your C#'s are flat, so you need to somehow make your chamber or throat larger in diameter, or you need a new mouthpiece that is a closer match - has a fatter chamber.  Enlarging the throat makes the tone somewhat broader or less focused.  One can regain that focus with baffle work.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- On Fri, 1/6/12, John <john_w_price33@...> wrote:
> > 
> > From: John <john_w_price33@...>
> > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
> > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> > Date: Friday, January 6, 2012, 1:38 AM
> > 
> > 
> > I tried it. D1,D2 relationship good.....I had to pull out the mouthpiece quite a bit. C#2,C#3.....works closer to my usual tuning spot. So does this mean I need a larger chamber mouthpiece to get D1,D2 relationship occuring with a shorter overall tuning length?
> > 
> > --- In MouthpieceWork@...m, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'd be willing to take you through it, step-by-step.
> > >
> > >
> > > --- On Thu, 1/5/12, crunchie_nuts <andrewhdonaldson@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: crunchie_nuts <andrewhdonaldson@...>
> > > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
> > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> > > Date: Thursday, January 5, 2012, 12:38 AM
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Â
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Well, I have tried it in the past but it never seemed to work for me. Maybe I was doing it wrong.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > It would be great if you could post some evidence of your own results, such as intonation charts showing before and after tuning, such as the type Fred Wyman used in his thesis.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > I trust the total silence in the group to mean you are all busy trying this out perhaps.  The method I use, which is similar to that which Paul uses, I got for free from Arthur Benade.  It is printed right there in his published papers from the 1970's, and since I first started reading him 4 years ago, I have heard the key phrases tossed back and forth on the various saxophone forums and seen them quoted in many a doctoral thesis, absent of any
> > >
> > > > apparent comprehension as to what they actually mean in their practical application.  I'll paraphrase:
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > 1. Saxophone players should be as meticulous in matching their mouthpieces to their horns as oboist/bassoonists are in fiddling with their reeds.  That sounds nice.  We know about volume
> > >
> > > > and frs/frequency, but did anyone ever bother to go see just what it is that oboists/bassoonists actually do?   There must be something there we can learn from.  I don't see any orchestras tuning up to the soprano saxophone's concert A.
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > 2. That meticulousness includes tweaking the volume/frs to get the optimal results.  That means that once we got into the ballpark using the numbers, we abandon them to score.
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > Benade's oboe reed balancing routine boils down to this when related to the saxophone:
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > We are well aware of the volume induced tendencies of the conical air column - how at a 1/1 volume ratio and lower, they induce sharpness in the upper registers, and a bit lower than 1/1, those tendencies lessen and then become inverted.  We are also aware that a large chambered mouthpiece increases those tendencies in the upper registers compared to a small chambered
> > >
> > > > mouthpiece - the frs of the two are different.  To eliminate the conical air column effects for the played instrument we must abandon the A=440 pitch center for a moment, and anchor the mouthpiece volume (i.e. where it is placed on the cork)  so that the low end of our overblown tube (D1/D2) has optimal resonance alignment - it must produce a perfect octave.  Easy.  Pull out (or push in) until D1/D2 is a perfect octave - and here is where "meticulous" comes into play.  Tune the octave using a tuner so that the center of your unavoidable pitch variations is at 0 cents deviation.  One uses a steady, normal embouchure making absolutely no adjustments. No adjustments.  No adjustments.  We are halfway there.
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > Now, unless we had a perfect mouthpiece to start with, our pitch center is off, as is the resonance alignment of the short end of the overblown tube
> > >
> > > > (C#2/C#3).   Whatever we do to fix this, we must maintain the initial, optimal mouthpiece volume alignment (Not the place on the cork, but the perfect D1/D2 octave).  Realize that the initial "pulling out/pushing in" adjustment changed two aspects of the mouthpiece, the volume AND the length, for a pretty gross change in the stretching of the scale.ÂÂ
> > >
> > > > We now make gradual adjustments to the length alone, or frs - the pitch tendency of the chamber type in the upper registers, using the shortest overblown tube as our reference.  Making the chamber fatter while maintaining volume, raises the overall played pitch of the mouthpiece, affecting the upper register more than the lower.  Making the chamber narrower while maintaining volume lowers it.ÂÂ
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > Between repeated steps of checking the D1/D2 octave for perfection and then making the appropriate chamber geometry adjustment, raising or lowering the pitch to improve the C#2/C#3 octave, the short tube will come into perfect alignment (same 0 cent deviation at center of pitch wobble) .  With both ends of the basic tube perfectly aligned, the ends (bell tones/palm keys) and in-between (middle register) take care of themselves.  The entire scale is within 5 cents of flat, perfectly situated in the A=440 pitch center.ÂÂ
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > One experiences a new playing and listening sensation - one voice - no perception of register changes.  The sound gets a silvery "sheen" to it as the horn resonates more perfectly with the cosmos - really.  Now, after you experience this, from both the playing and listening standpoint, it becomes addictive.  You immediately notice the conical air column effect qualities that you left behind, to varied degrees, in the playing of others - everywhere (almost - some got lucky or were smart with their setup).  It sticks out like wrong notes in Mozart.  You can even start listening to the silvery sheen evenness more than the notes they are playing, as you realize that hearing the conical air column effects is tiring, even annoying.
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > IMO, this is the future of saxophone development - refinement.ÂÂ
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > --- On Wed, 1/4/12, MartinMods <lancelotburt@>
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@>
> > >
> > > > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
> > >
> > > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> > >
> > > > Date: Wednesday, January 4, 2012, 2:46 AM
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > ÂÂ
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > The formula for doing the same is there.  Take advantage of it or not, as you will.
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > --- On Wed, 1/4/12, kymarto123@ <kymarto123@> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > From: kymarto123@ <kymarto123@>
> > >
> > > > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
> > >
> > > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> > >
> > > > Date: Wednesday, January 4, 2012, 2:42 AM
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > ÂÂ
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > Well, at least we have your word for it.
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > --- MartinMods <lancelotburt@> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > > Not in this model.  It's just a cavity.  Notice the range of the plotted cavity ratios.  At 1/1 the tendency is toward sharpness in the upper registers.  As you increase volume, the curve becomes flat, and then inverse.  A perfectly matched mouthpiece juggles the effects of the conical tube, those of the mouthpiece style, the reed, and the player, within a narrow band in this area.  The results are amazing.ÂÂ
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > > Make 5 mouthpieces that solve 5 individual player's individual horn/mouthpiece intonation problems, and you will have a good working understanding of what is going on.ÂÂ
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > > I've lost count.
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 

it seems to me that the notes chosen are problematic......and well  
known to be problematic......this causes me to doubt the veracity of  
the entire proposition......






On Jan 6, 2012, at 10:56 AM, kymarto123@... wrote:

> I agree with Steve on this. If the idea is to compare long and short  
> tube notes, then much better to choose Bb as the long tube and  
> overblow to Bb2. That's a sight longer-tube than D.
>
> If you read Nederveen, you'll also see that C#3 is a whanky note-- 
> particularly on sop--for various acoustic reasons. It would probably  
> be wiser to go with C
> or even B.
>
> Possibly even wiser would be to go Bb1/Bb2 overblown for long tube,  
> then Bb2 overblown/Bb2 to get an idea of long vs. short , then Bb2/ 
> Bb3 for short tube register relationship. Bb is a much more stable  
> note than C#, and actually you have a bigger difference in long/  
> short tube: Bb-Bb is an octave; D-C# a semitone less.
>
> And also, that way you stay on the same note across the test, so it  
> all might be aurally clearer.
>
> --- STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...> wrote:
> > I think it very, very odd that D was selected as a reference  
> pitch.....this is a very unstable note on saxophones
> >
> >
> >
> > On Jan 6, 2012, at 10:15 AM, Keith Bradbury wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > ...and after making the chamber larger, you then would push the  
> mouthpiece in to get back (near) the original volume established in  
> the D1/D2 pitch mathching. Correct?
> > >
> > > From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
> > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2012 9:48 PM
> > > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto  
> mouthpieces
> > >
> > > Find the place on the cork that produces a perfect D1/D2 octave,  
> regardless of how that relates to A=440. Leave the mouthpiece there.  
> Then test the C#2/C#3 octave. The degree to which the C#'s are out  
> of tune to A=440 and each other is the degree of acoustical mismatch  
> between your mouthpiece and your horn. At that position, your C#'s  
> are flat, so you need to somehow make your chamber or throat larger  
> in diameter, or you need a new mouthpiece that is a closer match -  
> has a fatter chamber. Enlarging the throat makes the tone somewhat  
> broader or less focused. One can regain that focus with baffle work.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- On Fri, 1/6/12, John <john_w_price33@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: John <john_w_price33@...>
> > > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto  
> mouthpieces
> > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> > > Date: Friday, January 6, 2012, 1:38 AM
> > >
> > >
> > > I tried it. D1,D2 relationship good.....I had to pull out the  
> mouthpiece quite a bit. C#2,C#3.....works closer to my usual tuning  
> spot. So does this mean I need a larger chamber mouthpiece to get  
> D1,D2 relationship occuring with a shorter overall tuning length?
> > >
> > > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods  
> <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I'd be willing to take you through it, step-by-step.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- On Thu, 1/5/12, crunchie_nuts <andrewhdonaldson@...> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > From: crunchie_nuts <andrewhdonaldson@...>
> > > > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto  
> mouthpieces
> > > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Date: Thursday, January 5, 2012, 12:38 AM
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Â
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Well, I have tried it in the past but it never seemed to work  
> for me. Maybe I was doing it wrong.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > It would be great if you could post some evidence of your own  
> results, such as intonation charts showing before and after tuning,  
> such as the type Fred Wyman used in his thesis.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods  
> <lancelotburt@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > I trust the total silence in the group to mean you are all  
> busy trying this out perhaps. The method I use, which is similar  
> to that which Paul uses, I got for free from Arthur Benade. It is  
> printed right there in his published papers from the 1970's, and  
> since I first started reading him 4 years ago, I have heard the key  
> phrases tossed back and forth on the various saxophone forums and  
> seen them quoted in many a doctoral thesis, absent of any
> > > >
> > > > > apparent comprehension as to what they actually mean in  
> their practical application. I'll paraphrase:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > 1. Saxophone players should be as meticulous in matching  
> their mouthpieces to their horns as oboist/bassoonists are in  
> fiddling with their reeds. That sounds nice. We know about  
> volume
> > > >
> > > > > and frs/frequency, but did anyone ever bother to go see just  
> what it is that oboists/bassoonists actually do?  There must  
> be something there we can learn from. I don't see any orchestras  
> tuning up to the soprano saxophone's concert A.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > 2. That meticulousness includes tweaking the volume/frs to  
> get the optimal results. That means that once we got into the  
> ballpark using the numbers, we abandon them to score.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Benade's oboe reed balancing routine boils down to this when  
> related to the saxophone:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > We are well aware of the volume induced tendencies of the  
> conical air column - how at a 1/1 volume ratio and lower, they  
> induce sharpness in the upper registers, and a bit lower than 1/1,  
> those tendencies lessen and then become inverted. We are also  
> aware that a large chambered mouthpiece increases those tendencies  
> in the upper registers compared to a small chambered
> > > >
> > > > > mouthpiece - the frs of the two are different. To  
> eliminate the conical air column effects for the played instrument  
> we must abandon the A=440 pitch center for a moment, and anchor the  
> mouthpiece volume (i.e. where it is placed on the cork) so that  
> the low end of our overblown tube (D1/D2) has optimal resonance  
> alignment - it must produce a perfect octave. Easy. Pull out  
> (or push in) until D1/D2 is a perfect octave - and here is where  
> "meticulous" comes into play. Tune the octave using a tuner so  
> that the center of your unavoidable pitch variations is at 0 cents  
> deviation. One uses a steady, normal embouchure making absolutely  
> no adjustments. No adjustments. No adjustments. We are halfway  
> there.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Now, unless we had a perfect mouthpiece to start with, our  
> pitch center is off, as is the resonance alignment of the short end  
> of the overblown tube
> > > >
> > > > > (C#2/C#3).  Whatever we do to fix this, we must  
> maintain the initial, optimal mouthpiece volume alignment (Not the  
> place on the cork, but the perfect D1/D2 octave). Realize that  
> the initial "pulling out/pushing in" adjustment changed two aspects  
> of the mouthpiece, the volume AND the length, for a pretty gross  
> change in the stretching of the scale.ÂÂ
> > > >
> > > > > We now make gradual adjustments to the length alone, or frs  
> - the pitch tendency of the chamber type in the upper registers,  
> using the shortest overblown tube as our reference. Making the  
> chamber fatter while maintaining volume, raises the overall played  
> pitch of the mouthpiece, affecting the upper register more than the  
> lower. Making the chamber narrower while maintaining volume  
> lowers it.ÂÂ
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Between repeated steps of checking the D1/D2 octave for  
> perfection and then making the appropriate chamber geometry  
> adjustment, raising or lowering the pitch to improve the C#2/C#3  
> octave, the short tube will come into perfect alignment (same 0 cent  
> deviation at center of pitch wobble) . With both ends of the  
> basic tube perfectly aligned, the ends (bell tones/palm keys) and in- 
> between (middle register) take care of themselves. The entire  
> scale is within 5 cents of flat, perfectly situated in the A=440  
> pitch center.ÂÂ
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > One experiences a new playing and listening sensation - one  
> voice - no perception of register changes. The sound gets a  
> silvery "sheen" to it as the horn resonates more perfectly with the  
> cosmos - really. Now, after you experience this, from both the  
> playing and listening standpoint, it becomes addictive. You  
> immediately notice the conical air column effect qualities that you  
> left behind, to varied degrees, in the playing of others -  
> everywhere (almost - some got lucky or were smart with their  
> setup). It sticks out like wrong notes in Mozart. You can even  
> start listening to the silvery sheen evenness more than the notes  
> they are playing, as you realize that hearing the conical air column  
> effects is tiring, even annoying.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > IMO, this is the future of saxophone development -  
> refinement.ÂÂ
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > --- On Wed, 1/4/12, MartinMods <lancelotburt@>
> > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@>
> > > >
> > > > > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto  
> mouthpieces
> > > >
> > > > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> > > >
> > > > > Date: Wednesday, January 4, 2012, 2:46 AM
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > ÂÂ
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > The formula for doing the same is there. Take advantage  
> of it or not, as you will.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > --- On Wed, 1/4/12, kymarto123@ <kymarto123@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > From: kymarto123@ <kymarto123@>
> > > >
> > > > > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto  
> mouthpieces
> > > >
> > > > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> > > >
> > > > > Date: Wednesday, January 4, 2012, 2:42 AM
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > ÂÂ
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Well, at least we have your word for it.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > --- MartinMods <lancelotburt@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > Not in this model. It's just a cavity. Notice the  
> range of the plotted cavity ratios. At 1/1 the tendency is toward  
> sharpness in the upper registers. As you increase volume, the  
> curve becomes flat, and then inverse. A perfectly matched  
> mouthpiece juggles the effects of the conical tube, those of the  
> mouthpiece style, the reed, and the player, within a narrow band in  
> this area. The results are amazing.ÂÂ
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > Make 5 mouthpieces that solve 5 individual player's  
> individual horn/mouthpiece intonation problems, and you will have a  
> good working understanding of what is going on.ÂÂ
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > I've lost count.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
> 

Do not forget that when they built the first clarinets, saxophones predecessors (but its inspiring?) The mouthpiece and the barrel were one piece. As a practical matter then decided to separate the two sides, as the barrel determines its own role in relation to the whole instrument; -but always in relation with the mouthpiece-. In the case of the saxophone, I say, we are not forgetting the relationship of the mouthpiece to the neck? For one thing, Steve wisely have created the neck enhancer, is not it?
You have (all have) a good year 2012
Silverio

Correct.  The approximate volume will remain the same.  The mouthpiece gets shorter.  Adjustments should be made a little at a time.  Since the effects of volume and length overlap, the exact volume that produces the perfect D1/D2 will change slightly.  Therefore the perfect octave is the point of reference, not actual volume.

--- On Fri, 1/6/12, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:

From: Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...>
Subject: Re: Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
To: "MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com" <MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Friday, January 6, 2012, 4:15 PM








 



  


    
      
      
      ...and after making the chamber larger, you then would push the mouthpiece in to get back (near) the original volume established in the D1/D2 pitch mathching.  Correct?




From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2012 9:48 PM
Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
 

  





Find the place on the cork that produces a perfect D1/D2 octave, regardless of how that relates to A=440.  Leave the mouthpiece there.  Then test the C#2/C#3 octave.  The degree to which the C#'s are out of tune to A=440 and each other is the degree of acoustical mismatch between your mouthpiece and your horn.  At that position, your C#'s are flat, so you need to somehow make your chamber or throat larger in diameter, or you need a new mouthpiece that is a closer match - has a fatter chamber.  Enlarging the throat makes the tone somewhat broader or less focused.  One can regain that focus with baffle work.   



--- On Fri, 1/6/12, John <john_w_price33@...> wrote:


From: John <john_w_price33@...>
Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, January 6, 2012, 1:38 AM



  

I tried it. D1,D2 relationship good.....I had to pull out the mouthpiece quite a bit. C#2,C#3.....works closer to my usual tuning spot. So does this mean I need a larger chamber mouthpiece to get D1,D2 relationship occuring with a shorter overall tuning length?

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
>
> I'd be willing to take you through it, step-by-step.
> 
> 
> --- On Thu, 1/5/12, crunchie_nuts <andrewhdonaldson@...> wrote:
> 
> From: crunchie_nuts <andrewhdonaldson@...>
> Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Thursday, January 5, 2012, 12:38 AM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>
 
> Well, I have tried it in the past but it never seemed to work for me. Maybe I was doing it wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> It would be great if you could post some evidence of your own results, such as intonation charts showing before and after tuning, such as the type Fred Wyman used in his thesis.
> 
> 
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@> wrote:
> 
> >
> 
> > I trust the total silence in the group to mean you are all busy trying this out perhaps.  The method I use, which is similar to that which Paul uses, I got for free from Arthur Benade.  It is printed right there in his published papers from the 1970's, and since I first started reading him 4 years ago, I have heard the key phrases tossed back and forth on the various saxophone forums and seen them quoted in many a doctoral thesis, absent of
 any
> 
> > apparent comprehension as to what they actually mean in their practical application.  I'll paraphrase:
> 
> > 
> 
> > 1. Saxophone players should be as meticulous in matching their mouthpieces to their horns as oboist/bassoonists are in fiddling with their reeds.  That sounds nice.  We know about volume
> 
> > and frs/frequency, but did anyone ever bother to go see just what it is that oboists/bassoonists actually do?   There must be something there we can learn from.  I don't see any orchestras tuning up to the soprano saxophone's concert A.
> 
> > 
> 
> > 2. That meticulousness includes tweaking the volume/frs to get the optimal results.  That means that once we got into the ballpark using the numbers, we abandon them to score.
> 
> > 
> 
>
 > Benade's oboe reed balancing routine boils down to this when related to the saxophone:
> 
> > 
> 
> > We are well aware of the volume induced tendencies of the conical air column - how at a 1/1 volume ratio and lower, they induce sharpness in the upper registers, and a bit lower than 1/1, those tendencies lessen and then become inverted.  We are also aware that a large chambered mouthpiece increases those tendencies in the upper registers compared to a small chambered
> 
> > mouthpiece - the frs of the two are different.  To eliminate the conical air column effects for the played instrument we must abandon the A=440 pitch center for a moment, and anchor the mouthpiece volume (i.e. where it is placed on the cork)  so that the low end of our overblown tube (D1/D2) has optimal resonance alignment - it must produce a perfect octave.  Easy.  Pull out
 (or push in) until D1/D2 is a perfect octave - and here is where "meticulous" comes into play.  Tune the octave using a tuner so that the center of your unavoidable pitch variations is at 0 cents deviation.  One uses a steady, normal embouchure making absolutely no adjustments. No adjustments.  No adjustments.  We are halfway there.
> 
> > 
> 
> > Now, unless we had a perfect mouthpiece to start with, our pitch center is off, as is the resonance alignment of the short end of the overblown tube
> 
> > (C#2/C#3).   Whatever we do to fix this, we must maintain the initial, optimal mouthpiece volume alignment (Not the place on the cork, but the perfect D1/D2 octave).  Realize that the initial "pulling out/pushing in" adjustment changed two aspects of the mouthpiece, the volume AND the length, for a pretty gross change in the
 stretching of the scale. 
> 
> > We now make gradual adjustments to the length alone, or frs - the pitch tendency of the chamber type in the upper registers, using the shortest overblown tube as our reference.  Making the chamber fatter while maintaining volume, raises the overall played pitch of the mouthpiece, affecting the upper register more than the lower.  Making the chamber narrower while maintaining volume lowers it.  
> 
> > 
> 
> > Between repeated steps of checking the D1/D2 octave for perfection and then making the appropriate chamber geometry adjustment, raising or lowering the pitch to improve the C#2/C#3 octave, the short tube will come into perfect alignment (same 0 cent deviation at center of pitch wobble) .  With both ends of the basic tube perfectly aligned, the ends (bell tones/palm keys) and in-between (middle register) take care
 of themselves.  The entire scale is within 5 cents of flat, perfectly situated in the A=440 pitch center. 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > One experiences a new playing and listening sensation - one voice - no perception of register changes.  The sound gets a silvery "sheen" to it as the horn resonates more perfectly with the cosmos - really.  Now, after you experience this, from both the playing and listening standpoint, it becomes addictive.  You immediately notice the conical air column effect qualities that you left behind, to varied degrees, in the playing of others - everywhere (almost - some got lucky or were smart with their setup).  It sticks out like wrong notes in Mozart.  You can even start listening to the silvery sheen evenness more than the notes they are playing, as you realize that hearing the conical air column
 effects is tiring, even annoying.
> 
> > 
> 
> > IMO, this is the future of saxophone development - refinement.  
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > --- On Wed, 1/4/12, MartinMods <lancelotburt@>
> 
> > wrote:
> 
> > 
> 
> > From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@>
> 
> > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
> 
> > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> 
> > Date: Wednesday, January 4, 2012, 2:46 AM
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> >  
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
>
 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > The formula for doing the same is there.  Take advantage of it or not, as you will.
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > --- On Wed, 1/4/12, kymarto123@ <kymarto123@> wrote:
> 
> > 
> 
> > From: kymarto123@ <kymarto123@>
> 
> > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
> 
> > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> 
> > Date: Wednesday, January 4, 2012, 2:42 AM
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> >  
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
>
 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > Well, at least we have your word for it.
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > --- MartinMods <lancelotburt@> wrote:
> 
> > 
> 
> > > Not in this model.  It's just a cavity.  Notice the range of the plotted cavity ratios.  At 1/1 the tendency is toward sharpness in the upper registers.  As you increase volume, the curve becomes flat, and then inverse.  A perfectly matched mouthpiece juggles the effects of the conical tube, those of the mouthpiece style, the reed, and the player, within a narrow band in this area.  The results are amazing.  
> 
> > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > > Make 5 mouthpieces that solve 5
 individual player's individual horn/mouthpiece intonation problems, and you will have a good working understanding of what is going on.  
> 
> > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > > I've lost count.
> 
> > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > >
> 
> >
>

 

    
     

    
    






  

:-)  The only reason D is an unstable note is because a mouthpiece mismatch makes it that way.  Same with C#.  You owe it to yourself, and your customers to experience playing saxophone with an optimized mouthpiece.  Do it once, and you will understand.



--- On Fri, 1/6/12, STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...> wrote:

From: STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@cox.net>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, January 6, 2012, 4:22 PM








 



  


    
      
      
      I think it very, very odd that D was selected as a reference pitch.....this is a very unstable note on saxophones


On Jan 6, 2012, at 10:15 AM, Keith Bradbury wrote:
         
...and after making the chamber larger, you then would push the mouthpiece in to get back (near) the original volume established in the D1/D2 pitch mathching.  Correct? 
   From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2012 9:48 PM
Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
         Find the place on the cork that produces a perfect D1/D2 octave, regardless of how that relates to A=440.  Leave the mouthpiece there.  Then test the C#2/C#3 octave.  The degree to which the C#'s are out of tune to A=440 and each other is the degree of acoustical mismatch between your mouthpiece and your horn.  At that position, your C#'s are flat, so you need to somehow make your chamber or throat larger in diameter, or you need a new mouthpiece that is a closer match - has a fatter chamber.  Enlarging the throat makes the tone somewhat broader or less focused.  One can regain that focus with baffle work.   



--- On Fri, 1/6/12, John <john_w_price33@...> wrote:
 
From: John <john_w_price33@...>
Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, January 6, 2012, 1:38 AM

     I tried it. D1,D2 relationship good.....I had to pull out the mouthpiece quite a bit. C#2,C#3.....works closer to my usual tuning spot. So does this mean I need a larger chamber mouthpiece to get D1,D2 relationship occuring with a shorter overall tuning length?

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
>
> I'd be willing to take you through it, step-by-step.
> 
> 
> --- On Thu, 1/5/12, crunchie_nuts <andrewhdonaldson@...> wrote:
> 
> From: crunchie_nuts <andrewhdonaldson@...>
> Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Thursday, January 5, 2012, 12:38 AM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I have tried it in the past but it never seemed to work for me. Maybe I was doing it wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> It would be great if you could post some evidence of your own results, such as intonation charts showing before and after tuning, such as the type Fred Wyman used in his thesis.
> 
> 
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@> wrote:
> 
> >
> 
> > I trust the total silence in the group to mean you are all busy trying this out perhaps.  The method I use, which is similar to that which Paul uses, I got for free from Arthur Benade.  It is printed right there in his published papers from the 1970's, and since I first started reading him 4 years ago, I have heard the key phrases tossed back and forth on the various saxophone forums and seen them quoted in many a doctoral thesis, absent of any
> 
> > apparent comprehension as to what they actually mean in their practical application.  I'll paraphrase:
> 
> > 
> 
> > 1. Saxophone players should be as meticulous in matching their mouthpieces to their horns as oboist/bassoonists are in fiddling with their reeds.  That sounds nice.  We know about volume
> 
> > and frs/frequency, but did anyone ever bother to go see just what it is that oboists/bassoonists actually do?   There must be something there we can learn from.  I don't see any orchestras tuning up to the soprano saxophone's concert A.
> 
> > 
> 
> > 2. That meticulousness includes tweaking the volume/frs to get the optimal results.  That means that once we got into the ballpark using the numbers, we abandon them to score.
> 
> > 
> 
> > Benade's oboe reed balancing routine boils down to this when related to the saxophone:
> 
> > 
> 
> > We are well aware of the volume induced tendencies of the conical air column - how at a 1/1 volume ratio and lower, they induce sharpness in the upper registers, and a bit lower than 1/1, those tendencies lessen and then become inverted.  We are also aware that a large chambered mouthpiece increases those tendencies in the upper registers compared to a small chambered
> 
> > mouthpiece - the frs of the two are different.  To eliminate the conical air column effects for the played instrument we must abandon the A=440 pitch center for a moment, and anchor the mouthpiece volume (i.e. where it is placed on the cork)  so that the low end of our overblown tube (D1/D2) has optimal resonance alignment - it must produce a perfect octave.  Easy.  Pull out (or push in) until D1/D2 is a perfect octave - and here is where "meticulous" comes into play.  Tune the octave using a tuner so that the center of your unavoidable pitch variations is at 0 cents deviation.  One uses a steady, normal embouchure making absolutely no adjustments. No adjustments.  No adjustments.  We are halfway there.
> 
> > 
> 
> > Now, unless we had a perfect mouthpiece to start with, our pitch center is off, as is the resonance alignment of the short end of the overblown tube
> 
> > (C#2/C#3).   Whatever we do to fix this, we must maintain the initial, optimal mouthpiece volume alignment (Not the place on the cork, but the perfect D1/D2 octave).  Realize that the initial "pulling out/pushing in" adjustment changed two aspects of the mouthpiece, the volume AND the length, for a pretty gross change in the stretching of the scale. 
> 
> > We now make gradual adjustments to the length alone, or frs - the pitch tendency of the chamber type in the upper registers, using the shortest overblown tube as our reference.  Making the chamber fatter while maintaining volume, raises the overall played pitch of the mouthpiece, affecting the upper register more than the lower.  Making the chamber narrower while maintaining volume lowers it.  
> 
> > 
> 
> > Between repeated steps of checking the D1/D2 octave for perfection and then making the appropriate chamber geometry adjustment, raising or lowering the pitch to improve the C#2/C#3 octave, the short tube will come into perfect alignment (same 0 cent deviation at center of pitch wobble) .  With both ends of the basic tube perfectly aligned, the ends (bell tones/palm keys) and in-between (middle register) take care of themselves.  The entire scale is within 5 cents of flat, perfectly situated in the A=440 pitch center. 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > One experiences a new playing and listening sensation - one voice - no perception of register changes.  The sound gets a silvery "sheen" to it as the horn resonates more perfectly with the cosmos - really.  Now, after you experience this, from both the playing and listening standpoint, it becomes addictive.  You immediately notice the conical air column effect qualities that you left behind, to varied degrees, in the playing of others - everywhere (almost - some got lucky or were smart with their setup).  It sticks out like wrong notes in Mozart.  You can even start listening to the silvery sheen evenness more than the notes they are playing, as you realize that hearing the conical air column effects is tiring, even annoying.
> 
> > 
> 
> > IMO, this is the future of saxophone development - refinement.  
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > --- On Wed, 1/4/12, MartinMods <lancelotburt@>
> 
> > wrote:
> 
> > 
> 
> > From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@>
> 
> > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
> 
> > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> 
> > Date: Wednesday, January 4, 2012, 2:46 AM
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> >  
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > The formula for doing the same is there.  Take advantage of it or not, as you will.
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > --- On Wed, 1/4/12, kymarto123@ <kymarto123@> wrote:
> 
> > 
> 
> > From: kymarto123@ <kymarto123@>
> 
> > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
> 
> > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> 
> > Date: Wednesday, January 4, 2012, 2:42 AM
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> >  
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > Well, at least we have your word for it.
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > --- MartinMods <lancelotburt@> wrote:
> 
> > 
> 
> > > Not in this model.  It's just a cavity.  Notice the range of the plotted cavity ratios.  At 1/1 the tendency is toward sharpness in the upper registers.  As you increase volume, the curve becomes flat, and then inverse.  A perfectly matched mouthpiece juggles the effects of the conical tube, those of the mouthpiece style, the reed, and the player, within a narrow band in this area.  The results are amazing.  
> 
> > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > > Make 5 mouthpieces that solve 5 individual player's individual horn/mouthpiece intonation problems, and you will have a good working understanding of what is going on.  
> 
> > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > > I've lost count.
> 
> > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > >
> 
> >
>


                   


    
     

    
    






  

uh.........I'm not buying into this at all......this is very contrary  
to my experience......


On Jan 6, 2012, at 1:03 PM, MartinMods wrote:

>
> :-)  The only reason D is an unstable note is because a mouthpiece  
> mismatch makes it that way.  Same with C#.  You owe it to yourself,  
> and your customers to experience playing saxophone with an optimized  
> mouthpiece.  Do it once, and you will understand.
>
>
>
> --- On Fri, 1/6/12, STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...> wrote:
>
> From: STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@cox.net>
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Friday, January 6, 2012, 4:22 PM
>
>
> I think it very, very odd that D was selected as a reference  
> pitch.....this is a very unstable note on saxophones
>
>
>
>
> On Jan 6, 2012, at 10:15 AM, Keith Bradbury wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> ...and after making the chamber larger, you then would push the  
>> mouthpiece in to get back (near) the original volume established in  
>> the D1/D2 pitch mathching.  Correct?
>>
>> From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
>> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>> Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2012 9:48 PM
>> Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto  
>> mouthpieces
>>
>> Find the place on the cork that produces a perfect D1/D2 octave,  
>> regardless of how that relates to A=440.  Leave the mouthpiece  
>> there.  Then test the C#2/C#3 octave.  The degree to which the C#'s  
>> are out of tune to A=440 and each other is the degree of acoustical  
>> mismatch between your mouthpiece and your horn.  At that position,  
>> your C#'s are flat, so you need to somehow make your chamber or  
>> throat larger in diameter, or you need a new mouthpiece that is a  
>> closer match - has a fatter chamber.  Enlarging the throat makes  
>> the tone somewhat broader or less focused.  One can regain that  
>> focus with baffle work.
>>
>>
>>
>> --- On Fri, 1/6/12, John <john_w_price33@...> wrote:
>>
>> From: John <john_w_price33@...>
>> Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto  
>> mouthpieces
>> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>> Date: Friday, January 6, 2012, 1:38 AM
>>
>>
>> I tried it. D1,D2 relationship good.....I had to pull out the  
>> mouthpiece quite a bit. C#2,C#3.....works closer to my usual tuning  
>> spot. So does this mean I need a larger chamber mouthpiece to get  
>> D1,D2 relationship occuring with a shorter overall tuning length?
>>
>> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods  
>> <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
>> >
>> > I'd be willing to take you through it, step-by-step.
>> >
>> >
>> > --- On Thu, 1/5/12, crunchie_nuts <andrewhdonaldson@...> wrote:
>> >
>> > From: crunchie_nuts <andrewhdonaldson@...>
>> > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto  
>> mouthpieces
>> > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>> > Date: Thursday, January 5, 2012, 12:38 AM
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Â
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Well, I have tried it in the past but it never seemed to work for  
>> me. Maybe I was doing it wrong.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > It would be great if you could post some evidence of your own  
>> results, such as intonation charts showing before and after tuning,  
>> such as the type Fred Wyman used in his thesis.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@>  
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> >
>> > > I trust the total silence in the group to mean you are all busy  
>> trying this out perhaps.  The method I use, which is similar to  
>> that which Paul uses, I got for free from Arthur Benade.  It is  
>> printed right there in his published papers from the 1970's, and  
>> since I first started reading him 4 years ago, I have heard the key  
>> phrases tossed back and forth on the various saxophone forums and  
>> seen them quoted in many a doctoral thesis, absent of any
>> >
>> > > apparent comprehension as to what they actually mean in their  
>> practical application.  I'll paraphrase:
>> >
>> > >
>> >
>> > > 1. Saxophone players should be as meticulous in matching their  
>> mouthpieces to their horns as oboist/bassoonists are in fiddling  
>> with their reeds.  That sounds nice.  We know about volume
>> >
>> > > and frs/frequency, but did anyone ever bother to go see just  
>> what it is that oboists/bassoonists actually do?   There must  
>> be something there we can learn from.  I don't see any  
>> orchestras tuning up to the soprano saxophone's concert A.
>> >
>> > >
>> >
>> > > 2. That meticulousness includes tweaking the volume/frs to get  
>> the optimal results.  That means that once we got into the  
>> ballpark using the numbers, we abandon them to score.
>> >
>> > >
>> >
>> > > Benade's oboe reed balancing routine boils down to this when  
>> related to the saxophone:
>> >
>> > >
>> >
>> > > We are well aware of the volume induced tendencies of the  
>> conical air column - how at a 1/1 volume ratio and lower, they  
>> induce sharpness in the upper registers, and a bit lower than 1/1,  
>> those tendencies lessen and then become inverted.  We are also  
>> aware that a large chambered mouthpiece increases those tendencies  
>> in the upper registers compared to a small chambered
>> >
>> > > mouthpiece - the frs of the two are different.  To eliminate  
>> the conical air column effects for the played instrument we must  
>> abandon the A=440 pitch center for a moment, and anchor the  
>> mouthpiece volume (i.e. where it is placed on the cork)  so that  
>> the low end of our overblown tube (D1/D2) has optimal resonance  
>> alignment - it must produce a perfect octave.  Easy.  Pull  
>> out (or push in) until D1/D2 is a perfect octave - and here is  
>> where "meticulous" comes into play.  Tune the octave using a  
>> tuner so that the center of your unavoidable pitch variations is at  
>> 0 cents deviation.  One uses a steady, normal embouchure making  
>> absolutely no adjustments. No adjustments.  No adjustments.   
>> We are halfway there.
>> >
>> > >
>> >
>> > > Now, unless we had a perfect mouthpiece to start with, our  
>> pitch center is off, as is the resonance alignment of the short end  
>> of the overblown tube
>> >
>> > > (C#2/C#3).   Whatever we do to fix this, we must maintain  
>> the initial, optimal mouthpiece volume alignment (Not the place on  
>> the cork, but the perfect D1/D2 octave).  Realize that the  
>> initial "pulling out/pushing in" adjustment changed two aspects of  
>> the mouthpiece, the volume AND the length, for a pretty gross  
>> change in the stretching of the scale.ÂÂ
>> >
>> > > We now make gradual adjustments to the length alone, or frs -  
>> the pitch tendency of the chamber type in the upper registers,  
>> using the shortest overblown tube as our reference.  Making the  
>> chamber fatter while maintaining volume, raises the overall played  
>> pitch of the mouthpiece, affecting the upper register more than the  
>> lower.  Making the chamber narrower while maintaining volume  
>> lowers it.ÂÂ
>> >
>> > >
>> >
>> > > Between repeated steps of checking the D1/D2 octave for  
>> perfection and then making the appropriate chamber geometry  
>> adjustment, raising or lowering the pitch to improve the C#2/C#3  
>> octave, the short tube will come into perfect alignment (same 0  
>> cent deviation at center of pitch wobble) .  With both ends of  
>> the basic tube perfectly aligned, the ends (bell tones/palm keys)  
>> and in-between (middle register) take care of themselves.  The  
>> entire scale is within 5 cents of flat, perfectly situated in the  
>> A=440 pitch center.ÂÂ
>> >
>> > >
>> >
>> > >
>> >
>> > > One experiences a new playing and listening sensation - one  
>> voice - no perception of register changes.  The sound gets a  
>> silvery "sheen" to it as the horn resonates more perfectly with the  
>> cosmos - really.  Now, after you experience this, from both the  
>> playing and listening standpoint, it becomes addictive.  You  
>> immediately notice the conical air column effect qualities that you  
>> left behind, to varied degrees, in the playing of others -  
>> everywhere (almost - some got lucky or were smart with their  
>> setup).  It sticks out like wrong notes in Mozart.  You can  
>> even start listening to the silvery sheen evenness more than the  
>> notes they are playing, as you realize that hearing the conical air  
>> column effects is tiring, even annoying.
>> >
>> > >
>> >
>> > > IMO, this is the future of saxophone development - refinement.ÂÂ
>> >
>> > >
>> >
>> > >
>> >
>> > >
>> >
>> > > --- On Wed, 1/4/12, MartinMods <lancelotburt@>
>> >
>> > > wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> >
>> > > From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@>
>> >
>> > > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto  
>> mouthpieces
>> >
>> > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>> >
>> > > Date: Wednesday, January 4, 2012, 2:46 AM
>> >
>> > >
>> >
>> > >
>> >
>> > >
>> >
>> > >
>> >
>> > >
>> >
>> > >
>> >
>> > >
>> >
>> > >
>> >
>> > > ÂÂ
>> >
>> > >
>> >
>> > >
>> >
>> > >
>> >
>> > >
>> >
>> > >
>> >
>> > >
>> >
>> > >
>> >
>> > >
>> >
>> > >
>> >
>> > > The formula for doing the same is there.  Take advantage of  
>> it or not, as you will.
>> >
>> > >
>> >
>> > >
>> >
>> > >
>> >
>> > > --- On Wed, 1/4/12, kymarto123@ <kymarto123@> wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> >
>> > > From: kymarto123@ <kymarto123@>
>> >
>> > > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto  
>> mouthpieces
>> >
>> > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>> >
>> > > Date: Wednesday, January 4, 2012, 2:42 AM
>> >
>> > >
>> >
>> > >
>> >
>> > >
>> >
>> > >
>> >
>> > >
>> >
>> > >
>> >
>> > >
>> >
>> > >
>> >
>> > > ÂÂ
>> >
>> > >
>> >
>> > >
>> >
>> > >
>> >
>> > >
>> >
>> > >
>> >
>> > >
>> >
>> > > Well, at least we have your word for it.
>> >
>> > >
>> >
>> > >
>> >
>> > >
>> >
>> > > --- MartinMods <lancelotburt@> wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> >
>> > > > Not in this model.  It's just a cavity.  Notice the  
>> range of the plotted cavity ratios.  At 1/1 the tendency is  
>> toward sharpness in the upper registers.  As you increase  
>> volume, the curve becomes flat, and then inverse.  A perfectly  
>> matched mouthpiece juggles the effects of the conical tube, those  
>> of the mouthpiece style, the reed, and the player, within a narrow  
>> band in this area.  The results are amazing.ÂÂ
>> >
>> > >
>> >
>> > > >
>> >
>> > >
>> >
>> > > > Make 5 mouthpieces that solve 5 individual player's  
>> individual horn/mouthpiece intonation problems, and you will have a  
>> good working understanding of what is going on.ÂÂ
>> >
>> > >
>> >
>> > > >
>> >
>> > >
>> >
>> > > > I've lost count.
>> >
>> > >
>> >
>> > > >
>> >
>> > >
>> >
>> > > >
>> >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
> 

That's not it.  

1. Set the long tube to a correct octave.  Leave mouthpiece there.
2. Examine the short octave (the objective is a perfect octave) - How it relates to the long tube (at this point) is unimportant.  
3. Make adjustment to improve short tube octave. 
4. Go back to #1.

