Hi everybody,

I was experimenting some adjustments on a cheap plastic 4c copy  I adjusted the baffle  a bit and made the rails thinner but I was thinking I can make the rails even thinner and more even (width wise) If the back of the window is straight, Like a clarinet mpc. So I did that,but it was  stupid of me to do that after the other adjustments so  I still dont know the effect. (the mouthpiece plays good though)

Ao this left me wondering: why do clarinet mouthpieces have more of a square window or at least the edge is straight And saxophone mouthpieces have a rounded window?


I hope someone can give me some insight in the why and how.

Kind Regards,

Koen

Here's a square window but w/ rounded edges:
http://www.jgerber.com/serviced/berg_jg/pages/289_8965.htm

I haven't tried this mod.
Re some recent discussions, this might be one way to add a little volume
to a mouthpiece.

Nobody has commented - I'd also like to hear what people think.

Another question: what about square throats, eg. Selmer s80.

I was sent one by error from wwbw (I had ordered one of the new alto
Soloists). But it played as nicely as my old Soloist, so I kept it,
figuring that I lucked out in any case.

Barry


> Hi everybody,
>
> I was experimenting some adjustments on a cheap plastic 4c copy  I
> adjusted the baffle  a bit and made the rails thinner but I was thinking I
> can make the rails even thinner and more even (width wise) If the back of
> the window is straight, Like a clarinet mpc. So I did that,but it was
> stupid of me to do that after the other adjustments so  I still dont know
> the effect. (the mouthpiece plays good though)
>
> Ao this left me wondering: why do clarinet mouthpieces have more of a
> square window or at least the edge is straight And saxophone mouthpieces
> have a rounded window?
>
>
> I hope someone can give me some insight in the why and how.
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Koen
>
>

Wanne's "performance" line and HR Beechlers are also "square-ish."  The ARB
Great Neck reissues also have very clarinet-like windows.

I would guess it has more to do with manufacturing methods but I'm sure one
of the manufacturers here will know more.


On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 6:46 PM, Barry Levine
<barrylevine@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> Here's a square window but w/ rounded edges:
> http://www.jgerber.com/serviced/berg_jg/pages/289_8965.htm
>
> I haven't tried this mod.
> Re some recent discussions, this might be one way to add a little volume
> to a mouthpiece.
>
> Nobody has commented - I'd also like to hear what people think.
>
> Another question: what about square throats, eg. Selmer s80.
>
> I was sent one by error from wwbw (I had ordered one of the new alto
> Soloists). But it played as nicely as my old Soloist, so I kept it,
> figuring that I lucked out in any case.
>
> Barry
>
>
> > Hi everybody,
> >
> > I was experimenting some adjustments on a cheap plastic 4c copy I
> > adjusted the baffle a bit and made the rails thinner but I was thinking I
> > can make the rails even thinner and more even (width wise) If the back of
> > the window is straight, Like a clarinet mpc. So I did that,but it was
> > stupid of me to do that after the other adjustments so I still dont know
> > the effect. (the mouthpiece plays good though)
> >
> > Ao this left me wondering: why do clarinet mouthpieces have more of a
> > square window or at least the edge is straight And saxophone mouthpieces
> > have a rounded window?
> >
> >
> > I hope someone can give me some insight in the why and how.
> >
> > Kind Regards,
> >
> > Koen
> >
> >
>
>  
>



-- 
Matt
www.matthewvossjazz.com

"I haven't tried this mod.

Re some recent discussions, this might be one way to add a little volume
to a mouthpiece.

Nobody has commented - I'd also like to hear what people think.

Another question: what about square throats, eg. Selmer s80."

What square does - my theory.  Everything in the mouthpiece is about changes in air pressure - when, how much, and how fast.  The distance from the center axis of the bore and the wall has everything to do with how much and how fast.  The walls of a round bore are equidistant from the center axis.  A square bore results in the corners being further from the axis compared to round, but much of the flat, center area of each of the four walls is closer to the axis, compared to round. So pressure changes are stronger and faster, and that means higher harmonics.  Square chambers are brighter aren't they?

