Mouthpiece Work / Mouthpiece Material test
FROM: frymorgan (Morgan)
SUBJECT: Mouthpiece Material test
I'm doing a little experiment to see whether people can tell the difference between otherwise identical metal and non-metal mouthpieces. I mean, everybody knows what they think as to whether it should or not, could or not, I just want to see what happens IRL. So, grab your headphones and take part! Details are here: http://morganfrymouthpieces.com/blogs/morgan/mouthpiece-matters Once I have enough data I'll share the results. cheers Morgan
FROM: lancelotburt (MartinMods)
SUBJECT: Re: Mouthpiece Material test
Cool Morgan. I tried it. One observation I offer from my experience making my own recordings: Minor differences in microphone placement/angle/distance to bell make noticeable differences in the nature of the recorded sound, and they happen, even if you think you are sitting/holding the sax in the same place. When attempting to differentiate between such fine tonal aspects as we are and attribute them to mouthpiece material, it might be good to put the horn in a fixed stand for the duration of the recording session to eliminate that significant variable.
--- On Thu, 2/9/12, Morgan <frymorgan@...> wrote:
From: Morgan <frymorgan@...m>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Mouthpiece Material test
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, February 9, 2012, 11:57 PM
I'm doing a little experiment to see whether people can tell the difference between otherwise identical metal and non-metal mouthpieces. I mean, everybody knows what they think as to whether it should or not, could or not, I just want to see what happens IRL. So, grab your headphones and take part! Details are here:
http://morganfrymouthpieces.com/blogs/morgan/mouthpiece-matters
Once I have enough data I'll share the results.
cheers
Morgan
FROM: frymorgan (Morgan)
SUBJECT: Re: Mouthpiece Material test
That's a fair point. OTOH, if there's a significant difference, the effect shouldn't be dominated by things like slight differences in phrasing or mic placement. It's impossible to eliminate every variable with a live player. I might have to follow up with a test using an artificial embouchure. Gotta find time to build one first... --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote: > > Cool Morgan. I tried it. One observation I offer from my experience making my own recordings: Minor differences in microphone placement/angle/distance to bell make noticeable differences in the nature of the recorded sound, and they happen, even if you think you are sitting/holding the sax in the same place. When attempting to differentiate between such fine tonal aspects as we are and attribute them to mouthpiece material, it might be good to put the horn in a fixed stand for the duration of the recording session to eliminate that significant variable. > > > --- On Thu, 2/9/12, Morgan <frymorgan@...> wrote: > > From: Morgan <frymorgan@...> > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Mouthpiece Material test > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com > Date: Thursday, February 9, 2012, 11:57 PM > > > > > > > > >  > > > > > > > > > > I'm doing a little experiment to see whether people can tell the difference between otherwise identical metal and non-metal mouthpieces. I mean, everybody knows what they think as to whether it should or not, could or not, I just want to see what happens IRL. So, grab your headphones and take part! Details are here: > > > > http://morganfrymouthpieces.com/blogs/morgan/mouthpiece-matters > > > > Once I have enough data I'll share the results. > > > > cheers > > Morgan >
FROM: lancelotburt (MartinMods)
SUBJECT: Re: Mouthpiece Material test
I didn't notice a significant difference, so I was left picking up on little details..:-)
--- On Fri, 2/10/12, Morgan <frymorgan@...> wrote:
From: Morgan <frymorgan@...>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Mouthpiece Material test
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, February 10, 2012, 6:53 AM
That's a fair point. OTOH, if there's a significant difference, the effect shouldn't be dominated by things like slight differences in phrasing or mic placement. It's impossible to eliminate every variable with a live player. I might have to follow up with a test using an artificial embouchure. Gotta find time to build one first...
--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
>
> Cool Morgan. I tried it. One observation I offer from my experience making my own recordings: Minor differences in microphone placement/angle/distance to bell make noticeable differences in the nature of the recorded sound, and they happen, even if you think you are sitting/holding the sax in the same place. When attempting to differentiate between such fine tonal aspects as we are and attribute them to mouthpiece material, it might be good to put the horn in a fixed stand for the duration of the recording session to eliminate that significant variable.