--- On Fri, 1/6/12, Walter Forbes Hoehn (wassa) <wassa@...> wrote:

From: Walter Forbes Hoehn (wassa) <wassa@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
To: "<MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com>" <MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Friday, January 6, 2012, 4:24 PM

Seems that the idea is to compare the 2 notes that have the longest and shortest pipe, excluding tone holes that are used in only one octave.

-Walter Hoehn


On Jan 6, 2012, at 10:22 AM, STEVE GOODSON wrote:

> I think it very, very odd that D was selected as a reference pitch.....this is a very unstable note on saxophones
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Jan 6, 2012, at 10:15 AM, Keith Bradbury wrote:
> 
>>  
>> 
>> ...and after making the chamber larger, you then would push the mouthpiece in to get back (near) the original volume established in the D1/D2 pitch mathching.  Correct?
>> 
>> From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
>> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
>> Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2012 9:48 PM
>> Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
>>  
>> Find the place on the cork that produces a perfect D1/D2 octave, regardless of how that relates to A=440.  Leave the mouthpiece there.  Then test the C#2/C#3 octave.  The degree to which the C#'s are out of tune to A=440 and each other is the degree of acoustical mismatch between your mouthpiece and your horn.  At that position, your C#'s are flat, so you need to somehow make your chamber or throat larger in diameter, or you need a new mouthpiece that is a closer match - has a fatter chamber.  Enlarging the throat makes the tone somewhat broader or less focused.  One can regain that focus with baffle work.   
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --- On Fri, 1/6/12, John <john_w_price33@...> wrote:
>> 
>> From: John <john_w_price33@...>
>> Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
>> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>> Date: Friday, January 6, 2012, 1:38 AM
>> 
>>  
>> I tried it. D1,D2 relationship good.....I had to pull out the mouthpiece quite a bit. C#2,C#3.....works closer to my usual tuning spot. So does this mean I need a larger chamber mouthpiece to get D1,D2 relationship occuring with a shorter overall tuning length?
>> 
>> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
>> >
>> > I'd be willing to take you through it, step-by-step.
>> > 
>> > 
>> > --- On Thu, 1/5/12, crunchie_nuts <andrewhdonaldson@...> wrote:
>> > 
>> > From: crunchie_nuts <andrewhdonaldson@...>
>> > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
>> > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>> > Date: Thursday, January 5, 2012, 12:38 AM
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > Â 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > Well, I have tried it in the past but it never seemed to work for me. Maybe I was doing it wrong.
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > It would be great if you could post some evidence of your own results, such as intonation charts showing before and after tuning, such as the type Fred Wyman used in his thesis.
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@> wrote:
>> > 
>> > >
>> > 
>> > > I trust the total silence in the group to mean you are all busy trying this out perhaps.  The method I use, which is similar to that which Paul uses, I got for free from Arthur Benade.  It is printed right there in his published papers from the 1970's, and since I first started reading him 4 years ago, I have heard the key phrases tossed back and forth on the various saxophone forums and seen them quoted in many a doctoral thesis, absent of any
>> > 
>> > > apparent comprehension as to what they actually mean in their practical application.  I'll paraphrase:
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > 1. Saxophone players should be as meticulous in matching their mouthpieces to their horns as oboist/bassoonists are in fiddling with their reeds.  That sounds nice.  We know about volume
>> > 
>> > > and frs/frequency, but did anyone ever bother to go see just what it is that oboists/bassoonists actually do?   There must be something there we can learn from.  I don't see any orchestras tuning up to the soprano saxophone's concert A.
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > 2. That meticulousness includes tweaking the volume/frs to get the optimal results.  That means that once we got into the ballpark using the numbers, we abandon them to score.
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > Benade's oboe reed balancing routine boils down to this when related to the saxophone:
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > We are well aware of the volume induced tendencies of the conical air column - how at a 1/1 volume ratio and lower, they induce sharpness in the upper registers, and a bit lower than 1/1, those tendencies lessen and then become inverted.  We are also aware that a large chambered mouthpiece increases those tendencies in the upper registers compared to a small chambered
>> > 
>> > > mouthpiece - the frs of the two are different.  To eliminate the conical air column effects for the played instrument we must abandon the A=440 pitch center for a moment, and anchor the mouthpiece volume (i.e. where it is placed on the cork)  so that the low end of our overblown tube (D1/D2) has optimal resonance alignment - it must produce a perfect octave.  Easy.  Pull out (or push in) until D1/D2 is a perfect octave - and here is where "meticulous" comes into play.  Tune the octave using a tuner so that the center of your unavoidable pitch variations is at 0 cents deviation.  One uses a steady, normal embouchure making absolutely no adjustments. No adjustments.  No adjustments.  We are halfway there.
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > Now, unless we had a perfect mouthpiece to start with, our pitch center is off, as is the resonance alignment of the short end of the overblown tube
>> > 
>> > > (C#2/C#3).   Whatever we do to fix this, we must maintain the initial, optimal mouthpiece volume alignment (Not the place on the cork, but the perfect D1/D2 octave).  Realize that the initial "pulling out/pushing in" adjustment changed two aspects of the mouthpiece, the volume AND the length, for a pretty gross change in the stretching of the scale. 
>> > 
>> > > We now make gradual adjustments to the length alone, or frs - the pitch tendency of the chamber type in the upper registers, using the shortest overblown tube as our reference.  Making the chamber fatter while maintaining volume, raises the overall played pitch of the mouthpiece, affecting the upper register more than the lower.  Making the chamber narrower while maintaining volume lowers it.  
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > Between repeated steps of checking the D1/D2 octave for perfection and then making the appropriate chamber geometry adjustment, raising or lowering the pitch to improve the C#2/C#3 octave, the short tube will come into perfect alignment (same 0 cent deviation at center of pitch wobble) .  With both ends of the basic tube perfectly aligned, the ends (bell tones/palm keys) and in-between (middle register) take care of themselves.  The entire scale is within 5 cents of flat, perfectly situated in the A=440 pitch center. 
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > One experiences a new playing and listening sensation - one voice - no perception of register changes.  The sound gets a silvery "sheen" to it as the horn resonates more perfectly with the cosmos - really.  Now, after you experience this, from both the playing and listening standpoint, it becomes addictive.  You immediately notice the conical air column effect qualities that you left behind, to varied degrees, in the playing of others - everywhere (almost - some got lucky or were smart with their setup).  It sticks out like wrong notes in Mozart.  You can even start listening to the silvery sheen evenness more than the notes they are playing, as you realize that hearing the conical air column effects is tiring, even annoying.
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > IMO, this is the future of saxophone development - refinement.  
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > --- On Wed, 1/4/12, MartinMods <lancelotburt@>
>> > 
>> > > wrote:
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@>
>> > 
>> > > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
>> > 
>> > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>> > 
>> > > Date: Wednesday, January 4, 2012, 2:46 AM
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > >  
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > The formula for doing the same is there.  Take advantage of it or not, as you will.
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > --- On Wed, 1/4/12, kymarto123@ <kymarto123@> wrote:
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > From: kymarto123@ <kymarto123@>
>> > 
>> > > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
>> > 
>> > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>> > 
>> > > Date: Wednesday, January 4, 2012, 2:42 AM
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > >  
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > Well, at least we have your word for it.
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > --- MartinMods <lancelotburt@> wrote:
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > > Not in this model.  It's just a cavity.  Notice the range of the plotted cavity ratios.  At 1/1 the tendency is toward sharpness in the upper registers.  As you increase volume, the curve becomes flat, and then inverse.  A perfectly matched mouthpiece juggles the effects of the conical tube, those of the mouthpiece style, the reed, and the player, within a narrow band in this area.  The results are amazing.  
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > > 
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > > Make 5 mouthpieces that solve 5 individual player's individual horn/mouthpiece intonation problems, and you will have a good working understanding of what is going on.  
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > > 
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > > I've lost count.
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > > 
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > >
>> > 
>> > >
>> >
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 




------------------------------------

Got a Mouthpiece Work question?  Send it to MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com

Visit the site at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MouthpieceWork to see the Files, Photos and Bookmarks relating to Mouthpiece Work.

To see and modify your groups, go to http://groups.yahoo.com/mygroupsYahoo! Groups Links

Suit yourself.  My mouthpieces and horns will sound better than yours then :-)


--- On Fri, 1/6/12, STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...> wrote:

From: STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, January 6, 2012, 7:07 PM








 



  


    
      
      
      uh.........I'm not buying into this at all......this is very contrary to my experience......

On Jan 6, 2012, at 1:03 PM, MartinMods wrote:

:-)  The only reason D is an unstable note is because a mouthpiece mismatch makes it that way.  Same with C#.  You owe it to yourself, and your customers to experience playing saxophone with an optimized mouthpiece.  Do it once, and you will understand.



--- On Fri, 1/6/12, STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...> wrote:

From: STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, January 6, 2012, 4:22 PM

 I think it very, very odd that D was selected as a reference pitch.....this is a very unstable note on saxophones


On Jan 6, 2012, at 10:15 AM, Keith Bradbury wrote:
 
...and after making the chamber larger, you then would push the mouthpiece in to get back (near) the original volume established in the D1/D2 pitch mathching.  Correct?
From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2012 9:48 PM
Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
 Find the place on the cork that produces a perfect D1/D2 octave, regardless of how that relates to A=440.  Leave the mouthpiece there.  Then test the C#2/C#3 octave.  The degree to which the C#'s are out of tune to A=440 and each other is the degree of acoustical mismatch between your mouthpiece and your horn.  At that position, your C#'s are flat, so you need to somehow make your chamber or throat larger in diameter, or you need a new mouthpiece that is a closer match - has a fatter chamber.  Enlarging the throat makes the tone somewhat broader or less focused.  One can regain that focus with baffle work.   



--- On Fri, 1/6/12, John <john_w_price33@...> wrote:

From: John <john_w_price33@...>
Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, January 6, 2012, 1:38 AM

 I tried it. D1,D2 relationship good.....I had to pull out the mouthpiece quite a bit. C#2,C#3.....works closer to my usual tuning spot. So does this mean I need a larger chamber mouthpiece to get D1,D2 relationship occuring with a shorter overall tuning length?

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
>
> I'd be willing to take you through it, step-by-step.
> 
> 
> --- On Thu, 1/5/12, crunchie_nuts <andrewhdonaldson@...> wrote:
> 
> From: crunchie_nuts <andrewhdonaldson@...>
> Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Thursday, January 5, 2012, 12:38 AM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I have tried it in the past but it never seemed to work for me. Maybe I was doing it wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> It would be great if you could post some evidence of your own results, such as intonation charts showing before and after tuning, such as the type Fred Wyman used in his thesis.
> 
> 
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@> wrote:
> 
> >
> 
> > I trust the total silence in the group to mean you are all busy trying this out perhaps.  The method I use, which is similar to that which Paul uses, I got for free from Arthur Benade.  It is printed right there in his published papers from the 1970's, and since I first started reading him 4 years ago, I have heard the key phrases tossed back and forth on the various saxophone forums and seen them quoted in many a doctoral thesis, absent of any
> 
> > apparent comprehension as to what they actually mean in their practical application.  I'll paraphrase:
> 
> > 
> 
> > 1. Saxophone players should be as meticulous in matching their mouthpieces to their horns as oboist/bassoonists are in fiddling with their reeds.  That sounds nice.  We know about volume
> 
> > and frs/frequency, but did anyone ever bother to go see just what it is that oboists/bassoonists actually do?   There must be something there we can learn from.  I don't see any orchestras tuning up to the soprano saxophone's concert A.
> 
> > 
> 
> > 2. That meticulousness includes tweaking the volume/frs to get the optimal results.  That means that once we got into the ballpark using the numbers, we abandon them to score.
> 
> > 
> 
> > Benade's oboe reed balancing routine boils down to this when related to the saxophone:
> 
> > 
> 
> > We are well aware of the volume induced tendencies of the conical air column - how at a 1/1 volume ratio and lower, they induce sharpness in the upper registers, and a bit lower than 1/1, those tendencies lessen and then become inverted.  We are also aware that a large chambered mouthpiece increases those tendencies in the upper registers compared to a small chambered
> 
> > mouthpiece - the frs of the two are different.  To eliminate the conical air column effects for the played instrument we must abandon the A=440 pitch center for a moment, and anchor the mouthpiece volume (i.e. where it is placed on the cork)  so that the low end of our overblown tube (D1/D2) has optimal resonance alignment - it must produce a perfect octave.  Easy.  Pull out (or push in) until D1/D2 is a perfect octave - and here is where "meticulous" comes into play.  Tune the octave using a tuner so that the center of your unavoidable pitch variations is at 0 cents deviation.  One uses a steady, normal embouchure making absolutely no adjustments. No adjustments.  No adjustments.  We are halfway there.
> 
> > 
> 
> > Now, unless we had a perfect mouthpiece to start with, our pitch center is off, as is the resonance alignment of the short end of the overblown tube
> 
> > (C#2/C#3).   Whatever we do to fix this, we must maintain the initial, optimal mouthpiece volume alignment (Not the place on the cork, but the perfect D1/D2 octave).  Realize that the initial "pulling out/pushing in" adjustment changed two aspects of the mouthpiece, the volume AND the length, for a pretty gross change in the stretching of the scale. 
> 
> > We now make gradual adjustments to the length alone, or frs - the pitch tendency of the chamber type in the upper registers, using the shortest overblown tube as our reference.  Making the chamber fatter while maintaining volume, raises the overall played pitch of the mouthpiece, affecting the upper register more than the lower.  Making the chamber narrower while maintaining volume lowers it.  
> 
> > 
> 
> > Between repeated steps of checking the D1/D2 octave for perfection and then making the appropriate chamber geometry adjustment, raising or lowering the pitch to improve the C#2/C#3 octave, the short tube will come into perfect alignment (same 0 cent deviation at center of pitch wobble) .  With both ends of the basic tube perfectly aligned, the ends (bell tones/palm keys) and in-between (middle register) take care of themselves.  The entire scale is within 5 cents of flat, perfectly situated in the A=440 pitch center. 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > One experiences a new playing and listening sensation - one voice - no perception of register changes.  The sound gets a silvery "sheen" to it as the horn resonates more perfectly with the cosmos - really.  Now, after you experience this, from both the playing and listening standpoint, it becomes addictive.  You immediately notice the conical air column effect qualities that you left behind, to varied degrees, in the playing of others - everywhere (almost - some got lucky or were smart with their setup).  It sticks out like wrong notes in Mozart.  You can even start listening to the silvery sheen evenness more than the notes they are playing, as you realize that hearing the conical air column effects is tiring, even annoying.
> 
> > 
> 
> > IMO, this is the future of saxophone development - refinement.  
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > --- On Wed, 1/4/12, MartinMods <lancelotburt@>
> 
> > wrote:
> 
> > 
> 
> > From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@>
> 
> > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
> 
> > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> 
> > Date: Wednesday, January 4, 2012, 2:46 AM
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> >  
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > The formula for doing the same is there.  Take advantage of it or not, as you will.
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > --- On Wed, 1/4/12, kymarto123@ <kymarto123@> wrote:
> 
> > 
> 
> > From: kymarto123@ <kymarto123@>
> 
> > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
> 
> > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> 
> > Date: Wednesday, January 4, 2012, 2:42 AM
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> >  
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > Well, at least we have your word for it.
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > --- MartinMods <lancelotburt@> wrote:
> 
> > 
> 
> > > Not in this model.  It's just a cavity.  Notice the range of the plotted cavity ratios.  At 1/1 the tendency is toward sharpness in the upper registers.  As you increase volume, the curve becomes flat, and then inverse.  A perfectly matched mouthpiece juggles the effects of the conical tube, those of the mouthpiece style, the reed, and the player, within a narrow band in this area.  The results are amazing.  
> 
> > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > > Make 5 mouthpieces that solve 5 individual player's individual horn/mouthpiece intonation problems, and you will have a good working understanding of what is going on.  
> 
> > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > > I've lost count.
> 
> > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > >
> 
> >
>







    
     

    
    






  

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

Emoticon dude
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

-----Original Message-----
From: STEVE GOODSON 
Sender: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 13:31:27 
To: 
Reply-To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces

yeah, people all over the world play your brand of horns and  
mouthpieces that you make......you're widely published outside of your  
own postings on the internet.....you're often hired my manufacturers  
to consult on saxophone design.......excuse me....I must have been  
thinking of somebody else.....


On Jan 6, 2012, at 1:22 PM, MartinMods wrote:

>
> Suit yourself.  My mouthpieces and horns will sound better than  
> yours then :-)
>
>
> --- On Fri, 1/6/12, STEVE GOODSON  wrote:
>
> From: STEVE GOODSON 
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Friday, January 6, 2012, 7:07 PM
>
>
> uh.........I'm not buying into this at all......this is very  
> contrary to my experience......
>
>
>
> On Jan 6, 2012, at 1:03 PM, MartinMods wrote:
>
>>
>> :-)  The only reason D is an unstable note is because a mouthpiece  
>> mismatch makes it that way.  Same with C#.  You owe it to yourself,  
>> and your customers to experience playing saxophone with an  
>> optimized mouthpiece.  Do it once, and you will understand.
>>
>>
>>
>> --- On Fri, 1/6/12, STEVE GOODSON  wrote:
>>
>> From: STEVE GOODSON 
>> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
>> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>> Date: Friday, January 6, 2012, 4:22 PM
>>
>>
>> I think it very, very odd that D was selected as a reference  
>> pitch.....this is a very unstable note on saxophones
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jan 6, 2012, at 10:15 AM, Keith Bradbury wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ...and after making the chamber larger, you then would push the  
>>> mouthpiece in to get back (near) the original volume established  
>>> in the D1/D2 pitch mathching.  Correct?
>>>
>>> From: MartinMods 
>>> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>>> Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2012 9:48 PM
>>> Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto  
>>> mouthpieces
>>>
>>> Find the place on the cork that produces a perfect D1/D2 octave,  
>>> regardless of how that relates to A=440.  Leave the mouthpiece  
>>> there.  Then test the C#2/C#3 octave.  The degree to which the  
>>> C#'s are out of tune to A=440 and each other is the degree of  
>>> acoustical mismatch between your mouthpiece and your horn.  At  
>>> that position, your C#'s are flat, so you need to somehow make  
>>> your chamber or throat larger in diameter, or you need a new  
>>> mouthpiece that is a closer match - has a fatter chamber.   
>>> Enlarging the throat makes the tone somewhat broader or less  
>>> focused.  One can regain that focus with baffle work.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --- On Fri, 1/6/12, John  wrote:
>>>
>>> From: John 
>>> Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto  
>>> mouthpieces
>>> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>>> Date: Friday, January 6, 2012, 1:38 AM
>>>
>>>
>>> I tried it. D1,D2 relationship good.....I had to pull out the  
>>> mouthpiece quite a bit. C#2,C#3.....works closer to my usual  
>>> tuning spot. So does this mean I need a larger chamber mouthpiece  
>>> to get D1,D2 relationship occuring with a shorter overall tuning  
>>> length?
>>>
>>> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods  
>>>  wrote:
>>> >
>>> > I'd be willing to take you through it, step-by-step.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --- On Thu, 1/5/12, crunchie_nuts  wrote:
>>> >
>>> > From: crunchie_nuts 
>>> > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto  
>>> mouthpieces
>>> > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>>> > Date: Thursday, January 5, 2012, 12:38 AM
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Â
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Well, I have tried it in the past but it never seemed to work  
>>> for me. Maybe I was doing it wrong.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > It would be great if you could post some evidence of your own  
>>> results, such as intonation charts showing before and after  
>>> tuning, such as the type Fred Wyman used in his thesis.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods  
>>>  wrote:
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > > I trust the total silence in the group to mean you are all  
>>> busy trying this out perhaps.  The method I use, which is  
>>> similar to that which Paul uses, I got for free from Arthur  
>>> Benade.  It is printed right there in his published papers from  
>>> the 1970's, and since I first started reading him 4 years ago, I  
>>> have heard the key phrases tossed back and forth on the various  
>>> saxophone forums and seen them quoted in many a doctoral thesis,  
>>> absent of any
>>> >
>>> > > apparent comprehension as to what they actually mean in their  
>>> practical application.  I'll paraphrase:
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > > 1. Saxophone players should be as meticulous in matching their  
>>> mouthpieces to their horns as oboist/bassoonists are in fiddling  
>>> with their reeds.  That sounds nice.  We know about volume
>>> >
>>> > > and frs/frequency, but did anyone ever bother to go see just  
>>> what it is that oboists/bassoonists actually do?   There  
>>> must be something there we can learn from.  I don't see any  
>>> orchestras tuning up to the soprano saxophone's concert A.
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > > 2. That meticulousness includes tweaking the volume/frs to get  
>>> the optimal results.  That means that once we got into the  
>>> ballpark using the numbers, we abandon them to score.
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > > Benade's oboe reed balancing routine boils down to this when  
>>> related to the saxophone:
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > > We are well aware of the volume induced tendencies of the  
>>> conical air column - how at a 1/1 volume ratio and lower, they  
>>> induce sharpness in the upper registers, and a bit lower than 1/1,  
>>> those tendencies lessen and then become inverted.  We are also  
>>> aware that a large chambered mouthpiece increases those tendencies  
>>> in the upper registers compared to a small chambered
>>> >
>>> > > mouthpiece - the frs of the two are different.  To  
>>> eliminate the conical air column effects for the played instrument  
>>> we must abandon the A=440 pitch center for a moment, and anchor  
>>> the mouthpiece volume (i.e. where it is placed on the cork)  so  
>>> that the low end of our overblown tube (D1/D2) has optimal  
>>> resonance alignment - it must produce a perfect octave.   
>>> Easy.  Pull out (or push in) until D1/D2 is a perfect octave -  
>>> and here is where "meticulous" comes into play.  Tune the  
>>> octave using a tuner so that the center of your unavoidable pitch  
>>> variations is at 0 cents deviation.  One uses a steady, normal  
>>> embouchure making absolutely no adjustments. No adjustments.   
>>> No adjustments.  We are halfway there.
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > > Now, unless we had a perfect mouthpiece to start with, our  
>>> pitch center is off, as is the resonance alignment of the short  
>>> end of the overblown tube
>>> >
>>> > > (C#2/C#3).   Whatever we do to fix this, we must  
>>> maintain the initial, optimal mouthpiece volume alignment (Not the  
>>> place on the cork, but the perfect D1/D2 octave).  Realize that  
>>> the initial "pulling out/pushing in" adjustment changed two  
>>> aspects of the mouthpiece, the volume AND the length, for a pretty  
>>> gross change in the stretching of the scale.ÂÂ
>>> >
>>> > > We now make gradual adjustments to the length alone, or frs -  
>>> the pitch tendency of the chamber type in the upper registers,  
>>> using the shortest overblown tube as our reference.  Making the  
>>> chamber fatter while maintaining volume, raises the overall played  
>>> pitch of the mouthpiece, affecting the upper register more than  
>>> the lower.  Making the chamber narrower while maintaining  
>>> volume lowers it.ÂÂ
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > > Between repeated steps of checking the D1/D2 octave for  
>>> perfection and then making the appropriate chamber geometry  
>>> adjustment, raising or lowering the pitch to improve the C#2/C#3  
>>> octave, the short tube will come into perfect alignment (same 0  
>>> cent deviation at center of pitch wobble) .  With both ends of  
>>> the basic tube perfectly aligned, the ends (bell tones/palm keys)  
>>> and in-between (middle register) take care of themselves.  The  
>>> entire scale is within 5 cents of flat, perfectly situated in the  
>>> A=440 pitch center.ÂÂ
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > > One experiences a new playing and listening sensation - one  
>>> voice - no perception of register changes.  The sound gets a  
>>> silvery "sheen" to it as the horn resonates more perfectly with  
>>> the cosmos - really.  Now, after you experience this, from both  
>>> the playing and listening standpoint, it becomes addictive.   
>>> You immediately notice the conical air column effect qualities  
>>> that you left behind, to varied degrees, in the playing of others  
>>> - everywhere (almost - some got lucky or were smart with their  
>>> setup).  It sticks out like wrong notes in Mozart.  You can  
>>> even start listening to the silvery sheen evenness more than the  
>>> notes they are playing, as you realize that hearing the conical  
>>> air column effects is tiring, even annoying.
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > > IMO, this is the future of saxophone development -  
>>> refinement.ÂÂ
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > > --- On Wed, 1/4/12, MartinMods 
>>> >
>>> > > wrote:
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > > From: MartinMods 
>>> >
>>> > > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto  
>>> mouthpieces
>>> >
>>> > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>>> >
>>> > > Date: Wednesday, January 4, 2012, 2:46 AM
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > > ÂÂ
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > > The formula for doing the same is there.  Take advantage of  
>>> it or not, as you will.
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > > --- On Wed, 1/4/12, kymarto123@  wrote:
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > > From: kymarto123@ 
>>> >
>>> > > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto  
>>> mouthpieces
>>> >
>>> > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>>> >
>>> > > Date: Wednesday, January 4, 2012, 2:42 AM
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > > ÂÂ
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > > Well, at least we have your word for it.
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > > --- MartinMods  wrote:
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > > > Not in this model.  It's just a cavity.  Notice the  
>>> range of the plotted cavity ratios.  At 1/1 the tendency is  
>>> toward sharpness in the upper registers.  As you increase  
>>> volume, the curve becomes flat, and then inverse.  A perfectly  
>>> matched mouthpiece juggles the effects of the conical tube, those  
>>> of the mouthpiece style, the reed, and the player, within a narrow  
>>> band in this area.  The results are amazing.ÂÂ
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > > >
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > > > Make 5 mouthpieces that solve 5 individual player's  
>>> individual horn/mouthpiece intonation problems, and you will have  
>>> a good working understanding of what is going on.ÂÂ
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > > >
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > > > I've lost count.
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > > >
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > > >
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> 

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

Toby,

You may make all the assumptions you like, without actually completing the routine once yourself, but D and C# are chosen for precise acoustical reasons (see below if you care to read the explanation).  I have performed it extensively.  Using D and C# provide the best results in every case.  

Why D and C#:  Completing the routine, making appropriate geometric alterations to the mouthpiece as results dictate, using any of the notes you suggest would have excellent results, compared to not doing anything.  However, as to D and C#, note again the volume deviation curves in Nederveen.  Going in the direction of excess volume, the line would be flat, before it became inverted.  If Bb1 is used to anchor the correct volume, the entire rest of the scale will suffer the effects of the 1/1 volume ratio - increasing sharpness exponentially proportional to tube length and mode.  If D is used, then:

1. D will no longer be a problem note.  Perfectly aligned resonances insure that.
2. The actual volume of the mouthpiece will be somewhat in excess of the 1/1 ratio minimizing the effects of the conical air column for the rest of the scale - we get a very flat frequency response.
3. The bell tones which are not overblown for the normal playing range are tuned via key height (if required).
3. Adjusting C# is equivalent to adjusting Benade's frs.  B works, C works, but C# works the best - provided you can play C# in the first place.
4. The palm keys are adjusted (if needed) via key height.

If you don't feel comfortable playing C#, then use B.  I have had excellent results with that.  The more developed players will find C# to be the best note however.




--- On Fri, 1/6/12, kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...> wrote:

From: kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...>
Subject: Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, January 6, 2012, 4:56 PM








 



  


    
      
      
      I agree with Steve on this. If the idea is to compare long and short tube notes, then much better to choose Bb as the long tube and overblow to Bb2. That's a sight longer-tube than D.



If you read Nederveen, you'll also see that C#3 is a whanky note--particularly on sop--for various acoustic reasons. It would probably be wiser to go with C 

or even B. 



Possibly even wiser would be to go Bb1/Bb2 overblown for long tube, then Bb2 overblown/Bb2 to get an idea of long vs. short , then Bb2/Bb3 for short tube register relationship. Bb is a much more stable note than C#, and actually you have a bigger difference in long/ short tube: Bb-Bb is an octave; D-C# a semitone less.



And also, that way you stay on the same note across the test, so it all might be aurally clearer.



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

> I think it very, very odd that D was selected as a reference pitch.....this is a very unstable note on saxophones

> 

> 

> 

> On Jan 6, 2012, at 10:15 AM, Keith Bradbury wrote:

> 

> > 

> > ...and after making the chamber larger, you then would push the mouthpiece in to get back (near) the original volume established in the D1/D2 pitch mathching.  Correct?

> > 

> > From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>

> > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com

> > Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2012 9:48 PM

> > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces

> > 

> > Find the place on the cork that produces a perfect D1/D2 octave, regardless of how that relates to A=440.  Leave the mouthpiece there.  Then test the C#2/C#3 octave.  The degree to which the C#'s are out of tune to A=440 and each other is the degree of acoustical mismatch between your mouthpiece and your horn.  At that position, your C#'s are flat, so you need to somehow make your chamber or throat larger in diameter, or you need a new mouthpiece that is a closer match - has a fatter chamber.  Enlarging the throat makes the tone somewhat broader or less focused.  One can regain that focus with baffle work.

> > 

> > 

> > 

> > --- On Fri, 1/6/12, John <john_w_price33@...> wrote:

> > 

> > From: John <john_w_price33@...>

> > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces

> > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com

> > Date: Friday, January 6, 2012, 1:38 AM

> > 

> > 

> > I tried it. D1,D2 relationship good.....I had to pull out the mouthpiece quite a bit. C#2,C#3.....works closer to my usual tuning spot. So does this mean I need a larger chamber mouthpiece to get D1,D2 relationship occuring with a shorter overall tuning length?

> > 

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

> > >

> > > I'd be willing to take you through it, step-by-step.

> > >

> > >

> > > --- On Thu, 1/5/12, crunchie_nuts <andrewhdonaldson@...> wrote:

> > >

> > > From: crunchie_nuts <andrewhdonaldson@...>

> > > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces

> > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com

> > > Date: Thursday, January 5, 2012, 12:38 AM

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Â

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Well, I have tried it in the past but it never seemed to work for me. Maybe I was doing it wrong.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > It would be great if you could post some evidence of your own results, such as intonation charts showing before and after tuning, such as the type Fred Wyman used in his thesis.

> > >

> > >

> > >

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

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > I trust the total silence in the group to mean you are all busy trying this out perhaps.  The method I use, which is similar to that which Paul uses, I got for free from Arthur Benade.  It is printed right there in his published papers from the 1970's, and since I first started reading him 4 years ago, I have heard the key phrases tossed back and forth on the various saxophone forums and seen them quoted in many a doctoral thesis, absent of any

> > >

> > > > apparent comprehension as to what they actually mean in their practical application.  I'll paraphrase:

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > 1. Saxophone players should be as meticulous in matching their mouthpieces to their horns as oboist/bassoonists are in fiddling with their reeds.  That sounds nice.  We know about volume

> > >

> > > > and frs/frequency, but did anyone ever bother to go see just what it is that oboists/bassoonists actually do?   There must be something there we can learn from.  I don't see any orchestras tuning up to the soprano saxophone's concert A.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > 2. That meticulousness includes tweaking the volume/frs to get the optimal results.  That means that once we got into the ballpark using the numbers, we abandon them to score.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Benade's oboe reed balancing routine boils down to this when related to the saxophone:

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > We are well aware of the volume induced tendencies of the conical air column - how at a 1/1 volume ratio and lower, they induce sharpness in the upper registers, and a bit lower than 1/1, those tendencies lessen and then become inverted.  We are also aware that a large chambered mouthpiece increases those tendencies in the upper registers compared to a small chambered

> > >

> > > > mouthpiece - the frs of the two are different.  To eliminate the conical air column effects for the played instrument we must abandon the A=440 pitch center for a moment, and anchor the mouthpiece volume (i.e. where it is placed on the cork)  so that the low end of our overblown tube (D1/D2) has optimal resonance alignment - it must produce a perfect octave.  Easy.  Pull out (or push in) until D1/D2 is a perfect octave - and here is where "meticulous" comes into play.  Tune the octave using a tuner so that the center of your unavoidable pitch variations is at 0 cents deviation.  One uses a steady, normal embouchure making absolutely no adjustments. No adjustments.  No adjustments.  We are halfway there.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Now, unless we had a perfect mouthpiece to start with, our pitch center is off, as is the resonance alignment of the short end of the overblown tube

> > >

> > > > (C#2/C#3).   Whatever we do to fix this, we must maintain the initial, optimal mouthpiece volume alignment (Not the place on the cork, but the perfect D1/D2 octave).  Realize that the initial "pulling out/pushing in" adjustment changed two aspects of the mouthpiece, the volume AND the length, for a pretty gross change in the stretching of the scale.ÂÂ

> > >

> > > > We now make gradual adjustments to the length alone, or frs - the pitch tendency of the chamber type in the upper registers, using the shortest overblown tube as our reference.  Making the chamber fatter while maintaining volume, raises the overall played pitch of the mouthpiece, affecting the upper register more than the lower.  Making the chamber narrower while maintaining volume lowers it.ÂÂ

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Between repeated steps of checking the D1/D2 octave for perfection and then making the appropriate chamber geometry adjustment, raising or lowering the pitch to improve the C#2/C#3 octave, the short tube will come into perfect alignment (same 0 cent deviation at center of pitch wobble) .  With both ends of the basic tube perfectly aligned, the ends (bell tones/palm keys) and in-between (middle register) take care of themselves.  The entire scale is within 5 cents of flat, perfectly situated in the A=440 pitch center.ÂÂ

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > One experiences a new playing and listening sensation - one voice - no perception of register changes.  The sound gets a silvery "sheen" to it as the horn resonates more perfectly with the cosmos - really.  Now, after you experience this, from both the playing and listening standpoint, it becomes addictive.  You immediately notice the conical air column effect qualities that you left behind, to varied degrees, in the playing of others - everywhere (almost - some got lucky or were smart with their setup).  It sticks out like wrong notes in Mozart.  You can even start listening to the silvery sheen evenness more than the notes they are playing, as you realize that hearing the conical air column effects is tiring, even annoying.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > IMO, this is the future of saxophone development - refinement.ÂÂ

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > --- On Wed, 1/4/12, MartinMods <lancelotburt@>

> > >

> > > > wrote:

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@>

> > >

> > > > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces

> > >

> > > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com

> > >

> > > > Date: Wednesday, January 4, 2012, 2:46 AM

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > ÂÂ

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > The formula for doing the same is there.  Take advantage of it or not, as you will.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > --- On Wed, 1/4/12, kymarto123@ <kymarto123@> wrote:

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > From: kymarto123@ <kymarto123@>

> > >

> > > > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces

> > >

> > > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com

> > >

> > > > Date: Wednesday, January 4, 2012, 2:42 AM

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > ÂÂ

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Well, at least we have your word for it.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

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

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Not in this model.  It's just a cavity.  Notice the range of the plotted cavity ratios.  At 1/1 the tendency is toward sharpness in the upper registers.  As you increase volume, the curve becomes flat, and then inverse.  A perfectly matched mouthpiece juggles the effects of the conical tube, those of the mouthpiece style, the reed, and the player, within a narrow band in this area.  The results are amazing.ÂÂ

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Make 5 mouthpieces that solve 5 individual player's individual horn/mouthpiece intonation problems, and you will have a good working understanding of what is going on.ÂÂ

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > I've lost count.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > 

> > 

> > 

> 

> 



    
     

    
    






  

No disrespect, but, with so much experience and credentials, surely then you have tried this, exactly as specified...once...and found that it did not work.  I'd like to hear about that.



--- On Fri, 1/6/12, STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...> wrote:

From: STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, January 6, 2012, 7:53 PM








 



  


    
      
      
      yeah, but with the credentials to back it up.....


On Jan 6, 2012, at 1:52 PM, matthewvossjazz@... wrote:
Emoticon dudeSent via BlackBerry by AT&TFrom: STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...>Sender: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.comDate: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 13:31:27 -0600To: <MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com>ReplyTo: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.comSubject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
 yeah, people all over the world play your brand of horns and mouthpieces that you make......you're widely published outside of your own postings on the internet.....you're often hired my manufacturers to consult on saxophone design.......excuse me....I must have been thinking of somebody else.....

On Jan 6, 2012, at 1:22 PM, MartinMods wrote:

Suit yourself.  My mouthpieces and horns will sound better than yours then :-)


--- On Fri, 1/6/12, STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...t> wrote:

From: STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, January 6, 2012, 7:07 PM

 uh.........I'm not buying into this at all......this is very contrary to my experience......

On Jan 6, 2012, at 1:03 PM, MartinMods wrote:

:-)  The only reason D is an unstable note is because a mouthpiece mismatch makes it that way.  Same with C#.  You owe it to yourself, and your customers to experience playing saxophone with an optimized mouthpiece.  Do it once, and you will understand.



--- On Fri, 1/6/12, STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...> wrote:

From: STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, January 6, 2012, 4:22 PM

 I think it very, very odd that D was selected as a reference pitch.....this is a very unstable note on saxophones


On Jan 6, 2012, at 10:15 AM, Keith Bradbury wrote:
 
...and after making the chamber larger, you then would push the mouthpiece in to get back (near) the original volume established in the D1/D2 pitch mathching.  Correct?
From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2012 9:48 PM
Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
 Find the place on the cork that produces a perfect D1/D2 octave, regardless of how that relates to A=440.  Leave the mouthpiece there.  Then test the C#2/C#3 octave.  The degree to which the C#'s are out of tune to A=440 and each other is the degree of acoustical mismatch between your mouthpiece and your horn.  At that position, your C#'s are flat, so you need to somehow make your chamber or throat larger in diameter, or you need a new mouthpiece that is a closer match - has a fatter chamber.  Enlarging the throat makes the tone somewhat broader or less focused.  One can regain that focus with baffle work.   



--- On Fri, 1/6/12, John <john_w_price33@...> wrote:

From: John <john_w_price33@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, January 6, 2012, 1:38 AM

 I tried it. D1,D2 relationship good.....I had to pull out the mouthpiece quite a bit. C#2,C#3.....works closer to my usual tuning spot. So does this mean I need a larger chamber mouthpiece to get D1,D2 relationship occuring with a shorter overall tuning length?

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
>
> I'd be willing to take you through it, step-by-step.
> 
> 
> --- On Thu, 1/5/12, crunchie_nuts <andrewhdonaldson@...> wrote:
> 
> From: crunchie_nuts <andrewhdonaldson@...>
> Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Thursday, January 5, 2012, 12:38 AM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I have tried it in the past but it never seemed to work for me. Maybe I was doing it wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> It would be great if you could post some evidence of your own results, such as intonation charts showing before and after tuning, such as the type Fred Wyman used in his thesis.
> 
> 
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@> wrote:
> 
> >
> 
> > I trust the total silence in the group to mean you are all busy trying this out perhaps.  The method I use, which is similar to that which Paul uses, I got for free from Arthur Benade.  It is printed right there in his published papers from the 1970's, and since I first started reading him 4 years ago, I have heard the key phrases tossed back and forth on the various saxophone forums and seen them quoted in many a doctoral thesis, absent of any
> 
> > apparent comprehension as to what they actually mean in their practical application.  I'll paraphrase:
> 
> > 
> 
> > 1. Saxophone players should be as meticulous in matching their mouthpieces to their horns as oboist/bassoonists are in fiddling with their reeds.  That sounds nice.  We know about volume
> 
> > and frs/frequency, but did anyone ever bother to go see just what it is that oboists/bassoonists actually do?   There must be something there we can learn from.  I don't see any orchestras tuning up to the soprano saxophone's concert A.
> 
> > 
> 
> > 2. That meticulousness includes tweaking the volume/frs to get the optimal results.  That means that once we got into the ballpark using the numbers, we abandon them to score.
> 
> > 
> 
> > Benade's oboe reed balancing routine boils down to this when related to the saxophone:
> 
> > 
> 
> > We are well aware of the volume induced tendencies of the conical air column - how at a 1/1 volume ratio and lower, they induce sharpness in the upper registers, and a bit lower than 1/1, those tendencies lessen and then become inverted.  We are also aware that a large chambered mouthpiece increases those tendencies in the upper registers compared to a small chambered
> 
> > mouthpiece - the frs of the two are different.  To eliminate the conical air column effects for the played instrument we must abandon the A=440 pitch center for a moment, and anchor the mouthpiece volume (i.e. where it is placed on the cork)  so that the low end of our overblown tube (D1/D2) has optimal resonance alignment - it must produce a perfect octave.  Easy.  Pull out (or push in) until D1/D2 is a perfect octave - and here is where "meticulous" comes into play.  Tune the octave using a tuner so that the center of your unavoidable pitch variations is at 0 cents deviation.  One uses a steady, normal embouchure making absolutely no adjustments. No adjustments.  No adjustments.  We are halfway there.
> 
> > 
> 
> > Now, unless we had a perfect mouthpiece to start with, our pitch center is off, as is the resonance alignment of the short end of the overblown tube
> 
> > (C#2/C#3).   Whatever we do to fix this, we must maintain the initial, optimal mouthpiece volume alignment (Not the place on the cork, but the perfect D1/D2 octave).  Realize that the initial "pulling out/pushing in" adjustment changed two aspects of the mouthpiece, the volume AND the length, for a pretty gross change in the stretching of the scale. 
> 
> > We now make gradual adjustments to the length alone, or frs - the pitch tendency of the chamber type in the upper registers, using the shortest overblown tube as our reference.  Making the chamber fatter while maintaining volume, raises the overall played pitch of the mouthpiece, affecting the upper register more than the lower.  Making the chamber narrower while maintaining volume lowers it.  
> 
> > 
> 
> > Between repeated steps of checking the D1/D2 octave for perfection and then making the appropriate chamber geometry adjustment, raising or lowering the pitch to improve the C#2/C#3 octave, the short tube will come into perfect alignment (same 0 cent deviation at center of pitch wobble) .  With both ends of the basic tube perfectly aligned, the ends (bell tones/palm keys) and in-between (middle register) take care of themselves.  The entire scale is within 5 cents of flat, perfectly situated in the A=440 pitch center. 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > One experiences a new playing and listening sensation - one voice - no perception of register changes.  The sound gets a silvery "sheen" to it as the horn resonates more perfectly with the cosmos - really.  Now, after you experience this, from both the playing and listening standpoint, it becomes addictive.  You immediately notice the conical air column effect qualities that you left behind, to varied degrees, in the playing of others - everywhere (almost - some got lucky or were smart with their setup).  It sticks out like wrong notes in Mozart.  You can even start listening to the silvery sheen evenness more than the notes they are playing, as you realize that hearing the conical air column effects is tiring, even annoying.
> 
> > 
> 
> > IMO, this is the future of saxophone development - refinement.  
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > --- On Wed, 1/4/12, MartinMods <lancelotburt@>
> 
> > wrote:
> 
> > 
> 
> > From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@>
> 
> > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
> 
> > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> 
> > Date: Wednesday, January 4, 2012, 2:46 AM
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> >  
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > The formula for doing the same is there.  Take advantage of it or not, as you will.
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > --- On Wed, 1/4/12, kymarto123@ <kymarto123@> wrote:
> 
> > 
> 
> > From: kymarto123@ <kymarto123@>
> 
> > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
> 
> > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> 
> > Date: Wednesday, January 4, 2012, 2:42 AM
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> >  
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > Well, at least we have your word for it.
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > --- MartinMods <lancelotburt@> wrote:
> 
> > 
> 
> > > Not in this model.  It's just a cavity.  Notice the range of the plotted cavity ratios.  At 1/1 the tendency is toward sharpness in the upper registers.  As you increase volume, the curve becomes flat, and then inverse.  A perfectly matched mouthpiece juggles the effects of the conical tube, those of the mouthpiece style, the reed, and the player, within a narrow band in this area.  The results are amazing.  
> 
> > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > > Make 5 mouthpieces that solve 5 individual player's individual horn/mouthpiece intonation problems, and you will have a good working understanding of what is going on.  
> 
> > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > > I've lost count.
> 
> > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > >
> 
> >
>












    
     

    
    






  

This does of course assume that the horn is properly set up, with proper 
key heights and adjustments made for intonation of _the horn_.  
Otherwise, any jiggery pokery involving the mouthpiece is good effort 
after bad.  After all, you can't teach a pig to sing.  It just wastes 
your time and annoys the pig.