According to theory it is not cross-sectional shape, only volume at any given point along the bore that matters, although at some point aerodynamic effects must come into play. Also since a circle gives the most volume per surface area of the walls, wall losses would increase as you moved away from that shape. It seems to me.


--- MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
> 
> "I haven't tried this mod.
> 
> Re some recent discussions, this might be one way to add a little volume
> to a mouthpiece.
> 
> Nobody has commented - I'd also like to hear what people think.
> 
> Another question: what about square throats, eg. Selmer s80."
> 
> What square does - my theory.  Everything in the mouthpiece is about changes in air pressure - when, how much, and how fast.  The distance from the center axis of the bore and the wall has everything to do with how much and how fast.  The walls of a round bore are equidistant from the center axis.  A square bore results in the corners being further from the axis compared to round, but much of the flat, center area of each of the four walls is closer to the axis, compared to round. So pressure changes are stronger and faster, and that means higher harmonics.  Square chambers are brighter aren't they?
> 

I think size is an important consideration.  A small round throat can be brighter than square chamber.  Just filing out corners in a squeeze throat design would probably make it darker.

On Jan 18, 2012, at 9:04 PM, kymarto123@... wrote:

> According to theory it is not cross-sectional shape, only volume at any given point along the bore that matters, although at some point aerodynamic effects must come into play. Also since a circle gives the most volume per surface area of the walls, wall losses would increase as you moved away from that shape. It seems to me.
> 
> --- MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
> > 
> > "I haven't tried this mod.
> > 
> > Re some recent discussions, this might be one way to add a little volume
> > to a mouthpiece.
> > 
> > Nobody has commented - I'd also like to hear what people think.
> > 
> > Another question: what about square throats, eg. Selmer s80."
> > 
> > What square does - my theory.  Everything in the mouthpiece is about changes in air pressure - when, how much, and how fast.  The distance from the center axis of the bore and the wall has everything to do with how much and how fast.  The walls of a round bore are equidistant from the center axis.  A square bore results in the corners being further from the axis compared to round, but much of the flat, center area of each of the four walls is closer to the axis, compared to round. So pressure changes are stronger and faster, and that means higher harmonics.  Square chambers are brighter aren't they?
> > 
> 

Hello, I think my question has to do with this issue in the case of squaring the window, the general tendency would be to tone down?
Silverio
from Argentina

"According to theory it is not cross-sectional shape, only volume at any 
given point along the bore that matters, although at some point 
aerodynamic effects must come into play. Also since a circle gives the 
most volume per surface area of the walls, wall losses would increase as
 you moved away from that shape. It seems to me."

Cross-sectional area is the variable in the wave equation, not volume, and they assume the bore is round, cylindrical or conical.  Square/rectangular wave guides seem to be an entirely different animal.

It would remain to be seen how much the additional wall losses were in fact.

I assume identical cross-sectional area.

--- On Thu, 1/19/12, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:

From: Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...m>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Square windows?
To: "MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com" <MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Thursday, January 19, 2012, 2:44 AM








 



  


    
      
      
      
I think size is an important consideration.  A small round throat can be brighter than square chamber.  Just filing out corners in a squeeze throat design would probably make it darker.
On Jan 18, 2012, at 9:04 PM, kymarto123@ybb.ne.jp wrote:
















 



    
      
      
      According to theory it is not cross-sectional shape, only volume at any given point along the bore that matters, although at some point aerodynamic effects must come into play. Also since a circle gives the most volume per surface area of the walls, wall losses would increase as you moved away from that shape. It seems to me.



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

> 

> "I haven't tried this mod.

> 

> Re some recent discussions, this might be one way to add a little volume

> to a mouthpiece.

> 

> Nobody has commented - I'd also like to hear what people think.

> 

> Another question: what about square throats, eg. Selmer s80."