>
>
> --- On Thu, 2/9/12, Morgan <frymorgan@...> wrote:
>
> From: Morgan <frymorgan@...>
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Mouthpiece Material test
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Thursday, February 9, 2012, 11:57 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I'm doing a little experiment to see whether people can tell the difference between otherwise identical metal and non-metal mouthpieces. I mean, everybody knows what they think as to whether it should or not, could or not, I just want to see what happens IRL. So, grab your headphones and take part! Details are here:
>
>
>
> http://morganfrymouthpieces.com/blogs/morgan/mouthpiece-matters
>
>
>
> Once I have enough data I'll share the results.
>
>
>
> cheers
>
> Morgan
>
FROM: frymorgan (Morgan)
SUBJECT: Re: Mouthpiece Material test
I have revised the test now, including the original wav files. You might notice a different difference.0 --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote: > > I didn't notice a significant difference, so I was left picking up on little details..:-) > > > > --- On Fri, 2/10/12, Morgan <frymorgan@...> wrote: > > From: Morgan <frymorgan@...> > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Mouthpiece Material test > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com > Date: Friday, February 10, 2012, 6:53 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Â > > > > > > > > > > > > That's a fair point. OTOH, if there's a significant difference, the effect shouldn't be dominated by things like slight differences in phrasing or mic placement. It's impossible to eliminate every variable with a live player. I might have to follow up with a test using an artificial embouchure. Gotta find time to build one first... > > > > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@> wrote: > > > > > > Cool Morgan.ÃÂ I tried it.ÃÂ One observation I offer from my experience making my own recordings:ÃÂ Minor differences in microphone placement/angle/distance to bell make noticeable differences in the nature of the recorded sound, and they happen, even if you think you are sitting/holding the sax in the same place.ÃÂ When attempting to differentiate between such fine tonal aspects as we are and attribute them to mouthpiece material, it might be good to put the horn in a fixed stand for the duration of the recording session to eliminate that significant variable. > > > > > > > > > --- On Thu, 2/9/12, Morgan <frymorgan@> wrote: > > > > > > From: Morgan <frymorgan@> > > > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Mouthpiece Material test > > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com > > > Date: Thursday, February 9, 2012, 11:57 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ÃÂ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm doing a little experiment to see whether people can tell the difference between otherwise identical metal and non-metal mouthpieces. I mean, everybody knows what they think as to whether it should or not, could or not, I just want to see what happens IRL. So, grab your headphones and take part! Details are here: > > > > > > > > > > > > http://morganfrymouthpieces.com/blogs/morgan/mouthpiece-matters > > > > > > > > > > > > Once I have enough data I'll share the results. > > > > > > > > > > > > cheers > > > > > > Morgan > > > >
FROM: lancelotburt (MartinMods)
SUBJECT: Re: Mouthpiece Material test
I think material differences are more noticeable to the player than the listener anyway.
--- On Fri, 2/10/12, Morgan <frymorgan@...> wrote:
From: Morgan <frymorgan@...>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Mouthpiece Material test
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, February 10, 2012, 8:30 PM
I have revised the test now, including the original wav files. You might notice a different difference.0
--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
>
> I didn't notice a significant difference, so I was left picking up on little details..:-)
>
>
>
> --- On Fri, 2/10/12, Morgan <frymorgan@...> wrote:
>
> From: Morgan <frymorgan@...>
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Mouthpiece Material test
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Friday, February 10, 2012, 6:53 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> That's a fair point. OTOH, if there's a significant difference, the effect shouldn't be dominated by things like slight differences in phrasing or mic placement. It's impossible to eliminate every variable with a live player. I might have to follow up with a test using an artificial embouchure. Gotta find time to build one first...