On 1/6/2012 1:58 PM, MartinMods wrote:
>
> Toby,
>
> You may make all the assumptions you like, without actually completing 
> the routine once yourself, but D and C# are chosen for precise 
> acoustical reasons (see below if you care to read the explanation).  I 
> have performed it extensively.  Using D and C# provide the best 
> results in every case.
>
> Why D and C#:  Completing the routine, making appropriate geometric 
> alterations to the mouthpiece as results dictate, using any of the 
> notes you suggest would have excellent results, compared to not doing 
> anything.  However, as to D and C#, note again the volume deviation 
> curves in Nederveen.  Going in the direction of excess volume, the 
> line would be flat, before it became inverted.  If Bb1 is used to 
> anchor the correct volume, the entire rest of the scale will suffer 
> the effects of the 1/1 volume ratio - increasing sharpness 
> exponentially proportional to tube length and mode.  If D is used, then:
>
> 1. D will no longer be a problem note.  Perfectly aligned resonances 
> insure that.
> 2. The actual volume of the mouthpiece will be somewhat in excess of 
> the 1/1 ratio minimizing the effects of the conical air column for the 
> rest of the scale - we get a very flat frequency response.
> 3. The bell tones which are not overblown for the normal playing range 
> are tuned via key height (if required).
> 3. Adjusting C# is equivalent to adjusting Benade's frs.  B works, C 
> works, but C# works the best - provided you can play C# in the first 
> place.
> 4. The palm keys are adjusted (if needed) via key height.
>
> If you don't feel comfortable playing C#, then use B.  I have had 
> excellent results with that.  The more developed players will find C# 
> to be the best note however.
>
>
>
>
> --- On *Fri, 1/6/12, kymarto123@... /<kymarto123@...>/* wrote:
>
>
>     From: kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...>
>     Subject: Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
>     To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>     Date: Friday, January 6, 2012, 4:56 PM
>
>     I agree with Steve on this. If the idea is to compare long and
>     short tube notes, then much better to choose Bb as the long tube
>     and overblow to Bb2. That's a sight longer-tube than D.
>
>     If you read Nederveen, you'll also see that C#3 is a whanky
>     note--particularly on sop--for various acoustic reasons. It would
>     probably be wiser to go with C
>     or even B.
>
>     Possibly even wiser would be to go Bb1/Bb2 overblown for long
>     tube, then Bb2 overblown/Bb2 to get an idea of long vs. short ,
>     then Bb2/Bb3 for short tube register relationship. Bb is a much
>     more stable note than C#, and actually you have a bigger
>     difference in long/ short tube: Bb-Bb is an octave; D-C# a
>     semitone less.
>
>     And also, that way you stay on the same note across the test, so
>     it all might be aurally clearer.
>
>     --- STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...
>     </mc/compose?to=saxgourmet%40cox.net>> wrote:
>     > I think it very, very odd that D was selected as a reference
>     pitch.....this is a very unstable note on saxophones
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > On Jan 6, 2012, at 10:15 AM, Keith Bradbury wrote:
>     >
>     > >
>     > > ...and after making the chamber larger, you then would push
>     the mouthpiece in to get back (near) the original volume
>     established in the D1/D2 pitch mathching. Correct?
>     > >
>     > > From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...
>     </mc/compose?to=lancelotburt%40yahoo.com>>
>     > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>     </mc/compose?to=MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
>     > > Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2012 9:48 PM
>     > > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto
>     mouthpieces
>     > >
>     > > Find the place on the cork that produces a perfect D1/D2
>     octave, regardless of how that relates to A=440. Leave the
>     mouthpiece there. Then test the C#2/C#3 octave. The degree to
>     which the C#'s are out of tune to A=440 and each other is the
>     degree of acoustical mismatch between your mouthpiece and your
>     horn. At that position, your C#'s are flat, so you need to somehow
>     make your chamber or throat larger in diameter, or you need a new
>     mouthpiece that is a closer match - has a fatter chamber.
>     Enlarging the throat makes the tone somewhat broader or less
>     focused. One can regain that focus with baffle work.
>     > >
>     > >
>     > >
>     > > --- On Fri, 1/6/12, John <john_w_price33@...
>     </mc/compose?to=john_w_price33%40hotmail.com>> wrote:
>     > >
>     > > From: John <john_w_price33@...
>     </mc/compose?to=john_w_price33%40hotmail.com>>
>     > > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto
>     mouthpieces
>     > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>     </mc/compose?to=MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
>     > > Date: Friday, January 6, 2012, 1:38 AM
>     > >
>     > >
>     > > I tried it. D1,D2 relationship good.....I had to pull out the
>     mouthpiece quite a bit. C#2,C#3.....works closer to my usual
>     tuning spot. So does this mean I need a larger chamber mouthpiece
>     to get D1,D2 relationship occuring with a shorter overall tuning
>     length?
>     > >
>     > > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>     </mc/compose?to=MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>, MartinMods
>     <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
>     > > >
>     > > > I'd be willing to take you through it, step-by-step.
>     > > >
>     > > >
>     > > > --- On Thu, 1/5/12, crunchie_nuts <andrewhdonaldson@...> wrote:
>     > > >
>     > > > From: crunchie_nuts <andrewhdonaldson@...>
>     > > > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto
>     mouthpieces
>     > > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>     </mc/compose?to=MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
>     > > > Date: Thursday, January 5, 2012, 12:38 AM
>     > > >
>     > > >
>     > > >
>     > > >
>     > > >
>     > > >
>     > > >
>     > > >
>     > > > Â
>     > > >
>     > > >
>     > > >
>     > > >
>     > > >
>     > > >
>     > > >
>     > > >
>     > > >
>     > > > Well, I have tried it in the past but it never seemed to
>     work for me. Maybe I was doing it wrong.
>     > > >
>     > > >
>     > > >
>     > > > It would be great if you could post some evidence of your
>     own results, such as intonation charts showing before and after
>     tuning, such as the type Fred Wyman used in his thesis.
>     > > >
>     > > >
>     > > >
>     > > > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>     </mc/compose?to=MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>, MartinMods
>     <lancelotburt@> wrote:
>     > > >
>     > > > >
>     > > >
>     > > > > I trust the total silence in the group to mean you are all
>     busy trying this out perhaps. The method I use, which is
>     similar to that which Paul uses, I got for free from Arthur
>     Benade. It is printed right there in his published papers from
>     the 1970's, and since I first started reading him 4 years ago, I
>     have heard the key phrases tossed back and forth on the various
>     saxophone forums and seen them quoted in many a doctoral thesis,
>     absent of any
>     > > >
>     > > > > apparent comprehension as to what they actually mean in
>     their practical application. I'll paraphrase:
>     > > >
>     > > > >
>     > > >
>     > > > > 1. Saxophone players should be as meticulous in matching
>     their mouthpieces to their horns as oboist/bassoonists are in
>     fiddling with their reeds. That sounds nice. We know about
>     volume
>     > > >
>     > > > > and frs/frequency, but did anyone ever bother to go see
>     just what it is that oboists/bassoonists actually do?  There
>     must be something there we can learn from. I don't see any
>     orchestras tuning up to the soprano saxophone's concert A.
>     > > >
>     > > > >
>     > > >
>     > > > > 2. That meticulousness includes tweaking the volume/frs to
>     get the optimal results. That means that once we got into the
>     ballpark using the numbers, we abandon them to score.
>     > > >
>     > > > >
>     > > >
>     > > > > Benade's oboe reed balancing routine boils down to this
>     when related to the saxophone:
>     > > >
>     > > > >
>     > > >
>     > > > > We are well aware of the volume induced tendencies of the
>     conical air column - how at a 1/1 volume ratio and lower, they
>     induce sharpness in the upper registers, and a bit lower than 1/1,
>     those tendencies lessen and then become inverted. We are also
>     aware that a large chambered mouthpiece increases those tendencies
>     in the upper registers compared to a small chambered
>     > > >
>     > > > > mouthpiece - the frs of the two are different. To
>     eliminate the conical air column effects for the played instrument
>     we must abandon the A=440 pitch center for a moment, and anchor
>     the mouthpiece volume (i.e. where it is placed on the cork) so
>     that the low end of our overblown tube (D1/D2) has optimal
>     resonance alignment - it must produce a perfect octave.ÂÂ
>     Easy. Pull out (or push in) until D1/D2 is a perfect octave -
>     and here is where "meticulous" comes into play. Tune the octave
>     using a tuner so that the center of your unavoidable pitch
>     variations is at 0 cents deviation. One uses a steady, normal
>     embouchure making absolutely no adjustments. No adjustments. No
>     adjustments. We are halfway there.
>     > > >
>     > > > >
>     > > >
>     > > > > Now, unless we had a perfect mouthpiece to start with, our
>     pitch center is off, as is the resonance alignment of the short
>     end of the overblown tube
>     > > >
>     > > > > (C#2/C#3).  Whatever we do to fix this, we must
>     maintain the initial, optimal mouthpiece volume alignment (Not the
>     place on the cork, but the perfect D1/D2 octave). Realize that
>     the initial "pulling out/pushing in" adjustment changed two
>     aspects of the mouthpiece, the volume AND the length, for a pretty
>     gross change in the stretching of the scale.ÂÂ
>     > > >
>     > > > > We now make gradual adjustments to the length alone, or
>     frs - the pitch tendency of the chamber type in the upper
>     registers, using the shortest overblown tube as our reference.ÂÂ
>     Making the chamber fatter while maintaining volume, raises the
>     overall played pitch of the mouthpiece, affecting the upper
>     register more than the lower. Making the chamber narrower while
>     maintaining volume lowers it.ÂÂ
>     > > >
>     > > > >
>     > > >
>     > > > > Between repeated steps of checking the D1/D2 octave for
>     perfection and then making the appropriate chamber geometry
>     adjustment, raising or lowering the pitch to improve the C#2/C#3
>     octave, the short tube will come into perfect alignment (same 0
>     cent deviation at center of pitch wobble) . With both ends of
>     the basic tube perfectly aligned, the ends (bell tones/palm keys)
>     and in-between (middle register) take care of themselves. The
>     entire scale is within 5 cents of flat, perfectly situated in the
>     A=440 pitch center.ÂÂ
>     > > >
>     > > > >
>     > > >
>     > > > >
>     > > >
>     > > > > One experiences a new playing and listening sensation -
>     one voice - no perception of register changes. The sound gets a
>     silvery "sheen" to it as the horn resonates more perfectly with
>     the cosmos - really. Now, after you experience this, from both
>     the playing and listening standpoint, it becomes addictive. You
>     immediately notice the conical air column effect qualities that
>     you left behind, to varied degrees, in the playing of others -
>     everywhere (almost - some got lucky or were smart with their
>     setup). It sticks out like wrong notes in Mozart. You can
>     even start listening to the silvery sheen evenness more than the
>     notes they are playing, as you realize that hearing the conical
>     air column effects is tiring, even annoying.
>     > > >
>     > > > >
>     > > >
>     > > > > IMO, this is the future of saxophone development -
>     refinement.ÂÂ
>     > > >
>     > > > >
>     > > >
>     > > > >
>     > > >
>     > > > >
>     > > >
>     > > > > --- On Wed, 1/4/12, MartinMods <lancelotburt@>
>     > > >
>     > > > > wrote:
>     > > >
>     > > > >
>     > > >
>     > > > > From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@>
>     > > >
>     > > > > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto
>     mouthpieces
>     > > >
>     > > > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>     </mc/compose?to=MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
>     > > >
>     > > > > Date: Wednesday, January 4, 2012, 2:46 AM
>     > > >
>     > > > >
>     > > >
>     > > > >
>     > > >
>     > > > >
>     > > >
>     > > > >
>     > > >
>     > > > >
>     > > >
>     > > > >
>     > > >
>     > > > >
>     > > >
>     > > > >
>     > > >
>     > > > > ÂÂ
>     > > >
>     > > > >
>     > > >
>     > > > >
>     > > >
>     > > > >
>     > > >
>     > > > >
>     > > >
>     > > > >
>     > > >
>     > > > >
>     > > >
>     > > > >
>     > > >
>     > > > >
>     > > >
>     > > > >
>     > > >
>     > > > > The formula for doing the same is there. Take advantage
>     of it or not, as you will.
>     > > >
>     > > > >
>     > > >
>     > > > >
>     > > >
>     > > > >
>     > > >
>     > > > > --- On Wed, 1/4/12, kymarto123@ <kymarto123@> wrote:
>     > > >
>     > > > >
>     > > >
>     > > > > From: kymarto123@ <kymarto123@>
>     > > >
>     > > > > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto
>     mouthpieces
>     > > >
>     > > > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>     </mc/compose?to=MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
>     > > >
>     > > > > Date: Wednesday, January 4, 2012, 2:42 AM
>     > > >
>     > > > >
>     > > >
>     > > > >
>     > > >
>     > > > >
>     > > >
>     > > > >
>     > > >
>     > > > >
>     > > >
>     > > > >
>     > > >
>     > > > >
>     > > >
>     > > > >
>     > > >
>     > > > > ÂÂ
>     > > >
>     > > > >
>     > > >
>     > > > >
>     > > >
>     > > > >
>     > > >
>     > > > >
>     > > >
>     > > > >
>     > > >
>     > > > >
>     > > >
>     > > > > Well, at least we have your word for it.
>     > > >
>     > > > >
>     > > >
>     > > > >
>     > > >
>     > > > >
>     > > >
>     > > > > --- MartinMods <lancelotburt@> wrote:
>     > > >
>     > > > >
>     > > >
>     > > > > > Not in this model. It's just a cavity. Notice the
>     range of the plotted cavity ratios. At 1/1 the tendency is
>     toward sharpness in the upper registers. As you increase
>     volume, the curve becomes flat, and then inverse. A perfectly
>     matched mouthpiece juggles the effects of the conical tube, those
>     of the mouthpiece style, the reed, and the player, within a narrow
>     band in this area. The results are amazing.ÂÂ
>     > > >
>     > > > >
>     > > >
>     > > > > >
>     > > >
>     > > > >
>     > > >
>     > > > > > Make 5 mouthpieces that solve 5 individual player's
>     individual horn/mouthpiece intonation problems, and you will have
>     a good working understanding of what is going on.ÂÂ
>     > > >
>     > > > >
>     > > >
>     > > > > >
>     > > >
>     > > > >
>     > > >
>     > > > > > I've lost count.
>     > > >
>     > > > >
>     > > >
>     > > > > >
>     > > >
>     > > > >
>     > > >
>     > > > > >
>     > > >
>     > > > >
>     > > >
>     > >
>     > >
>     > >
>     >
>     >
>
> 

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

--- MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
> Toby,
> 
> You may make all the assumptions you like, without actually completing the routine once yourself, but D and C# are chosen for precise acoustical reasons (see below if you care to read the explanation).  I have performed it extensively.  Using D and C# provide the best results in every case.  
> 
> Why D and C#:  Completing the routine, making appropriate geometric alterations to the mouthpiece as results dictate, using any of the notes you suggest would have excellent results, compared to not doing anything.  However, as to D and C#, note again the volume deviation curves in Nederveen.  Going in the direction of excess volume, the line would be flat, before it became inverted.  If Bb1 is used to anchor the correct volume, the entire rest of the scale will suffer the effects of the 1/1 volume ratio - increasing sharpness exponentially proportional to tube length and mode.  If D is used, then:
> 
> 1. D will no longer be a problem note.  Perfectly aligned resonances insure that.
> 2. The actual volume of the mouthpiece will be somewhat in excess of the 1/1 ratio minimizing the effects of the conical air column for the rest of the scale - we get a very flat frequency response.
> 3. The bell tones which are not overblown for the normal playing range are tuned via key height (if required).
> 3. Adjusting C# is equivalent to adjusting Benade's frs.  B works, C works, but C# works the best - provided you can play C# in the first place.
> 4. The palm keys are adjusted (if needed) via key height.
> 
> If you don't feel comfortable playing C#, then use B.  I have had excellent results with that.  The more developed players will find C# to be the best note however.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- On Fri, 1/6/12, kymarto123@... <kymarto123@ybb.ne.jp> wrote:
> 
> From: kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...>
> Subject: Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Friday, January 6, 2012, 4:56 PM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
>   
> 
> 
>     
>       
>       
>       I agree with Steve on this. If the idea is to compare long and short tube notes, then much better to choose Bb as the long tube and overblow to Bb2. That's a sight longer-tube than D.
> 
> 
> 
> If you read Nederveen, you'll also see that C#3 is a whanky note--particularly on sop--for various acoustic reasons. It would probably be wiser to go with C 
> 
> or even B. 
> 
> 
> 
> Possibly even wiser would be to go Bb1/Bb2 overblown for long tube, then Bb2 overblown/Bb2 to get an idea of long vs. short , then Bb2/Bb3 for short tube register relationship. Bb is a much more stable note than C#, and actually you have a bigger difference in long/ short tube: Bb-Bb is an octave; D-C# a semitone less.
> 
> 
> 
> And also, that way you stay on the same note across the test, so it all might be aurally clearer.
> 
> 
> 
> --- STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...> wrote:
> 
> > I think it very, very odd that D was selected as a reference pitch.....this is a very unstable note on saxophones
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > On Jan 6, 2012, at 10:15 AM, Keith Bradbury wrote:
> 
> > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > > ...and after making the chamber larger, you then would push the mouthpiece in to get back (near) the original volume established in the D1/D2 pitch mathching.  Correct?
> 
> > > 
> 
> > > From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
> 
> > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> 
> > > Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2012 9:48 PM
> 
> > > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
> 
> > > 
> 
> > > Find the place on the cork that produces a perfect D1/D2 octave, regardless of how that relates to A=440.  Leave the mouthpiece there.  Then test the C#2/C#3 octave.  The degree to which the C#'s are out of tune to A=440 and each other is the degree of acoustical mismatch between your mouthpiece and your horn.  At that position, your C#'s are flat, so you need to somehow make your chamber or throat larger in diameter, or you need a new mouthpiece that is a closer match - has a fatter chamber.  Enlarging the throat makes the tone somewhat broader or less focused.  One can regain that focus with baffle work.
> 
> > > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > > --- On Fri, 1/6/12, John <john_w_price33@...> wrote:
> 
> > > 
> 
> > > From: John <john_w_price33@...>
> 
> > > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
> 
> > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> 
> > > Date: Friday, January 6, 2012, 1:38 AM
> 
> > > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > > I tried it. D1,D2 relationship good.....I had to pull out the mouthpiece quite a bit. C#2,C#3.....works closer to my usual tuning spot. So does this mean I need a larger chamber mouthpiece to get D1,D2 relationship occuring with a shorter overall tuning length?
> 
> > > 
> 
> > > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > I'd be willing to take you through it, step-by-step.
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > --- On Thu, 1/5/12, crunchie_nuts <andrewhdonaldson@...> wrote:
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > From: crunchie_nuts <andrewhdonaldson@...>
> 
> > > > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
> 
> > > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> 
> > > > Date: Thursday, January 5, 2012, 12:38 AM
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > Well, I have tried it in the past but it never seemed to work for me. Maybe I was doing it wrong.
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > It would be great if you could post some evidence of your own results, such as intonation charts showing before and after tuning, such as the type Fred Wyman used in his thesis.
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@> wrote:
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > > I trust the total silence in the group to mean you are all busy trying this out perhaps.  The method I use, which is similar to that which Paul uses, I got for free from Arthur Benade.  It is printed right there in his published papers from the 1970's, and since I first started reading him 4 years ago, I have heard the key phrases tossed back and forth on the various saxophone forums and seen them quoted in many a doctoral thesis, absent of any
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > > apparent comprehension as to what they actually mean in their practical application.  I'll paraphrase:
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > > 1. Saxophone players should be as meticulous in matching their mouthpieces to their horns as oboist/bassoonists are in fiddling with their reeds.  That sounds nice.  We know about volume
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > > and frs/frequency, but did anyone ever bother to go see just what it is that oboists/bassoonists actually do?   There must be something there we can learn from.  I don't see any orchestras tuning up to the soprano saxophone's concert A.
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > > 2. That meticulousness includes tweaking the volume/frs to get the optimal results.  That means that once we got into the ballpark using the numbers, we abandon them to score.
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > > Benade's oboe reed balancing routine boils down to this when related to the saxophone:
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > > We are well aware of the volume induced tendencies of the conical air column - how at a 1/1 volume ratio and lower, they induce sharpness in the upper registers, and a bit lower than 1/1, those tendencies lessen and then become inverted.  We are also aware that a large chambered mouthpiece increases those tendencies in the upper registers compared to a small chambered
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > > mouthpiece - the frs of the two are different.  To eliminate the conical air column effects for the played instrument we must abandon the A=440 pitch center for a moment, and anchor the mouthpiece volume (i.e. where it is placed on the cork)  so that the low end of our overblown tube (D1/D2) has optimal resonance alignment - it must produce a perfect octave.  Easy.  Pull out (or push in) until D1/D2 is a perfect octave - and here is where "meticulous" comes into play.  Tune the octave using a tuner so that the center of your unavoidable pitch variations is at 0 cents deviation.  One uses a steady, normal embouchure making absolutely no adjustments. No adjustments.  No adjustments.  We are halfway there.
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > > Now, unless we had a perfect mouthpiece to start with, our pitch center is off, as is the resonance alignment of the short end of the overblown tube
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > > (C#2/C#3).   Whatever we do to fix this, we must maintain the initial, optimal mouthpiece volume alignment (Not the place on the cork, but the perfect D1/D2 octave).  Realize that the initial "pulling out/pushing in" adjustment changed two aspects of the mouthpiece, the volume AND the length, for a pretty gross change in the stretching of the scale.ÂÂ
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > > We now make gradual adjustments to the length alone, or frs - the pitch tendency of the chamber type in the upper registers, using the shortest overblown tube as our reference.  Making the chamber fatter while maintaining volume, raises the overall played pitch of the mouthpiece, affecting the upper register more than the lower.  Making the chamber narrower while maintaining volume lowers it.ÂÂ
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > > Between repeated steps of checking the D1/D2 octave for perfection and then making the appropriate chamber geometry adjustment, raising or lowering the pitch to improve the C#2/C#3 octave, the short tube will come into perfect alignment (same 0 cent deviation at center of pitch wobble) .  With both ends of the basic tube perfectly aligned, the ends (bell tones/palm keys) and in-between (middle register) take care of themselves.  The entire scale is within 5 cents of flat, perfectly situated in the A=440 pitch center.ÂÂ
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > > One experiences a new playing and listening sensation - one voice - no perception of register changes.  The sound gets a silvery "sheen" to it as the horn resonates more perfectly with the cosmos - really.  Now, after you experience this, from both the playing and listening standpoint, it becomes addictive.  You immediately notice the conical air column effect qualities that you left behind, to varied degrees, in the playing of others - everywhere (almost - some got lucky or were smart with their setup).  It sticks out like wrong notes in Mozart.  You can even start listening to the silvery sheen evenness more than the notes they are playing, as you realize that hearing the conical air column effects is tiring, even annoying.
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > > IMO, this is the future of saxophone development - refinement.ÂÂ
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > > --- On Wed, 1/4/12, MartinMods <lancelotburt@>
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > > wrote:
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > > From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@>
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > > Date: Wednesday, January 4, 2012, 2:46 AM
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > > ÂÂ
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > > The formula for doing the same is there.  Take advantage of it or not, as you will.
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > > --- On Wed, 1/4/12, kymarto123@ <kymarto123@> wrote:
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > > From: kymarto123@ <kymarto123@>
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > > Date: Wednesday, January 4, 2012, 2:42 AM
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > > ÂÂ
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > > Well, at least we have your word for it.
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > > --- MartinMods <lancelotburt@> wrote:
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > > > Not in this model.  It's just a cavity.  Notice the range of the plotted cavity ratios.  At 1/1 the tendency is toward sharpness in the upper registers.  As you increase volume, the curve becomes flat, and then inverse.  A perfectly matched mouthpiece juggles the effects of the conical tube, those of the mouthpiece style, the reed, and the player, within a narrow band in this area.  The results are amazing.ÂÂ
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > > > Make 5 mouthpieces that solve 5 individual player's individual horn/mouthpiece intonation problems, and you will have a good working understanding of what is going on.ÂÂ
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > > > I've lost count.
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
>     
>      
> 
>     
>     
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   
> 
> 
> 
> 

Sorry for the empty post.

Nederveen states that on altos and sops, the geometry of the tube dictates that the upper second register will go sharp, and that on sops at least, it is even theoretically impossible to get that area in tune. He mentions that manufacturers are well aware of the problem, and cites Selmer's hack with the little ring key up there in response to the problem.

So while I have no doubt that there are certain advantages to be gained from mouthpiece volume/resonance optimization, I am somewhat allergic to the extent of the results you claim, based on the fact that saxes are such imperfect beasts. It's just not possible to straighten all that out and get all the stars to align with a bit of mpc alteration or thin resos or whatever.

While it profits you to deride my experience both in playing and in mpc alteration, I have confidence that it is good enough in both areas to be able to judge intonational issues accurately. 

I have nowhere near the experience or expertise of Steve in any area of the sax, but I have to concur. I don't buy it. Nor have I seen any independent verification of the results you claim.

I remain open-minded, but skeptical.

--- MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
> Toby,
> 
> You may make all the assumptions you like, without actually completing the routine once yourself, but D and C# are chosen for precise acoustical reasons (see below if you care to read the explanation).  I have performed it extensively.  Using D and C# provide the best results in every case.  
> 
> Why D and C#:  Completing the routine, making appropriate geometric alterations to the mouthpiece as results dictate, using any of the notes you suggest would have excellent results, compared to not doing anything.  However, as to D and C#, note again the volume deviation curves in Nederveen.  Going in the direction of excess volume, the line would be flat, before it became inverted.  If Bb1 is used to anchor the correct volume, the entire rest of the scale will suffer the effects of the 1/1 volume ratio - increasing sharpness exponentially proportional to tube length and mode.  If D is used, then:
> 
> 1. D will no longer be a problem note.  Perfectly aligned resonances insure that.
> 2. The actual volume of the mouthpiece will be somewhat in excess of the 1/1 ratio minimizing the effects of the conical air column for the rest of the scale - we get a very flat frequency response.
> 3. The bell tones which are not overblown for the normal playing range are tuned via key height (if required).
> 3. Adjusting C# is equivalent to adjusting Benade's frs.  B works, C works, but C# works the best - provided you can play C# in the first place.
> 4. The palm keys are adjusted (if needed) via key height.
> 
> If you don't feel comfortable playing C#, then use B.  I have had excellent results with that.  The more developed players will find C# to be the best note however.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- On Fri, 1/6/12, kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...> wrote:
> 
> From: kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...>
> Subject: Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Friday, January 6, 2012, 4:56 PM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
>   
> 
> 
>     
>       
>       
>       I agree with Steve on this. If the idea is to compare long and short tube notes, then much better to choose Bb as the long tube and overblow to Bb2. That's a sight longer-tube than D.
> 
> 
> 
> If you read Nederveen, you'll also see that C#3 is a whanky note--particularly on sop--for various acoustic reasons. It would probably be wiser to go with C 
> 
> or even B. 
> 
> 
> 
> Possibly even wiser would be to go Bb1/Bb2 overblown for long tube, then Bb2 overblown/Bb2 to get an idea of long vs. short , then Bb2/Bb3 for short tube register relationship. Bb is a much more stable note than C#, and actually you have a bigger difference in long/ short tube: Bb-Bb is an octave; D-C# a semitone less.
> 
> 
> 
> And also, that way you stay on the same note across the test, so it all might be aurally clearer.
> 
> 
> 
> --- STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...> wrote:
> 
> > I think it very, very odd that D was selected as a reference pitch.....this is a very unstable note on saxophones
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > On Jan 6, 2012, at 10:15 AM, Keith Bradbury wrote:
> 
> > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > > ...and after making the chamber larger, you then would push the mouthpiece in to get back (near) the original volume established in the D1/D2 pitch mathching.  Correct?
> 
> > > 
> 
> > > From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
> 
> > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> 
> > > Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2012 9:48 PM
> 
> > > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
> 
> > > 
> 
> > > Find the place on the cork that produces a perfect D1/D2 octave, regardless of how that relates to A=440.  Leave the mouthpiece there.  Then test the C#2/C#3 octave.  The degree to which the C#'s are out of tune to A=440 and each other is the degree of acoustical mismatch between your mouthpiece and your horn.  At that position, your C#'s are flat, so you need to somehow make your chamber or throat larger in diameter, or you need a new mouthpiece that is a closer match - has a fatter chamber.  Enlarging the throat makes the tone somewhat broader or less focused.  One can regain that focus with baffle work.
> 
> > > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > > --- On Fri, 1/6/12, John <john_w_price33@...> wrote:
> 
> > > 
> 
> > > From: John <john_w_price33@...>
> 
> > > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
> 
> > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> 
> > > Date: Friday, January 6, 2012, 1:38 AM
> 
> > > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > > I tried it. D1,D2 relationship good.....I had to pull out the mouthpiece quite a bit. C#2,C#3.....works closer to my usual tuning spot. So does this mean I need a larger chamber mouthpiece to get D1,D2 relationship occuring with a shorter overall tuning length?
> 
> > > 
> 
> > > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > I'd be willing to take you through it, step-by-step.
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > --- On Thu, 1/5/12, crunchie_nuts <andrewhdonaldson@...> wrote:
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > From: crunchie_nuts <andrewhdonaldson@...>
> 
> > > > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
> 
> > > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> 
> > > > Date: Thursday, January 5, 2012, 12:38 AM
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > Â
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > Well, I have tried it in the past but it never seemed to work for me. Maybe I was doing it wrong.
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > It would be great if you could post some evidence of your own results, such as intonation charts showing before and after tuning, such as the type Fred Wyman used in his thesis.
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@> wrote:
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > > I trust the total silence in the group to mean you are all busy trying this out perhaps.  The method I use, which is similar to that which Paul uses, I got for free from Arthur Benade.  It is printed right there in his published papers from the 1970's, and since I first started reading him 4 years ago, I have heard the key phrases tossed back and forth on the various saxophone forums and seen them quoted in many a doctoral thesis, absent of any
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > > apparent comprehension as to what they actually mean in their practical application.  I'll paraphrase:
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > > 1. Saxophone players should be as meticulous in matching their mouthpieces to their horns as oboist/bassoonists are in fiddling with their reeds.  That sounds nice.  We know about volume
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > > and frs/frequency, but did anyone ever bother to go see just what it is that oboists/bassoonists actually do?   There must be something there we can learn from.  I don't see any orchestras tuning up to the soprano saxophone's concert A.
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > > 2. That meticulousness includes tweaking the volume/frs to get the optimal results.  That means that once we got into the ballpark using the numbers, we abandon them to score.
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > > Benade's oboe reed balancing routine boils down to this when related to the saxophone:
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > > We are well aware of the volume induced tendencies of the conical air column - how at a 1/1 volume ratio and lower, they induce sharpness in the upper registers, and a bit lower than 1/1, those tendencies lessen and then become inverted.  We are also aware that a large chambered mouthpiece increases those tendencies in the upper registers compared to a small chambered
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > > mouthpiece - the frs of the two are different.  To eliminate the conical air column effects for the played instrument we must abandon the A=440 pitch center for a moment, and anchor the mouthpiece volume (i.e. where it is placed on the cork)  so that the low end of our overblown tube (D1/D2) has optimal resonance alignment - it must produce a perfect octave.  Easy.  Pull out (or push in) until D1/D2 is a perfect octave - and here is where "meticulous" comes into play.  Tune the octave using a tuner so that the center of your unavoidable pitch variations is at 0 cents deviation.  One uses a steady, normal embouchure making absolutely no adjustments. No adjustments.  No adjustments.  We are halfway there.
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > > Now, unless we had a perfect mouthpiece to start with, our pitch center is off, as is the resonance alignment of the short end of the overblown tube
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > > (C#2/C#3).   Whatever we do to fix this, we must maintain the initial, optimal mouthpiece volume alignment (Not the place on the cork, but the perfect D1/D2 octave).  Realize that the initial "pulling out/pushing in" adjustment changed two aspects of the mouthpiece, the volume AND the length, for a pretty gross change in the stretching of the scale.ÂÂ
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > > We now make gradual adjustments to the length alone, or frs - the pitch tendency of the chamber type in the upper registers, using the shortest overblown tube as our reference.  Making the chamber fatter while maintaining volume, raises the overall played pitch of the mouthpiece, affecting the upper register more than the lower.  Making the chamber narrower while maintaining volume lowers it.ÂÂ
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > > Between repeated steps of checking the D1/D2 octave for perfection and then making the appropriate chamber geometry adjustment, raising or lowering the pitch to improve the C#2/C#3 octave, the short tube will come into perfect alignment (same 0 cent deviation at center of pitch wobble) .  With both ends of the basic tube perfectly aligned, the ends (bell tones/palm keys) and in-between (middle register) take care of themselves.  The entire scale is within 5 cents of flat, perfectly situated in the A=440 pitch center.ÂÂ
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > > One experiences a new playing and listening sensation - one voice - no perception of register changes.  The sound gets a silvery "sheen" to it as the horn resonates more perfectly with the cosmos - really.  Now, after you experience this, from both the playing and listening standpoint, it becomes addictive.  You immediately notice the conical air column effect qualities that you left behind, to varied degrees, in the playing of others - everywhere (almost - some got lucky or were smart with their setup).  It sticks out like wrong notes in Mozart.  You can even start listening to the silvery sheen evenness more than the notes they are playing, as you realize that hearing the conical air column effects is tiring, even annoying.
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > > IMO, this is the future of saxophone development - refinement.ÂÂ
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > > --- On Wed, 1/4/12, MartinMods <lancelotburt@>
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > > wrote:
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > > From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@>
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > > Date: Wednesday, January 4, 2012, 2:46 AM
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > > ÂÂ
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > > The formula for doing the same is there.  Take advantage of it or not, as you will.
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > > --- On Wed, 1/4/12, kymarto123@ <kymarto123@> wrote:
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > > From: kymarto123@ <kymarto123@>
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > > Date: Wednesday, January 4, 2012, 2:42 AM
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > > ÂÂ
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > > Well, at least we have your word for it.
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > > --- MartinMods <lancelotburt@> wrote:
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > > > Not in this model.  It's just a cavity.  Notice the range of the plotted cavity ratios.  At 1/1 the tendency is toward sharpness in the upper registers.  As you increase volume, the curve becomes flat, and then inverse.  A perfectly matched mouthpiece juggles the effects of the conical tube, those of the mouthpiece style, the reed, and the player, within a narrow band in this area.  The results are amazing.ÂÂ
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > > > Make 5 mouthpieces that solve 5 individual player's individual horn/mouthpiece intonation problems, and you will have a good working understanding of what is going on.ÂÂ
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > > > I've lost count.
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > > >
> 
> > > >
> 
> > > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
>     
>      
> 
>     
>     
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   
> 
> 
> 
> 

Thank you, Toby....we're on the same page here....the claims made are ridiculous, and fly in the face of everything generally known BY PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY DO THIS FOR A LIVING....the assertions are bogus on many, many fronts.......this is simply not the way it works.....