> 

> What square does - my theory.  Everything in the mouthpiece is about changes in air pressure - when, how much, and how fast.  The distance from the center axis of the bore and the wall has everything to do with how much and how fast.  The walls of a round bore are equidistant from the center axis.  A square bore results in the corners being further from the axis compared to round, but much of the flat, center area of each of the four walls is closer to the axis, compared to round. So pressure changes are stronger and faster, and that means higher harmonics.  Square chambers are brighter aren't they?

> 



    
     

    









    
     

    
    






  

Sorry, yes of course it is cross-sectional area against length. What I meant was that theoretically the shape of the cross-section shouldn't matter, as far as I know. A square organ pipe of the same cross-sectional area and length should sound the same as a cylindrical one. 

As far as squaring the window: I'm not sure. Volume not in line with the bore (like a closed tonehole chimney or the space directly under the back of the reed) isn't exactly analogous to extra volume in the bore. Lance, have you done experiments with that?

I doubt a square bore of short length would produce significant extra wall losses.

Toby

--- MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
> "According to theory it is not cross-sectional shape, only volume at any 
> given point along the bore that matters, although at some point 
> aerodynamic effects must come into play. Also since a circle gives the 
> most volume per surface area of the walls, wall losses would increase as
>  you moved away from that shape. It seems to me."
> 
> Cross-sectional area is the variable in the wave equation, not volume, and they assume the bore is round, cylindrical or conical.  Square/rectangular wave guides seem to be an entirely different animal.
> 
> It would remain to be seen how much the additional wall losses were in fact.
>  

Window and chamber size -- the effects on chamber size definitely has the effect of enlarging the chamber.  also makes for a 'bigger', more resonant sound, vs. a too-small window.   

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, kymarto123@... wrote:
>
> Sorry, yes of course it is cross-sectional area against length. What I meant was that theoretically the shape of the cross-section shouldn't matter, as far as I know. A square organ pipe of the same cross-sectional area and length should sound the same as a cylindrical one. 
> 
> As far as squaring the window: I'm not sure. Volume not in line with the bore (like a closed tonehole chimney or the space directly under the back of the reed) isn't exactly analogous to extra volume in the bore. Lance, have you done experiments with that?
> 
> I doubt a square bore of short length would produce significant extra wall losses.
> 
> Toby
> 
> --- MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
> > "According to theory it is not cross-sectional shape, only volume at any 
> > given point along the bore that matters, although at some point 
> > aerodynamic effects must come into play. Also since a circle gives the 
> > most volume per surface area of the walls, wall losses would increase as
> >  you moved away from that shape. It seems to me."
> > 
> > Cross-sectional area is the variable in the wave equation, not volume, and they assume the bore is round, cylindrical or conical.  Square/rectangular wave guides seem to be an entirely different animal.
> > 
> > It would remain to be seen how much the additional wall losses were in fact.
> >
>

Morgan,

Have you ever tried cutting the window way back into the table?


--- Morgan <frymorgan@...> wrote:
> 
> Window and chamber size -- the effects on chamber size definitely has the effect of enlarging the chamber.  also makes for a 'bigger', more resonant sound, vs. a too-small window.   
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, kymarto123@... wrote:
> >
> > Sorry, yes of course it is cross-sectional area against length. What I meant was that theoretically the shape of the cross-section shouldn't matter, as far as I know. A square organ pipe of the same cross-sectional area and length should sound the same as a cylindrical one. 
> > 
> > As far as squaring the window: I'm not sure. Volume not in line with the bore (like a closed tonehole chimney or the space directly under the back of the reed) isn't exactly analogous to extra volume in the bore. Lance, have you done experiments with that?
> > 
> > I doubt a square bore of short length would produce significant extra wall losses.
> > 
> > Toby
> > 
> > --- MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
> > > "According to theory it is not cross-sectional shape, only volume at any 
> > > given point along the bore that matters, although at some point 
> > > aerodynamic effects must come into play. Also since a circle gives the 
> > > most volume per surface area of the walls, wall losses would increase as
> > >  you moved away from that shape. It seems to me."
> > > 
> > > Cross-sectional area is the variable in the wave equation, not volume, and they assume the bore is round, cylindrical or conical.  Square/rectangular wave guides seem to be an entirely different animal.
> > > 
> > > It would remain to be seen how much the additional wall losses were in fact.
> > >
> >
> 
> 
> 