>
>
>
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > Cool Morgan. I tried it. One observation I offer from my experience making my own recordings: Minor differences in microphone placement/angle/distance to bell make noticeable differences in the nature of the recorded sound, and they happen, even if you think you are sitting/holding the sax in the same place. When attempting to differentiate between such fine tonal aspects as we are and attribute them to mouthpiece material, it might be good to put the horn in a fixed stand for the duration of the recording session to eliminate that significant variable.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > --- On Thu, 2/9/12, Morgan <frymorgan@> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > From: Morgan <frymorgan@>
>
> > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Mouthpiece Material test
>
> > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>
> > Date: Thursday, February 9, 2012, 11:57 PM
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > ÂÂ
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I'm doing a little experiment to see whether people can tell the difference between otherwise identical metal and non-metal mouthpieces. I mean, everybody knows what they think as to whether it should or not, could or not, I just want to see what happens IRL. So, grab your headphones and take part! Details are here:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > http://morganfrymouthpieces.com/blogs/morgan/mouthpiece-matters
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Once I have enough data I'll share the results.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > cheers
>
> >
>
> > Morgan
>
> >
>
FROM: esteban_cadenza (Steve Keller)
SUBJECT: Re: Mouthpiece Material test
I took the test, listening with a pair of decent headphones to the MP3 files. My score was 50%. Which is good, from my standpoint, as I am one of those that think that material doesn't matter - except to the player WRT things like beak size and the overall feel of the piece (and perhaps small bone conduction differences). I agree with other comments about the small differences in tone, I found myself going through the clips about 8 bars at a time trying to hear the resonance of the various notes for comparison. This is a good, if very casual, test. Once you reveal the results I may have a few other comments, but I don't want to skew people's perception any. --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "Morgan" <frymorgan@...> wrote: > > I'm doing a little experiment to see whether people can tell the difference between otherwise identical metal and non-metal mouthpieces. I mean, everybody knows what they think as to whether it should or not, could or not, I just want to see what happens IRL. So, grab your headphones and take part! Details are here: > > http://morganfrymouthpieces.com/blogs/morgan/mouthpiece-matters > > Once I have enough data I'll share the results. > > cheers > Morgan >
FROM: lancelotburt (MartinMods)
SUBJECT: Re: Mouthpiece Material test
Likewise, I listened to a bar or two at a time. More than just tone, I found differences in the pitch and attack transients of the typical "problem notes" to be revealing, as if the mouthpieces did not all have identical volume/frequency characteristics. My score was 62.5%.
--- On Fri, 2/10/12, Steve Keller <esteban_cadenza@...> wrote:
From: Steve Keller <esteban_cadenza@...>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Mouthpiece Material test
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, February 10, 2012, 10:15 PM
I took the test, listening with a pair of decent headphones to the MP3 files.
My score was 50%. Which is good, from my standpoint, as I am one of those that think that material doesn't matter - except to the player WRT things like beak size and the overall feel of the piece (and perhaps small bone conduction differences).
I agree with other comments about the small differences in tone, I found myself going through the clips about 8 bars at a time trying to hear the resonance of the various notes for comparison.
This is a good, if very casual, test. Once you reveal the results I may have a few other comments, but I don't want to skew people's perception any.
--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "Morgan" <frymorgan@...> wrote:
>
> I'm doing a little experiment to see whether people can tell the difference between otherwise identical metal and non-metal mouthpieces. I mean, everybody knows what they think as to whether it should or not, could or not, I just want to see what happens IRL. So, grab your headphones and take part! Details are here:
>
> http://morganfrymouthpieces.com/blogs/morgan/mouthpiece-matters
>
> Once I have enough data I'll share the results.
>
> cheers
> Morgan
>
FROM: frymorgan (Morgan)
SUBJECT: Re: Mouthpiece Material test
Rest assured the internal geometry is the same, to within probably .001". I ran these pieces back to back, same program, fixtures, cutters -- they're as identical as possible. What could be different -- deburred lightly by hand, could make some difference. the attack transients, IDK maybe the lighter beak is vibrating and acting a little like a second reed or something. --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote: > > Likewise, I listened to a bar or two at a time. More than just tone, I found differences in the pitch and attack transients of the typical "problem notes" to be revealing, as if the mouthpieces did not all have identical volume/frequency characteristics. My score was 62.5%.