Sent from my iPad

STEVE  GOODSON
Saxophone Guru and Visionary
New Orleans
www.nationofmusic.com



On Jan 6, 2012, at 6:31 PM, kymarto123@... wrote:

> Sorry for the empty post.
> 
> Nederveen states that on altos and sops, the geometry of the tube dictates that the upper second register will go sharp, and that on sops at least, it is even theoretically impossible to get that area in tune. He mentions that manufacturers are well aware of the problem, and cites Selmer's hack with the little ring key up there in response to the problem.
> 
> So while I have no doubt that there are certain advantages to be gained from mouthpiece volume/resonance optimization, I am somewhat allergic to the extent of the results you claim, based on the fact that saxes are such imperfect beasts. It's just not possible to straighten all that out and get all the stars to align with a bit of mpc alteration or thin resos or whatever.
> 
> While it profits you to deride my experience both in playing and in mpc alteration, I have confidence that it is good enough in both areas to be able to judge intonational issues accurately. 
> 
> I have nowhere near the experience or expertise of Steve in any area of the sax, but I have to concur. I don't buy it. Nor have I seen any independent verification of the results you claim.
> 
> I remain open-minded, but skeptical.
> 
> --- MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
> > Toby,
> > 
> > You may make all the assumptions you like, without actually completing the routine once yourself, but D and C# are chosen for precise acoustical reasons (see below if you care to read the explanation).  I have performed it extensively.  Using D and C# provide the best results in every case.  
> > 
> > Why D and C#:  Completing the routine, making appropriate geometric alterations to the mouthpiece as results dictate, using any of the notes you suggest would have excellent results, compared to not doing anything.  However, as to D and C#, note again the volume deviation curves in Nederveen.  Going in the direction of excess volume, the line would be flat, before it became inverted.  If Bb1 is used to anchor the correct volume, the entire rest of the scale will suffer the effects of the 1/1 volume ratio - increasing sharpness exponentially proportional to tube length and mode.  If D is used, then:
> > 
> > 1. D will no longer be a problem note.  Perfectly aligned resonances insure that.
> > 2. The actual volume of the mouthpiece will be somewhat in excess of the 1/1 ratio minimizing the effects of the conical air column for the rest of the scale - we get a very flat frequency response.
> > 3. The bell tones which are not overblown for the normal playing range are tuned via key height (if required).
> > 3. Adjusting C# is equivalent to adjusting Benade's frs.  B works, C works, but C# works the best - provided you can play C# in the first place.
> > 4. The palm keys are adjusted (if needed) via key height.
> > 
> > If you don't feel comfortable playing C#, then use B.  I have had excellent results with that.  The more developed players will find C# to be the best note however.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- On Fri, 1/6/12, kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...> wrote:
> > 
> > From: kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...>
> > Subject: Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
> > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> > Date: Friday, January 6, 2012, 4:56 PM
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > I agree with Steve on this. If the idea is to compare long and short tube notes, then much better to choose Bb as the long tube and overblow to Bb2. That's a sight longer-tube than D.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > If you read Nederveen, you'll also see that C#3 is a whanky note--particularly on sop--for various acoustic reasons. It would probably be wiser to go with C 
> > 
> > or even B. 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Possibly even wiser would be to go Bb1/Bb2 overblown for long tube, then Bb2 overblown/Bb2 to get an idea of long vs. short , then Bb2/Bb3 for short tube register relationship. Bb is a much more stable note than C#, and actually you have a bigger difference in long/ short tube: Bb-Bb is an octave; D-C# a semitone less.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > And also, that way you stay on the same note across the test, so it all might be aurally clearer.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...> wrote:
> > 
> > > I think it very, very odd that D was selected as a reference pitch.....this is a very unstable note on saxophones
> > 
> > > 
> > 
> > > 
> > 
> > > 
> > 
> > > On Jan 6, 2012, at 10:15 AM, Keith Bradbury wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > 
> > > > 
> > 
> > > > ...and after making the chamber larger, you then would push the mouthpiece in to get back (near) the original volume established in the D1/D2 pitch mathching. Correct?
> > 
> > > > 
> > 
> > > > From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
> > 
> > > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> > 
> > > > Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2012 9:48 PM
> > 
> > > > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
> > 
> > > > 
> > 
> > > > Find the place on the cork that produces a perfect D1/D2 octave, regardless of how that relates to A=440. Leave the mouthpiece there. Then test the C#2/C#3 octave. The degree to which the C#'s are out of tune to A=440 and each other is the degree of acoustical mismatch between your mouthpiece and your horn. At that position, your C#'s are flat, so you need to somehow make your chamber or throat larger in diameter, or you need a new mouthpiece that is a closer match - has a fatter chamber. Enlarging the throat makes the tone somewhat broader or less focused. One can regain that focus with baffle work.
> > 
> > > > 
> > 
> > > > 
> > 
> > > > 
> > 
> > > > --- On Fri, 1/6/12, John <john_w_price33@...> wrote:
> > 
> > > > 
> > 
> > > > From: John <john_w_price33@...>
> > 
> > > > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
> > 
> > > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> > 
> > > > Date: Friday, January 6, 2012, 1:38 AM
> > 
> > > > 
> > 
> > > > 
> > 
> > > > I tried it. D1,D2 relationship good.....I had to pull out the mouthpiece quite a bit. C#2,C#3.....works closer to my usual tuning spot. So does this mean I need a larger chamber mouthpiece to get D1,D2 relationship occuring with a shorter overall tuning length?
> > 
> > > > 
> > 
> > > > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > I'd be willing to take you through it, step-by-step.
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > --- On Thu, 1/5/12, crunchie_nuts <andrewhdonaldson@...> wrote:
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > From: crunchie_nuts <andrewhdonaldson@...>
> > 
> > > > > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
> > 
> > > > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> > 
> > > > > Date: Thursday, January 5, 2012, 12:38 AM
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > Â
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > Well, I have tried it in the past but it never seemed to work for me. Maybe I was doing it wrong.
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > It would be great if you could post some evidence of your own results, such as intonation charts showing before and after tuning, such as the type Fred Wyman used in his thesis.
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@> wrote:
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > >
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > > I trust the total silence in the group to mean you are all busy trying this out perhaps. The method I use, which is similar to that which Paul uses, I got for free from Arthur Benade. It is printed right there in his published papers from the 1970's, and since I first started reading him 4 years ago, I have heard the key phrases tossed back and forth on the various saxophone forums and seen them quoted in many a doctoral thesis, absent of any
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > > apparent comprehension as to what they actually mean in their practical application. I'll paraphrase:
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > >
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > > 1. Saxophone players should be as meticulous in matching their mouthpieces to their horns as oboist/bassoonists are in fiddling with their reeds. That sounds nice. We know about volume
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > > and frs/frequency, but did anyone ever bother to go see just what it is that oboists/bassoonists actually do?  There must be something there we can learn from. I don't see any orchestras tuning up to the soprano saxophone's concert A.
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > >
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > > 2. That meticulousness includes tweaking the volume/frs to get the optimal results. That means that once we got into the ballpark using the numbers, we abandon them to score.
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > >
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > > Benade's oboe reed balancing routine boils down to this when related to the saxophone:
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > >
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > > We are well aware of the volume induced tendencies of the conical air column - how at a 1/1 volume ratio and lower, they induce sharpness in the upper registers, and a bit lower than 1/1, those tendencies lessen and then become inverted. We are also aware that a large chambered mouthpiece increases those tendencies in the upper registers compared to a small chambered
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > > mouthpiece - the frs of the two are different. To eliminate the conical air column effects for the played instrument we must abandon the A=440 pitch center for a moment, and anchor the mouthpiece volume (i.e. where it is placed on the cork) so that the low end of our overblown tube (D1/D2) has optimal resonance alignment - it must produce a perfect octave. Easy. Pull out (or push in) until D1/D2 is a perfect octave - and here is where "meticulous" comes into play. Tune the octave using a tuner so that the center of your unavoidable pitch variations is at 0 cents deviation. One uses a steady, normal embouchure making absolutely no adjustments. No adjustments. No adjustments. We are halfway there.
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > >
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > > Now, unless we had a perfect mouthpiece to start with, our pitch center is off, as is the resonance alignment of the short end of the overblown tube
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > > (C#2/C#3).  Whatever we do to fix this, we must maintain the initial, optimal mouthpiece volume alignment (Not the place on the cork, but the perfect D1/D2 octave). Realize that the initial "pulling out/pushing in" adjustment changed two aspects of the mouthpiece, the volume AND the length, for a pretty gross change in the stretching of the scale.ÂÂ
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > > We now make gradual adjustments to the length alone, or frs - the pitch tendency of the chamber type in the upper registers, using the shortest overblown tube as our reference. Making the chamber fatter while maintaining volume, raises the overall played pitch of the mouthpiece, affecting the upper register more than the lower. Making the chamber narrower while maintaining volume lowers it.ÂÂ
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > >
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > > Between repeated steps of checking the D1/D2 octave for perfection and then making the appropriate chamber geometry adjustment, raising or lowering the pitch to improve the C#2/C#3 octave, the short tube will come into perfect alignment (same 0 cent deviation at center of pitch wobble) . With both ends of the basic tube perfectly aligned, the ends (bell tones/palm keys) and in-between (middle register) take care of themselves. The entire scale is within 5 cents of flat, perfectly situated in the A=440 pitch center.ÂÂ
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > >
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > >
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > > One experiences a new playing and listening sensation - one voice - no perception of register changes. The sound gets a silvery "sheen" to it as the horn resonates more perfectly with the cosmos - really. Now, after you experience this, from both the playing and listening standpoint, it becomes addictive. You immediately notice the conical air column effect qualities that you left behind, to varied degrees, in the playing of others - everywhere (almost - some got lucky or were smart with their setup).  It sticks out like wrong notes in Mozart. You can even start listening to the silvery sheen evenness more than the notes they are playing, as you realize that hearing the conical air column effects is tiring, even annoying.
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > >
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > > IMO, this is the future of saxophone development - refinement.ÂÂ
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > >
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > >
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > >
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > > --- On Wed, 1/4/12, MartinMods <lancelotburt@>
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > > wrote:
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > >
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > > From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@>
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > > Date: Wednesday, January 4, 2012, 2:46 AM
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > >
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > >
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > >
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > >
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > >
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > >
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > >
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > >
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > > ÂÂ
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > >
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > >
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > >
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > >
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > >
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > >
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > >
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > >
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > >
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > > The formula for doing the same is there. Take advantage of it or not, as you will.
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > >
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > >
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > >
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > > --- On Wed, 1/4/12, kymarto123@ <kymarto123@> wrote:
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > >
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > > From: kymarto123@ <kymarto123@>
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > > Date: Wednesday, January 4, 2012, 2:42 AM
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > >
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > >
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > >
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > >
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > >
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > >
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > >
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > >
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > > ÂÂ
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > >
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > >
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > >
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > >
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > >
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > >
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > > Well, at least we have your word for it.
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > >
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > >
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > >
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > > --- MartinMods <lancelotburt@> wrote:
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > >
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > > > Not in this model. It's just a cavity. Notice the range of the plotted cavity ratios. At 1/1 the tendency is toward sharpness in the upper registers. As you increase volume, the curve becomes flat, and then inverse. A perfectly matched mouthpiece juggles the effects of the conical tube, those of the mouthpiece style, the reed, and the player, within a narrow band in this area. The results are amazing.ÂÂ
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > >
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > > >
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > >
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > > > Make 5 mouthpieces that solve 5 individual player's individual horn/mouthpiece intonation problems, and you will have a good working understanding of what is going on.ÂÂ
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > >
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > > >
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > >
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > > > I've lost count.
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > >
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > > >
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > >
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > > >
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > > >
> > 
> > > > >
> > 
> > > > 
> > 
> > > > 
> > 
> > > > 
> > 
> > > 
> > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 

Toby,

What Nederveen actually states in his book is that he should have optimized the mouthpiece to each saxophone, but he didn't bother.  His results are then typical of various horns played with various degree of mouthpiece error - all over the place.  In my personal correspondence with him on the matter, he confirmed that this method I describe, works.  

Steve,

Oh.  Is that what you tell Paul when he adjusts a mouthpiece?  It's the same thing.





--- On Sat, 1/7/12, Steve Goodson <saxgourmet@...> wrote:

From: Steve Goodson <saxgourmet@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
To: "MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com" <MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Saturday, January 7, 2012, 12:41 AM








 



  


    
      
      
      Thank you, Toby....we're on the same page here....the claims made are ridiculous, and fly in the face of everything generally known BY PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY DO THIS FOR A LIVING....the assertions are bogus on many, many fronts.......this is simply not the way it works.....

Sent from my iPad
STEVE  GOODSONSaxophone Guru and VisionaryNew Orleanswww.nationofmusic.com


On Jan 6, 2012, at 6:31 PM, kymarto123@... wrote:






 



    
      
      
      Sorry for the empty post.



Nederveen states that on altos and sops, the geometry of the tube dictates that the upper second register will go sharp, and that on sops at least, it is even theoretically impossible to get that area in tune. He mentions that manufacturers are well aware of the problem, and cites Selmer's hack with the little ring key up there in response to the problem.



So while I have no doubt that there are certain advantages to be gained from mouthpiece volume/resonance optimization, I am somewhat allergic to the extent of the results you claim, based on the fact that saxes are such imperfect beasts. It's just not possible to straighten all that out and get all the stars to align with a bit of mpc alteration or thin resos or whatever.



While it profits you to deride my experience both in playing and in mpc alteration, I have confidence that it is good enough in both areas to be able to judge intonational issues accurately. 



I have nowhere near the experience or expertise of Steve in any area of the sax, but I have to concur. I don't buy it. Nor have I seen any independent verification of the results you claim.



I remain open-minded, but skeptical.



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

> Toby,

> 

> You may make all the assumptions you like, without actually completing the routine once yourself, but D and C# are chosen for precise acoustical reasons (see below if you care to read the explanation).  I have performed it extensively.  Using D and C# provide the best results in every case.  

> 

> Why D and C#:  Completing the routine, making appropriate geometric alterations to the mouthpiece as results dictate, using any of the notes you suggest would have excellent results, compared to not doing anything.  However, as to D and C#, note again the volume deviation curves in Nederveen.  Going in the direction of excess volume, the line would be flat, before it became inverted.  If Bb1 is used to anchor the correct volume, the entire rest of the scale will suffer the effects of the 1/1 volume ratio - increasing sharpness exponentially proportional to tube length and mode.  If D is used, then:

> 

> 1. D will no longer be a problem note.  Perfectly aligned resonances insure that.

> 2. The actual volume of the mouthpiece will be somewhat in excess of the 1/1 ratio minimizing the effects of the conical air column for the rest of the scale - we get a very flat frequency response.

> 3. The bell tones which are not overblown for the normal playing range are tuned via key height (if required).

> 3. Adjusting C# is equivalent to adjusting Benade's frs.  B works, C works, but C# works the best - provided you can play C# in the first place.

> 4. The palm keys are adjusted (if needed) via key height.

> 

> If you don't feel comfortable playing C#, then use B.  I have had excellent results with that.  The more developed players will find C# to be the best note however.

> 

> 

> 

> 

> --- On Fri, 1/6/12, kymarto123@ybb.ne.jp <kymarto123@...> wrote:

> 

> From: kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...>

> Subject: Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces

> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com

> Date: Friday, January 6, 2012, 4:56 PM

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

>  

> 

> 

> 

>   

> 

> 

>     

>       

>       

>       I agree with Steve on this. If the idea is to compare long and short tube notes, then much better to choose Bb as the long tube and overblow to Bb2. That's a sight longer-tube than D.

> 

> 

> 

> If you read Nederveen, you'll also see that C#3 is a whanky note--particularly on sop--for various acoustic reasons. It would probably be wiser to go with C 

> 

> or even B. 

> 

> 

> 

> Possibly even wiser would be to go Bb1/Bb2 overblown for long tube, then Bb2 overblown/Bb2 to get an idea of long vs. short , then Bb2/Bb3 for short tube register relationship. Bb is a much more stable note than C#, and actually you have a bigger difference in long/ short tube: Bb-Bb is an octave; D-C# a semitone less.

> 

> 

> 

> And also, that way you stay on the same note across the test, so it all might be aurally clearer.

> 

> 

> 

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

> 

> > I think it very, very odd that D was selected as a reference pitch.....this is a very unstable note on saxophones

> 

> > 

> 

> > 

> 

> > 

> 

> > On Jan 6, 2012, at 10:15 AM, Keith Bradbury wrote:

> 

> > 

> 

> > > 

> 

> > > ...and after making the chamber larger, you then would push the mouthpiece in to get back (near) the original volume established in the D1/D2 pitch mathching.  Correct?

> 

> > > 

> 

> > > From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>

> 

> > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com

> 

> > > Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2012 9:48 PM

> 

> > > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces

> 

> > > 

> 

> > > Find the place on the cork that produces a perfect D1/D2 octave, regardless of how that relates to A=440.  Leave the mouthpiece there.  Then test the C#2/C#3 octave.  The degree to which the C#'s are out of tune to A=440 and each other is the degree of acoustical mismatch between your mouthpiece and your horn.  At that position, your C#'s are flat, so you need to somehow make your chamber or throat larger in diameter, or you need a new mouthpiece that is a closer match - has a fatter chamber.  Enlarging the throat makes the tone somewhat broader or less focused.  One can regain that focus with baffle work.

> 

> > > 

> 

> > > 

> 

> > > 

> 

> > > --- On Fri, 1/6/12, John <john_w_price33@hotmail.com> wrote:

> 

> > > 

> 

> > > From: John <john_w_price33@hotmail.com>

> 

> > > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces

> 

> > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com

> 

> > > Date: Friday, January 6, 2012, 1:38 AM

> 

> > > 

> 

> > > 

> 

> > > I tried it. D1,D2 relationship good.....I had to pull out the mouthpiece quite a bit. C#2,C#3.....works closer to my usual tuning spot. So does this mean I need a larger chamber mouthpiece to get D1,D2 relationship occuring with a shorter overall tuning length?

> 

> > > 

> 

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

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > I'd be willing to take you through it, step-by-step.

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > --- On Thu, 1/5/12, crunchie_nuts <andrewhdonaldson@...> wrote:

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > From: crunchie_nuts <andrewhdonaldson@...>

> 

> > > > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces

> 

> > > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com

> 

> > > > Date: Thursday, January 5, 2012, 12:38 AM

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > Â

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > Well, I have tried it in the past but it never seemed to work for me. Maybe I was doing it wrong.

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > It would be great if you could post some evidence of your own results, such as intonation charts showing before and after tuning, such as the type Fred Wyman used in his thesis.

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

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

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > I trust the total silence in the group to mean you are all busy trying this out perhaps.  The method I use, which is similar to that which Paul uses, I got for free from Arthur Benade.  It is printed right there in his published papers from the 1970's, and since I first started reading him 4 years ago, I have heard the key phrases tossed back and forth on the various saxophone forums and seen them quoted in many a doctoral thesis, absent of any

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > apparent comprehension as to what they actually mean in their practical application.  I'll paraphrase:

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > 1. Saxophone players should be as meticulous in matching their mouthpieces to their horns as oboist/bassoonists are in fiddling with their reeds.  That sounds nice.  We know about volume

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > and frs/frequency, but did anyone ever bother to go see just what it is that oboists/bassoonists actually do?   There must be something there we can learn from.  I don't see any orchestras tuning up to the soprano saxophone's concert A.

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > 2. That meticulousness includes tweaking the volume/frs to get the optimal results.  That means that once we got into the ballpark using the numbers, we abandon them to score.

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > Benade's oboe reed balancing routine boils down to this when related to the saxophone:

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > We are well aware of the volume induced tendencies of the conical air column - how at a 1/1 volume ratio and lower, they induce sharpness in the upper registers, and a bit lower than 1/1, those tendencies lessen and then become inverted.  We are also aware that a large chambered mouthpiece increases those tendencies in the upper registers compared to a small chambered

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > mouthpiece - the frs of the two are different.  To eliminate the conical air column effects for the played instrument we must abandon the A=440 pitch center for a moment, and anchor the mouthpiece volume (i.e. where it is placed on the cork)  so that the low end of our overblown tube (D1/D2) has optimal resonance alignment - it must produce a perfect octave.  Easy.  Pull out (or push in) until D1/D2 is a perfect octave - and here is where "meticulous" comes into play.  Tune the octave using a tuner so that the center of your unavoidable pitch variations is at 0 cents deviation.  One uses a steady, normal embouchure making absolutely no adjustments. No adjustments.  No adjustments.  We are halfway there.

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > Now, unless we had a perfect mouthpiece to start with, our pitch center is off, as is the resonance alignment of the short end of the overblown tube

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > (C#2/C#3).   Whatever we do to fix this, we must maintain the initial, optimal mouthpiece volume alignment (Not the place on the cork, but the perfect D1/D2 octave).  Realize that the initial "pulling out/pushing in" adjustment changed two aspects of the mouthpiece, the volume AND the length, for a pretty gross change in the stretching of the scale.ÂÂ

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > We now make gradual adjustments to the length alone, or frs - the pitch tendency of the chamber type in the upper registers, using the shortest overblown tube as our reference.  Making the chamber fatter while maintaining volume, raises the overall played pitch of the mouthpiece, affecting the upper register more than the lower.  Making the chamber narrower while maintaining volume lowers it.ÂÂ

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > Between repeated steps of checking the D1/D2 octave for perfection and then making the appropriate chamber geometry adjustment, raising or lowering the pitch to improve the C#2/C#3 octave, the short tube will come into perfect alignment (same 0 cent deviation at center of pitch wobble) .  With both ends of the basic tube perfectly aligned, the ends (bell tones/palm keys) and in-between (middle register) take care of themselves.  The entire scale is within 5 cents of flat, perfectly situated in the A=440 pitch center.ÂÂ

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > One experiences a new playing and listening sensation - one voice - no perception of register changes.  The sound gets a silvery "sheen" to it as the horn resonates more perfectly with the cosmos - really.  Now, after you experience this, from both the playing and listening standpoint, it becomes addictive.  You immediately notice the conical air column effect qualities that you left behind, to varied degrees, in the playing of others - everywhere (almost - some got lucky or were smart with their setup).  It sticks out like wrong notes in Mozart.  You can even start listening to the silvery sheen evenness more than the notes they are playing, as you realize that hearing the conical air column effects is tiring, even annoying.

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > IMO, this is the future of saxophone development - refinement.ÂÂ

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > --- On Wed, 1/4/12, MartinMods <lancelotburt@>

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > wrote:

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@>

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > Date: Wednesday, January 4, 2012, 2:46 AM

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > ÂÂ

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > The formula for doing the same is there.  Take advantage of it or not, as you will.

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > --- On Wed, 1/4/12, kymarto123@ <kymarto123@> wrote:

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > From: kymarto123@ <kymarto123@>

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > Date: Wednesday, January 4, 2012, 2:42 AM

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > ÂÂ

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > Well, at least we have your word for it.

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

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

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > > Not in this model.  It's just a cavity.  Notice the range of the plotted cavity ratios.  At 1/1 the tendency is toward sharpness in the upper registers.  As you increase volume, the curve becomes flat, and then inverse.  A perfectly matched mouthpiece juggles the effects of the conical tube, those of the mouthpiece style, the reed, and the player, within a narrow band in this area.  The results are amazing.ÂÂ

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > > Make 5 mouthpieces that solve 5 individual player's individual horn/mouthpiece intonation problems, and you will have a good working understanding of what is going on.ÂÂ

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > > I've lost count.

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > 

> 

> > > 

> 

> > > 

> 

> > 

> 

> > 

> 

> 

> 

>     

>      

> 

>     

>     

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

>   

> 

> 

> 

> 



    
     

    









    
     

    
    






  

Lance
Seriously, you are strictly self appointed and self recognized in your "expertise", and conspicuously without peer recognition or achievement in the industry. I don't know who you think you are fooling, but I want to assure you that it's not those who have actually succeeded in this business for a long time.....really, we know better. We've done this before, and we know how it works. You're essentially talking to yourself, as I rather doubt that anybody who is actually involved in the business is listening. 


Sent from my iPad

STEVE  GOODSON
Saxophone Guru and Visionary
New Orleans
www.nationofmusic.com



On Jan 6, 2012, at 7:23 PM, MartinMods <lancelotburt@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Toby,
> 
> What Nederveen actually states in his book is that he should have optimized the mouthpiece to each saxophone, but he didn't bother.  His results are then typical of various horns played with various degree of mouthpiece error - all over the place.  In my personal correspondence with him on the matter, he confirmed that this method I describe, works.  
> 
> Steve,
> 
> Oh.  Is that what you tell Paul when he adjusts a mouthpiece?  It's the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- On Sat, 1/7/12, Steve Goodson <saxgourmet@...> wrote:
> 
> From: Steve Goodson <saxgourmet@...>
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
> To: "MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com" <MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Saturday, January 7, 2012, 12:41 AM
> 
>  
> Thank you, Toby....we're on the same page here....the claims made are ridiculous, and fly in the face of everything generally known BY PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY DO THIS FOR A LIVING....the assertions are bogus on many, many fronts.......this is simply not the way it works.....
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
> STEVE  GOODSON
> Saxophone Guru and Visionary
> New Orleans
> www.nationofmusic.com
> 
> 
> 
> On Jan 6, 2012, at 6:31 PM, kymarto123@... wrote:
> 
>>  
>> Sorry for the empty post.
>> 
>> Nederveen states that on altos and sops, the geometry of the tube dictates that the upper second register will go sharp, and that on sops at least, it is even theoretically impossible to get that area in tune. He mentions that manufacturers are well aware of the problem, and cites Selmer's hack with the little ring key up there in response to the problem.
>> 
>> So while I have no doubt that there are certain advantages to be gained from mouthpiece volume/resonance optimization, I am somewhat allergic to the extent of the results you claim, based on the fact that saxes are such imperfect beasts. It's just not possible to straighten all that out and get all the stars to align with a bit of mpc alteration or thin resos or whatever.
>> 
>> While it profits you to deride my experience both in playing and in mpc alteration, I have confidence that it is good enough in both areas to be able to judge intonational issues accurately. 
>> 
>> I have nowhere near the experience or expertise of Steve in any area of the sax, but I have to concur. I don't buy it. Nor have I seen any independent verification of the results you claim.
>> 
>> I remain open-minded, but skeptical.
>> 
>> --- MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
>> > Toby,
>> > 
>> > You may make all the assumptions you like, without actually completing the routine once yourself, but D and C# are chosen for precise acoustical reasons (see below if you care to read the explanation).  I have performed it extensively.  Using D and C# provide the best results in every case.  
>> > 
>> > Why D and C#:  Completing the routine, making appropriate geometric alterations to the mouthpiece as results dictate, using any of the notes you suggest would have excellent results, compared to not doing anything.  However, as to D and C#, note again the volume deviation curves in Nederveen.  Going in the direction of excess volume, the line would be flat, before it became inverted.  If Bb1 is used to anchor the correct volume, the entire rest of the scale will suffer the effects of the 1/1 volume ratio - increasing sharpness exponentially proportional to tube length and mode.  If D is used, then:
>> > 
>> > 1. D will no longer be a problem note.  Perfectly aligned resonances insure that.
>> > 2. The actual volume of the mouthpiece will be somewhat in excess of the 1/1 ratio minimizing the effects of the conical air column for the rest of the scale - we get a very flat frequency response.
>> > 3. The bell tones which are not overblown for the normal playing range are tuned via key height (if required).
>> > 3. Adjusting C# is equivalent to adjusting Benade's frs.  B works, C works, but C# works the best - provided you can play C# in the first place.
>> > 4. The palm keys are adjusted (if needed) via key height.
>> > 
>> > If you don't feel comfortable playing C#, then use B.  I have had excellent results with that.  The more developed players will find C# to be the best note however.
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > --- On Fri, 1/6/12, kymarto123@... <kymarto123@ybb.ne.jp> wrote:
>> > 
>> > From: kymarto123@... <kymarto123@....jp>
>> > Subject: Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
>> > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>> > Date: Friday, January 6, 2012, 4:56 PM
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> >  
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > I agree with Steve on this. If the idea is to compare long and short tube notes, then much better to choose Bb as the long tube and overblow to Bb2. That's a sight longer-tube than D.
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > If you read Nederveen, you'll also see that C#3 is a whanky note--particularly on sop--for various acoustic reasons. It would probably be wiser to go with C 
>> > 
>> > or even B. 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > Possibly even wiser would be to go Bb1/Bb2 overblown for long tube, then Bb2 overblown/Bb2 to get an idea of long vs. short , then Bb2/Bb3 for short tube register relationship. Bb is a much more stable note than C#, and actually you have a bigger difference in long/ short tube: Bb-Bb is an octave; D-C# a semitone less.
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > And also, that way you stay on the same note across the test, so it all might be aurally clearer.
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > --- STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...> wrote:
>> > 
>> > > I think it very, very odd that D was selected as a reference pitch.....this is a very unstable note on saxophones
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > On Jan 6, 2012, at 10:15 AM, Keith Bradbury wrote:
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > > 
>> > 
>> > > > ...and after making the chamber larger, you then would push the mouthpiece in to get back (near) the original volume established in the D1/D2 pitch mathching. Correct?
>> > 
>> > > > 
>> > 
>> > > > From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
>> > 
>> > > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>> > 
>> > > > Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2012 9:48 PM
>> > 
>> > > > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
>> > 
>> > > > 
>> > 
>> > > > Find the place on the cork that produces a perfect D1/D2 octave, regardless of how that relates to A=440. Leave the mouthpiece there. Then test the C#2/C#3 octave. The degree to which the C#'s are out of tune to A=440 and each other is the degree of acoustical mismatch between your mouthpiece and your horn. At that position, your C#'s are flat, so you need to somehow make your chamber or throat larger in diameter, or you need a new mouthpiece that is a closer match - has a fatter chamber. Enlarging the throat makes the tone somewhat broader or less focused. One can regain that focus with baffle work.
>> > 
>> > > > 
>> > 
>> > > > 
>> > 
>> > > > 
>> > 
>> > > > --- On Fri, 1/6/12, John <john_w_price33@...> wrote:
>> > 
>> > > > 
>> > 
>> > > > From: John <john_w_price33@...>
>> > 
>> > > > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
>> > 
>> > > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>> > 
>> > > > Date: Friday, January 6, 2012, 1:38 AM
>> > 
>> > > > 
>> > 
>> > > > 
>> > 
>> > > > I tried it. D1,D2 relationship good.....I had to pull out the mouthpiece quite a bit. C#2,C#3.....works closer to my usual tuning spot. So does this mean I need a larger chamber mouthpiece to get D1,D2 relationship occuring with a shorter overall tuning length?
>> > 
>> > > > 
>> > 
>> > > > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > I'd be willing to take you through it, step-by-step.
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > --- On Thu, 1/5/12, crunchie_nuts <andrewhdonaldson@...> wrote:
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > From: crunchie_nuts <andrewhdonaldson@...>
>> > 
>> > > > > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
>> > 
>> > > > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>> > 
>> > > > > Date: Thursday, January 5, 2012, 12:38 AM
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > Â
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > Well, I have tried it in the past but it never seemed to work for me. Maybe I was doing it wrong.
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > It would be great if you could post some evidence of your own results, such as intonation charts showing before and after tuning, such as the type Fred Wyman used in his thesis.
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@> wrote:
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > > I trust the total silence in the group to mean you are all busy trying this out perhaps. The method I use, which is similar to that which Paul uses, I got for free from Arthur Benade. It is printed right there in his published papers from the 1970's, and since I first started reading him 4 years ago, I have heard the key phrases tossed back and forth on the various saxophone forums and seen them quoted in many a doctoral thesis, absent of any
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > > apparent comprehension as to what they actually mean in their practical application. I'll paraphrase:
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > > 1. Saxophone players should be as meticulous in matching their mouthpieces to their horns as oboist/bassoonists are in fiddling with their reeds. That sounds nice. We know about volume
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > > and frs/frequency, but did anyone ever bother to go see just what it is that oboists/bassoonists actually do?  There must be something there we can learn from. I don't see any orchestras tuning up to the soprano saxophone's concert A.
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > > 2. That meticulousness includes tweaking the volume/frs to get the optimal results. That means that once we got into the ballpark using the numbers, we abandon them to score.
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > > Benade's oboe reed balancing routine boils down to this when related to the saxophone:
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > > We are well aware of the volume induced tendencies of the conical air column - how at a 1/1 volume ratio and lower, they induce sharpness in the upper registers, and a bit lower than 1/1, those tendencies lessen and then become inverted. We are also aware that a large chambered mouthpiece increases those tendencies in the upper registers compared to a small chambered
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > > mouthpiece - the frs of the two are different. To eliminate the conical air column effects for the played instrument we must abandon the A=440 pitch center for a moment, and anchor the mouthpiece volume (i.e. where it is placed on the cork) so that the low end of our overblown tube (D1/D2) has optimal resonance alignment - it must produce a perfect octave. Easy. Pull out (or push in) until D1/D2 is a perfect octave - and here is where "meticulous" comes into play. Tune the octave using a tuner so that the center of your unavoidable pitch variations is at 0 cents deviation. One uses a steady, normal embouchure making absolutely no adjustments. No adjustments. No adjustments. We are halfway there.
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > > Now, unless we had a perfect mouthpiece to start with, our pitch center is off, as is the resonance alignment of the short end of the overblown tube
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > > (C#2/C#3).  Whatever we do to fix this, we must maintain the initial, optimal mouthpiece volume alignment (Not the place on the cork, but the perfect D1/D2 octave). Realize that the initial "pulling out/pushing in" adjustment changed two aspects of the mouthpiece, the volume AND the length, for a pretty gross change in the stretching of the scale.ÂÂ
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > > We now make gradual adjustments to the length alone, or frs - the pitch tendency of the chamber type in the upper registers, using the shortest overblown tube as our reference. Making the chamber fatter while maintaining volume, raises the overall played pitch of the mouthpiece, affecting the upper register more than the lower. Making the chamber narrower while maintaining volume lowers it.ÂÂ
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > > Between repeated steps of checking the D1/D2 octave for perfection and then making the appropriate chamber geometry adjustment, raising or lowering the pitch to improve the C#2/C#3 octave, the short tube will come into perfect alignment (same 0 cent deviation at center of pitch wobble) . With both ends of the basic tube perfectly aligned, the ends (bell tones/palm keys) and in-between (middle register) take care of themselves. The entire scale is within 5 cents of flat, perfectly situated in the A=440 pitch center.ÂÂ
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > > One experiences a new playing and listening sensation - one voice - no perception of register changes. The sound gets a silvery "sheen" to it as the horn resonates more perfectly with the cosmos - really. Now, after you experience this, from both the playing and listening standpoint, it becomes addictive. You immediately notice the conical air column effect qualities that you left behind, to varied degrees, in the playing of others - everywhere (almost - some got lucky or were smart with their setup). It sticks out like wrong notes in Mozart. You can even start listening to the silvery sheen evenness more than the notes they are playing, as you realize that hearing the conical air column effects is tiring, even annoying.
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > > IMO, this is the future of saxophone development - refinement.ÂÂ
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > > --- On Wed, 1/4/12, MartinMods <lancelotburt@>
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > > wrote:
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > > From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@>
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > > Date: Wednesday, January 4, 2012, 2:46 AM
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > > ÂÂ
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > > The formula for doing the same is there. Take advantage of it or not, as you will.
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > > --- On Wed, 1/4/12, kymarto123@ <kymarto123@> wrote:
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > > From: kymarto123@ <kymarto123@>
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > > Date: Wednesday, January 4, 2012, 2:42 AM
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > > ÂÂ
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > > Well, at least we have your word for it.
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > > --- MartinMods <lancelotburt@> wrote:
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > > > Not in this model. It's just a cavity. Notice the range of the plotted cavity ratios.  At 1/1 the tendency is toward sharpness in the upper registers. As you increase volume, the curve becomes flat, and then inverse. A perfectly matched mouthpiece juggles the effects of the conical tube, those of the mouthpiece style, the reed, and the player, within a narrow band in this area. The results are amazing.ÂÂ
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > > > Make 5 mouthpieces that solve 5 individual player's individual horn/mouthpiece intonation problems, and you will have a good working understanding of what is going on.ÂÂ
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > > > I've lost count.
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > >
>> > 
>> > > > 
>> > 
>> > > > 
>> > 
>> > > > 
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
> 
> 

Steve,

I appreciate your concern, but I am not that interested in what anyone in "the business" as you say, thinks about this.  The players I have shared this with are ecstatic.  That's what's important to me. 

--- On Sat, 1/7/12, Steve Goodson <saxgourmet@...> wrote:

From: Steve Goodson <saxgourmet@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
To: "MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com" <MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Saturday, January 7, 2012, 1:39 AM








 



  


    
      
      
      LanceSeriously, you are strictly self appointed and self recognized in your "expertise", and conspicuously without peer recognition or achievement in the industry. I don't know who you think you are fooling, but I want to assure you that it's not those who have actually succeeded in this business for a long time.....really, we know better. We've done this before, and we know how it works. You're essentially talking to yourself, as I rather doubt that anybody who is actually involved in the business is listening. 

Sent from my iPad
STEVE  GOODSONSaxophone Guru and VisionaryNew Orleanswww.nationofmusic.com


On Jan 6, 2012, at 7:23 PM, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:






 



    
      
      
      Toby,

What Nederveen actually states in his book is that he should have optimized the mouthpiece to each saxophone, but he didn't bother.  His results are then typical of various horns played with various degree of mouthpiece error - all over the place.  In my personal correspondence with him on the matter, he confirmed that this method I describe, works.  

Steve,

Oh.  Is that what you tell Paul when he adjusts a mouthpiece?  It's the same thing.





--- On Sat, 1/7/12, Steve Goodson <saxgourmet@...> wrote:

From: Steve Goodson <saxgourmet@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto
 mouthpieces
To: "MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com" <MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Saturday, January 7, 2012, 12:41 AM








 



    
      
      
      Thank you, Toby....we're on the same page here....the claims made are ridiculous, and fly in the face of everything generally known BY PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY DO THIS FOR A LIVING....the assertions are bogus on many, many fronts.......this is simply not the way it works.....

Sent from my iPad
STEVE  GOODSONSaxophone Guru and VisionaryNew Orleanswww.nationofmusic.com


On Jan 6, 2012, at 6:31 PM, kymarto123@... wrote:






 



    
      
      
      Sorry for the empty post.



Nederveen states that on altos and sops, the geometry of the tube dictates that the upper second register will go sharp, and that on sops at least, it is even theoretically impossible to get that area in tune. He mentions that manufacturers are well aware of the problem, and cites Selmer's hack with the little ring key up there in response to the problem.



So while I have no doubt that there are certain advantages to be gained from mouthpiece volume/resonance optimization, I am somewhat allergic to the extent of the results you claim, based on the fact that saxes are such imperfect beasts. It's just not possible to straighten all that out and get all the stars to align with a bit of mpc alteration or thin resos or whatever.



While it profits you to deride my experience both in playing and in mpc alteration, I have confidence that it is good enough in both areas to be able to judge intonational issues accurately. 



I have nowhere near the experience or expertise of Steve in any area of the sax, but I have to concur. I don't buy it. Nor have I seen any independent verification of the results you claim.



I remain open-minded, but skeptical.



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

> Toby,

> 

> You may make all the assumptions you like, without actually completing the routine once yourself, but D and C# are chosen for precise acoustical reasons (see below if you care to read the explanation).  I have performed it extensively.  Using D and C# provide the best results in every case.  

> 

> Why D and C#:  Completing the routine, making appropriate geometric alterations to the mouthpiece as results dictate, using any of the notes you suggest would have excellent results, compared to not doing anything.  However, as to D and C#, note again the volume deviation curves in Nederveen.  Going in the direction of excess volume, the line would be flat, before it became inverted.  If Bb1 is used to anchor the correct volume, the entire rest of the scale will suffer the effects of the 1/1 volume ratio - increasing sharpness exponentially proportional to tube length and mode.  If D is used, then:

> 

> 1. D will no longer be a problem note.  Perfectly aligned resonances insure that.

> 2. The actual volume of the mouthpiece will be somewhat in excess of the 1/1 ratio minimizing the effects of the conical air column for the rest of the scale - we get a very flat frequency response.

> 3. The bell tones which are not overblown for the normal playing range are tuned via key height (if required).

> 3. Adjusting C# is equivalent to adjusting Benade's frs.  B works, C works, but C# works the best - provided you can play C# in the first place.

> 4. The palm keys are adjusted (if needed) via key height.

> 

> If you don't feel comfortable playing C#, then use B.  I have had excellent results with that.  The more developed players will find C# to be the best note however.

> 

> 

> 

> 

> --- On Fri, 1/6/12, kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...> wrote:

> 

> From: kymarto123@....jp <kymarto123@...>

> Subject: Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces

> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com

> Date: Friday, January 6, 2012, 4:56 PM

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

>  

> 

> 

> 

>   

> 

> 

>     

>       

>       

>       I agree with Steve on this. If the idea is to compare long and short tube notes, then much better to choose Bb as the long tube and overblow to Bb2. That's a sight longer-tube than D.

> 

> 

> 

> If you read Nederveen, you'll also see that C#3 is a whanky note--particularly on sop--for various acoustic reasons. It would probably be wiser to go with C 

> 

> or even B. 

> 

> 

> 

> Possibly even wiser would be to go Bb1/Bb2 overblown for long tube, then Bb2 overblown/Bb2 to get an idea of long vs. short , then Bb2/Bb3 for short tube register relationship. Bb is a much more stable note than C#, and actually you have a bigger difference in long/ short tube: Bb-Bb is an octave; D-C# a semitone less.

> 

> 

> 

> And also, that way you stay on the same note across the test, so it all might be aurally clearer.

> 

> 

> 

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

> 

> > I think it very, very odd that D was selected as a reference pitch.....this is a very unstable note on saxophones

> 

> > 

> 

> > 

> 

> > 

> 

> > On Jan 6, 2012, at 10:15 AM, Keith Bradbury wrote:

> 

> > 

> 

> > > 

> 

> > > ...and after making the chamber larger, you then would push the mouthpiece in to get back (near) the original volume established in the D1/D2 pitch mathching.  Correct?

> 

> > > 

> 

> > > From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>

> 

> > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com

> 

> > > Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2012 9:48 PM

> 

> > > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces

> 

> > > 

> 

> > > Find the place on the cork that produces a perfect D1/D2 octave, regardless of how that relates to A=440.  Leave the mouthpiece there.  Then test the C#2/C#3 octave.  The degree to which the C#'s are out of tune to A=440 and each other is the degree of acoustical mismatch between your mouthpiece and your horn.  At that position, your C#'s are flat, so you need to somehow make your chamber or throat larger in diameter, or you need a new mouthpiece that is a closer match - has a fatter chamber.  Enlarging the throat makes the tone somewhat broader or less focused.  One can regain that focus with baffle work.

> 

> > > 

> 

> > > 

> 

> > > 

> 

> > > --- On Fri, 1/6/12, John <john_w_price33@...> wrote:

> 

> > > 

> 

> > > From: John <john_w_price33@...>

> 

> > > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces

> 

> > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com

> 

> > > Date: Friday, January 6, 2012, 1:38 AM

> 

> > > 

> 

> > > 

> 

> > > I tried it. D1,D2 relationship good.....I had to pull out the mouthpiece quite a bit. C#2,C#3.....works closer to my usual tuning spot. So does this mean I need a larger chamber mouthpiece to get D1,D2 relationship occuring with a shorter overall tuning length?

> 

> > > 

> 

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

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > I'd be willing to take you through it, step-by-step.

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > --- On Thu, 1/5/12, crunchie_nuts <andrewhdonaldson@...> wrote:

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > From: crunchie_nuts <andrewhdonaldson@...>

> 

> > > > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces

> 

> > > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com

> 

> > > > Date: Thursday, January 5, 2012, 12:38 AM

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > Â

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > Well, I have tried it in the past but it never seemed to work for me. Maybe I was doing it wrong.

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > It would be great if you could post some evidence of your own results, such as intonation charts showing before and after tuning, such as the type Fred Wyman used in his thesis.

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

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

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > I trust the total silence in the group to mean you are all busy trying this out perhaps.  The method I use, which is similar to that which Paul uses, I got for free from Arthur Benade.  It is printed right there in his published papers from the 1970's, and since I first started reading him 4 years ago, I have heard the key phrases tossed back and forth on the various saxophone forums and seen them quoted in many a doctoral thesis, absent of any

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > apparent comprehension as to what they actually mean in their practical application.  I'll paraphrase:

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > 1. Saxophone players should be as meticulous in matching their mouthpieces to their horns as oboist/bassoonists are in fiddling with their reeds.  That sounds nice.  We know about volume

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > and frs/frequency, but did anyone ever bother to go see just what it is that oboists/bassoonists actually do?   There must be something there we can learn from.  I don't see any orchestras tuning up to the soprano saxophone's concert A.

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > 2. That meticulousness includes tweaking the volume/frs to get the optimal results.  That means that once we got into the ballpark using the numbers, we abandon them to score.