Way back like Jody's DVs?  Not really.  Lengthened the window maybe 5mm a couple of times, IIRC it seemed to lower the resistance some, brighten and spread the sound a little.  I haven't done extensive testing, though, and it was a couple of years ago.  Didn't like the results so I didn't pursue it further, but as a spot to remove material to manipulate chamber size it bears looking into IMO.  I'm interested in hearing Lance's opinion when he has given it a good look. FWIW the window I chose for my own pieces is standard length (as compared to Link and Meyer on tenor and alto respectively) and slightly wider than them at the back, but substantially wider at the tip.  These are large chamber pieces, for a long high baffle configuration something else might be better.

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, kymarto123@... wrote:
>
> Morgan,
> 
> Have you ever tried cutting the window way back into the table?
> 
> 
> --- Morgan <frymorgan@...> wrote:
> > 
> > Window and chamber size -- the effects on chamber size definitely has the effect of enlarging the chamber.  also makes for a 'bigger', more resonant sound, vs. a too-small window.   
> > 
> > --- In MouthpieceWork@...m, kymarto123@ wrote:
> > >
> > > Sorry, yes of course it is cross-sectional area against length. What I meant was that theoretically the shape of the cross-section shouldn't matter, as far as I know. A square organ pipe of the same cross-sectional area and length should sound the same as a cylindrical one. 
> > > 
> > > As far as squaring the window: I'm not sure. Volume not in line with the bore (like a closed tonehole chimney or the space directly under the back of the reed) isn't exactly analogous to extra volume in the bore. Lance, have you done experiments with that?
> > > 
> > > I doubt a square bore of short length would produce significant extra wall losses.
> > > 
> > > Toby
> > > 
> > > --- MartinMods <lancelotburt@> wrote:
> > > > "According to theory it is not cross-sectional shape, only volume at any 
> > > > given point along the bore that matters, although at some point 
> > > > aerodynamic effects must come into play. Also since a circle gives the 
> > > > most volume per surface area of the walls, wall losses would increase as
> > > >  you moved away from that shape. It seems to me."
> > > > 
> > > > Cross-sectional area is the variable in the wave equation, not volume, and they assume the bore is round, cylindrical or conical.  Square/rectangular wave guides seem to be an entirely different animal.
> > > > 
> > > > It would remain to be seen how much the additional wall losses were in fact.
> > > >
> > >
> > 
> > 
> >
>

I haven`t got a camera at hand now, so I put the mpc under the scanner with
a vest over the sides so you'll get the idea what I did. (see attachment)

I think I have yet to balance the rails a bit. it doesnt speak as good when
I blow softly but when I push it It`s quite a full sound a bit warmer in the
lower stack and It gets brighter Higher up. 
It plays a bit louder too but that`s probably more due to the larger tip
now.

 

 

 

Van: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
Namens Morgan
Verzonden: donderdag 19 januari 2012 16:20
Aan: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Onderwerp: Re:Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Square windows?

 

  


Way back like Jody's DVs? Not really. Lengthened the window maybe 5mm a
couple of times, IIRC it seemed to lower the resistance some, brighten and
spread the sound a little. I haven't done extensive testing, though, and it
was a couple of years ago. Didn't like the results so I didn't pursue it
further, but as a spot to remove material to manipulate chamber size it
bears looking into IMO. I'm interested in hearing Lance's opinion when he
has given it a good look. FWIW the window I chose for my own pieces is
standard length (as compared to Link and Meyer on tenor and alto
respectively) and slightly wider than them at the back, but substantially
wider at the tip. These are large chamber pieces, for a long high baffle
configuration something else might be better.