FROM: mnordinnc (mnordinnc)
SUBJECT: Re: Mouthpiece Material test
I took the quiz admittedly under the worst circumstances (crap headphones and mp3). But I listened only for sound because things like intonation, attack, and other such factors can vary so much due to the player it's hard to attribute any of those differences to the mouthpiece material. I found each of the clip comparisons to be very, very similar and I would not be able to tell you which was metal vs. plastic/hard rubber. Like others have said, the player probably feels a difference but the sound heard by the audience is indiscernible imho. Nice project...thanks for sharing.
FROM: lancelotburt (MartinMods)
SUBJECT: Re: Mouthpiece Material test
Wall vibrations make the air column behave effectively smaller that it is physically. The equivalent volumes are definitely different.
--- On Sat, 2/11/12, Morgan <frymorgan@...> wrote:
From: Morgan <frymorgan@yahoo.com>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Mouthpiece Material test
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, February 11, 2012, 10:13 AM
Rest assured the internal geometry is the same, to within probably .001". I ran these pieces back to back, same program, fixtures, cutters -- they're as identical as possible. What could be different -- deburred lightly by hand, could make some difference. the attack transients, IDK maybe the lighter beak is vibrating and acting a little like a second reed or something.
--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
>
> Likewise, I listened to a bar or two at a time. More than just tone, I found differences in the pitch and attack transients of the typical "problem notes" to be revealing, as if the mouthpieces did not all have identical volume/frequency characteristics. My score was 62.5%.
FROM: frymorgan (Morgan)
SUBJECT: Re: Mouthpiece Material test
That hadn't even occurred to me, except to consider that possibly if the tip vibrates enough it could increase fuctional volume by acting like a second reed to an extent. I'm having trouble visualizing a mechanism by which body vibration of makes the chamber smaller. Let me get this straight -- a more flexible (i.e. one with less inertia, less resistance to moving due to the pressure wave) material bows out more at the pressure antinodes, making it effectively larger than the same shape in a material that bows less from the pressue. Is that what you're saying? --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote: > > Wall vibrations make the air column behave effectively smaller that it is physically. The equivalent volumes are definitely different. > > --- On Sat, 2/11/12, Morgan <frymorgan@...> wrote: > > From: Morgan <frymorgan@...> > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Mouthpiece Material test > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com > Date: Saturday, February 11, 2012, 10:13 AM > > > > > > > > >  > > > > > > > > > > Rest assured the internal geometry is the same, to within probably .001". I ran these pieces back to back, same program, fixtures, cutters -- they're as identical as possible. What could be different -- deburred lightly by hand, could make some difference. the attack transients, IDK maybe the lighter beak is vibrating and acting a little like a second reed or something. > > > > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@> wrote: > > > > > > Likewise, I listened to a bar or two at a time.àMore than just tone, I found differences in the pitch and attack transients of the typical "problem notes" to be revealing, as if the mouthpieces did not all have identical volume/frequency characteristics.àMy score was 62.5%. >
FROM: lancelotburt (MartinMods)
SUBJECT: Re: Mouthpiece Material test
Excessive wall vibrations alter the effective cross-sectional size of the air column for resonances according to frequency relationships. Resonances with frequencies below the wall frequency will behave as if the bore were enlarged. Those above wall frequency behave as if it were decreased. So states Benade, who did extensive experiments to verify his writings. I assume i's not about the hard-walled dimensions changing, rather, how the air next to the wall behaves.
It would be simple enough to evaluate the mouthpieces for effective volume/frequency characteristics without making any measurements. Regardless of what the cause (vibrating beak, mouthpiece placement, etc.) the recordings displayed two distinctively different degrees of mouthpiece induced conical
air column effects - one good match, one considerably less so.