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > Benade's oboe reed balancing routine boils down to this when related to the saxophone:

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > We are well aware of the volume induced tendencies of the conical air column - how at a 1/1 volume ratio and lower, they induce sharpness in the upper registers, and a bit lower than 1/1, those tendencies lessen and then become inverted.  We are also aware that a large chambered mouthpiece increases those tendencies in the upper registers compared to a small chambered

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > mouthpiece - the frs of the two are different.  To eliminate the conical air column effects for the played instrument we must abandon the A=440 pitch center for a moment, and anchor the mouthpiece volume (i.e. where it is placed on the cork)  so that the low end of our overblown tube (D1/D2) has optimal resonance alignment - it must produce a perfect octave.  Easy.  Pull out (or push in) until D1/D2 is a perfect octave - and here is where "meticulous" comes into play.  Tune the octave using a tuner so that the center of your unavoidable pitch variations is at 0 cents deviation.  One uses a steady, normal embouchure making absolutely no adjustments. No adjustments.  No adjustments.  We are halfway there.

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > Now, unless we had a perfect mouthpiece to start with, our pitch center is off, as is the resonance alignment of the short end of the overblown tube

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > (C#2/C#3).   Whatever we do to fix this, we must maintain the initial, optimal mouthpiece volume alignment (Not the place on the cork, but the perfect D1/D2 octave).  Realize that the initial "pulling out/pushing in" adjustment changed two aspects of the mouthpiece, the volume AND the length, for a pretty gross change in the stretching of the scale.ÂÂ

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > We now make gradual adjustments to the length alone, or frs - the pitch tendency of the chamber type in the upper registers, using the shortest overblown tube as our reference.  Making the chamber fatter while maintaining volume, raises the overall played pitch of the mouthpiece, affecting the upper register more than the lower.  Making the chamber narrower while maintaining volume lowers it.ÂÂ

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > Between repeated steps of checking the D1/D2 octave for perfection and then making the appropriate chamber geometry adjustment, raising or lowering the pitch to improve the C#2/C#3 octave, the short tube will come into perfect alignment (same 0 cent deviation at center of pitch wobble) .  With both ends of the basic tube perfectly aligned, the ends (bell tones/palm keys) and in-between (middle register) take care of themselves.  The entire scale is within 5 cents of flat, perfectly situated in the A=440 pitch center.ÂÂ

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > One experiences a new playing and listening sensation - one voice - no perception of register changes.  The sound gets a silvery "sheen" to it as the horn resonates more perfectly with the cosmos - really.  Now, after you experience this, from both the playing and listening standpoint, it becomes addictive.  You immediately notice the conical air column effect qualities that you left behind, to varied degrees, in the playing of others - everywhere (almost - some got lucky or were smart with their setup).  It sticks out like wrong notes in Mozart.  You can even start listening to the silvery sheen evenness more than the notes they are playing, as you realize that hearing the conical air column effects is tiring, even annoying.

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > IMO, this is the future of saxophone development - refinement.ÂÂ

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > --- On Wed, 1/4/12, MartinMods <lancelotburt@>

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > wrote:

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@>

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > Date: Wednesday, January 4, 2012, 2:46 AM

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > ÂÂ

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > The formula for doing the same is there.  Take advantage of it or not, as you will.

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > --- On Wed, 1/4/12, kymarto123@ <kymarto123@> wrote:

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > From: kymarto123@ <kymarto123@>

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > Date: Wednesday, January 4, 2012, 2:42 AM

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > ÂÂ

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > Well, at least we have your word for it.

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

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

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > > Not in this model.  It's just a cavity.  Notice the range of the plotted cavity ratios.  At 1/1 the tendency is toward sharpness in the upper registers.  As you increase volume, the curve becomes flat, and then inverse.  A perfectly matched mouthpiece juggles the effects of the conical tube, those of the mouthpiece style, the reed, and the player, within a narrow band in this area.  The results are amazing.ÂÂ

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > > Make 5 mouthpieces that solve 5 individual player's individual horn/mouthpiece intonation problems, and you will have a good working understanding of what is going on.ÂÂ

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > > I've lost count.

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > 

> 

> > > 

> 

> > > 

> 

> > 

> 

> > 

> 

> 

> 

>     

>      

> 

>     

>     

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

>   

> 

> 

> 

> 



    
     

    









    
     








    
     

    









    
     

    
    






  

I'm not concerned in the least.....only amused

Sent from my iPad

STEVE  GOODSON
Saxophone Guru and Visionary
New Orleans
www.nationofmusic.com



On Jan 6, 2012, at 8:20 PM, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:

> Steve,
> 
> I appreciate your concern, but I am not that interested in what anyone in "the business" as you say, thinks about this.  The players I have shared this with are ecstatic.  That's what's important to me. 
> 
> --- On Sat, 1/7/12, Steve Goodson <saxgourmet@...> wrote:
> 
> From: Steve Goodson <saxgourmet@...>
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
> To: "MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com" <MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Saturday, January 7, 2012, 1:39 AM
> 
>  
> Lance
> Seriously, you are strictly self appointed and self recognized in your "expertise", and conspicuously without peer recognition or achievement in the industry. I don't know who you think you are fooling, but I want to assure you that it's not those who have actually succeeded in this business for a long time.....really, we know better. We've done this before, and we know how it works. You're essentially talking to yourself, as I rather doubt that anybody who is actually involved in the business is listening. 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
> STEVE  GOODSON
> Saxophone Guru and Visionary
> New Orleans
> www.nationofmusic.com
> 
> 
> 
> On Jan 6, 2012, at 7:23 PM, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
> 
>>  
>> Toby,
>> 
>> What Nederveen actually states in his book is that he should have optimized the mouthpiece to each saxophone, but he didn't bother.  His results are then typical of various horns played with various degree of mouthpiece error - all over the place.  In my personal correspondence with him on the matter, he confirmed that this method I describe, works.  
>> 
>> Steve,
>> 
>> Oh.  Is that what you tell Paul when he adjusts a mouthpiece?  It's the same thing.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --- On Sat, 1/7/12, Steve Goodson <saxgourmet@...> wrote:
>> 
>> From: Steve Goodson <saxgourmet@...>
>> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
>> To: "MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com" <MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com>
>> Date: Saturday, January 7, 2012, 12:41 AM
>> 
>>  
>> Thank you, Toby....we're on the same page here....the claims made are ridiculous, and fly in the face of everything generally known BY PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY DO THIS FOR A LIVING....the assertions are bogus on many, many fronts.......this is simply not the way it works.....
>> 
>> Sent from my iPad
>> 
>> STEVE  GOODSON
>> Saxophone Guru and Visionary
>> New Orleans
>> www.nationofmusic.com
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Jan 6, 2012, at 6:31 PM, kymarto123@... wrote:
>> 
>>>  
>>> Sorry for the empty post.
>>> 
>>> Nederveen states that on altos and sops, the geometry of the tube dictates that the upper second register will go sharp, and that on sops at least, it is even theoretically impossible to get that area in tune. He mentions that manufacturers are well aware of the problem, and cites Selmer's hack with the little ring key up there in response to the problem.
>>> 
>>> So while I have no doubt that there are certain advantages to be gained from mouthpiece volume/resonance optimization, I am somewhat allergic to the extent of the results you claim, based on the fact that saxes are such imperfect beasts. It's just not possible to straighten all that out and get all the stars to align with a bit of mpc alteration or thin resos or whatever.
>>> 
>>> While it profits you to deride my experience both in playing and in mpc alteration, I have confidence that it is good enough in both areas to be able to judge intonational issues accurately. 
>>> 
>>> I have nowhere near the experience or expertise of Steve in any area of the sax, but I have to concur. I don't buy it. Nor have I seen any independent verification of the results you claim.
>>> 
>>> I remain open-minded, but skeptical.
>>> 
>>> --- MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
>>> > Toby,
>>> > 
>>> > You may make all the assumptions you like, without actually completing the routine once yourself, but D and C# are chosen for precise acoustical reasons (see below if you care to read the explanation).  I have performed it extensively.  Using D and C# provide the best results in every case.  
>>> > 
>>> > Why D and C#:  Completing the routine, making appropriate geometric alterations to the mouthpiece as results dictate, using any of the notes you suggest would have excellent results, compared to not doing anything.  However, as to D and C#, note again the volume deviation curves in Nederveen.  Going in the direction of excess volume, the line would be flat, before it became inverted.  If Bb1 is used to anchor the correct volume, the entire rest of the scale will suffer the effects of the 1/1 volume ratio - increasing sharpness exponentially proportional to tube length and mode.  If D is used, then:
>>> > 
>>> > 1. D will no longer be a problem note.  Perfectly aligned resonances insure that.
>>> > 2. The actual volume of the mouthpiece will be somewhat in excess of the 1/1 ratio minimizing the effects of the conical air column for the rest of the scale - we get a very flat frequency response.
>>> > 3. The bell tones which are not overblown for the normal playing range are tuned via key height (if required).
>>> > 3. Adjusting C# is equivalent to adjusting Benade's frs.  B works, C works, but C# works the best - provided you can play C# in the first place.
>>> > 4. The palm keys are adjusted (if needed) via key height.
>>> > 
>>> > If you don't feel comfortable playing C#, then use B.  I have had excellent results with that.  The more developed players will find C# to be the best note however.
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>> > --- On Fri, 1/6/12, kymarto123@....jp <kymarto123@...> wrote:
>>> > 
>>> > From: kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...>
>>> > Subject: Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
>>> > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>>> > Date: Friday, January 6, 2012, 4:56 PM
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>> >  
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>> > I agree with Steve on this. If the idea is to compare long and short tube notes, then much better to choose Bb as the long tube and overblow to Bb2. That's a sight longer-tube than D.
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>> > If you read Nederveen, you'll also see that C#3 is a whanky note--particularly on sop--for various acoustic reasons. It would probably be wiser to go with C 
>>> > 
>>> > or even B. 
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>> > Possibly even wiser would be to go Bb1/Bb2 overblown for long tube, then Bb2 overblown/Bb2 to get an idea of long vs. short , then Bb2/Bb3 for short tube register relationship. Bb is a much more stable note than C#, and actually you have a bigger difference in long/ short tube: Bb-Bb is an octave; D-C# a semitone less.
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>> > And also, that way you stay on the same note across the test, so it all might be aurally clearer.
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>> > --- STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...> wrote:
>>> > 
>>> > > I think it very, very odd that D was selected as a reference pitch.....this is a very unstable note on saxophones
>>> > 
>>> > > 
>>> > 
>>> > > 
>>> > 
>>> > > 
>>> > 
>>> > > On Jan 6, 2012, at 10:15 AM, Keith Bradbury wrote:
>>> > 
>>> > > 
>>> > 
>>> > > > 
>>> > 
>>> > > > ...and after making the chamber larger, you then would push the mouthpiece in to get back (near) the original volume established in the D1/D2 pitch mathching. Correct?
>>> > 
>>> > > > 
>>> > 
>>> > > > From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
>>> > 
>>> > > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>>> > 
>>> > > > Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2012 9:48 PM
>>> > 
>>> > > > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
>>> > 
>>> > > > 
>>> > 
>>> > > > Find the place on the cork that produces a perfect D1/D2 octave, regardless of how that relates to A=440. Leave the mouthpiece there. Then test the C#2/C#3 octave. The degree to which the C#'s are out of tune to A=440 and each other is the degree of acoustical mismatch between your mouthpiece and your horn. At that position, your C#'s are flat, so you need to somehow make your chamber or throat larger in diameter, or you need a new mouthpiece that is a closer match - has a fatter chamber. Enlarging the throat makes the tone somewhat broader or less focused. One can regain that focus with baffle work.
>>> > 
>>> > > > 
>>> > 
>>> > > > 
>>> > 
>>> > > > 
>>> > 
>>> > > > --- On Fri, 1/6/12, John <john_w_price33@...> wrote:
>>> > 
>>> > > > 
>>> > 
>>> > > > From: John <john_w_price33@...>
>>> > 
>>> > > > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
>>> > 
>>> > > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>>> > 
>>> > > > Date: Friday, January 6, 2012, 1:38 AM
>>> > 
>>> > > > 
>>> > 
>>> > > > 
>>> > 
>>> > > > I tried it. D1,D2 relationship good.....I had to pull out the mouthpiece quite a bit. C#2,C#3.....works closer to my usual tuning spot. So does this mean I need a larger chamber mouthpiece to get D1,D2 relationship occuring with a shorter overall tuning length?
>>> > 
>>> > > > 
>>> > 
>>> > > > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > I'd be willing to take you through it, step-by-step.
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > --- On Thu, 1/5/12, crunchie_nuts <andrewhdonaldson@...> wrote:
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > From: crunchie_nuts <andrewhdonaldson@...>
>>> > 
>>> > > > > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
>>> > 
>>> > > > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>>> > 
>>> > > > > Date: Thursday, January 5, 2012, 12:38 AM
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > Â
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > Well, I have tried it in the past but it never seemed to work for me. Maybe I was doing it wrong.
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > It would be great if you could post some evidence of your own results, such as intonation charts showing before and after tuning, such as the type Fred Wyman used in his thesis.
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@> wrote:
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > > I trust the total silence in the group to mean you are all busy trying this out perhaps. The method I use, which is similar to that which Paul uses, I got for free from Arthur Benade. It is printed right there in his published papers from the 1970's, and since I first started reading him 4 years ago, I have heard the key phrases tossed back and forth on the various saxophone forums and seen them quoted in many a doctoral thesis, absent of any
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > > apparent comprehension as to what they actually mean in their practical application. I'll paraphrase:
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > > 1. Saxophone players should be as meticulous in matching their mouthpieces to their horns as oboist/bassoonists are in fiddling with their reeds. That sounds nice. We know about volume
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > > and frs/frequency, but did anyone ever bother to go see just what it is that oboists/bassoonists actually do?  There must be something there we can learn from. I don't see any orchestras tuning up to the soprano saxophone's concert A.
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > > 2. That meticulousness includes tweaking the volume/frs to get the optimal results. That means that once we got into the ballpark using the numbers, we abandon them to score.
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > > Benade's oboe reed balancing routine boils down to this when related to the saxophone:
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > > We are well aware of the volume induced tendencies of the conical air column - how at a 1/1 volume ratio and lower, they induce sharpness in the upper registers, and a bit lower than 1/1, those tendencies lessen and then become inverted. We are also aware that a large chambered mouthpiece increases those tendencies in the upper registers compared to a small chambered
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > > mouthpiece - the frs of the two are different. To eliminate the conical air column effects for the played instrument we must abandon the A=440 pitch center for a moment, and anchor the mouthpiece volume (i.e. where it is placed on the cork) so that the low end of our overblown tube (D1/D2) has optimal resonance alignment - it must produce a perfect octave. Easy. Pull out (or push in) until D1/D2 is a perfect octave - and here is where "meticulous" comes into play. Tune the octave using a tuner so that the center of your unavoidable pitch variations is at 0 cents deviation. One uses a steady, normal embouchure making absolutely no adjustments. No adjustments. No adjustments. We are halfway there.
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > > Now, unless we had a perfect mouthpiece to start with, our pitch center is off, as is the resonance alignment of the short end of the overblown tube
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > > (C#2/C#3).  Whatever we do to fix this, we must maintain the initial, optimal mouthpiece volume alignment (Not the place on the cork, but the perfect D1/D2 octave). Realize that the initial "pulling out/pushing in" adjustment changed two aspects of the mouthpiece, the volume AND the length, for a pretty gross change in the stretching of the scale.ÂÂ
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > > We now make gradual adjustments to the length alone, or frs - the pitch tendency of the chamber type in the upper registers, using the shortest overblown tube as our reference. Making the chamber fatter while maintaining volume, raises the overall played pitch of the mouthpiece, affecting the upper register more than the lower. Making the chamber narrower while maintaining volume lowers it.ÂÂ
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > > Between repeated steps of checking the D1/D2 octave for perfection and then making the appropriate chamber geometry adjustment, raising or lowering the pitch to improve the C#2/C#3 octave, the short tube will come into perfect alignment (same 0 cent deviation at center of pitch wobble) . With both ends of the basic tube perfectly aligned, the ends (bell tones/palm keys) and in-between (middle register) take care of themselves. The entire scale is within 5 cents of flat, perfectly situated in the A=440 pitch center.ÂÂ
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > > One experiences a new playing and listening sensation - one voice - no perception of register changes. The sound gets a silvery "sheen" to it as the horn resonates more perfectly with the cosmos - really. Now, after you experience this, from both the playing and listening standpoint, it becomes addictive. You immediately notice the conical air column effect qualities that you left behind, to varied degrees, in the playing of others - everywhere (almost - some got lucky or were smart with their setup). It sticks out like wrong notes in Mozart. You can even start listening to the silvery sheen evenness more than the notes they are playing, as you realize that hearing the conical air column effects is tiring, even annoying.
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > > IMO, this is the future of saxophone development - refinement.ÂÂ
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > > --- On Wed, 1/4/12, MartinMods <lancelotburt@>
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > > wrote:
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > > From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@>
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > > Date: Wednesday, January 4, 2012, 2:46 AM
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > > ÂÂ
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > > The formula for doing the same is there. Take advantage of it or not, as you will.
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > > --- On Wed, 1/4/12, kymarto123@ <kymarto123@> wrote:
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > > From: kymarto123@ <kymarto123@>
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > > Date: Wednesday, January 4, 2012, 2:42 AM
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > > ÂÂ
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > > Well, at least we have your word for it.
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > > --- MartinMods <lancelotburt@> wrote:
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > > > Not in this model. It's just a cavity. Notice the range of the plotted cavity ratios. At 1/1 the tendency is toward sharpness in the upper registers. As you increase volume, the curve becomes flat, and then inverse. A perfectly matched mouthpiece juggles the effects of the conical tube, those of the mouthpiece style, the reed, and the player, within a narrow band in this area. The results are amazing.ÂÂ
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > > > Make 5 mouthpieces that solve 5 individual player's individual horn/mouthpiece intonation problems, and you will have a good working understanding of what is going on.ÂÂ
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > > > I've lost count.
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > >
>>> > 
>>> > > > 
>>> > 
>>> > > > 
>>> > 
>>> > > > 
>>> > 
>>> > > 
>>> > 
>>> > > 
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>> > 
>> 
> 
> 

...as am I often, when doing online listening surveys...:-)

--- On Sat, 1/7/12, Steve Goodson <saxgourmet@...> wrote:

From: Steve Goodson <saxgourmet@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
To: "MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com" <MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Saturday, January 7, 2012, 2:32 AM








 



  


    
      
      
      I'm not concerned in the least.....only amused

Sent from my iPad
STEVE  GOODSONSaxophone Guru and VisionaryNew Orleanswww.nationofmusic.com


On Jan 6, 2012, at 8:20 PM, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:






 



    
      
      
      Steve,

I appreciate your concern, but I am not that interested in what anyone in "the business" as you say, thinks about this.  The players I have shared this with are ecstatic.  That's what's important to me. 

--- On Sat, 1/7/12, Steve Goodson <saxgourmet@...> wrote:

From: Steve Goodson <saxgourmet@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
To: "MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com" <MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Saturday, January 7, 2012, 1:39 AM








 



    
      
      
      LanceSeriously, you are strictly self appointed and self recognized in your "expertise", and conspicuously without peer recognition or achievement in the industry. I don't know who you think you are fooling, but I want to assure you that it's not those who have actually succeeded in this business for a long time.....really, we know better. We've done this before, and we know how it works. You're essentially talking to yourself, as I rather doubt that anybody who is actually involved in the business is listening. 

Sent from my iPad
STEVE  GOODSONSaxophone Guru and VisionaryNew Orleanswww.nationofmusic.com


On Jan 6, 2012, at 7:23 PM, MartinMods <lancelotburt@yahoo.com> wrote:






 



    
      
      
      Toby,

What Nederveen actually states in his book is that he should have optimized the mouthpiece to each saxophone, but he didn't bother.  His results are then typical of various horns played with various degree of mouthpiece error - all over the place.  In my personal correspondence with him on the matter, he confirmed that this method I describe, works.  

Steve,

Oh.  Is that what you tell Paul when he adjusts a mouthpiece?  It's the same thing.





--- On Sat, 1/7/12, Steve Goodson <saxgourmet@...> wrote:

From:
 Steve Goodson <saxgourmet@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto
 mouthpieces
To: "MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com" <MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Saturday, January 7, 2012, 12:41 AM








 



    
      
      
      Thank you, Toby....we're on the same page here....the claims made are ridiculous, and fly in the face of everything generally known BY PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY DO THIS FOR A LIVING....the assertions are bogus on many, many fronts.......this is simply not the way it works.....

Sent from my iPad
STEVE  GOODSONSaxophone Guru and VisionaryNew Orleanswww.nationofmusic.com


On Jan 6, 2012, at 6:31 PM, kymarto123@... wrote:






 



    
      
      
      Sorry for the empty post.



Nederveen states that on altos and sops, the geometry of the tube dictates that the upper second register will go sharp, and that on sops at least, it is even theoretically impossible to get that area in tune. He mentions that manufacturers are well aware of the problem, and cites Selmer's hack with the little ring key up there in response to the problem.



So while I have no doubt that there are certain advantages to be gained from mouthpiece volume/resonance optimization, I am somewhat allergic to the extent of the results you claim, based on the fact that saxes are such imperfect beasts. It's just not possible to straighten all that out and get all the stars to align with a bit of mpc alteration or thin resos or whatever.



While it profits you to deride my experience both in playing and in mpc alteration, I have confidence that it is good enough in both areas to be able to judge intonational issues accurately. 



I have nowhere near the experience or expertise of Steve in any area of the sax, but I have to concur. I don't buy it. Nor have I seen any independent verification of the results you claim.



I remain open-minded, but skeptical.



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

> Toby,

> 

> You may make all the assumptions you like, without actually completing the routine once yourself, but D and C# are chosen for precise acoustical reasons (see below if you care to read the explanation).  I have performed it extensively.  Using D and C# provide the best results in every case.  

> 

> Why D and C#:  Completing the routine, making appropriate geometric alterations to the mouthpiece as results dictate, using any of the notes you suggest would have excellent results, compared to not doing anything.  However, as to D and C#, note again the volume deviation curves in Nederveen.  Going in the direction of excess volume, the line would be flat, before it became inverted.  If Bb1 is used to anchor the correct volume, the entire rest of the scale will suffer the effects of the 1/1 volume ratio - increasing sharpness exponentially proportional to tube length and mode.  If D is used, then:

> 

> 1. D will no longer be a problem note.  Perfectly aligned resonances insure that.

> 2. The actual volume of the mouthpiece will be somewhat in excess of the 1/1 ratio minimizing the effects of the conical air column for the rest of the scale - we get a very flat frequency response.

> 3. The bell tones which are not overblown for the normal playing range are tuned via key height (if required).

> 3. Adjusting C# is equivalent to adjusting Benade's frs.  B works, C works, but C# works the best - provided you can play C# in the first place.

> 4. The palm keys are adjusted (if needed) via key height.

> 

> If you don't feel comfortable playing C#, then use B.  I have had excellent results with that.  The more developed players will find C# to be the best note however.

> 

> 

> 

> 

> --- On Fri, 1/6/12, kymarto123@... <kymarto123@ybb.ne.jp> wrote:

> 

> From: kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...>

> Subject: Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces

> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com

> Date: Friday, January 6, 2012, 4:56 PM

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

>  

> 

> 

> 

>   

> 

> 

>     

>       

>       

>       I agree with Steve on this. If the idea is to compare long and short tube notes, then much better to choose Bb as the long tube and overblow to Bb2. That's a sight longer-tube than D.

> 

> 

> 

> If you read Nederveen, you'll also see that C#3 is a whanky note--particularly on sop--for various acoustic reasons. It would probably be wiser to go with C 

> 

> or even B. 

> 

> 

> 

> Possibly even wiser would be to go Bb1/Bb2 overblown for long tube, then Bb2 overblown/Bb2 to get an idea of long vs. short , then Bb2/Bb3 for short tube register relationship. Bb is a much more stable note than C#, and actually you have a bigger difference in long/ short tube: Bb-Bb is an octave; D-C# a semitone less.

> 

> 

> 

> And also, that way you stay on the same note across the test, so it all might be aurally clearer.

> 

> 

> 

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

> 

> > I think it very, very odd that D was selected as a reference pitch.....this is a very unstable note on saxophones

> 

> > 

> 

> > 

> 

> > 

> 

> > On Jan 6, 2012, at 10:15 AM, Keith Bradbury wrote:

> 

> > 

> 

> > > 

> 

> > > ...and after making the chamber larger, you then would push the mouthpiece in to get back (near) the original volume established in the D1/D2 pitch mathching.  Correct?

> 

> > > 

> 

> > > From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>

> 

> > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com

> 

> > > Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2012 9:48 PM

> 

> > > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces

> 

> > > 

> 

> > > Find the place on the cork that produces a perfect D1/D2 octave, regardless of how that relates to A=440.  Leave the mouthpiece there.  Then test the C#2/C#3 octave.  The degree to which the C#'s are out of tune to A=440 and each other is the degree of acoustical mismatch between your mouthpiece and your horn.  At that position, your C#'s are flat, so you need to somehow make your chamber or throat larger in diameter, or you need a new mouthpiece that is a closer match - has a fatter chamber.  Enlarging the throat makes the tone somewhat broader or less focused.  One can regain that focus with baffle work.

> 

> > > 

> 

> > > 

> 

> > > 

> 

> > > --- On Fri, 1/6/12, John <john_w_price33@...> wrote:

> 

> > > 

> 

> > > From: John <john_w_price33@...>

> 

> > > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces

> 

> > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com

> 

> > > Date: Friday, January 6, 2012, 1:38 AM

> 

> > > 

> 

> > > 

> 

> > > I tried it. D1,D2 relationship good.....I had to pull out the mouthpiece quite a bit. C#2,C#3.....works closer to my usual tuning spot. So does this mean I need a larger chamber mouthpiece to get D1,D2 relationship occuring with a shorter overall tuning length?

> 

> > > 

> 

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

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > I'd be willing to take you through it, step-by-step.

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > --- On Thu, 1/5/12, crunchie_nuts <andrewhdonaldson@...> wrote:

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > From: crunchie_nuts <andrewhdonaldson@...>

> 

> > > > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces

> 

> > > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com

> 

> > > > Date: Thursday, January 5, 2012, 12:38 AM

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > Â

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > Well, I have tried it in the past but it never seemed to work for me. Maybe I was doing it wrong.

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > It would be great if you could post some evidence of your own results, such as intonation charts showing before and after tuning, such as the type Fred Wyman used in his thesis.

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

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

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > I trust the total silence in the group to mean you are all busy trying this out perhaps.  The method I use, which is similar to that which Paul uses, I got for free from Arthur Benade.  It is printed right there in his published papers from the 1970's, and since I first started reading him 4 years ago, I have heard the key phrases tossed back and forth on the various saxophone forums and seen them quoted in many a doctoral thesis, absent of any

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > apparent comprehension as to what they actually mean in their practical application.  I'll paraphrase:

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > 1. Saxophone players should be as meticulous in matching their mouthpieces to their horns as oboist/bassoonists are in fiddling with their reeds.  That sounds nice.  We know about volume

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > and frs/frequency, but did anyone ever bother to go see just what it is that oboists/bassoonists actually do?   There must be something there we can learn from.  I don't see any orchestras tuning up to the soprano saxophone's concert A.

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > 2. That meticulousness includes tweaking the volume/frs to get the optimal results.  That means that once we got into the ballpark using the numbers, we abandon them to score.

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > Benade's oboe reed balancing routine boils down to this when related to the saxophone:

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > We are well aware of the volume induced tendencies of the conical air column - how at a 1/1 volume ratio and lower, they induce sharpness in the upper registers, and a bit lower than 1/1, those tendencies lessen and then become inverted.  We are also aware that a large chambered mouthpiece increases those tendencies in the upper registers compared to a small chambered

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > mouthpiece - the frs of the two are different.  To eliminate the conical air column effects for the played instrument we must abandon the A=440 pitch center for a moment, and anchor the mouthpiece volume (i.e. where it is placed on the cork)  so that the low end of our overblown tube (D1/D2) has optimal resonance alignment - it must produce a perfect octave.  Easy.  Pull out (or push in) until D1/D2 is a perfect octave - and here is where "meticulous" comes into play.  Tune the octave using a tuner so that the center of your unavoidable pitch variations is at 0 cents deviation.  One uses a steady, normal embouchure making absolutely no adjustments. No adjustments.  No adjustments.  We are halfway there.

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > Now, unless we had a perfect mouthpiece to start with, our pitch center is off, as is the resonance alignment of the short end of the overblown tube

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > (C#2/C#3).   Whatever we do to fix this, we must maintain the initial, optimal mouthpiece volume alignment (Not the place on the cork, but the perfect D1/D2 octave).  Realize that the initial "pulling out/pushing in" adjustment changed two aspects of the mouthpiece, the volume AND the length, for a pretty gross change in the stretching of the scale.ÂÂ

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > We now make gradual adjustments to the length alone, or frs - the pitch tendency of the chamber type in the upper registers, using the shortest overblown tube as our reference.  Making the chamber fatter while maintaining volume, raises the overall played pitch of the mouthpiece, affecting the upper register more than the lower.  Making the chamber narrower while maintaining volume lowers it.ÂÂ

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > Between repeated steps of checking the D1/D2 octave for perfection and then making the appropriate chamber geometry adjustment, raising or lowering the pitch to improve the C#2/C#3 octave, the short tube will come into perfect alignment (same 0 cent deviation at center of pitch wobble) .  With both ends of the basic tube perfectly aligned, the ends (bell tones/palm keys) and in-between (middle register) take care of themselves.  The entire scale is within 5 cents of flat, perfectly situated in the A=440 pitch center.ÂÂ

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > One experiences a new playing and listening sensation - one voice - no perception of register changes.  The sound gets a silvery "sheen" to it as the horn resonates more perfectly with the cosmos - really.  Now, after you experience this, from both the playing and listening standpoint, it becomes addictive.  You immediately notice the conical air column effect qualities that you left behind, to varied degrees, in the playing of others - everywhere (almost - some got lucky or were smart with their setup).  It sticks out like wrong notes in Mozart.  You can even start listening to the silvery sheen evenness more than the notes they are playing, as you realize that hearing the conical air column effects is tiring, even annoying.

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > IMO, this is the future of saxophone development - refinement.ÂÂ

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > --- On Wed, 1/4/12, MartinMods <lancelotburt@>

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > wrote:

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@>

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > Date: Wednesday, January 4, 2012, 2:46 AM

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > ÂÂ

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > The formula for doing the same is there.  Take advantage of it or not, as you will.

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > --- On Wed, 1/4/12, kymarto123@ <kymarto123@> wrote:

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > From: kymarto123@ <kymarto123@>

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > Date: Wednesday, January 4, 2012, 2:42 AM

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > ÂÂ

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > Well, at least we have your word for it.

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

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

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > > Not in this model.  It's just a cavity.  Notice the range of the plotted cavity ratios.  At 1/1 the tendency is toward sharpness in the upper registers.  As you increase volume, the curve becomes flat, and then inverse.  A perfectly matched mouthpiece juggles the effects of the conical tube, those of the mouthpiece style, the reed, and the player, within a narrow band in this area.  The results are amazing.ÂÂ

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > > Make 5 mouthpieces that solve 5 individual player's individual horn/mouthpiece intonation problems, and you will have a good working understanding of what is going on.ÂÂ

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > > I've lost count.

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > 

> 

> > > 

> 

> > > 

> 

> > 

> 

> > 

> 

> 

> 

>     

>      

> 

>     

>     

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

>   

> 

> 

> 

> 



    
     

    









    
     








    
     

    









    
     








    
     

    









    
     

    
    






  

Thanks Martin,    Very clearly stated.  A great explanation.   John

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
>
> Find the place on the cork that produces a perfect D1/D2 octave, regardless of how that relates to A=440.  Leave the mouthpiece there.  Then test the C#2/C#3 octave.  The degree to which the C#'s are out of tune to A=440 and each other is the degree of acoustical mismatch between your mouthpiece and your horn.  At that position, your C#'s are flat, so you need to somehow make your chamber or throat larger in diameter, or you need a new mouthpiece that is a closer match - has a fatter chamber.  Enlarging the throat makes the tone somewhat broader or less focused.  One can regain that focus with baffle work.   
> 
> 
> 
> --- On Fri, 1/6/12, John <john_w_price33@...> wrote:
> 
> From: John <john_w_price33@...>
> Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Friday, January 6, 2012, 1:38 AM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
>   
> 
> 
>     
>       
>       
>        I tried it.  D1,D2  relationship good.....I had to pull out the mouthpiece quite a bit.    C#2,C#3.....works closer to my usual tuning spot.      So does this mean I need a larger chamber mouthpiece to get D1,D2 relationship occuring with a shorter overall tuning length?
> 
> 
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@> wrote:
> 
> >
> 
> > I'd be willing to take you through it, step-by-step.
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > --- On Thu, 1/5/12, crunchie_nuts <andrewhdonaldson@> wrote:
> 
> > 
> 
> > From: crunchie_nuts <andrewhdonaldson@>
> 
> > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
> 
> > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> 
> > Date: Thursday, January 5, 2012, 12:38 AM
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> >  
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> >   
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> >     
> 
> >       
> 
> >       
> 
> >       Well, I have tried it in the past but it never seemed to work for me.  Maybe I was doing it wrong.
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > It would be great if you could post some evidence of your own results, such as intonation charts showing before and after tuning, such as the type Fred Wyman used in his thesis.
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@> wrote:
> 
> > 
> 
> > >
> 
> > 
> 
> > > I trust the total silence in the group to mean you are all busy trying this out perhaps.  The method I use, which is similar to that which Paul uses, I got for free from Arthur Benade.  It is printed right there in his published papers from the 1970's, and since I first started reading him 4 years ago, I have heard the key phrases tossed back and forth on the various saxophone forums and seen them quoted in many a doctoral thesis, absent of any
> 
> > 
> 
> > >  apparent comprehension as to what they actually mean in their practical application.  I'll paraphrase:
> 
> > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > > 1. Saxophone players should be as meticulous in matching their mouthpieces to their horns as oboist/bassoonists are in fiddling with their reeds.  That sounds nice.  We know about volume
> 
> > 
> 
> > >  and frs/frequency, but did anyone ever bother to go see just what it is that oboists/bassoonists actually do?   There must be something there we can learn from.  I don't see any orchestras tuning up to the soprano saxophone's concert A.
> 
> > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > > 2. That meticulousness includes tweaking the volume/frs to get the optimal results.  That means that once we got into the ballpark using the numbers, we abandon them to score.
> 
> > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > > Benade's oboe reed balancing routine boils down to this when related to the saxophone:
> 
> > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > > We are well aware of the volume induced tendencies of the conical air column - how at a 1/1 volume ratio and lower, they induce sharpness in the upper registers, and a bit lower than 1/1, those tendencies lessen and then become inverted.  We are also aware that a large chambered mouthpiece increases those tendencies in the upper registers compared to a small chambered
> 
> > 
> 
> > >  mouthpiece - the frs of the two are different.  To eliminate the conical air column effects for the played instrument we must abandon the A=440 pitch center for a moment, and anchor the mouthpiece volume (i.e. where it is placed on the cork)  so that the low end of our overblown tube (D1/D2) has optimal resonance alignment - it must produce a perfect octave.  Easy.  Pull out (or push in) until D1/D2 is a perfect octave - and here is where "meticulous" comes into play.  Tune the octave using a tuner so that the center of your unavoidable pitch variations is at 0 cents deviation.  One uses a steady, normal embouchure making absolutely no adjustments. No adjustments.  No adjustments.  We are halfway there.
> 
> > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > > Now, unless we had a perfect mouthpiece to start with, our pitch center is off, as is the resonance alignment of the short end of the overblown tube
> 
> > 
> 
> > >  (C#2/C#3).   Whatever we do to fix this, we must maintain the initial, optimal mouthpiece volume alignment (Not the place on the cork, but the perfect D1/D2 octave).  Realize that the initial "pulling out/pushing in" adjustment changed two aspects of the mouthpiece, the volume AND the length, for a pretty gross change in the stretching of the scale. 
> 
> > 
> 
> > >  We now make gradual adjustments to the length alone, or frs - the pitch tendency of the chamber type in the upper registers, using the shortest overblown tube as our reference.  Making the chamber fatter while maintaining volume, raises the overall played pitch of the mouthpiece, affecting the upper register more than the lower.  Making the chamber narrower while maintaining volume lowers it.  
> 
> > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > > Between repeated steps of checking the D1/D2 octave for perfection and then making the appropriate chamber geometry adjustment, raising or lowering the pitch to improve the C#2/C#3 octave, the short tube will come into perfect alignment (same 0 cent deviation at center of pitch wobble) .  With both ends of the basic tube perfectly aligned, the ends (bell tones/palm keys) and in-between (middle register) take care of themselves.  The entire scale is within 5 cents of flat, perfectly situated in the A=440 pitch center. 
> 
> > 
> 
> > >  
> 
> > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > > One experiences a new playing and listening sensation - one voice - no perception of register changes.  The sound gets a silvery "sheen" to it as the horn resonates more perfectly with the cosmos - really.  Now, after you experience this, from both the playing and listening standpoint, it becomes addictive.  You immediately notice the conical air column effect qualities that you left behind, to varied degrees, in the playing of others - everywhere (almost - some got lucky or were smart with their setup).  It sticks out like wrong notes in Mozart.  You can even start listening to the silvery sheen evenness more than the notes they are playing, as you realize that hearing the conical air column effects is tiring, even annoying.
> 
> > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > > IMO, this is the future of saxophone development - refinement.  
> 
> > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > > --- On Wed, 1/4/12, MartinMods <lancelotburt@>
> 
> > 
> 
> > >  wrote:
> 
> > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > > From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@>
> 
> > 
> 
> > > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
> 
> > 
> 
> > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> 
> > 
> 
> > > Date: Wednesday, January 4, 2012, 2:46 AM
> 
> > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > >  
> 
> > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > >   
> 
> > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > >     
> 
> > 
> 
> > >       
> 
> > 
> 
> > >       
> 
> > 
> 
> > >       The formula for doing the same is there.  Take advantage of it or not, as you will.
> 
> > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > > --- On Wed, 1/4/12, kymarto123@ <kymarto123@> wrote:
> 
> > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > > From: kymarto123@ <kymarto123@>
> 
> > 
> 
> > > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
> 
> > 
> 
> > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> 
> > 
> 
> > > Date: Wednesday, January 4, 2012, 2:42 AM
> 
> > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > >  
> 
> > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > >     
> 
> > 
> 
> > >       
> 
> > 
> 
> > >       
> 
> > 
> 
> > >       Well, at least we have your word for it.
> 
> > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > > --- MartinMods <lancelotburt@> wrote:
> 
> > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > > > Not in this model.  It's just a cavity.  Notice the range of the plotted cavity ratios.  At 1/1 the tendency is toward sharpness in the upper registers.  As you increase volume, the curve becomes flat, and then inverse.  A perfectly matched mouthpiece juggles the effects of the conical tube, those of the mouthpiece style, the reed, and the player, within a narrow band in this area.  The results are amazing.  
> 
> > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > > > Make 5 mouthpieces that solve 5 individual player's individual horn/mouthpiece intonation problems, and you will have a good working understanding of what is going on.  
> 
> > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > > > I've lost count.
> 
> > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > > >
> 
> > 
> 
> > >
> 
> >
>

Not to appear picky,  but what Nederveen actually says in his book, word-for-word is:

"For at least two of the three soprano saxophones, theory predicts that correct tuning for both registers seems to be unattainiable--and it is indeed so. Many soprano saxophones are seriously out of tune. Instrument makers, well aware of this, tried to do away with at least some of the sharpness of the upper register by a device for improving one note, B5...<yada yada yada>...THe best cure for the soprano troubles, as it evolves from the present investigations, would be to make the bore purely conical, reduce the truncation and leave out the above mentioned coupling for B5..."

I would certainly be interested in Nederveen's answer to you confirming that your routine "works". Please don't get me wrong. We are on the same page as concerns the general theory, but I remain skeptical of the quality of result you report.

--- On Sat, 2012/1/7, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:















 
 



  


    
      
      
      Toby,

What Nederveen actually states in his book is that he should have optimized the mouthpiece to each saxophone, but he didn't bother.  His results are then typical of various horns played with various degree of mouthpiece error - all over the place.  In my personal correspondence with him on the matter, he confirmed that this method I describe, works.  

Steve,

Oh.  Is that what you tell Paul when he adjusts a mouthpiece?  It's the same thing.





--- On Sat, 1/7/12, Steve Goodson <saxgourmet@...> wrote:

From: Steve Goodson <saxgourmet@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto
 mouthpieces
To: "MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com" <MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Saturday, January 7, 2012, 12:41 AM








 



    
      
      
      Thank you, Toby....we're on the same page here....the claims made are ridiculous, and fly in the face of everything generally known BY PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY DO THIS FOR A LIVING....the assertions are bogus on many, many fronts.......this is simply not the way it works.....

Sent from my iPad
STEVE  GOODSONSaxophone Guru and VisionaryNew Orleanswww.nationofmusic.com


On Jan 6, 2012, at 6:31 PM, kymarto123@... wrote:






 



    
      
      
      Sorry for the empty post.



Nederveen states that on altos and sops, the geometry of the tube dictates that the upper second register will go sharp, and that on sops at least, it is even theoretically impossible to get that area in tune. He mentions that manufacturers are well aware of the problem, and cites Selmer's hack with the little ring key up there in response to the problem.