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> , kymarto123@... wrote:
>
> Morgan,
> 
> Have you ever tried cutting the window way back into the table?
> 
> 
> --- Morgan <frymorgan@...> wrote:
> > 
> > Window and chamber size -- the effects on chamber size definitely has
the effect of enlarging the chamber. also makes for a 'bigger', more
resonant sound, vs. a too-small window. 
> > 
> > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> , kymarto123@ wrote:
> > >
> > > Sorry, yes of course it is cross-sectional area against length. What I
meant was that theoretically the shape of the cross-section shouldn't
matter, as far as I know. A square organ pipe of the same cross-sectional
area and length should sound the same as a cylindrical one. 
> > > 
> > > As far as squaring the window: I'm not sure. Volume not in line with
the bore (like a closed tonehole chimney or the space directly under the
back of the reed) isn't exactly analogous to extra volume in the bore.
Lance, have you done experiments with that?
> > > 
> > > I doubt a square bore of short length would produce significant extra
wall losses.
> > > 
> > > Toby
> > > 
> > > --- MartinMods <lancelotburt@> wrote:
> > > > "According to theory it is not cross-sectional shape, only volume at
any 
> > > > given point along the bore that matters, although at some point 
> > > > aerodynamic effects must come into play. Also since a circle gives
the 
> > > > most volume per surface area of the walls, wall losses would
increase as
> > > > you moved away from that shape. It seems to me."
> > > > 
> > > > Cross-sectional area is the variable in the wave equation, not
volume, and they assume the bore is round, cylindrical or conical.
Square/rectangular wave guides seem to be an entirely different animal.
> > > > 
> > > > It would remain to be seen how much the additional wall losses were
in fact.
> > > >
> > >
> > 
> > 
> >
>

The thickness of the material South of the window varies from design to design, depending upon the bore axis/table angle and structural stability considerations related to material type (metal vs. hr), so.........it depends.  In the end, enlarging the window results in an asymmetrical distribution of volume and I don't think that offers any inherent advantage.  I've tried the DV and didn't notice that I was hitting a homerun any more than I was, playing on any other decent mouthpiece.

--- On Thu, 1/19/12, Morgan <frymorgan@...> wrote:

From: Morgan <frymorgan@...>
Subject: Re:Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Square windows?
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, January 19, 2012, 3:19 PM








 



  


    
      
      
      

Way back like Jody's DVs?  Not really.  Lengthened the window maybe 5mm a couple of times, IIRC it seemed to lower the resistance some, brighten and spread the sound a little.  I haven't done extensive testing, though, and it was a couple of years ago.  Didn't like the results so I didn't pursue it further, but as a spot to remove material to manipulate chamber size it bears looking into IMO.  I'm interested in hearing Lance's opinion when he has given it a good look. FWIW the window I chose for my own pieces is standard length (as compared to Link and Meyer on tenor and alto respectively) and slightly wider than them at the back, but substantially wider at the tip.  These are large chamber pieces, for a long high baffle configuration something else might be better.



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

>

> Morgan,

> 

> Have you ever tried cutting the window way back into the table?

> 

> 

> --- Morgan <frymorgan@...> wrote:

> > 

> > Window and chamber size -- the effects on chamber size definitely has the effect of enlarging the chamber.  also makes for a 'bigger', more resonant sound, vs. a too-small window.   

> > 

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

> > >

> > > Sorry, yes of course it is cross-sectional area against length. What I meant was that theoretically the shape of the cross-section shouldn't matter, as far as I know. A square organ pipe of the same cross-sectional area and length should sound the same as a cylindrical one. 

> > > 

> > > As far as squaring the window: I'm not sure. Volume not in line with the bore (like a closed tonehole chimney or the space directly under the back of the reed) isn't exactly analogous to extra volume in the bore. Lance, have you done experiments with that?

> > > 

> > > I doubt a square bore of short length would produce significant extra wall losses.