So while I have no doubt that there are certain advantages to be gained from mouthpiece volume/resonance optimization, I am somewhat allergic to the extent of the results you claim, based on the fact that saxes are such imperfect beasts. It's just not possible to straighten all that out and get all the stars to align with a bit of mpc alteration or thin resos or whatever.



While it profits you to deride my experience both in playing and in mpc alteration, I have confidence that it is good enough in both areas to be able to judge intonational issues accurately. 



I have nowhere near the experience or expertise of Steve in any area of the sax, but I have to concur. I don't buy it. Nor have I seen any independent verification of the results you claim.



I remain open-minded, but skeptical.



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

> Toby,

> 

> You may make all the assumptions you like, without actually completing the routine once yourself, but D and C# are chosen for precise acoustical reasons (see below if you care to read the explanation).  I have performed it extensively.  Using D and C# provide the best results in every case.  

> 

> Why D and C#:  Completing the routine, making appropriate geometric alterations to the mouthpiece as results dictate, using any of the notes you suggest would have excellent results, compared to not doing anything.  However, as to D and C#, note again the volume deviation curves in Nederveen.  Going in the direction of excess volume, the line would be flat, before it became inverted.  If Bb1 is used to anchor the correct volume, the entire rest of the scale will suffer the effects of the 1/1 volume ratio - increasing sharpness exponentially proportional to tube length and mode.  If D is used, then:

> 

> 1. D will no longer be a problem note.  Perfectly aligned resonances insure that.

> 2. The actual volume of the mouthpiece will be somewhat in excess of the 1/1 ratio minimizing the effects of the conical air column for the rest of the scale - we get a very flat frequency response.

> 3. The bell tones which are not overblown for the normal playing range are tuned via key height (if required).

> 3. Adjusting C# is equivalent to adjusting Benade's frs.  B works, C works, but C# works the best - provided you can play C# in the first place.

> 4. The palm keys are adjusted (if needed) via key height.

> 

> If you don't feel comfortable playing C#, then use B.  I have had excellent results with that.  The more developed players will find C# to be the best note however.

> 

> 

> 

> 

> --- On Fri, 1/6/12, kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...> wrote:

> 

> From: kymarto123@... <kymarto123@...>

> Subject: Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces

> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com

> Date: Friday, January 6, 2012, 4:56 PM

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

>  

> 

> 

> 

>   

> 

> 

>     

>       

>       

>       I agree with Steve on this. If the idea is to compare long and short tube notes, then much better to choose Bb as the long tube and overblow to Bb2. That's a sight longer-tube than D.

> 

> 

> 

> If you read Nederveen, you'll also see that C#3 is a whanky note--particularly on sop--for various acoustic reasons. It would probably be wiser to go with C 

> 

> or even B. 

> 

> 

> 

> Possibly even wiser would be to go Bb1/Bb2 overblown for long tube, then Bb2 overblown/Bb2 to get an idea of long vs. short , then Bb2/Bb3 for short tube register relationship. Bb is a much more stable note than C#, and actually you have a bigger difference in long/ short tube: Bb-Bb is an octave; D-C# a semitone less.

> 

> 

> 

> And also, that way you stay on the same note across the test, so it all might be aurally clearer.

> 

> 

> 

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

> 

> > I think it very, very odd that D was selected as a reference pitch.....this is a very unstable note on saxophones

> 

> > 

> 

> > 

> 

> > 

> 

> > On Jan 6, 2012, at 10:15 AM, Keith Bradbury wrote:

> 

> > 

> 

> > > 

> 

> > > ...and after making the chamber larger, you then would push the mouthpiece in to get back (near) the original volume established in the D1/D2 pitch mathching.  Correct?

> 

> > > 

> 

> > > From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>

> 

> > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com

> 

> > > Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2012 9:48 PM

> 

> > > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces

> 

> > > 

> 

> > > Find the place on the cork that produces a perfect D1/D2 octave, regardless of how that relates to A=440.  Leave the mouthpiece there.  Then test the C#2/C#3 octave.  The degree to which the C#'s are out of tune to A=440 and each other is the degree of acoustical mismatch between your mouthpiece and your horn.  At that position, your C#'s are flat, so you need to somehow make your chamber or throat larger in diameter, or you need a new mouthpiece that is a closer match - has a fatter chamber.  Enlarging the throat makes the tone somewhat broader or less focused.  One can regain that focus with baffle work.

> 

> > > 

> 

> > > 

> 

> > > 

> 

> > > --- On Fri, 1/6/12, John <john_w_price33@...> wrote:

> 

> > > 

> 

> > > From: John <john_w_price33@...>

> 

> > > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces

> 

> > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com

> 

> > > Date: Friday, January 6, 2012, 1:38 AM

> 

> > > 

> 

> > > 

> 

> > > I tried it. D1,D2 relationship good.....I had to pull out the mouthpiece quite a bit. C#2,C#3.....works closer to my usual tuning spot. So does this mean I need a larger chamber mouthpiece to get D1,D2 relationship occuring with a shorter overall tuning length?

> 

> > > 

> 

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

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > I'd be willing to take you through it, step-by-step.

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > --- On Thu, 1/5/12, crunchie_nuts <andrewhdonaldson@...> wrote:

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > From: crunchie_nuts <andrewhdonaldson@...>

> 

> > > > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces

> 

> > > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com

> 

> > > > Date: Thursday, January 5, 2012, 12:38 AM

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > Â

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > Well, I have tried it in the past but it never seemed to work for me. Maybe I was doing it wrong.

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > It would be great if you could post some evidence of your own results, such as intonation charts showing before and after tuning, such as the type Fred Wyman used in his thesis.

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

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

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > I trust the total silence in the group to mean you are all busy trying this out perhaps.  The method I use, which is similar to that which Paul uses, I got for free from Arthur Benade.  It is printed right there in his published papers from the 1970's, and since I first started reading him 4 years ago, I have heard the key phrases tossed back and forth on the various saxophone forums and seen them quoted in many a doctoral thesis, absent of any

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > apparent comprehension as to what they actually mean in their practical application.  I'll paraphrase:

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > 1. Saxophone players should be as meticulous in matching their mouthpieces to their horns as oboist/bassoonists are in fiddling with their reeds.  That sounds nice.  We know about volume

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > and frs/frequency, but did anyone ever bother to go see just what it is that oboists/bassoonists actually do?   There must be something there we can learn from.  I don't see any orchestras tuning up to the soprano saxophone's concert A.

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > 2. That meticulousness includes tweaking the volume/frs to get the optimal results.  That means that once we got into the ballpark using the numbers, we abandon them to score.

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > Benade's oboe reed balancing routine boils down to this when related to the saxophone:

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > We are well aware of the volume induced tendencies of the conical air column - how at a 1/1 volume ratio and lower, they induce sharpness in the upper registers, and a bit lower than 1/1, those tendencies lessen and then become inverted.  We are also aware that a large chambered mouthpiece increases those tendencies in the upper registers compared to a small chambered

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > mouthpiece - the frs of the two are different.  To eliminate the conical air column effects for the played instrument we must abandon the A=440 pitch center for a moment, and anchor the mouthpiece volume (i.e. where it is placed on the cork)  so that the low end of our overblown tube (D1/D2) has optimal resonance alignment - it must produce a perfect octave.  Easy.  Pull out (or push in) until D1/D2 is a perfect octave - and here is where "meticulous" comes into play.  Tune the octave using a tuner so that the center of your unavoidable pitch variations is at 0 cents deviation.  One uses a steady, normal embouchure making absolutely no adjustments. No adjustments.  No adjustments.  We are halfway there.

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > Now, unless we had a perfect mouthpiece to start with, our pitch center is off, as is the resonance alignment of the short end of the overblown tube

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > (C#2/C#3).   Whatever we do to fix this, we must maintain the initial, optimal mouthpiece volume alignment (Not the place on the cork, but the perfect D1/D2 octave).  Realize that the initial "pulling out/pushing in" adjustment changed two aspects of the mouthpiece, the volume AND the length, for a pretty gross change in the stretching of the scale.ÂÂ

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > We now make gradual adjustments to the length alone, or frs - the pitch tendency of the chamber type in the upper registers, using the shortest overblown tube as our reference.  Making the chamber fatter while maintaining volume, raises the overall played pitch of the mouthpiece, affecting the upper register more than the lower.  Making the chamber narrower while maintaining volume lowers it.ÂÂ

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > Between repeated steps of checking the D1/D2 octave for perfection and then making the appropriate chamber geometry adjustment, raising or lowering the pitch to improve the C#2/C#3 octave, the short tube will come into perfect alignment (same 0 cent deviation at center of pitch wobble) .  With both ends of the basic tube perfectly aligned, the ends (bell tones/palm keys) and in-between (middle register) take care of themselves.  The entire scale is within 5 cents of flat, perfectly situated in the A=440 pitch center.ÂÂ

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > One experiences a new playing and listening sensation - one voice - no perception of register changes.  The sound gets a silvery "sheen" to it as the horn resonates more perfectly with the cosmos - really.  Now, after you experience this, from both the playing and listening standpoint, it becomes addictive.  You immediately notice the conical air column effect qualities that you left behind, to varied degrees, in the playing of others - everywhere (almost - some got lucky or were smart with their setup).  It sticks out like wrong notes in Mozart.  You can even start listening to the silvery sheen evenness more than the notes they are playing, as you realize that hearing the conical air column effects is tiring, even annoying.

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > IMO, this is the future of saxophone development - refinement.ÂÂ

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > --- On Wed, 1/4/12, MartinMods <lancelotburt@>

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > wrote:

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@>

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > Date: Wednesday, January 4, 2012, 2:46 AM

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > ÂÂ

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > The formula for doing the same is there.  Take advantage of it or not, as you will.

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > --- On Wed, 1/4/12, kymarto123@ <kymarto123@> wrote:

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > From: kymarto123@ <kymarto123@>

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > Date: Wednesday, January 4, 2012, 2:42 AM

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > ÂÂ

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > Well, at least we have your word for it.

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

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

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > > Not in this model.  It's just a cavity.  Notice the range of the plotted cavity ratios.  At 1/1 the tendency is toward sharpness in the upper registers.  As you increase volume, the curve becomes flat, and then inverse.  A perfectly matched mouthpiece juggles the effects of the conical tube, those of the mouthpiece style, the reed, and the player, within a narrow band in this area.  The results are amazing.ÂÂ

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > > Make 5 mouthpieces that solve 5 individual player's individual horn/mouthpiece intonation problems, and you will have a good working understanding of what is going on.ÂÂ

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > > I've lost count.

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > > >

> 

> > > >

> 

> > > 

> 

> > > 

> 

> > > 

> 

> > 

> 

> > 

> 

> 

> 

>     

>      

> 

>     

>     

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

>   

> 

> 

> 

> 



    
     

    









    
     








    
     

    
    


 



  

I have fiddled with this over the years, but not while focusing on D1/D2 and C#2/C#3.  I plan to try your procedure in more detail.
 
I think in addition to all the other prerequisites, would be embouchure considerations.  Or, do you think the procedure helps compensate for a player who is using an embouchure with more or less than ideal support?  Is a classical mouthpiece pitch target embouchure best or is using a looser jazz embouchure OK if it is consistent?
 
I'm also concerned that making the D1/D2 relationship in tune might make the E2 and F2 notes flat (more than 5 cents).  Most saxes are said to have a sharp D2 due to compromises made in the location of the lower octave key placement.  I think making the C#2 to D2 break more in tune is a great thing to target.  But it may be better to let D2 go a little sharp so that E2 and F1 do not go too flat.


________________________________
From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Friday, January 6, 2012 1:53 PM
Subject: Re: Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces

  
Correct.  The approximate volume will remain the same.  The mouthpiece gets shorter.  Adjustments should be made a little at a time.  Since the effects of volume and length overlap, the exact volume that produces the perfect D1/D2 will change slightly.  Therefore the perfect octave is the point of reference, not actual volume.

--- On Fri, 1/6/12, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:


>From: Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...>
>Subject: Re: Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
>To: "MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com" <MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com>
>Date: Friday, January 6, 2012, 4:15 PM
>
>
>  
>...and after making the chamber larger, you then would push the mouthpiece in to get back (near) the original volume established in the D1/D2 pitch mathching.  Correct?
>
>________________________________
>From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
>To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
>Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2012 9:48 PM
>Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
>
>  
>Find the place on the cork that produces a perfect D1/D2 octave, regardless of how that relates to A=440.  Leave the mouthpiece there.  Then test the C#2/C#3 octave.  The degree to which the C#'s are out of tune to A=440 and each other is the degree of acoustical mismatch between your mouthpiece and your horn.  At that position, your C#'s are flat, so you need to somehow make your chamber or throat larger in diameter, or you need a new mouthpiece that is a closer match - has a fatter chamber.  Enlarging the throat makes the tone somewhat broader or less focused.  One can regain that focus with baffle work.   
>
>
>
>--- On Fri, 1/6/12, John <john_w_price33@...> wrote:
>
>
>>From: John <john_w_price33@hotmail.com>
>>Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
>>To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>>Date: Friday, January 6, 2012, 1:38 AM
>>
>>
>>  
>>I tried it. D1,D2 relationship good.....I had to pull out the mouthpiece quite a bit. C#2,C#3.....works closer to my usual tuning spot. So does this mean I need a larger chamber mouthpiece to get D1,D2 relationship occuring with a shorter overall tuning length?--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:>> I'd be willing to take you through it, step-by-step.> > > --- On Thu, 1/5/12, crunchie_nuts <andrewhdonaldson@...> wrote:> > From: crunchie_nuts <andrewhdonaldson@...>> Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com> Date: Thursday, January 5, 2012, 12:38 AM> > > > > > > > >  > > > > > > > > > > Well, I have tried it in the past but it never seemed to work for me. Maybe I was doing it wrong.> > > > It would be great if you could post some evidence of your own results, such as intonation charts showing before and after tuning, such as the type Fred Wyman used
 in his thesis.> > > > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@> wrote:> > >> > > I trust the total silence in the group to mean you are all busy trying this out perhaps.  The method I use, which is similar to that which Paul uses, I got for free from Arthur Benade.  It is printed right there in his published papers from the 1970's, and since I first started reading him 4 years ago, I have heard the key phrases tossed back and forth on the various saxophone forums and seen them quoted in many a doctoral thesis, absent of any> > > apparent comprehension as to what they actually mean in their practical application.  I'll paraphrase:> > > > > > 1. Saxophone players should be as meticulous in matching their mouthpieces to their horns as oboist/bassoonists are in fiddling with their reeds.  That sounds nice.  We know about volume> > > and frs/frequency, but did anyone ever bother to go see just
 what it is that oboists/bassoonists actually do?   There must be something there we can learn from.  I don't see any orchestras tuning up to the soprano saxophone's concert A.> > > > > > 2. That meticulousness includes tweaking the volume/frs to get the optimal results.  That means that once we got into the ballpark using the numbers, we abandon them to score.> > > > > > Benade's oboe reed balancing routine boils down to this when related to the saxophone:> > > > > > We are well aware of the volume induced tendencies of the conical air column - how at a 1/1 volume ratio and lower, they induce sharpness in the upper registers, and a bit lower than 1/1, those tendencies lessen and then become inverted.  We are also aware that a large chambered mouthpiece increases those tendencies in the upper registers compared to a small chambered> > > mouthpiece - the frs of the two are different.  To eliminate the
 conical air column effects for the played instrument we must abandon the A=440 pitch center for a moment, and anchor the mouthpiece volume (i.e. where it is placed on the cork)  so that the low end of our overblown tube (D1/D2) has optimal resonance alignment - it must produce a perfect octave.  Easy.  Pull out (or push in) until D1/D2 is a perfect octave - and here is where "meticulous" comes into play.  Tune the octave using a tuner so that the center of your unavoidable pitch variations is at 0 cents deviation.  One uses a steady, normal embouchure making absolutely no adjustments. No adjustments.  No adjustments.  We are halfway there.> > > > > > Now, unless we had a perfect mouthpiece to start with, our pitch center is off, as is the resonance alignment of the short end of the overblown tube> > > (C#2/C#3).   Whatever we do to fix this, we must maintain the initial, optimal
 mouthpiece volume alignment (Not the place on the cork, but the perfect D1/D2 octave).  Realize that the initial "pulling out/pushing in" adjustment changed two aspects of the mouthpiece, the volume AND the length, for a pretty gross change in the stretching of the scale. > > > We now make gradual adjustments to the length alone, or frs - the pitch tendency of the chamber type in the upper registers, using the shortest overblown tube as our reference.  Making the chamber fatter while maintaining volume, raises the overall played pitch of the mouthpiece, affecting the upper register more than the lower.  Making the chamber narrower while maintaining volume lowers it.  > > > > > > Between repeated steps of checking the D1/D2 octave for perfection and then making the appropriate chamber geometry adjustment, raising or lowering the pitch to improve the C#2/C#3 octave, the short tube will come into perfect alignment
 (same 0 cent deviation at center of pitch wobble) .  With both ends of the basic tube perfectly aligned, the ends (bell tones/palm keys) and in-between (middle register) take care of themselves.  The entire scale is within 5 cents of flat, perfectly situated in the A=440 pitch center. > > > > > > > > > One experiences a new playing and listening sensation - one voice - no perception of register changes.  The sound gets a silvery "sheen" to it as the horn resonates more perfectly with the cosmos - really.  Now, after you experience this, from both the playing and listening standpoint, it becomes addictive.  You immediately notice the conical air column effect qualities that you left behind, to varied degrees, in the playing of others - everywhere (almost - some got lucky or were smart with their setup).  It sticks out like wrong notes in Mozart.  You can even start listening to the silvery
 sheen evenness more than the notes they are playing, as you realize that hearing the conical air column effects is tiring, even annoying.> > > > > > IMO, this is the future of saxophone development - refinement.  > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Wed, 1/4/12, MartinMods <lancelotburt@>> > > wrote:> > > > > > From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@>> > > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces> > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com> > > Date: Wednesday, January 4, 2012, 2:46 AM> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The formula for doing the same is there.  Take advantage of it or not, as you will.> > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Wed, 1/4/12, kymarto123@ <kymarto123@> wrote:> > > > > > From: kymarto123@ <kymarto123@>> > > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces> > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com> > >
 Date: Wednesday, January 4, 2012, 2:42 AM> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, at least we have your word for it.> > > > > > > > > > > > --- MartinMods <lancelotburt@> wrote:> > > > > > > Not in this model.  It's just a cavity.  Notice the range of the plotted cavity ratios.  At 1/1 the tendency is toward sharpness in the upper registers.  As you increase volume, the curve becomes flat, and then inverse.  A perfectly matched mouthpiece juggles the effects of the conical tube, those of the mouthpiece style, the reed, and the player, within a narrow band in this area.  The results are amazing.  > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Make 5 mouthpieces that solve 5 individual player's individual horn/mouthpiece intonation problems, and you will have a good working understanding of what is going on.  > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've
 lost count.> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>  

When Lance and I discussed this in the past, we talked about overblowing low D to hit the octave, since that won't then involve you in register vent effects. A looser embouchure increases effective mpc volume. The procedure should work as long as you do not change embouchure when changing registers. Lance, I'm sure, will elaborate and correct me if I am wrong.
--- Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:
> I have fiddled with this over the years, but not while focusing on D1/D2 and C#2/C#3.  I plan to try your procedure in more detail.
>  
> I think in addition to all the other prerequisites, would be embouchure considerations.  Or, do you think the procedure helps compensate for a player who is using an embouchure with more or less than ideal support?  Is a classical mouthpiece pitch target embouchure best or is using a looser jazz embouchure OK if it is consistent?
>  
> I'm also concerned that making the D1/D2 relationship in tune might make the E2 and F2 notes flat (more than 5 cents).  Most saxes are said to have a sharp D2 due to compromises made in the location of the lower octave key placement.  I think making the C#2 to D2 break more in tune is a great thing to target.  But it may be better to let D2 go a little sharp so that E2 and F1 do not go too flat.
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@yahoo.com>
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Friday, January 6, 2012 1:53 PM
> Subject: Re: Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
> 
>   
> Correct.  The approximate volume will remain the same.  The mouthpiece gets shorter.  Adjustments should be made a little at a time.  Since the effects of volume and length overlap, the exact volume that produces the perfect D1/D2 will change slightly.  Therefore the perfect octave is the point of reference, not actual volume.
> 
> --- On Fri, 1/6/12, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:
> 
> 
> >From: Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...>
> >Subject: Re: Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
> >To: "MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com" <MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com>
> >Date: Friday, January 6, 2012, 4:15 PM
> >
> >
> >  
> >...and after making the chamber larger, you then would push the mouthpiece in to get back (near) the original volume established in the D1/D2 pitch mathching.  Correct?
> >
> >________________________________
> >From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
> >To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
> >Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2012 9:48 PM
> >Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
> >
> >  
> >Find the place on the cork that produces a perfect D1/D2 octave, regardless of how that relates to A=440.  Leave the mouthpiece there.  Then test the C#2/C#3 octave.  The degree to which the C#'s are out of tune to A=440 and each other is the degree of acoustical mismatch between your mouthpiece and your horn.  At that position, your C#'s are flat, so you need to somehow make your chamber or throat larger in diameter, or you need a new mouthpiece that is a closer match - has a fatter chamber.  Enlarging the throat makes the tone somewhat broader or less focused.  One can regain that focus with baffle work.   
> >
> >
> >
> >--- On Fri, 1/6/12, John <john_w_price33@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>From: John <john_w_price33@...>
> >>Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
> >>To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> >>Date: Friday, January 6, 2012, 1:38 AM
> >>
> >>
> >>  
> >>I tried it. D1,D2 relationship good.....I had to pull out the mouthpiece quite a bit. C#2,C#3.....works closer to my usual tuning spot. So does this mean I need a larger chamber mouthpiece to get D1,D2 relationship occuring with a shorter overall tuning length?--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:>> I'd be willing to take you through it, step-by-step.> > > --- On Thu, 1/5/12, crunchie_nuts <andrewhdonaldson@...> wrote:> > From: crunchie_nuts <andrewhdonaldson@...>> Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com> Date: Thursday, January 5, 2012, 12:38 AM> > > > > > > > >  > > > > > > > > > > Well, I have tried it in the past but it never seemed to work for me. Maybe I was doing it wrong.> > > > It would be great if you could post some evidence of your own results, such as intonation charts showing before and after tuning, such as the type Fred Wyman
 used
>  in his thesis.> > > > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@> wrote:> > >> > > I trust the total silence in the group to mean you are all busy trying this out perhaps.  The method I use, which is similar to that which Paul uses, I got for free from Arthur Benade.  It is printed right there in his published papers from the 1970's, and since I first started reading him 4 years ago, I have heard the key phrases tossed back and forth on the various saxophone forums and seen them quoted in many a doctoral thesis, absent of any> > > apparent comprehension as to what they actually mean in their practical application.  I'll paraphrase:> > > > > > 1. Saxophone players should be as meticulous in matching their mouthpieces to their horns as oboist/bassoonists are in fiddling with their reeds.  That sounds nice.  We know about volume> > > and frs/frequency, but did anyone ever bother to go see just
>  what it is that oboists/bassoonists actually do?   There must be something there we can learn from.  I don't see any orchestras tuning up to the soprano saxophone's concert A.> > > > > > 2. That meticulousness includes tweaking the volume/frs to get the optimal results.  That means that once we got into the ballpark using the numbers, we abandon them to score.> > > > > > Benade's oboe reed balancing routine boils down to this when related to the saxophone:> > > > > > We are well aware of the volume induced tendencies of the conical air column - how at a 1/1 volume ratio and lower, they induce sharpness in the upper registers, and a bit lower than 1/1, those tendencies lessen and then become inverted.  We are also aware that a large chambered mouthpiece increases those tendencies in the upper registers compared to a small chambered> > > mouthpiece - the frs of the two are different.  To eliminate the
>  conical air column effects for the played instrument we must abandon the A=440 pitch center for a moment, and anchor the mouthpiece volume (i.e. where it is placed on the cork)  so that the low end of our overblown tube (D1/D2) has optimal resonance alignment - it must produce a perfect octave.  Easy.  Pull out (or push in) until D1/D2 is a perfect octave - and here is where "meticulous" comes into play.  Tune the octave using a tuner so that the center of your unavoidable pitch variations is at 0 cents deviation.  One uses a steady, normal embouchure making absolutely no adjustments. No adjustments.  No adjustments.  We are halfway there.> > > > > > Now, unless we had a perfect mouthpiece to start with, our pitch center is off, as is the resonance alignment of the short end of the overblown tube> > > (C#2/C#3).   Whatever we do to fix this, we must maintain the initial, optimal
>  mouthpiece volume alignment (Not the place on the cork, but the perfect D1/D2 octave).  Realize that the initial "pulling out/pushing in" adjustment changed two aspects of the mouthpiece, the volume AND the length, for a pretty gross change in the stretching of the scale. > > > We now make gradual adjustments to the length alone, or frs - the pitch tendency of the chamber type in the upper registers, using the shortest overblown tube as our reference.  Making the chamber fatter while maintaining volume, raises the overall played pitch of the mouthpiece, affecting the upper register more than the lower.  Making the chamber narrower while maintaining volume lowers it.  > > > > > > Between repeated steps of checking the D1/D2 octave for perfection and then making the appropriate chamber geometry adjustment, raising or lowering the pitch to improve the C#2/C#3 octave, the short tube will come into perfect alignment
>  (same 0 cent deviation at center of pitch wobble) .  With both ends of the basic tube perfectly aligned, the ends (bell tones/palm keys) and in-between (middle register) take care of themselves.  The entire scale is within 5 cents of flat, perfectly situated in the A=440 pitch center. > > > > > > > > > One experiences a new playing and listening sensation - one voice - no perception of register changes.  The sound gets a silvery "sheen" to it as the horn resonates more perfectly with the cosmos - really.  Now, after you experience this, from both the playing and listening standpoint, it becomes addictive.  You immediately notice the conical air column effect qualities that you left behind, to varied degrees, in the playing of others - everywhere (almost - some got lucky or were smart with their setup).  It sticks out like wrong notes in Mozart.  You can even start listening to the silvery
>  sheen evenness more than the notes they are playing, as you realize that hearing the conical air column effects is tiring, even annoying.> > > > > > IMO, this is the future of saxophone development - refinement.  > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Wed, 1/4/12, MartinMods <lancelotburt@>> > > wrote:> > > > > > From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@>> > > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces> > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com> > > Date: Wednesday, January 4, 2012, 2:46 AM> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The formula for doing the same is there.  Take advantage of it or not, as you will.> > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Wed, 1/4/12, kymarto123@ <kymarto123@> wrote:> > > > > > From: kymarto123@ <kymarto123@>> > > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces> > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com> > >
>  Date: Wednesday, January 4, 2012, 2:42 AM> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, at least we have your word for it.> > > > > > > > > > > > --- MartinMods <lancelotburt@> wrote:> > > > > > > Not in this model.  It's just a cavity.  Notice the range of the plotted cavity ratios.  At 1/1 the tendency is toward sharpness in the upper registers.  As you increase volume, the curve becomes flat, and then inverse.  A perfectly matched mouthpiece juggles the effects of the conical tube, those of the mouthpiece style, the reed, and the player, within a narrow band in this area.  The results are amazing.  > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Make 5 mouthpieces that solve 5 individual player's individual horn/mouthpiece intonation problems, and you will have a good working understanding of what is going on.  > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've
>  lost count.> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>  
> 

This html message parsed with html2text ---------------------------\\--- kwbradbury@yahoo.com wrote: From: Keith Bradbury  To: "MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com"  Subject: Re: Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2012 03:51:15 -0800 (PST) I have fiddled with this over the years, but not while focusing on D1/D2 and C#2/C#3. I plan to try your procedure in more detail. I think in addition to all the other prerequisites, would be embouchure considerations. Or, do you think the procedure helps compensate for a player who is using an embouchure with more or less than ideal support? Is a classical mouthpiece pitch target embouchure best or is using a looser jazz embouchure OK if it is consistent? I'm also concerned that making the D1/D2 relationship in tune might make the E2 and F2 notes flat (more than 5 cents). Most saxes are said to have a sharp D2 due to compromises made in the location of the lower octave key placement. I think making the C#2 to D2 break more in tune is a great thing to target. But it may be better to let D2 go a little sharp so that E2 and F1 do not go too flat. **From:** MartinMods  **To:** MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com **Sent:** Friday, January 6, 2012 1:53 PM **Subject:** Re: Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces Correct. The approximate volume will remain the same. The mouthpiece gets shorter. Adjustments should be made a little at a time. Since the effects of volume and length overlap, the exact volume that produces the perfect D1/D2 will change slightly. Therefore the perfect octave is the point of reference, not actual volume. \\--- On **Fri, 1/6/12, Keith Bradbury _< kwbradbury@yahoo.com>_** wrote: > > From: Keith Bradbury  > Subject: Re: Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces > To: "MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com"  > Date: Friday, January 6, 2012, 4:15 PM > > ...and after making the chamber larger, you then would push the > mouthpiece in to get back (near) the original volume established in the > D1/D2 pitch mathching. Correct? **From:** MartinMods >  > **To:** MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com > **Sent:** Thursday, January 5, 2012 9:48 PM > **Subject:** Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces > | Find the place on the cork that produces a perfect D1/D2 octave, regardless of how that relates to A=440. Leave the mouthpiece there. Then test the C#2/C#3 octave. The degree to which the C#'s are out of tune to A=440 and each other is the degree of acoustical mismatch between your mouthpiece and your horn. At that position, your C#'s are flat, so you need to somehow make your chamber or throat larger in diameter, or you need a new mouthpiece that is a closer match - has a fatter chamber. Enlarging the throat makes the tone somewhat broader or less focused. One can regain that focus with baffle work. > > > > \\--- On **Fri, 1/6/12, John _< john_w_price33@hotmail.com>_** wrote: > > >> > From: John  > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com > Date: Friday, January 6, 2012, 1:38 AM > > I tried it. D1,D2 relationship good.....I had to pull out the mouthpiece > quite a bit. C#2,C#3.....works closer to my usual tuning spot. So does this > mean I need a larger chamber mouthpiece to get D1,D2 relationship occuring > with a shorter overall tuning length?--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, > MartinMods  wrote:>> I'd be willing to take you through > it, step-by-step.> > > \\--- On Thu, 1/5/12, crunchie_nuts >  wrote:> > From: crunchie_nuts > > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces> To: > MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com> Date: Thursday, January 5, 2012, 12:38 AM> > > > > > > > > >  > > > > > > > > > > Well, I have tried it in the past but it > never seemed to work for me. Maybe I was doing it wrong.> > > > It would be > great if you could post some evidence of your own results, such as > intonation charts showing before and after tuning, such as the type Fred > Wyman used in his thesis.> > > > \\--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, > MartinMods  wrote:> > >> > > I trust the total silence in the > group to mean you are all busy trying this out perhaps. The method I > use, which is similar to that which Paul uses, I got for free from Arthur > Benade. It is printed right there in his published papers from the > 1970's, and since I first started reading him 4 years ago, I have heard the > key phrases tossed back and forth on the various saxophone forums and seen > them quoted in many a doctoral thesis, absent of any> > > apparent > comprehension as to what they actually mean in their practical > application. I'll paraphrase:> > > > > > 1\\. Saxophone players should be > as meticulous in matching their mouthpieces to their horns as > oboist/bassoonists are in fiddling with their reeds. That sounds > nice. We know about volume> > > and frs/frequency, but did anyone ever > bother to go see just what it is that oboists/bassoonists actually do? >  There must be something there we can learn from. I don't see any > orchestras tuning up to the soprano saxophone's concert A.> > > > > > 2\\. > That meticulousness includes tweaking the volume/frs to get the optimal > results. That means that once we got into the ballpark using the > numbers, we abandon them to score.> > > > > > Benade's oboe reed balancing > routine boils down to this when related to the saxophone:> > > > > > We are > well aware of the volume induced tendencies of the conical air column - how > at a 1/1 volume ratio and lower, they induce sharpness in the upper > registers, and a bit lower than 1/1, those tendencies lessen and then become > inverted. We are also aware that a large chambered mouthpiece increases > those tendencies in the upper registers compared to a small chambered> > > > mouthpiece - the frs of the two are different. To eliminate the conical > air column effects for the played instrument we must abandon the A=440 pitch > center for a moment, and anchor the mouthpiece volume (i.e. where it is > placed on the cork) so that the low end of our overblown tube (D1/D2) > has optimal resonance alignment - it must produce a perfect octave. > Easy. Pull out (or push in) until D1/D2 is a perfect octave - and here > is where "meticulous" comes into play. Tune the octave using a tuner so > that the center of your unavoidable pitch variations is at 0 cents > deviation. One uses a steady, normal embouchure making absolutely no > adjustments. No adjustments. No adjustments. We are halfway there.> > > > > > > Now, unless we had a perfect mouthpiece to start with, our pitch > center is off, as is the resonance alignment of the short end of the > overblown tube> > > (C#2/C#3).  Whatever we do to fix this, we must > maintain the initial, optimal mouthpiece volume alignment (Not the place on > the cork, but the perfect D1/D2 octave). Realize that the initial > "pulling out/pushing in" adjustment changed two aspects of the mouthpiece, > the volume AND the length, for a pretty gross change in the stretching of > the scale. > > > We now make gradual adjustments to the length alone, or > frs \\- the pitch tendency of the chamber type in the upper registers, using > the shortest overblown tube as our reference. Making the chamber fatter > while maintaining volume, raises the overall played pitch of the mouthpiece, > affecting the upper register more than the lower. Making the chamber > narrower while maintaining volume lowers it. > > > > > > Between > repeated steps of checking the D1/D2 octave for perfection and then making > the appropriate chamber geometry adjustment, raising or lowering the pitch > to improve the C#2/C#3 octave, the short tube will come into perfect > alignment (same 0 cent deviation at center of pitch wobble) . With both > ends of the basic tube perfectly aligned, the ends (bell tones/palm keys) > and in-between (middle register) take care of themselves. The entire > scale is within 5 cents of flat, perfectly situated in the A=440 pitch > center. > > > > > > > > > One experiences a new playing and listening > sensation - one voice - no perception of register changes. The sound > gets a silvery "sheen" to it as the horn resonates more perfectly with the > cosmos - really. Now, after you experience this, from both the playing > and listening standpoint, it becomes addictive. You immediately notice > the conical air column effect qualities that you left behind, to varied > degrees, in the playing of others - everywhere (almost - some got lucky or > were smart with their setup). It sticks out like wrong notes in > Mozart. You can even start listening to the silvery sheen evenness more > than the notes they are playing, as you realize that hearing the conical air > column effects is tiring, even annoying.> > > > > > IMO, this is the future > of saxophone development - refinement. > > > > > > > > > > > > \\--- On > Wed, 1/4/12, MartinMods > > > wrote:> > > > > > From: > MartinMods > > > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: > small chamber alto mouthpieces> > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com> > > > Date: Wednesday, January 4, 2012, 2:46 AM> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The formula for doing the same is there. Take advantage of it or > not, as you will.> > > > > > > > > > > > \\--- On Wed, 1/4/12, kymarto123@ >  wrote:> > > > > > From: kymarto123@ > > > > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces> > > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com> > > Date: Wednesday, January 4, 2012, > 2:42 AM> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, at least we have your word for it.> > > > > > > > > > > > > \\--- MartinMods  wrote:> > > > > > > Not in > this model. It's just a cavity. Notice the range of the plotted > cavity ratios. At 1/1 the tendency is toward sharpness in the upper > registers. As you increase volume, the curve becomes flat, and then > inverse. A perfectly matched mouthpiece juggles the effects of the > conical tube, those of the mouthpiece style, the reed, and the player, > within a narrow band in this area. The results are amazing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Make 5 mouthpieces that solve 5 individual player's > individual horn/mouthpiece intonation problems, and you will have a good > working understanding of what is going on. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've lost count.> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > --- * * * Netscape. Just the Net You Need. 

Thank you Keith for injecting a much-needed note of pragmatism into this
discussion. I am far more interested in results than in arguments about why
this procedure shouldn't work, when it can be tested. If I can find some
time, I've some stock tenor mpc's I've been playing with that I might try it
with.

I'm thinking, in relation to this idea, that to add volume, an additional
kind of tool could be useful - some kind of expandable diameter grinding
tool for enlarging the volume of a mouthpiece just behind the throat, kind
of a miniature version of the tool used to resurface motor cylinders.  Yes,
a grinding stone or large burr on a long shaft would do, but be harder to
control.

Other methods of expanding the volume, whether by scooping out sidewalls,
opening the throat, or undercutting the U, all will somewhat alter the
mouthpiece sound in a less "neutral" fashion, it seems to me.