> > > 

> > > Toby

> > > 

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

> > > > "According to theory it is not cross-sectional shape, only volume at any 

> > > > given point along the bore that matters, although at some point 

> > > > aerodynamic effects must come into play. Also since a circle gives the 

> > > > most volume per surface area of the walls, wall losses would increase as

> > > >  you moved away from that shape. It seems to me."

> > > > 

> > > > Cross-sectional area is the variable in the wave equation, not volume, and they assume the bore is round, cylindrical or conical.  Square/rectangular wave guides seem to be an entirely different animal.

> > > > 

> > > > It would remain to be seen how much the additional wall losses were in fact.

> > > >

> > >

> > 

> > 

> >

>





    
     

    
    






  

As to window width - as long as the reed seals, widening the window at the tip increases the reed's transconductance (A) - U/p = A = changes in chamber air pressure (p) have an increased effect upon input air flow (U).  The further from the tip, the less any transconductance benefit would be noticeable.

--- On Thu, 1/19/12, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:

From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
Subject: Re:Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Square windows?
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, January 19, 2012, 8:41 PM








 



  


    
      
      
      The thickness of the material South of the window varies from design to design, depending upon the bore axis/table angle and structural stability considerations related to material type (metal vs. hr), so.........it depends.  In the end, enlarging the window results in an asymmetrical distribution of volume and I don't think that offers any inherent advantage.  I've tried the DV and didn't notice that I was hitting a homerun any more than I was, playing on any other decent mouthpiece.

--- On Thu, 1/19/12, Morgan <frymorgan@...> wrote:

From: Morgan <frymorgan@...>
Subject: Re:Re:Re:Re: [MouthpieceWork] Square windows?
To:
 MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, January 19, 2012, 3:19 PM








 



    
      
      
      

Way back like Jody's DVs?  Not really.  Lengthened the window maybe 5mm a couple of times, IIRC it seemed to lower the resistance some, brighten and spread the sound a little.  I haven't done extensive testing, though, and it was a couple of years ago.  Didn't like the results so I didn't pursue it further, but as a spot to remove material to manipulate chamber size it bears looking into IMO.  I'm interested in hearing Lance's opinion when he has given it a good look. FWIW the window I chose for my own pieces is standard length (as compared to Link and Meyer on tenor and alto respectively) and slightly wider than them at the back, but substantially wider at the tip.  These are large chamber pieces, for a long high baffle configuration something else might be better.



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

>

> Morgan,

> 

> Have you ever tried cutting the window way back into the table?

> 

> 

> --- Morgan <frymorgan@...> wrote:

> > 

> > Window and chamber size -- the effects on chamber size definitely has the effect of enlarging the chamber.  also makes for a 'bigger', more resonant sound, vs. a too-small window.   

> > 

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

> > >

> > > Sorry, yes of course it is cross-sectional area against length. What I meant was that theoretically the shape of the cross-section shouldn't matter, as far as I know. A square organ pipe of the same cross-sectional area and length should sound the same as a cylindrical one. 

> > > 

> > > As far as squaring the window: I'm not sure. Volume not in line with the bore (like a closed tonehole chimney or the space directly under the back of the reed) isn't exactly analogous to extra volume in the bore. Lance, have you done experiments with that?

> > > 

> > > I doubt a square bore of short length would produce significant extra wall losses.

> > > 

> > > Toby

> > > 

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

> > > > "According to theory it is not cross-sectional shape, only volume at any 

> > > > given point along the bore that matters, although at some point 

> > > > aerodynamic effects must come into play. Also since a circle gives the 

> > > > most volume per surface area of the walls, wall losses would increase as

> > > >  you moved away from that shape. It seems to me."

> > > > 

> > > > Cross-sectional area is the variable in the wave equation, not volume, and they assume the bore is round, cylindrical or conical.  Square/rectangular wave guides seem to be an entirely different animal.

> > > > 

> > > > It would remain to be seen how much the additional wall losses were in fact.

> > > >

> > >

> > 

> > 

> >

>