Barry



> From: Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...>
> Reply-To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2012 03:51:15 -0800 (PST)
> To: "MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com" <MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
> 
> 
>  
> I have fiddled with this over the years, but not while focusing on D1/D2 and
> C#2/C#3.  I plan to try your procedure in more detail.
>  
> I think in addition to all the other prerequisites, would be embouchure
> considerations.  Or, do you think the procedure helps compensate for a player
> who is using an embouchure with more or less than ideal support?  Is a
> classical mouthpiece pitch target embouchure best or is using a looser jazz
> embouchure OK if it is consistent?
>  
> I'm also concerned that making the D1/D2 relationship in tune might make the
> E2 and F2 notes flat (more than 5 cents).  Most saxes are said to have a sharp
> D2 due to compromises made in the location of the lower octave key placement.
> I think making the C#2 to D2 break more in tune is a great thing to target.
> But it may be better to let D2 go a little sharp so that E2 and F1 do not go
> too flat.
> 
> From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, January 6, 2012 1:53 PM
> Subject: Re: Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
>   
> Correct.  The approximate volume will remain the same.  The mouthpiece gets
> shorter.  Adjustments should be made a little at a time.  Since the effects of
> volume and length overlap, the exact volume that produces the perfect D1/D2
> will change slightly.  Therefore the perfect octave is the point of reference,
> not actual volume.
> 
> --- On Fri, 1/6/12, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:
>> 
>> From: Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...>
>> Subject: Re: Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
>> To: "MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com" <MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com>
>> Date: Friday, January 6, 2012, 4:15 PM
>> 
>>   
>> ...and after making the chamber larger, you then would push the mouthpiece in
>> to get back (near) the original volume established in the D1/D2 pitch
>> mathching.  Correct?
>> From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
>> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>> Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2012 9:48 PM
>> Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
>>   
>> Find the place on the cork that produces a perfect D1/D2 octave, regardless
>> of how that relates to A=440.  Leave the mouthpiece there.  Then test the
>> C#2/C#3 octave.  The degree to which the C#'s are out of tune to A=440 and
>> each other is the degree of acoustical mismatch between your mouthpiece and
>> your horn.  At that position, your C#'s are flat, so you need to somehow make
>> your chamber or throat larger in diameter, or you need a new mouthpiece that
>> is a closer match - has a fatter chamber.  Enlarging the throat makes the
>> tone somewhat broader or less focused.  One can regain that focus with baffle
>> work.   
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --- On Fri, 1/6/12, John <john_w_price33@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> From: John <john_w_price33@...>
>>> Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
>>> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>>> Date: Friday, January 6, 2012, 1:38 AM
>>> 
>>>   
>>> I tried it. D1,D2 relationship good.....I had to pull out the mouthpiece
>>> quite a bit. C#2,C#3.....works closer to my usual tuning spot. So does this
>>> mean I need a larger chamber mouthpiece to get D1,D2 relationship occuring
>>> with a shorter overall tuning length?--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com,
>>> MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:>> I'd be willing to take you through
>>> it, step-by-step.> > > --- On Thu, 1/5/12, crunchie_nuts
>>> <andrewhdonaldson@...> wrote:> > From: crunchie_nuts <andrewhdonaldson@...>>
>>> Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces> To:
>>> MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com> Date: Thursday, January 5, 2012, 12:38 AM> >
>>> > > > > > > > Â > > > > > > > > > > Well, I have tried it in the past but it
>>> never seemed to work for me. Maybe I was doing it wrong.> > > > It would be
>>> great if you could post some evidence of your own results, such as
>>> intonation charts showing before and after tuning, such as the type Fred
>>> Wyman used in his thesis.> > > > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com,
>>> MartinMods <lancelotburt@> wrote:> > >> > > I trust the total silence in the
>>> group to mean you are all busy trying this out perhaps.Ò  The method I
>>> use, which is similar to that which Paul uses, I got for free from Arthur
>>> Benade.Ò  It is printed right there in his published papers from the
>>> 1970's, and since I first started reading him 4 years ago, I have heard the
>>> key phrases tossed back and forth on the various saxophone forums and seen
>>> them quoted in many a doctoral thesis, absent of any> > > apparent
>>> comprehension as to what they actually mean in their practical
>>> application.Ò  I'll paraphrase:> > > > > > 1. Saxophone players should be
>>> as meticulous in matching their mouthpieces to their horns as
>>> oboist/bassoonists are in fiddling with their reeds.Ò  That sounds
>>> nice.Ò  We know about volume> > > and frs/frequency, but did anyone ever
>>> bother to go see just what it is that oboists/bassoonists actually do?ÒÂ
>>> Ò There must be something there we can learn from.Ò  I don't see any
>>> orchestras tuning up to the soprano saxophone's concert A.> > > > > > 2.
>>> That meticulousness includes tweaking the volume/frs to get the optimal
>>> results.Ò  That means that once we got into the ballpark using the
>>> numbers, we abandon them to score.> > > > > > Benade's oboe reed balancing
>>> routine boils down to this when related to the saxophone:> > > > > > We are
>>> well aware of the volume induced tendencies of the conical air column - how
>>> at a 1/1 volume ratio and lower, they induce sharpness in the upper
>>> registers, and a bit lower than 1/1, those tendencies lessen and then become
>>> inverted.Ò  We are also aware that a large chambered mouthpiece increases
>>> those tendencies in the upper registers compared to a small chambered> > >
>>> mouthpiece - the frs of the two are different.Ò  To eliminate the conical
>>> air column effects for the played instrument we must abandon the A=440 pitch
>>> center for a moment, and anchor the mouthpiece volume (i.e. where it is
>>> placed on the cork)Ò  so that the low end of our overblown tube (D1/D2)
>>> has optimal resonance alignment - it must produce a perfect octave.ÒÂ
>>> Easy.Ò  Pull out (or push in) until D1/D2 is a perfect octave - and here
>>> is where "meticulous" comes into play.Ò  Tune the octave using a tuner so
>>> that the center of your unavoidable pitch variations is at 0 cents
>>> deviation.Ò  One uses a steady, normal embouchure making absolutely no
>>> adjustments. No adjustments.Ò  No adjustments.Ò  We are halfway there.>
>>> > > > > > Now, unless we had a perfect mouthpiece to start with, our pitch
>>> center is off, as is the resonance alignment of the short end of the
>>> overblown tube> > > (C#2/C#3).Ò Ò  Whatever we do to fix this, we must
>>> maintain the initial, optimal mouthpiece volume alignment (Not the place on
>>> the cork, but the perfect D1/D2 octave).Ò  Realize that the initial
>>> "pulling out/pushing in" adjustment changed two aspects of the mouthpiece,
>>> the volume AND the length, for a pretty gross change in the stretching of
>>> the scale.Ò > > > We now make gradual adjustments to the length alone, or
>>> frs - the pitch tendency of the chamber type in the upper registers, using
>>> the shortest overblown tube as our reference.Ò  Making the chamber fatter
>>> while maintaining volume, raises the overall played pitch of the mouthpiece,
>>> affecting the upper register more than the lower.Ò  Making the chamber
>>> narrower while maintaining volume lowers it.Ò  > > > > > > Between
>>> repeated steps of checking the D1/D2 octave for perfection and then making
>>> the appropriate chamber geometry adjustment, raising or lowering the pitch
>>> to improve the C#2/C#3 octave, the short tube will come into perfect
>>> alignment (same 0 cent deviation at center of pitch wobble) .Ò  With both
>>> ends of the basic tube perfectly aligned, the ends (bell tones/palm keys)
>>> and in-between (middle register) take care of themselves.Ò  The entire
>>> scale is within 5 cents of flat, perfectly situated in the A=440 pitch
>>> center.Ò > > > > > > > > > One experiences a new playing and listening
>>> sensation - one voice - no perception of register changes.Ò  The sound
>>> gets a silvery "sheen" to it as the horn resonates more perfectly with the
>>> cosmos - really.Ò  Now, after you experience this, from both the playing
>>> and listening standpoint, it becomes addictive.Ò  You immediately notice
>>> the conical air column effect qualities that you left behind, to varied
>>> degrees, in the playing of others - everywhere (almost - some got lucky or
>>> were smart with their setup).Ò  It sticks out like wrong notes in
>>> Mozart.Ò  You can even start listening to the silvery sheen evenness more
>>> than the notes they are playing, as you realize that hearing the conical air
>>> column effects is tiring, even annoying.> > > > > > IMO, this is the future
>>> of saxophone development - refinement.Ò  > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On
>>> Wed, 1/4/12, MartinMods <lancelotburt@>> > > wrote:> > > > > > From:
>>> MartinMods <lancelotburt@>> > > Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re:
>>> small chamber alto mouthpieces> > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com> > >
>>> Date: Wednesday, January 4, 2012, 2:46 AM> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > > > Ò > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > The formula for doing the same is there.Ò  Take advantage of it or
>>> not, as you will.> > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Wed, 1/4/12, kymarto123@
>>> <kymarto123@> wrote:> > > > > > From: kymarto123@ <kymarto123@>> > >
>>> Subject: Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces> > >
>>> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com> > > Date: Wednesday, January 4, 2012,
>>> 2:42 AM> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ò > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, at least we have your word for it.> > >
>>> > > > > > > > > > --- MartinMods <lancelotburt@> wrote:> > > > > > > Not in
>>> this model.Ò  It's just a cavity.Ò  Notice the range of the plotted
>>> cavity ratios.Ò  At 1/1 the tendency is toward sharpness in the upper
>>> registers.Ò  As you increase volume, the curve becomes flat, and then
>>> inverse.Ò  A perfectly matched mouthpiece juggles the effects of the
>>> conical tube, those of the mouthpiece style, the reed, and the player,
>>> within a narrow band in this area.Ò  The results are amazing.Ò  > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > > > > Make 5 mouthpieces that solve 5 individual player's
>>> individual horn/mouthpiece intonation problems, and you will have a good
>>> working understanding of what is going on.Ò  > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>> I've lost count.> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>
>>> 
> 
> 

One reason why I find what Lance is saying intriguing, is that I have heard Doc Tenney say something quite similar. I have been to Doc's house and worked with him in his studio. This is a guy who has worked extensively with Brecker, Bergonzi and other top-notch players, and who is no slouch as a mouthpiece maker and refacer. The following is from a tuning routine that Doc told me about. This is a direct excerpt from his email:

[Begin quote]

A 'mouthpiece only" introductory pitch of F# or G is correct for tenor and essential to obtain good intonation and this pitch center must be constant.

Palm D2 is a "short" note; conventionally-fingered D2 using the octave key is a "long" note.  Conventionally-fingered A2 using the octave key is in the "short" category.

Place the mpc on the tenon cork so that the pitches of both "short" and "long" D2 are as identical as possible albeit with slightly different timbre.
"Close" in pitch isn't good enough - the pitches should be the SAME!  Don't worry about timbre.  It'll take some "fiddling" to accomplish this.

Then do whatever minimal adjusting of the mpc position so that when playing "long" D2 you can easily obtain either the D2 or the A2 pitch (which is the next note in the overtone series) both on attack or sustained long tone.  Again, make sure that this overtone A2 is an absolute pitch match with the conventionally-fingered A2 again not being concerned with timbral differences.

When all this is accomplished correctly, the intonation over the entire range of the instrument will be greatly improved and the tone produced will have a rather unique and pleasing "vibrance" or "liveliness".  "Tuning" the instrument by using a "tuner" and focusing on producing A=440 by playing B-1 (on tenor) almost invariably introduces poor intonation since the basic acoustic design of the instrument is not taken into consideration. This often results in intervalic relationships that are altered both radically and erratically with every change required to play the "next note".

I've used this technique for many years very successfully and have taught it to many highly-qualified players both in my own "studio" and at Randy's all of whom have been impressed with the improvement in overall intonation when checked with an electronic tuner.  I think we may have "sold a few horns" based on the results obtained by applying these tuning techniques to the horns the prospective client is "trying out". 

[End of quote]

The "Randy" referred to is Randy Jones of Tenor Madness. 

I take the liberty of quoting from Doc's email to me because Doc has always been about passing his knowledge on rather than withholding it.

Granted, Doc is using different tuning notes, and this is a routine for tuning, not for the evaluation of the tuning match of a mpc/horn combination, but a similar approach is used, and you find reference here to the "pleasing 'vibrance' or 'liveliness'" to which Lance also refers when talking about the "silvery sheen" of the tone. Moreover, when coupled with the fact that Doc manufactured his "Jazzmaster" piece specifically with the acoustics of Selmer MkVIs in mind, esp of the weak palm keys of those instruments, you have also the principle of matching mpc to instrument as well. So I find, with some differences, everything that Lance says repeated in Doc's utterances.

Keith, I've been fiddling with this quite a bit in the last few days, and regarding embouchure "set", I think it's very important to feel for what the reed itself is dictating, when trying to play a pitch with the mpc at a given place on the cork, rather than imposing a certain embouchure set. There are places where a given pitch, say D2, will be unstable. That is to say, you will play the note, and as you feel the reed's response, it wants you to loosen up from your usual embouchure, but then it really doesn't find a comfortable place to slot in. You loosen and loosen, and finally you've run out of room to relax the embouchure and the reed stops vibrating at all. So there are certain places on the cork where the pitch doesn't find a plateau and slot in. However, there will be places on the cork where the response does find a certain comfort zone, a certain plateau, with a full sound, and slots in. I haven't tested whether this in all cases coincides with a perfect octave from D1 to D2, so that's a different question. So D2 may seem unstable at a certain point on the neck, but that changes. In fact, I find the response changes slightly even with very slight adjustments on the neck cork. JT 









--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:
>
> I have fiddled with this over the years, but not while focusing on D1/D2 and C#2/C#3.  I plan to try your procedure in more detail.
>  
> I think in addition to all the other prerequisites, would be embouchure considerations.  Or, do you think the procedure helps compensate for a player who is using an embouchure with more or less than ideal support?  Is a classical mouthpiece pitch target embouchure best or is using a looser jazz embouchure OK if it is consistent?
>  
> I'm also concerned that making the D1/D2 relationship in tune might make the E2 and F2 notes flat (more than 5 cents).  Most saxes are said to have a sharp D2 due to compromises made in the location of the lower octave key placement.  I think making the C#2 to D2 break more in tune is a great thing to target.  But it may be better to let D2 go a little sharp so that E2 and F1 do not go too flat.
> 
> 

Toby,

Nederveen:  I have this all memorized.  It is of little service to quote things out of context so I'll repeat what I said earlier.  At the beginning of the saxophone section, where the "method" was described, he stated that the mouthpieces should be optimized, but neglected to do so as the bulges and irregularites in the upper bore (cylindrical tenons in a conical bore) made accurate measurements problematic.  As such, his investigations and conclusions say nothing about how the same instruments would fair with optimized mouthpieces.  That's just the way science works.  Within the parameters of his investigations, his conclusions are correct.  If you don't optimize the soprano mouthpiece (eliminate mouthpiece mismatch), the next best thing is to reduce the truncation ratio - make the mouthpiece smaller (reduce the effect of a mouthpiece mismatch - turn it into a modern saxophone).

In our correspondence, we discussed the acoustical requirements volume/frequency, and he examined the routine in detail.  He said, "That is one way to do it.".  The other way to do it (short of reducing the truncation ratio and to an extent "hobbling" tonal depth and flexibility) is to apply the correct degree of compensating upper bore taper, what Dalmont termed, "optimum conicity".   

In the case of the Selmer soprano, and just as in the other sizes (though less noticeable), it had the compensating bore taper; and though it's intonation was better than those without, it was still characteristically problematic.  Small wonder.  The bore compensation must then match the exact mouthpiece used, and the player, to actually work (Benade).  Mouthpiece optimization is practically required in any case.  

As for your skepitcism:  You have expressed skepticism for over one year now without once bothering to take the few minutes required to perform the routine yourself, exactly as specified.  It would appear that polemics are more important here than knowledge.  
---
Keith,

The perfect optimization must include the player as part of the equation.  Short of that, all you get is an approximate match - which many mouthpiece makers are getting for modern horns.  Many players are satisfied with that.  Many aren't.  Guardalla gave Brecker a perfect match.  Ronnie Cuber has a nice match.  Pete Christlieb manages a nice match with the large tip opening Berg/Medium reed.  One aspect of their distinctive sound is that match.  Once you experience the absence of conical air column effects, their presence sticks out like, as I said, wrong notes in Mozart.  Play me any recording of anyone above the most beginning level, and I can tell you to what extent the mouthpiece is optimized.  Good or bad playing, they can't be hidden.

As to other note selections:  Your concerns are based upon the scale and you know it - influenced by conical air column effects.  Once both ends of the overblown tube are anchored at their respective point of reference, volume and frs (frequency), those effects essentially vanish for the notes in between.

Keith,  

That should read, "Your concerns are based upon the scale as
 you know it - influenced by conical air column effects."

Attempts to rationalize an approach without being familiar with the characteristic shape of the exponential effects curve of the air column and those of the chamber design (length), how they vary with degree, how those affects can become inverted, and how they overlap and affect one another, will most likely yield less than optimal results.  You are of course welcome to try.

Sweet. This should be common knowledge.
I've always disliked using tuners, now I know why.

B

> Place the mpc on the tenon cork so that the pitches of both "short" and
> "long"
> D2 are as identical as possible albeit with slightly different timbre.
> "Close" in pitch isn't good enough - the pitches should be the SAME! Don't
> worry about timbre. It'll take some "fiddling" to accomplish this.
> 
> Then do whatever minimal adjusting of the mpc position so that when playing
> "long" D2 you can easily obtain either the D2 or the A2 pitch (which is
> the next
> note in the overtone series) both on attack or sustained long tone. Again,
> make
> sure that this overtone A2 is an absolute pitch match with the
> conventionally-fingered A2 again not being concerned with timbral
> differences.
> 
> When all this is accomplished correctly, the intonation over the entire
> range of
> the instrument will be greatly improved and the tone produced will have a
> rather
> unique and pleasing "vibrance" or "liveliness". "Tuning" the instrument by
> using a "tuner" and focusing on producing AD0 by playing B-1 (on tenor)
> almost
> invariably introduces poor intonation since the basic acoustic design of the
> instrument is not taken into consideration. This often results in intervalic
> relationships that are altered both radically and erratically with every
> change
> required to play the "next note".

I disagree about your interpretation, however it is useless to continue this argument. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. I await independent confirmation of your results. It would be nice if you are right.


--- MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
> Toby,
> 
> Nederveen:  I have this all memorized.  It is of little service to quote things out of context so I'll repeat what I said earlier.  At the beginning of the saxophone section, where the "method" was described, he stated that the mouthpieces should be optimized, but neglected to do so as the bulges and irregularites in the upper bore (cylindrical tenons in a conical bore) made accurate measurements problematic.  As such, his investigations and conclusions say nothing about how the same instruments would fair with optimized mouthpieces.  That's just the way science works.  Within the parameters of his investigations, his conclusions are correct.  If you don't optimize the soprano mouthpiece (eliminate mouthpiece mismatch), the next best thing is to reduce the truncation ratio - make the mouthpiece smaller (reduce the effect of a mouthpiece mismatch - turn it into a modern saxophone).
> 
> In our correspondence, we discussed the acoustical requirements volume/frequency, and he examined the routine in detail.  He said, "That is one way to do it.".  The other way to do it (short of reducing the truncation ratio and to an extent "hobbling" tonal depth and flexibility) is to apply the correct degree of compensating upper bore taper, what Dalmont termed, "optimum conicity".   
> 
> In the case of the Selmer soprano, and just as in the other sizes (though less noticeable), it had the compensating bore taper; and though it's intonation was better than those without, it was still characteristically problematic.  Small wonder.  The bore compensation must then match the exact mouthpiece used, and the player, to actually work (Benade).  Mouthpiece optimization is practically required in any case.  
> 
> As for your skepitcism:  You have expressed skepticism for over one year now without once bothering to take the few minutes required to perform the routine yourself, exactly as specified.  It would appear that polemics are more important here than knowledge.  
> ---
> Keith,
> 
> The perfect optimization must include the player as part of the equation.  Short of that, all you get is an approximate match - which many mouthpiece makers are getting for modern horns.  Many players are satisfied with that.  Many aren't.  Guardalla gave Brecker a perfect match.  Ronnie Cuber has a nice match.  Pete Christlieb manages a nice match with the large tip opening Berg/Medium reed.  One aspect of their distinctive sound is that match.  Once you experience the absence of conical air column effects, their presence sticks out like, as I said, wrong notes in Mozart.  Play me any recording of anyone above the most beginning level, and I can tell you to what extent the mouthpiece is optimized.  Good or bad playing, they can't be hidden.
> 
> As to other note selections:  Your concerns are based upon the scale and you know it - influenced by conical air column effects.  Once both ends of the overblown tube are anchored at their respective point of reference, volume and frs (frequency), those effects essentially vanish for the notes in between.
> 
> 
> 

Again, this is QUITE contrary to my experience....I think I know most of the people who design saxophones for a living, and correspond with them regularly.....I have never heard anyone report anything remotely resembling this......I thought we were going to be spared these endless theoretical discussions here, and that they were going to be confined to the acoustics group

Sent from my iPad

STEVE  GOODSON
Saxophone Guru and Visionary
New Orleans
www.nationofmusic.com



On Jan 7, 2012, at 7:02 PM, kymarto123@... wrote:

> I disagree about your interpretation, however it is useless to continue this argument. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. I await independent confirmation of your results. It would be nice if you are right.
> 
> --- MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
> > Toby,
> > 
> > Nederveen:  I have this all memorized.  It is of little service to quote things out of context so I'll repeat what I said earlier.  At the beginning of the saxophone section, where the "method" was described, he stated that the mouthpieces should be optimized, but neglected to do so as the bulges and irregularites in the upper bore (cylindrical tenons in a conical bore) made accurate measurements problematic.  As such, his investigations and conclusions say nothing about how the same instruments would fair with optimized mouthpieces.  That's just the way science works.  Within the parameters of his investigations, his conclusions are correct.  If you don't optimize the soprano mouthpiece (eliminate mouthpiece mismatch), the next best thing is to reduce the truncation ratio - make the mouthpiece smaller (reduce the effect of a mouthpiece mismatch - turn it into a modern saxophone).
> > 
> > In our correspondence, we discussed the acoustical requirements volume/frequency, and he examined the routine in detail.  He said, "That is one way to do it.".  The other way to do it (short of reducing the truncation ratio and to an extent "hobbling" tonal depth and flexibility) is to apply the correct degree of compensating upper bore taper, what Dalmont termed, "optimum conicity".   
> > 
> > In the case of the Selmer soprano, and just as in the other sizes (though less noticeable), it had the compensating bore taper; and though it's intonation was better than those without, it was still characteristically problematic.  Small wonder.  The bore compensation must then match the exact mouthpiece used, and the player, to actually work (Benade).  Mouthpiece optimization is practically required in any case.  
> > 
> > As for your skepitcism:  You have expressed skepticism for over one year now without once bothering to take the few minutes required to perform the routine yourself, exactly as specified.  It would appear that polemics are more important here than knowledge.  
> > ---
> > Keith,
> > 
> > The perfect optimization must include the player as part of the equation.  Short of that, all you get is an approximate match - which many mouthpiece makers are getting for modern horns.  Many players are satisfied with that.  Many aren't.  Guardalla gave Brecker a perfect match.  Ronnie Cuber has a nice match.  Pete Christlieb manages a nice match with the large tip opening Berg/Medium reed.  One aspect of their distinctive sound is that match.  Once you experience the absence of conical air column effects, their presence sticks out like, as I said, wrong notes in Mozart.  Play me any recording of anyone above the most beginning level, and I can tell you to what extent the mouthpiece is optimized.  Good or bad playing, they can't be hidden.
> > 
> > As to other note selections:  Your concerns are based upon the scale and you know it - influenced by conical air column effects.  Once both ends of the overblown tube are anchored at their respective point of reference, volume and frs (frequency), those effects essentially vanish for the notes in between.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 

On 1/7/2012 7:12 PM, Steve Goodson wrote:
> Again, this is QUITE contrary to my experience....I think I know most 
> of the people who design saxophones for a living, and correspond with 
> them regularly.....I have never heard anyone report anything remotely 
> resembling this......I thought we were going to be spared these 
> endless theoretical discussions here, and that they were going to be 
> confined to the acoustics group
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> STEVE  GOODSON
> Saxophone Guru and Visionary
> New Orleans
> www.nationofmusic.com <http://www.nationofmusic.com>
>
>
>
> On Jan 7, 2012, at 7:02 PM, kymarto123@... 
> <mailto:kymarto123@...> wrote:
>
>> I disagree about your interpretation, however it is useless to 
>> continue this argument. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. I 
>> await independent confirmation of your results. It would be nice if 
>> you are right.
>>
>> --- MartinMods <lancelotburt@... 
>> <mailto:lancelotburt@...>> wrote:
>> > Toby,
>> >
>> > Nederveen:  I have this all memorized.  It is of little service to 
>> quote things out of context so I'll repeat what I said earlier.  At 
>> the beginning of the saxophone section, where the "method" was 
>> described, he stated that the mouthpieces should be optimized, but 
>> neglected to do so as the bulges and irregularites in the upper bore 
>> (cylindrical tenons in a conical bore) made accurate measurements 
>> problematic.  As such, his investigations and conclusions say nothing 
>> about how the same instruments would fair with optimized 
>> mouthpieces.  That's just the way science works.  Within the 
>> parameters of his investigations, his conclusions are correct.  If 
>> you don't optimize the soprano mouthpiece (eliminate mouthpiece 
>> mismatch), the next best thing is to reduce the truncation ratio - 
>> make the mouthpiece smaller (reduce the effect of a mouthpiece 
>> mismatch - turn it into a modern saxophone).
>> >
>> > In our correspondence, we discussed the acoustical requirements 
>> volume/frequency, and he examined the routine in detail.  He said, 
>> "That is one way to do it.".  The other way to do it (short of 
>> reducing the truncation ratio and to an extent "hobbling" tonal depth 
>> and flexibility) is to apply the correct degree of compensating upper 
>> bore taper, what Dalmont termed, "optimum conicity".
>> >
>> > In the case of the Selmer soprano, and just as in the other sizes 
>> (though less noticeable), it had the compensating bore taper; and 
>> though it's intonation was better than those without, it was still 
>> characteristically problematic.  Small wonder.  The bore compensation 
>> must then match the exact mouthpiece used, and the player, to 
>> actually work (Benade).  Mouthpiece optimization is practically 
>> required in any case.
>> >
>> > As for your skepitcism:  You have expressed skepticism for over one 
>> year now without once bothering to take the few minutes required to 
>> perform the routine yourself, exactly as specified.  It would appear 
>> that polemics are more important here than knowledge.
>> > ---
>> > Keith,
>> >
>> > The perfect optimization must include the player as part of the 
>> equation.  Short of that, all you get is an approximate match - which 
>> many mouthpiece makers are getting for modern horns.  Many players 
>> are satisfied with that.  Many aren't.  Guardalla gave Brecker a 
>> perfect match.  Ronnie Cuber has a nice match.  Pete Christlieb 
>> manages a nice match with the large tip opening Berg/Medium reed.  
>> One aspect of their distinctive sound is that match.  Once you 
>> experience the absence of conical air column effects, their presence 
>> sticks out like, as I said, wrong notes in Mozart.  Play me any 
>> recording of anyone above the most beginning level, and I can tell 
>> you to what extent the mouthpiece is optimized.  Good or bad playing, 
>> they can't be hidden.
>> >
>> > As to other note selections:  Your concerns are based upon the 
>> scale and you know it - influenced by conical air column effects.  
>> Once both ends of the overblown tube are anchored at their respective 
>> point of reference, volume and frs (frequency), those effects 
>> essentially vanish for the notes in between.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
> 

Please guys and ladies see that:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdVfstOArBY
Fraternally
Silverio

"I think I know most of the people who design saxophones for a living, 
and correspond with them regularly.....I have never heard anyone report 
anything remotely resembling this......"

I'm quite aware of that :-)  I don't find new saxophones particularly interesting tonally, for that very reason, so that doesn't impress me.  You do what you do, and I'll do what I do, and I'll see you on the field, as they say.










 



  


    
      
      
      Again, this is QUITE contrary to my experience....I thought we were going to be spared these endless theoretical discussions here, and that they were going to be confined to the acoustics group

Sent from my iPad
STEVE  GOODSONSaxophone Guru and VisionaryNew Orleanswww.nationofmusic.com


On Jan 7, 2012, at 7:02 PM, kymarto123@... wrote:






 



    
      
      
      I disagree about your interpretation, however it is useless to continue this argument. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. I await independent confirmation of your results. It would be nice if you are right.



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

> Toby,

> 

> Nederveen:  I have this all memorized.  It is of little service to quote things out of context so I'll repeat what I said earlier.  At the beginning of the saxophone section, where the "method" was described, he stated that the mouthpieces should be optimized, but neglected to do so as the bulges and irregularites in the upper bore (cylindrical tenons in a conical bore) made accurate measurements problematic.  As such, his investigations and conclusions say nothing about how the same instruments would fair with optimized mouthpieces.  That's just the way science works.  Within the parameters of his investigations, his conclusions are correct.  If you don't optimize the soprano mouthpiece (eliminate mouthpiece mismatch), the next best thing is to reduce the truncation ratio - make the mouthpiece smaller (reduce the effect of a mouthpiece mismatch - turn it into a modern saxophone).

> 

> In our correspondence, we discussed the acoustical requirements volume/frequency, and he examined the routine in detail.  He said, "That is one way to do it.".  The other way to do it (short of reducing the truncation ratio and to an extent "hobbling" tonal depth and flexibility) is to apply the correct degree of compensating upper bore taper, what Dalmont termed, "optimum conicity".   

> 

> In the case of the Selmer soprano, and just as in the other sizes (though less noticeable), it had the compensating bore taper; and though it's intonation was better than those without, it was still characteristically problematic.  Small wonder.  The bore compensation must then match the exact mouthpiece used, and the player, to actually work (Benade).  Mouthpiece optimization is practically required in any case.  

> 

> As for your skepitcism:  You have expressed skepticism for over one year now without once bothering to take the few minutes required to perform the routine yourself, exactly as specified.  It would appear that polemics are more important here than knowledge.  

> ---

> Keith,

> 

> The perfect optimization must include the player as part of the equation.  Short of that, all you get is an approximate match - which many mouthpiece makers are getting for modern horns.  Many players are satisfied with that.  Many aren't.  Guardalla gave Brecker a perfect match.  Ronnie Cuber has a nice match.  Pete Christlieb manages a nice match with the large tip opening Berg/Medium reed.  One aspect of their distinctive sound is that match.  Once you experience the absence of conical air column effects, their presence sticks out like, as I said, wrong notes in Mozart.  Play me any recording of anyone above the most beginning level, and I can tell you to what extent the mouthpiece is optimized.  Good or bad playing, they can't be hidden.

> 

> As to other note selections:  Your concerns are based upon the scale and you know it - influenced by conical air column effects.  Once both ends of the overblown tube are anchored at their respective point of reference, volume and frs (frequency), those effects essentially vanish for the notes in between.

> 

> 

> 



    
     

    









    
     

    
    






  

Alright already!!!   Can we stop the pissing contest now?!?  This has 
filled our inboxes for a week now, with the same initial information 
being repeated ad nauseum!  The initial reward has now been totally 
outweighed by the necessity to read and delete all of this crap!  I'm 
leaving this board, but for the sake of my friends who are willing to 
hang around,  next topic.  Please!~

On 1/7/2012 8:01 PM, MartinMods wrote:
>
> "I think I know most of the people who design saxophones for a living, 
> and correspond with them regularly.....I have never heard anyone 
> report anything remotely resembling this......"
>
> I'm quite aware of that :-)  I don't find new saxophones particularly 
> interesting tonally, for that very reason, so that doesn't impress 
> me.  You do what you do, and I'll do what I do, and I'll see you on 
> the field, as they say.
>
>
>
>     Again, this is QUITE contrary to my experience....I thought we
>     were going to be spared these endless theoretical discussions
>     here, and that they were going to be confined to the acoustics group
>
>     Sent from my iPad
>
>     STEVE  GOODSON
>     Saxophone Guru and Visionary
>     New Orleans
>     www.nationofmusic.com <http://www.nationofmusic.com>
>
>
>
>     On Jan 7, 2012, at 7:02 PM, kymarto123@...
>     </mc/compose?to=kymarto123@...> wrote:
>
>>     I disagree about your interpretation, however it is useless to
>>     continue this argument. The proof of the pudding is in the
>>     eating. I await independent confirmation of your results. It
>>     would be nice if you are right.
>>
>>     --- MartinMods <lancelotburt@...
>>     </mc/compose?to=lancelotburt@...>> wrote:
>>     > Toby,
>>     >
>>     > Nederveen:  I have this all memorized.  It is of little service
>>     to quote things out of context so I'll repeat what I said
>>     earlier.  At the beginning of the saxophone section, where the
>>     "method" was described, he stated that the mouthpieces should be
>>     optimized, but neglected to do so as the bulges and irregularites
>>     in the upper bore (cylindrical tenons in a conical bore) made
>>     accurate measurements problematic.  As such, his investigations
>>     and conclusions say nothing about how the same instruments would
>>     fair with optimized mouthpieces.  That's just the way science
>>     works.  Within the parameters of his investigations, his
>>     conclusions are correct.  If you don't optimize the soprano
>>     mouthpiece (eliminate mouthpiece mismatch), the next best thing
>>     is to reduce the truncation ratio - make the mouthpiece smaller
>>     (reduce the effect of a mouthpiece mismatch - turn it into a
>>     modern saxophone).
>>     >
>>     > In our correspondence, we discussed the acoustical requirements
>>     volume/frequency, and he examined the routine in detail.  He
>>     said, "That is one way to do it.".  The other way to do it (short
>>     of reducing the truncation ratio and to an extent "hobbling"
>>     tonal depth and flexibility) is to apply the correct degree of
>>     compensating upper bore taper, what Dalmont termed, "optimum
>>     conicity".
>>     >
>>     > In the case of the Selmer soprano, and just as in the other
>>     sizes (though less noticeable), it had the compensating bore
>>     taper; and though it's intonation was better than those without,
>>     it was still characteristically problematic.  Small wonder.  The
>>     bore compensation must then match the exact mouthpiece used, and
>>     the player, to actually work (Benade).  Mouthpiece optimization
>>     is practically required in any case.
>>     >
>>     > As for your skepitcism:  You have expressed skepticism for over
>>     one year now without once bothering to take the few minutes
>>     required to perform the routine yourself, exactly as specified. 
>>     It would appear that polemics are more important here than
>>     knowledge.
>>     > ---
>>     > Keith,
>>     >
>>     > The perfect optimization must include the player as part of the
>>     equation.  Short of that, all you get is an approximate match -
>>     which many mouthpiece makers are getting for modern horns.  Many
>>     players are satisfied with that.  Many aren't.  Guardalla gave
>>     Brecker a perfect match.  Ronnie Cuber has a nice match.  Pete
>>     Christlieb manages a nice match with the large tip opening
>>     Berg/Medium reed.  One aspect of their distinctive sound is that
>>     match.  Once you experience the absence of conical air column
>>     effects, their presence sticks out like, as I said, wrong notes
>>     in Mozart.  Play me any recording of anyone above the most
>>     beginning level, and I can tell you to what extent the mouthpiece
>>     is optimized.  Good or bad playing, they can't be hidden.
>>     >
>>     > As to other note selections:  Your concerns are based upon the
>>     scale and you know it - influenced by conical air column
>>     effects.  Once both ends of the overblown tube are anchored at
>>     their respective point of reference, volume and frs (frequency),
>>     those effects essentially vanish for the notes in between.
>>     >
>>     >
>>     >
>>
> 

I find most of this discussion interesting.  But it has settled into a familiar pattern again.  Please continue it over on the Mouthpiece Work Acoustics group.




On Jan 7, 2012, at 5:35 PM, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...m> wrote:

> Keith,  
> 
> That should read, "Your concerns are based upon the scale as you know it - influenced by conical air column effects."
> 
> Attempts to rationalize an approach without being familiar with the characteristic shape of the exponential effects curve of the air column and those of the chamber design (length), how they vary with degree, how those affects can become inverted, and how they overlap and affect one another, will most likely yield less than optimal results.  You are of course welcome to try.
> 

Hi Steve, I think this topic is very interesting, at least for me, because it allows to extend the knowledge of those who do not have your vast experience (which many healthy and truly envy). Any topic with some confrontation vifurcar gives the possibility of the subject and link in this case not only with the mouthpiece in question but also the function of the neck, the right measure of a neck, the opening of the pipes, the height of octave keys, how convenient or not Visel ramps between mouthpiece and neck and the junction of the neck and body of the instrument, the neck enhancers, etc.. and so on. For example, I've discovered in the clarinet tuning differences of up to 15 cents. on either side simply by rotating the bell and barrel.
 In this case we can not do that, but it would be interesting to find a relationship, while the clarinet has little to do with the taper of a saxophone, some tapers in certain strategic locations within the bore of the clarinet tune and improve their sound.
 Every day I see that the Venturi effect in both instruments is applicable unavoidable and that many theories that may apply to some, others may be of doubtful application, simply because the oral cavity of each is also part of the instrument.

 Have a great year 2012 and grow your excellent projects.
 fraternally
 Silverio


________________________________
De: Steve Goodson <saxgourmet@...>
Para: "MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com" <MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com> 
Enviado: sábado, 7 de enero de 2012 22:12
Asunto: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces


  
Again, this is QUITE contrary to my experience....I think I know most of the people who design saxophones for a living, and correspond with them regularly.....I have never heard anyone report anything remotely resembling this......I thought we were going to be spared these endless theoretical discussions here, and that they were going to be confined to the acoustics group

Sent from my iPad 

STEVE  GOODSON
Saxophone Guru and Visionary
New Orleans
www.nationofmusic.com



On Jan 7, 2012, at 7:02 PM, kymarto123@... wrote:


  
>I disagree about your interpretation, however it is useless to continue this argument. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. I await independent confirmation of your results. It would be nice if you are right.
>
>--- MartinMods <lancelotburt@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Toby,
>> 
>> Nederveen:  I have this all memorized.  It is of little service to quote things out of context so I'll repeat what I said earlier.  At the beginning of the saxophone section, where the "method" was described, he stated that the mouthpieces should be optimized, but neglected to do so as the bulges and irregularites in the upper bore (cylindrical tenons in a conical bore) made accurate measurements problematic.  As such, his investigations and conclusions say nothing about how the same instruments would fair with optimized mouthpieces.  That's just the way science works.  Within the parameters of his investigations, his conclusions are correct.  If you don't optimize the soprano mouthpiece (eliminate mouthpiece mismatch), the next best thing is to reduce the truncation ratio - make the mouthpiece smaller (reduce the effect of a mouthpiece mismatch - turn it into a modern saxophone).
>> 
>> In our correspondence, we discussed the acoustical requirements volume/frequency, and he examined the routine in detail.  He said, "That is one way to do it.".  The other way to do it (short of reducing the truncation ratio and to an extent "hobbling" tonal depth and flexibility) is to apply the correct degree of compensating upper bore taper, what Dalmont termed, "optimum conicity".   
>> 
>> In the case of the Selmer soprano, and just as in the other sizes (though less noticeable), it had the compensating bore taper; and though it's intonation was better than those without, it was still characteristically problematic.  Small wonder.  The bore compensation must then match the exact mouthpiece used, and the player, to actually work (Benade).  Mouthpiece optimization is practically required in any case.  
>> 
>> As for your skepitcism:  You have expressed skepticism for over one year now without once bothering to take the few minutes required to perform the routine yourself, exactly as specified.  It would appear that polemics are more important here than knowledge.  
>> ---
>> Keith,
>> 
>> The perfect optimization must include the player as part of the equation.  Short of that, all you get is an approximate match - which many mouthpiece makers are getting for modern horns.  Many players are satisfied with that.  Many aren't.  Guardalla gave Brecker a perfect match.  Ronnie Cuber has a nice match.  Pete Christlieb manages a nice match with the large tip opening Berg/Medium reed.  One aspect of their distinctive sound is that match.  Once you experience the absence of conical air column effects, their presence sticks out like, as I said, wrong notes in Mozart.  Play me any recording of anyone above the most beginning level, and I can tell you to what extent the mouthpiece is optimized.  Good or bad playing, they can't be hidden.
>> 
>> As to other note selections:  Your concerns are based upon the scale and you know it - influenced by conical air column effects.  Once both ends of the overblown tube are anchored at their respective point of reference, volume and frs (frequency), those effects essentially vanish for the notes in between.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>

Roberts Jahhajaja are very witty, I think both are right and so extensive topic should not be cause to withdraw not better to enrich it. I think the correct thing would take it as a starting point to a space that overcomes cretion to allow us to progress, as it is a valuable topic, I would say, fundamental to our business, both as players, as repairman and technicians in the field .
 Have a great 2012!
 Sinveramente
 Silverio


________________________________
De: Robert W. Smith <rwpsmith@...>
Para: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
CC: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> 
Enviado: sábado, 7 de enero de 2012 23:11
Asunto: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces


  
Alright already!!!   Can we stop the pissing contest now?!?  This has filled our inboxes for a week now, with the same initial information being repeated ad nauseum!  The initial reward has now been totally outweighed by the necessity to read and delete all of this crap!  I'm leaving this board, but for the sake of my friends who are willing to hang around,  next topic.  Please!~

On 1/7/2012 8:01 PM, MartinMods wrote: 
  
>"I think I know most of the people who design saxophones for a living, and correspond with them regularly.....I have never heard anyone report anything remotely resembling this......"
>
>I'm quite aware of that :-)  I don't find new saxophones particularly interesting tonally, for that very reason, so that doesn't impress me.  You do what you do, and I'll do what I do, and I'll see you on the field, as they say.
>
>
>
>
>>
>>  
>>Again, this is QUITE contrary to my experience....I thought we were going to be spared these endless theoretical discussions here, and that they were going to be confined to the acoustics group
>>
>>Sent from my iPad 
>>
>>
>>STEVE  GOODSON
>>Saxophone Guru and Visionary
>>New Orleans
>>www.nationofmusic.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>On Jan 7, 2012, at 7:02 PM, kymarto123@... wrote:
>>
>>
>>  
>>>I disagree about your interpretation, however it is useless to continue this argument. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. I await independent confirmation of your results. It would be nice if you are right.
>>>
>>>--- MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
>>>> Toby,
>>>> 
>>>> Nederveen:  I have this all memorized.  It is of little service to quote things out of context so I'll repeat what I said earlier.  At the beginning of the saxophone section, where the "method" was described, he stated that the mouthpieces should be optimized, but neglected to do so as the bulges and irregularites in the upper bore (cylindrical tenons in a conical bore) made accurate measurements problematic.  As such, his investigations and conclusions say nothing about how the same instruments would fair with optimized mouthpieces.  That's just the way science works.  Within the parameters of his investigations, his conclusions are correct.  If you don't optimize the soprano mouthpiece (eliminate mouthpiece mismatch), the next best thing is to reduce the truncation ratio - make the mouthpiece smaller (reduce the effect of a mouthpiece mismatch - turn it into a modern saxophone).
>>>> 
>>>> In our correspondence, we discussed the acoustical requirements volume/frequency, and he examined the routine in detail.  He said, "That is one way to do it.".  The other way to do it (short of reducing the truncation ratio and to an extent "hobbling" tonal depth and flexibility) is to apply the correct degree of compensating upper bore taper, what Dalmont termed, "optimum conicity".   
>>>> 
>>>> In the case of the Selmer soprano, and just as in the other sizes (though less noticeable), it had the compensating bore taper; and though it's intonation was better than those without, it was still characteristically problematic.  Small wonder.  The bore compensation must then match the exact mouthpiece used, and the player, to actually work (Benade).  Mouthpiece optimization is practically required in any case.  
>>>> 
>>>> As for your skepitcism:  You have expressed skepticism for over one year now without once bothering to take the few minutes required to perform the routine yourself, exactly as specified.  It would appear that polemics are more important here than knowledge.  
>>>> ---
>>>> Keith,
>>>> 
>>>> The perfect optimization must include the player as part of the equation.  Short of that, all you get is an approximate match - which many mouthpiece makers are getting for modern horns.  Many players are satisfied with that.  Many aren't.  Guardalla gave Brecker a perfect match.  Ronnie Cuber has a nice match.  Pete Christlieb manages a nice match with the large tip opening Berg/Medium reed.  One aspect of their distinctive sound is that match.  Once you experience the absence of conical air column effects, their presence sticks out like, as I said, wrong notes in Mozart.  Play me any recording of anyone above the most beginning level, and I can tell you to what extent the mouthpiece is optimized.  Good or bad playing, they can't be hidden.
>>>> 
>>>> As to other note selections:  Your concerns are based upon the scale and you know it - influenced by conical air column effects.  Once both ends of the overblown tube are anchored at their respective point of reference, volume and frs (frequency), those effects essentially vanish for the notes in between.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 

I'm open-minded on the subject, and as I say I am sure that there are some effects altering volume/resonance relationships, but common sense and experience dictate that you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. In the century and a half since Sax introduced the instrument, hundreds of highly knowledgeable and skilled people--not to mention those in the biz looking for an edge--have labored to tame the intonational tendencies of the imperfect horn. The knowledge behind your routine has been around for a long time. If it were really so easy to fix all those troubles someone would have done it long ago.

This reminds me of the debate about the conical tenon, for which you also claimed excellent results. I asked Dr. Wolfe whether a conical tenon would really give the improvements you claimed, and you might remember his answer: that it would be a small difference in cost for manufacturers to fit a conical rather than cylindrical tenon, and if it really produced results they would have done so long ago. I would venture that the same applies to mpc matching: Helpful? Yes, especially if the parameters are way out. A panacea? No way.

The reality is, I think, that careful mpc matching, like careful reed adjustment, will give a definite improvement, but cannot possibly make up for acoustic deficiencies in the design of the horn. Each component in the equation must be optimized, and even then there are variables which cannot be set and controlled. Certain optimizations also are mutually exclusive. 

I'd be happy to be proved wrong; I await glowing reports from good players who have run your routine.

--- MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
> "I think I know most of the people who design saxophones for a living, 
> and correspond with them regularly.....I have never heard anyone report 
> anything remotely resembling this......"
> 
> I'm quite aware of that :-)  I don't find new saxophones particularly interesting tonally, for that very reason, so that doesn't impress me.  You do what you do, and I'll do what I do, and I'll see you on the field, as they say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
>   
> 
> 
>     
>       
>       
>       Again, this is QUITE contrary to my experience....I thought we were going to be spared these endless theoretical discussions here, and that they were going to be confined to the acoustics group
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> STEVE  GOODSONSaxophone Guru and VisionaryNew Orleanswww.nationofmusic.com
> 
> 
> On Jan 7, 2012, at 7:02 PM, kymarto123@... wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
>     
>       
>       
>       I disagree about your interpretation, however it is useless to continue this argument. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. I await independent confirmation of your results. It would be nice if you are right.
> 
> 
> 
> --- MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
> 
> > Toby,
> 
> > 
> 
> > Nederveen:  I have this all memorized.  It is of little service to quote things out of context so I'll repeat what I said earlier.  At the beginning of the saxophone section, where the "method" was described, he stated that the mouthpieces should be optimized, but neglected to do so as the bulges and irregularites in the upper bore (cylindrical tenons in a conical bore) made accurate measurements problematic.  As such, his investigations and conclusions say nothing about how the same instruments would fair with optimized mouthpieces.  That's just the way science works.  Within the parameters of his investigations, his conclusions are correct.  If you don't optimize the soprano mouthpiece (eliminate mouthpiece mismatch), the next best thing is to reduce the truncation ratio - make the mouthpiece smaller (reduce the effect of a mouthpiece mismatch - turn it into a modern saxophone).
> 
> > 
> 
> > In our correspondence, we discussed the acoustical requirements volume/frequency, and he examined the routine in detail.  He said, "That is one way to do it.".  The other way to do it (short of reducing the truncation ratio and to an extent "hobbling" tonal depth and flexibility) is to apply the correct degree of compensating upper bore taper, what Dalmont termed, "optimum conicity".   
> 
> > 
> 
> > In the case of the Selmer soprano, and just as in the other sizes (though less noticeable), it had the compensating bore taper; and though it's intonation was better than those without, it was still characteristically problematic.  Small wonder.  The bore compensation must then match the exact mouthpiece used, and the player, to actually work (Benade).  Mouthpiece optimization is practically required in any case.  
> 
> > 
> 
> > As for your skepitcism:  You have expressed skepticism for over one year now without once bothering to take the few minutes required to perform the routine yourself, exactly as specified.  It would appear that polemics are more important here than knowledge.  
> 
> > ---
> 
> > Keith,
> 
> > 
> 
> > The perfect optimization must include the player as part of the equation.  Short of that, all you get is an approximate match - which many mouthpiece makers are getting for modern horns.  Many players are satisfied with that.  Many aren't.  Guardalla gave Brecker a perfect match.  Ronnie Cuber has a nice match.  Pete Christlieb manages a nice match with the large tip opening Berg/Medium reed.  One aspect of their distinctive sound is that match.  Once you experience the absence of conical air column effects, their presence sticks out like, as I said, wrong notes in Mozart.  Play me any recording of anyone above the most beginning level, and I can tell you to what extent the mouthpiece is optimized.  Good or bad playing, they can't be hidden.
> 
> > 
> 
> > As to other note selections:  Your concerns are based upon the scale and you know it - influenced by conical air column effects.  Once both ends of the overblown tube are anchored at their respective point of reference, volume and frs (frequency), those effects essentially vanish for the notes in between.
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
>     
>      
> 
>     
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>     
>      
> 
>     
>     
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   
> 
> 
> 
> 

Here's something interesting.   The harder you blow, the more the reed closes and the less air enters the mouthpiece.  The only reason the reed vibrates at all, is because the pressure inside the mouthpiece forces the reed open, letting air in.  So it would appear as if the efficiency with which air pressure manipulates the reed would be more important than how air is channeled into the mouthpiece.  Why all the emphasis on airflow?

If you blow harder... The instrument plays lauder, the reed vibrates mostly  on the tip and much of the reed body is sealed for the rails... In my opinion there is not pressure inside the mp just because it's conected to the neck and the air flows freely... Sooo... I'll be honest saying that you can modify all you want, the mouthpiece, the neck, the sax, but always you end with the player.   
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

-----Original Message-----
From: MartinMods 
Sender: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2012 02:20:55 
To: 
Reply-To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Airflow

Here's something interesting.   The harder you blow, the more the reed closes and the less air enters the mouthpiece.  The only reason the reed vibrates at all, is because the pressure inside the mouthpiece forces the reed open, letting air in.  So it would appear as if the efficiency with which air pressure manipulates the reed would be more important than how air is channeled into the mouthpiece.  Why all the emphasis on airflow?

Does anybody know what is needed to make a mouthpiece. And where info can be found.

--- On Sun, 1/8/12, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:

From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
Subject: Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Airflow
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, January 8, 2012, 2:20 AM
















 



  


    
      
      
      Here's something interesting.   The harder you blow, the more the reed closes and the less air enters the mouthpiece.  The only reason the reed vibrates at all, is because the pressure inside the mouthpiece forces the reed open, letting air in.  So it would appear as if the efficiency with which air pressure manipulates the reed would be more important than how air is channeled into the mouthpiece.  Why all the emphasis on airflow?


    
     

    
    






  

So let me add something positive for a change ;~)

I just bought a wonderful old tárogató, which is something like a wooden soprano sax keyed like an Albert clarinet. This horn came with two mpcs--the original made around 1910, and a modern one made by Ioan Scaunas, who is a mpc wizard, but unfortunately makes them only for tárogató.

The mpc arrangement is something like a cross between sax and clarinet--the mpc has the tenon receiver like on sax, but you have to put it all the way down like on clarinet--if you pull it out the thickness of the wood means you leave a big gap right at the top of the cone.

So you have the tip and the baffle and a small chamber at the end of the baffle just behind the end of the window, and then a cylindrical section begins of the same diameter as the beginning of the top of the  tárogató body (which is about where the beginning of the cork would be on a saxophone neck.)

So I had a chance to play with altering the mpc channel, which corresponds roughly to the end part of a sax neck where the cork sits.

The original Stowasser mpc was pretty lame--tubby like an old Conn eagle. This mpc is about 20% shorter than the Scaunas mpc, and played at about the same pitch, but very resistant with a small voice. The voice of the Scaunas was huge and the response of the highs much better.

Intrigued, I compared the two. The main difference was the throat size--the Scaunas was much larger--on the order of 15-20%. I drilled out the Stowasser to match, and some interesting things happened. First, the pitch went way up, between 20-30 cents. And it really opened up the sound. 

The pitch shift seemed odd to me; after all, increasing volume in the top should lower the pitch.  What I think is happening has to do with resonance frequency--I had just raised the Helmholtz frequency of the mpc mightily by making the port much bigger. Imagine making the neck of a Coke bottle a lot larger and blowing across it. The pitch goes up quickly as you increase the diameter, especially if the volume of the bottle is small.

So in this case, increasing volume actually raised the pitch considerably without altering length. 

Now I was faced by some other problems. I was not able to enlarge the chamber enough to be able to push the mpc home and be in tune, and the upper second register was now sharp. I tried filling the chamber and pulling way out, but that decreased the sharpness in the high second register only slightly, and made A2 respond poorly. 

I thought the response problem might be due to the gap between mpc and "neck", and I also wondered how that affected intonation, so I built a spacer to insert up into the mpc socket. That solved the A problem but affected intonation only slightly. Also, I had made it slightly too long so that I could not tune up to 442.

I made another spacer, but I was in a hurry and left the inner diameter a bit narrow. To my surprise, that small narrowing on a 2mm thick spacer not only solved the A response problem beautifully, it also made it possible to play Bb3 on the lower octave key, and noticeably improved response throughout the highs.

I noted a similar phenomenon on another tárogató mpc: a slight contraction at the end of the chamber behind the window made it possible to play all the way up to D3 on an old single-octave-key tárogató using altissimos, whereas before it was impossible to get above Bb3, though it added a fair amount of extra  (but not unpleasant) blowing resistance.

There are two interesting conclusions to be drawn. First, a slight contraction at the end of the throat/opening of the neck can considerably alter pitch without any major change in volume or length. Actually, depending on where you put it and in what form, a volume decrease can apparently lower pitch quite considerably if it serves as a port to lower the Helmholtz frequency of the mpc. 

What is going on with altissismos I'm not sure, but I'm going to experiment and see how this applies to the sax. It may be that one has to do these alterations in the neck and not the mpc, which is the area on the sax analogous to the area I was playing with on the tárogató.

In any case I ended up with a very good extra mpc :-)

Interesting to me, but this is the start of a new acoustic discussion.  Put it on Mouthpiece Works2 - Acoustics.


________________________________
From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Sunday, January 8, 2012 5:20 AM
Subject: Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Airflow

  
Here's something interesting.   The harder you blow, the more the reed closes and the less air enters the mouthpiece.  The only reason the reed vibrates at all, is because the pressure inside the mouthpiece forces the reed open, letting air in.  So it would appear as if the efficiency with which air pressure manipulates the reed would be more important than how air is channeled into the mouthpiece.  Why all the emphasis on airflow?
 

These discussions are becoming more and more circular, and I don’t see any way either of you is going to persuade the other of the correctness of your approach. Presumably both of you are applying your individual methods and are both getting a satisfactory result. Steve, your methods obviously work, the proof is all around us. Lance, your method obviously works to your satisfaction. I suggest that it’s time to either agree to disagree or to take this discussion off this forum and let us get on with life.

Tony F.

 

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of MartinMods
Sent: Sunday, 8 January 2012 1:01 PM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces

 

  


"I think I know most of the people who design saxophones for a living, and correspond with them regularly.....I have never heard anyone report anything remotely resembling this......"

I'm quite aware of that :-)  I don't find new saxophones particularly interesting tonally, for that very reason, so that doesn't impress me.  You do what you do, and I'll do what I do, and I'll see you on the field, as they say.



 

  

Again, this is QUITE contrary to my experience....I thought we were going to be spared these endless theoretical discussions here, and that they were going to be confined to the acoustics group

Sent from my iPad

 

STEVE  GOODSON

Saxophone Guru and Visionary

New Orleans

www.nationofmusic.com

 

 

This html message parsed with html2text ---------------------------Theory and the classroom are fine for preparation in the real world. Practical
application is a separate reality. There is a wide leap from putting whatever
exacting theories that become part of a belief system or basis for a product
into a concrete usable item. Experience continues to be the best teacher. The
ear also continues to be a musician's most valuable asset. Regarding practical
application. Enlarging a chamber and thoat is a difficult process requiring
care. It would have saved some extra work to prevent gouging and have smoother
results if I had some hard rubber practice tubes to hone my Dremmel skills
while leaning this process. So here is another good idea product for this
group. Practice cylinders in hard rubber and plastic or delrin as a learning
tool. Internet forums become annoying when the members play king of the hill
with unending posts for attention and debates that become personal conflicts
and attacks. This is counterproductive. Peace - GREG WIER \\---
tfairbri@bigpond.net.au wrote: From: "Tony Fairbridge"  To:  Subject: RE:
[MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012
01:17:52 +1100 These discussions are becoming more and more circular, and I
don’t see any way either of you is going to persuade the other of the
correctness of your approach. Presumably both of you are applying your
individual methods and are both getting a satisfactory result. Steve, your
methods obviously work, the proof is all around us. Lance, your method
obviously works to your satisfaction. I suggest that it’s time to either agree
to disagree or to take this discussion off this forum and let us get on with
life. Tony F. **From:** MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com] **On Behalf Of** MartinMods **Sent:**
Sunday, 8 January 2012 1:01 PM **To:** MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
**Subject:** Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces "I think
I know most of the people who design saxophones for a living, and correspond
with them regularly.....I have never heard anyone report anything remotely
resembling this......" I'm quite aware of that :-) I don't find new saxophones
particularly interesting tonally, for that very reason, so that doesn't
impress me. You do what you do, and I'll do what I do, and I'll see you on the
field, as they say. Again, this is QUITE contrary to my experience....I
thought we were going to be spared these endless theoretical discussions here,
and that they were going to be confined to the acoustics group Sent from my
iPad STEVE GOODSON Saxophone Guru and Visionary New Orleans
[www.nationofmusic.com](http://www.nationofmusic.com) \--- * * * Netscape.
Just the Net You Need.

Very interesting!


Bill Hausmann


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


________________________________
 From: Silverio <silpopaar@...>
To: "MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com" <MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com> 
Sent: Saturday, January 7, 2012 7:25 PM
Subject: Re: Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
 

 



Please guys and ladies see that: 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdVfstOArBY 
Fraternally 
Silverio 


 

I've made/sold ca. 30 optimized mouthpieces of various chamber types and materials, worldwide, and in every case, have eliminated the characteristic intonation issues associated with vintage horns, and in each of those cases, the optimization addressed only the particular instrument brand/model, not the individual player.  This degree of optimization is currently achieved by some established mouthpiece makers for today's modern horns. Many players are satisfied with this result - greatly reduced conical air column effects.  Most professionals though will not be.  Thus, the endless search for the right mouthpiece still exists.  The Holy Grail is not in the tip opening, baffle type, facing curve, or material.  Those are indispensably important aspects that all contribute to the end result, but, more than any other factor, what will make a mouthpiece "magic" or a dog is the degree of mouthpiece optimization to the individual player/horn combination.  

Enjoy the results if you use it.  This is brought to you via a thorough working (picture book - calculus not required) understanding of woodwind and mouthpiece acoustics , IMO, an absolute prerequisite for doing anything intelligent with them.








--- On Sun, 1/8/12, gregwier@... <gregwier@...> wrote:

From: gregwier@netscape.com <gregwier@...>
Subject: RE: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, January 8, 2012, 3:16 PM








 



  


    
      
      
      Theory and the classroom are fine for preparation in the real world.  Practical application is a separate reality.  There is a wide leap from putting whatever exacting theories that become part of a belief system or basis for a product into a concrete usable item.  Experience continues to be the best teacher. The ear also continues to be a musician's most valuable asset.
 
Regarding practical application.  Enlarging a chamber and thoat is a difficult process requiring care. It would have saved some extra work to prevent gouging and have smoother results if I had some hard rubber practice tubes to hone my Dremmel skills while leaning this process.  So here is another good idea product for this group.  Practice cylinders in hard rubber and plastic or delrin as a learning tool.
 
Internet forums become annoying when the members play king of the hill with unending posts for attention and debates that become personal conflicts and attacks.  This is counterproductive.
 
Peace - GREG WIER 

--- tfairbri@... wrote:

From: "Tony Fairbridge" <tfairbri@bigpond.net.au>
To: <MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 01:17:52 +1100

  






These discussions are becoming more and more circular, and I don’t see any way either of you is going to persuade the other of the correctness of your approach. Presumably both of you are applying your individual methods and are both getting a satisfactory result. Steve, your methods obviously work, the proof is all around us. Lance, your method obviously works to your satisfaction. I suggest that it’s time to either agree to disagree or to take this discussion off this forum and let us get on with life.
Tony F.
 


From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of MartinMods
Sent: Sunday, 8 January 2012 1:01 PM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
 
 







"I think I know most of the people who design saxophones for a living, and correspond with them regularly.....I have never heard anyone report anything remotely resembling this......"

I'm quite aware of that :-)  I don't find new saxophones particularly interesting tonally, for that very reason, so that doesn't impress me.  You do what you do, and I'll do what I do, and I'll see you on the field, as they say.


 


 


Again, this is QUITE contrary to my experience....I thought we were going to be spared these endless theoretical discussions here, and that they were going to be confined to the acoustics group

Sent from my iPad

 

STEVE  GOODSON

Saxophone Guru and Visionary

New Orleans

www.nationofmusic.com

 

 








 
Netscape.  Just the Net You Need.

    
     

    
    






  

Thank you for all postings, most of which I’ve read with great interest, trying to understand.

According to Lance, if I have understood correctly:

·        A mouthpiece with too big volume tends to be increasingly flat when playing from D1 upwards to C#1, and D2 is flat compared to D1. Upwards from D2 to C#2 even flatter.
The contrary occurs with mouthpieces with too small volume: they tend to be to sharp.
If a mouthpiece is too long and is played as above it gets increasingly flat.
If it is too short it gets increasingly sharp.

·        The discrepancies are bigger when playing with open tone holes (i.e. C#). (My comment: the percentage of volume excess (or shortage) is bigger with a shorter tube and would have bigger influence)

·        To optimize the volume/length relationship you first adjust your mouthpiece on the neck so the D1/D2 octave is perfect (regardless of A=440 Hz) and then test C#2/C#3 octave. The degree to which the C#'s are out of tune to A=440 and each other is the degree of acoustical mismatch between your mouthpiece and your horn.

·        If the C#’s are flat you have to enlarge the chamber or throat of the mouthpiece to gain volume. Then you test and correct again…

According to Jeff/Doc Tenney:

·        Get palm D2 (“short” note) and “normal” D2 (“long” note) at the same pitch by placing the mouthpiece at an exact position on the tenon cork.

·        Adjust further so you can obtain either D2 or the A2 pitch when playing D2. The overtone A2 must be the exact pitch match as the conventionally fingered A2.  Then the intonation over the instrument will be greatly improved.

According to Toby:

·        Removing material from a tárogató mouthpiece throat can considerably raise pitch without any major change in volume or length; i.e. geometrical changes can change not only tone quality but also pitch of a mouthpiece. 

Own experiments, experiences and opinions:

I have a Mk VI tenor, completely overhauled by Kenneth Schlaich at Jonas Näslund AB in Stockholm a couple of years ago. Before the sax was a mechanical disaster, I have understood afterwards. It was like learning to play a different instrument when it was ready. I could not play quite in tune; my usual BergLarsen 110/2 did not feel usual. And so I began testing mouthpieces, having problems to get the right one. I tested for example BergLarsen Duckbill 115/2, the new “Vintage” Otto Link 8*. I had played the Link about ½ a year not being entirely happy, when I found this forum, Keith’s website and his videos on YouTube (thank you, Keith!!!!) and begun experimenting. 
First I made a destroyed Selmer C* playable again, not good, but playable. Then I couldn’t resist fiddling with the Duckbill, a pure terror to measure since it didn’t have a flat table, had horribly uneven rails, too long facing, had too large tip opening, and so on. I first corrected these points (the best I could). It then was 108 TO and rather OK facing, but it didn’t play well. It was too shrill in the second octave and I put it aside again and got absorbed by civil work. 
Now this discussion tread has gotten me to retry. It was difficult to get the D1/D2 in tune, and very difficult to get the C#’s pure. To me playing saxophone has been very much adjusting with embouchure, and testing pitches without adjusting was an act of self-restraint. D2 much more flat than D1. Step by step I have made the throat wider and scoped out the side walls and tried to make the chamber bigger and now I think it’s OK when I have the mouthpiece pushed in so that A=448 Hz. And, in fact, I could imagine that intervals of the horn are better in tune, even when the mpc is pulled to A=440. The mouthpiece is easier to play and the tone quality has improved. Perhaps I will be digging out some more bronze later…  or does anybody have a better idea?

 

If you have a scientific hypothesis and you prove it by an experiment, then it is generally considered that another scientist has to redo the same experiment with his own equipment and get the same result for the hypothesis to be considered confirmed. I have not completed every step of this experiment, and can only partially confirm the hypothesis. Has anyone else tried? So far almost no one seems to be completely sure that it works. What I think is somewhat missing in the discussion (except by Toby) is the form factor. 
A lot of skilled guys doesn’t agree with Lance’s opinions –why? Which facts contradicts them? Why are these theories quite contrary to your experience?  Any truth in the teories at all? Is there a Holy Mouthpiece Grail?

 

Best regards from the northern of Sweden 
Lars

 

 

Från: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com] För MartinMods
Skickat: den 9 januari 2012 00:38
Till: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Ämne: RE: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces

 

  


I've made/sold ca. 30 optimized mouthpieces of various chamber types and materials, worldwide, and in every case, have eliminated the characteristic intonation issues associated with vintage horns, and in each of those cases, the optimization addressed only the particular instrument brand/model, not the individual player.  This degree of optimization is currently achieved by some established mouthpiece makers for today's modern horns. Many players are satisfied with this result - greatly reduced conical air column effects.  Most professionals though will not be.  Thus, the endless search for the right mouthpiece still exists.  The Holy Grail is not in the tip opening, baffle type, facing curve, or material.  Those are indispensably important aspects that all contribute to the end result, but, more than any other factor, what will make a mouthpiece "magic" or a dog is the degree of mouthpiece optimization to the individual player/horn combination.  

Enjoy the results if you use it.  This is brought to you via a thorough working (picture book - calculus not required) understanding of woodwind and mouthpiece acoustics , IMO, an absolute prerequisite for doing anything intelligent with them.








--- On Sun, 1/8/12,  <mailto:gregwier@...> gregwier@... < <mailto:gregwier@netscape.com> gregwier@...> wrote:


From:  <mailto:gregwier@...> gregwier@... < <mailto:gregwier@...> gregwier@netscape.com>
Subject: RE: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
To:  <mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com> MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, January 8, 2012, 3:16 PM

  

Theory and the classroom are fine for preparation in the real world.  Practical application is a separate reality.  There is a wide leap from putting whatever exacting theories that become part of a belief system or basis for a product into a concrete usable item.  Experience continues to be the best teacher. The ear also continues to be a musician's most valuable asset.

 

Regarding practical application.  Enlarging a chamber and thoat is a difficult process requiring care. It would have saved some extra work to prevent gouging and have smoother results if I had some hard rubber practice tubes to hone my Dremmel skills while leaning this process.  So here is another good idea product for this group.  Practice cylinders in hard rubber and plastic or delrin as a learning tool.

 

Internet forums become annoying when the members play king of the hill with unending posts for attention and debates that become personal conflicts and attacks.  This is counterproductive.

 

Peace - GREG WIER 

---  <mailto:tfairbri@...> tfairbri@... wrote:

From: "Tony Fairbridge" < <mailto:tfairbri@...> tfairbri@...>
To: < <mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com> MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 01:17:52 +1100

  

These discussions are becoming more and more circular, and I don’t see any way either of you is going to persuade the other of the correctness of your approach. Presumably both of you are applying your individual methods and are both getting a satisfactory result. Steve, your methods obviously work, the proof is all around us. Lance, your method obviously works to your satisfaction. I suggest that it’s time to either agree to disagree or to take this discussion off this forum and let us get on with life.

Tony F.

 

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of MartinMods
Sent: Sunday, 8 January 2012 1:01 PM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces

 


"I think I know most of the people who design saxophones for a living, and correspond with them regularly.....I have never heard anyone report anything remotely resembling this......"

I'm quite aware of that :-)  I don't find new saxophones particularly interesting tonally, for that very reason, so that doesn't impress me.  You do what you do, and I'll do what I do, and I'll see you on the field, as they say.

  

Again, this is QUITE contrary to my experience....I thought we were going to be spared these endless theoretical discussions here, and that they were going to be confined to the acoustics group

Sent from my iPad 

  

STEVE  GOODSON 

Saxophone Guru and Visionary 

New Orleans 

www.nationofmusic.com 

  

  


 

  _____  

Netscape.  Just the Net You Need. 

You CANNOT resolve the inherent intonation difficulties of the saxophone merely by adjusting the mouthpiece......particularly on older instruments......there are MANY factors involved, and perfection is elusive at best....some improvement is possible, but the mouthpiece itself is a very minor factor.....if all could be made well merely by adjusting the mouthpiece, there would be no need for new instruments, necks, etc......I note with considerable interest that Lance seems to be very much alone in his belief that this mouthpiece business is an absolute cure all......it also strikes me as odd that this technique that we have been assured never fails don't seem to have caught on within the industry....I would have supposed that if the miracles promised were in factorial, it's adoption would have been universal, and it's not.....

Sent from my iPad

STEVE  GOODSON
Saxophone Guru and Visionary
New Orleans
www.nationofmusic.com



On Jan 8, 2012, at 7:01 PM, Lars Grundström <lgrundstroem@...> wrote:

> Thank you for all postings, most of which I’ve read with great interest, trying to understand.
> 
> According to Lance, if I have understood correctly:
> 
> ·        A mouthpiece with too big volume tends to be increasingly flat when playing from D1 upwards to C#1, and D2 is flat compared to D1. Upwards from D2 to C#2 even flatter.
> The contrary occurs with mouthpieces with too small volume: they tend to be to sharp.
> If a mouthpiece is too long and is played as above it gets increasingly flat.
> If it is too short it gets increasingly sharp.
> 
> ·        The discrepancies are bigger when playing with open tone holes (i.e. C#). (My comment: the percentage of volume excess (or shortage) is bigger with a shorter tube and would have bigger influence)
> 
> ·        To optimize the volume/length relationship you first adjust your mouthpiece on the neck so the D1/D2 octave is perfect (regardless of A=440 Hz) and then test C#2/C#3 octave. The degree to which the C#'s are out of tune to A=440 and each other is the degree of acoustical mismatch between your mouthpiece and your horn.
> 
> ·        If the C#’s are flat you have to enlarge the chamber or throat of the mouthpiece to gain volume. Then you test and correct again…
> 
> According to Jeff/Doc Tenney:
> 
> ·        Get palm D2 (“short” note) and “normal” D2 (“long” note) at the same pitch by placing the mouthpiece at an exact position on the tenon cork.
> 
> ·        Adjust further so you can obtain either D2 or the A2 pitch when playing D2. The overtone A2 must be the exact pitch match as the conventionally fingered A2.  Then the intonation over the instrument will be greatly improved.
> 
> According to Toby:
> 
> ·        Removing material from a tárogató mouthpiece throat can considerably raise pitch without any major change in volume or length; i.e. geometrical changes can change not only tone quality but also pitch of a mouthpiece.
> 
> Own experiments, experiences and opinions:
> 
> I have a Mk VI tenor, completely overhauled by Kenneth Schlaich at Jonas Näslund AB in Stockholm a couple of years ago. Before the sax was a mechanical disaster, I have understood afterwards. It was like learning to play a different instrument when it was ready. I could not play quite in tune; my usual BergLarsen 110/2 did not feel usual. And so I began testing mouthpieces, having problems to get the right one. I tested for example BergLarsen Duckbill 115/2, the new “Vintage” Otto Link 8*. I had played the Link about ½ a year not being entirely happy, when I found this forum, Keith’s website and his videos on YouTube (thank you, Keith!!!!) and begun experimenting. 
> First I made a destroyed Selmer C* playable again, not good, but playable. Then I couldn’t resist fiddling with the Duckbill, a pure terror to measure since it didn’t have a flat table, had horribly uneven rails, too long facing, had too large tip opening, and so on. I first corrected these points (the best I could). It then was 108 TO and rather OK facing, but it didn’t play well. It was too shrill in the second octave and I put it aside again and got absorbed by civil work. 
> Now this discussion tread has gotten me to retry. It was difficult to get the D1/D2 in tune, and very difficult to get the C#’s pure. To me playing saxophone has been very much adjusting with embouchure, and testing pitches without adjusting was an act of self-restraint. D2 much more flat than D1. Step by step I have made the throat wider and scoped out the side walls and tried to make the chamber bigger and now I think it’s OK when I have the mouthpiece pushed in so that A=448 Hz. And, in fact, I could imagine that intervals of the horn are better in tune, even when the mpc is pulled to A=440. The mouthpiece is easier to play and the tone quality has improved. Perhaps I will be digging out some more bronze later…  or does anybody have a better idea?
> 
>  
> 
> If you have a scientific hypothesis and you prove it by an experiment, then it is generally considered that another scientist has to redo the same experiment with his own equipment and get the same result for the hypothesis to be considered confirmed. I have not completed every step of this experiment, and can only partially confirm the hypothesis. Has anyone else tried? So far almost no one seems to be completely sure that it works. What I think is somewhat missing in the discussion (except by Toby) is the form factor. 
> A lot of skilled guys doesn’t agree with Lance’s opinions –why? Which facts contradicts them? Why are these theories quite contrary to your experience?  Any truth in the teories at all? Is there a Holy Mouthpiece Grail?
> 
>  
> 
> Best regards from the northern of Sweden 
> Lars
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Från: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com] För MartinMods
> Skickat: den 9 januari 2012 00:38
> Till: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Ämne: RE: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> I've made/sold ca. 30 optimized mouthpieces of various chamber types and materials, worldwide, and in every case, have eliminated the characteristic intonation issues associated with vintage horns, and in each of those cases, the optimization addressed only the particular instrument brand/model, not the individual player.  This degree of optimization is currently achieved by some established mouthpiece makers for today's modern horns. Many players are satisfied with this result - greatly reduced conical air column effects.  Most professionals though will not be.  Thus, the endless search for the right mouthpiece still exists.  The Holy Grail is not in the tip opening, baffle type, facing curve, or material.  Those are indispensably important aspects that all contribute to the end result, but, more than any other factor, what will make a mouthpiece "magic" or a dog is the degree of mouthpiece optimization to the individual player/horn combination.  
> 
> Enjoy the results if you use it.  This is brought to you via a thorough working (picture book - calculus not required) understanding of woodwind and mouthpiece acoustics , IMO, an absolute prerequisite for doing anything intelligent with them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- On Sun, 1/8/12, gregwier@... <gregwier@...> wrote:
> 
> 
> From: gregwier@... <gregwier@...>
> Subject: RE: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Sunday, January 8, 2012, 3:16 PM
> 
>  
> 
> Theory and the classroom are fine for preparation in the real world.  Practical application is a separate reality.  There is a wide leap from putting whatever exacting theories that become part of a belief system or basis for a product into a concrete usable item.  Experience continues to be the best teacher. The ear also continues to be a musician's most valuable asset.
> 
>  
> 
> Regarding practical application.  Enlarging a chamber and thoat is a difficult process requiring care. It would have saved some extra work to prevent gouging and have smoother results if I had some hard rubber practice tubes to hone my Dremmel skills while leaning this process.  So here is another good idea product for this group.  Practice cylinders in hard rubber and plastic or delrin as a learning tool.
> 
>  
> 
> Internet forums become annoying when the members play king of the hill with unending posts for attention and debates that become personal conflicts and attacks.  This is counterproductive.
> 
>  
> 
> Peace - GREG WIER 
> 
> --- tfairbri@... wrote:
> 
> From: "Tony Fairbridge" <tfairbri@...>
> To: <MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: RE: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
> Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 01:17:52 +1100
> 
>  
> 
> These discussions are becoming more and more circular, and I don’t see any way either of you is going to persuade the other of the correctness of your approach. Presumably both of you are applying your individual methods and are both getting a satisfactory result. Steve, your methods obviously work, the proof is all around us. Lance, your method obviously works to your satisfaction. I suggest that it’s time to either agree to disagree or to take this discussion off this forum and let us get on with life.
> 
> Tony F.
> 
>  
> 
> From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of MartinMods
> Sent: Sunday, 8 January 2012 1:01 PM
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
> 
>  
> 
> "I think I know most of the people who design saxophones for a living, and correspond with them regularly.....I have never heard anyone report anything remotely resembling this......"
> 
> I'm quite aware of that :-)  I don't find new saxophones particularly interesting tonally, for that very reason, so that doesn't impress me.  You do what you do, and I'll do what I do, and I'll see you on the field, as they say.
> 
>  
> 
> Again, this is QUITE contrary to my experience....I thought we were going to be spared these endless theoretical discussions here, and that they were going to be confined to the acoustics group
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
>  
> 
> STEVE  GOODSON
> 
> Saxophone Guru and Visionary
> 
> New Orleans
> 
> www.nationofmusic.com
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 
>  
> 
> Netscape.  Just the Net You Need.
> 
> 
> 

Yes I agree in what you say, there are so many variables that it must be impossible to control all of them. Of course could not fixing just one of them compensate for everything else that is not optimal. 

But I have observed that it is possible to get D1/D2 and C#1/C#2  in better tune by moving the mouthpiece and some improvement in tuning when widening a long rather narrow mouthpiece, so is it not possible that some benefit can come out of this way of adjusting? Just because an idea is new (or is it?), it doesn’t mean it is wrong and it could also be that the industry just not YET has adopted it. But what do I know, being an amateur I am just curious and have no prestige in this matter.  I do not expect miracles, but one can always hope!

Best Regards

Lars 

 

Från: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com] För Steve Goodson
Skickat: den 9 januari 2012 02:31
Till: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Ämne: Re: SV: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces

 

  

You CANNOT resolve the inherent intonation difficulties of the saxophone merely by adjusting the mouthpiece......particularly on older instruments......there are MANY factors involved, and perfection is elusive at best....some improvement is possible, but the mouthpiece itself is a very minor factor.....if all could be made well merely by adjusting the mouthpiece, there would be no need for new instruments, necks, etc......I note with considerable interest that Lance seems to be very much alone in his belief that this mouthpiece business is an absolute cure all......it also strikes me as odd that this technique that we have been assured never fails don't seem to have caught on within the industry....I would have supposed that if the miracles promised were in factorial, it's adoption would have been universal, and it's not.....

Sent from my iPad

 

STEVE  GOODSON

Saxophone Guru and Visionary

New Orleans

www.nationofmusic.com

 

 


On Jan 8, 2012, at 7:01 PM, Lars Grundström <lgrundstroem@...> wrote:

  

Thank you for all postings, most of which I’ve read with great interest, trying to understand.

According to Lance, if I have understood correctly:

·        A mouthpiece with too big volume tends to be increasingly flat when playing from D1 upwards to C#1, and D2 is flat compared to D1. Upwards from D2 to C#2 even flatter.
The contrary occurs with mouthpieces with too small volume: they tend to be to sharp.
If a mouthpiece is too long and is played as above it gets increasingly flat.
If it is too short it gets increasingly sharp.

·        The discrepancies are bigger when playing with open tone holes (i.e. C#). (My comment: the percentage of volume excess (or shortage) is bigger with a shorter tube and would have bigger influence)

·        To optimize the volume/length relationship you first adjust your mouthpiece on the neck so the D1/D2 octave is perfect (regardless of A=440 Hz) and then test C#2/C#3 octave. The degree to which the C#'s are out of tune to A=440 and each other is the degree of acoustical mismatch between your mouthpiece and your horn.

·        If the C#’s are flat you have to enlarge the chamber or throat of the mouthpiece to gain volume. Then you test and correct again…

According to Jeff/Doc Tenney:

·        Get palm D2 (“short” note) and “normal” D2 (“long” note) at the same pitch by placing the mouthpiece at an exact position on the tenon cork.

·        Adjust further so you can obtain either D2 or the A2 pitch when playing D2. The overtone A2 must be the exact pitch match as the conventionally fingered A2.  Then the intonation over the instrument will be greatly improved.

According to Toby:

·        Removing material from a tárogató mouthpiece throat can considerably raise pitch without any major change in volume or length; i.e. geometrical changes can change not only tone quality but also pitch of a mouthpiece. 

Own experiments, experiences and opinions:

I have a Mk VI tenor, completely overhauled by Kenneth Schlaich at Jonas Näslund AB in Stockholm a couple of years ago. Before the sax was a mechanical disaster, I have understood afterwards. It was like learning to play a different instrument when it was ready. I could not play quite in tune; my usual BergLarsen 110/2 did not feel usual. And so I began testing mouthpieces, having problems to get the right one. I tested for example BergLarsen Duckbill 115/2, the new “Vintage” Otto Link 8*. I had played the Link about ½ a year not being entirely happy, when I found this forum, Keith’s website and his videos on YouTube (thank you, Keith!!!!) and begun experimenting. 
First I made a destroyed Selmer C* playable again, not good, but playable. Then I couldn’t resist fiddling with the Duckbill, a pure terror to measure since it didn’t have a flat table, had horribly uneven rails, too long facing, had too large tip opening, and so on. I first corrected these points (the best I could). It then was 108 TO and rather OK facing, but it didn’t play well. It was too shrill in the second octave and I put it aside again and got absorbed by civil work. 
Now this discussion tread has gotten me to retry. It was difficult to get the D1/D2 in tune, and very difficult to get the C#’s pure. To me playing saxophone has been very much adjusting with embouchure, and testing pitches without adjusting was an act of self-restraint. D2 much more flat than D1. Step by step I have made the throat wider and scoped out the side walls and tried to make the chamber bigger and now I think it’s OK when I have the mouthpiece pushed in so that A=448 Hz. And, in fact, I could imagine that intervals of the horn are better in tune, even when the mpc is pulled to A=440. The mouthpiece is easier to play and the tone quality has improved. Perhaps I will be digging out some more bronze later…  or does anybody have a better idea?

 

If you have a scientific hypothesis and you prove it by an experiment, then it is generally considered that another scientist has to redo the same experiment with his own equipment and get the same result for the hypothesis to be considered confirmed. I have not completed every step of this experiment, and can only partially confirm the hypothesis. Has anyone else tried? So far almost no one seems to be completely sure that it works. What I think is somewhat missing in the discussion (except by Toby) is the form factor. 
A lot of skilled guys doesn’t agree with Lance’s opinions –why? Which facts contradicts them? Why are these theories quite contrary to your experience?  Any truth in the teories at all? Is there a Holy Mouthpiece Grail?

 

Best regards from the northern of Sweden 
Lars

 

 

Från: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com] För MartinMods
Skickat: den 9 januari 2012 00:38
Till: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Ämne: RE: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces

 

  


I've made/sold ca. 30 optimized mouthpieces of various chamber types and materials, worldwide, and in every case, have eliminated the characteristic intonation issues associated with vintage horns, and in each of those cases, the optimization addressed only the particular instrument brand/model, not the individual player.  This degree of optimization is currently achieved by some established mouthpiece makers for today's modern horns. Many players are satisfied with this result - greatly reduced conical air column effects.  Most professionals though will not be.  Thus, the endless search for the right mouthpiece still exists.  The Holy Grail is not in the tip opening, baffle type, facing curve, or material.  Those are indispensably important aspects that all contribute to the end result, but, more than any other factor, what will make a mouthpiece "magic" or a dog is the degree of mouthpiece optimization to the individual player/horn combination.  

Enjoy the results if you use it.  This is brought to you via a thorough working (picture book - calculus not required) understanding of woodwind and mouthpiece acoustics , IMO, an absolute prerequisite for doing anything intelligent with them.








--- On Sun, 1/8/12,  <mailto:gregwier@...> gregwier@... < <mailto:gregwier@...> gregwier@...> wrote:


From:  <mailto:gregwier@...> gregwier@... < <mailto:gregwier@...> gregwier@...>
Subject: RE: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
To:  <mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com> MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, January 8, 2012, 3:16 PM

  

Theory and the classroom are fine for preparation in the real world.  Practical application is a separate reality.  There is a wide leap from putting whatever exacting theories that become part of a belief system or basis for a product into a concrete usable item.  Experience continues to be the best teacher. The ear also continues to be a musician's most valuable asset.

 

Regarding practical application.  Enlarging a chamber and thoat is a difficult process requiring care. It would have saved some extra work to prevent gouging and have smoother results if I had some hard rubber practice tubes to hone my Dremmel skills while leaning this process.  So here is another good idea product for this group.  Practice cylinders in hard rubber and plastic or delrin as a learning tool.

 

Internet forums become annoying when the members play king of the hill with unending posts for attention and debates that become personal conflicts and attacks.  This is counterproductive.

 

Peace - GREG WIER 

---  <mailto:tfairbri@....au> tfairbri@... wrote:

From: "Tony Fairbridge" < <mailto:tfairbri@...> tfairbri@...>
To: < <mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com> MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 01:17:52 +1100

  

These discussions are becoming more and more circular, and I don’t see any way either of you is going to persuade the other of the correctness of your approach. Presumably both of you are applying your individual methods and are both getting a satisfactory result. Steve, your methods obviously work, the proof is all around us. Lance, your method obviously works to your satisfaction. I suggest that it’s time to either agree to disagree or to take this discussion off this forum and let us get on with life.

Tony F.

 

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of MartinMods
Sent: Sunday, 8 January 2012 1:01 PM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: small chamber alto mouthpieces

 


"I think I know most of the people who design saxophones for a living, and correspond with them regularly.....I have never heard anyone report anything remotely resembling this......"

I'm quite aware of that :-)  I don't find new saxophones particularly interesting tonally, for that very reason, so that doesn't impress me.  You do what you do, and I'll do what I do, and I'll see you on the field, as they say.

  

Again, this is QUITE contrary to my experience....I thought we were going to be spared these endless theoretical discussions here, and that they were going to be confined to the acoustics group

Sent from my iPad 

  

STEVE  GOODSON 

Saxophone Guru and Visionary 

New Orleans 

www.nationofmusic.com 

  

  


 

  _____  

Netscape.  Just the Net You Need. 

Well, back to the original subject of this thread, small vs. large chamber alto mouthpieces, I luv the large chamber flexibility on alto and will ream out a small chamber piece in a second if given a chance.

Just a quick report here--maybe no news to the pros:

I received an old wooden mpc with tooth marks almost 2mm deep. I'm not comfortable with epoxies due to the BPA content.  I slowly built up the worn area with coats of thin superglue--about 10 times all in all. Finally filed smooth then sanded, finishing with 1200 grit and polished with jeweler's rouge. It turned out just great: smooth and transparent, with a completely neutral, hard surface.

Because cyanoacrylates cling so well and hold up even when quite thin, I decided to coat the entire beak in order to have a consistent finish and surface, and I was easily able to do that and seamlessly integrate the new coat with the old. If and when it wears it should be possible to recoat and refinish invisibly. 

FWIW