The second reed idea is misleading. The way the reed resonance can contribute energy that sustains the harmonic regime is similar to how you push someone on a swing to keep them swinging. Pushing only works within a narrow range of the swinging cycle and within that range, the efficiency of pushing varies from just functional to optimal, depending on the exact point of the cycle in question. The reed resonance must satisfy certain conditions, and then, for each air column resonance, it can only contribute energy at one specific frequency which is somewhere below that particular air column resonance's peak amplitude frequency. The reed resonance must be flexible and controllable enough to enable the player to place it, via minor embouchure pressure changes, optimally over the entire range of the instrument. The idea that you can design a mouthpiece beak to
function in the same manner with the air column is a bit unrealistic IMO.
The player will most certainly experience the beak vibration through the teeth/bone to the inner ear however, however musical that may be or not.
--- On Sun, 2/12/12, Morgan <frymorgan@...> wrote:
From: Morgan <frymorgan@...>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Mouthpiece Material test
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, February 12, 2012, 3:47 PM
That hadn't even occurred to me, except to consider that possibly if the tip vibrates enough it could increase fuctional volume by acting like a second reed to an extent. I'm having trouble visualizing a mechanism by which body vibration of makes the chamber smaller.
Let me get this straight -- a more flexible (i.e. one with less inertia, less resistance to moving due to the pressure wave) material bows out more at the pressure antinodes, making it effectively larger than the same shape in a material that bows less from the pressue. Is that what you're saying?
--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
>
> Wall vibrations make the air column behave effectively smaller that it is physically. The equivalent volumes are definitely different.
>
> --- On Sat, 2/11/12, Morgan <frymorgan@...> wrote:
>
> From: Morgan <frymorgan@...>
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Mouthpiece Material test
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Saturday, February 11, 2012, 10:13 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Rest assured the internal geometry is the same, to within probably .001". I ran these pieces back to back, same program, fixtures, cutters -- they're as identical as possible. What could be different -- deburred lightly by hand, could make some difference. the attack transients, IDK maybe the lighter beak is vibrating and acting a little like a second reed or something.
>
>
>
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > Likewise, I listened to a bar or two at a time. More than just tone, I found differences in the pitch and attack transients of the typical "problem notes" to be revealing, as if the mouthpieces did not all have identical volume/frequency characteristics. My score was 62.5%.
>
FROM: frymorgan (Morgan)
SUBJECT: Re: Mouthpiece Material test
Very interesting. Do you recall where Benade has written about this? I know we can always test in the normal way to see how well the volume/frequency matches requirements, and I'll have a look at that with these two samples sometime soon. The main thing, though, is I'm just trying to get an accurate picture in my head of what's going on. --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote: > > Excessive wall vibrations alter the effective cross-sectional size of the air column for resonances according to frequency relationships. Resonances with frequencies below the wall frequency will behave as if the bore were enlarged. Those above wall frequency behave as if it were decreased. So states Benade, who did extensive experiments to verify his writings. I assume i's not about the hard-walled dimensions changing, rather, how the air next to the wall behaves. >
FROM: saxgourmet (Steve Goodson)
SUBJECT: Re: Mouthpiece Material test
What happened to the mouthpiece acoustics group for this sort of discussion? Sent from my iPad STEVE GOODSON Saxophone Guru and Visionary New Orleans www.nationofmusic.com On Feb 15, 2012, at 6:18 AM, "Morgan" <frymorgan@...> wrote: > Very interesting. Do you recall where Benade has written about this? I know we can always test in the normal way to see how well the volume/frequency matches requirements, and I'll have a look at that with these two samples sometime soon. The main thing, though, is I'm just trying to get an accurate picture in my head of what's going on. > > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote: > > > > Excessive wall vibrations alter the effective cross-sectional size of the air column for resonances according to frequency relationships. Resonances with frequencies below the wall frequency will behave as if the bore were enlarged. Those above wall frequency behave as if it were decreased. So states Benade, who did extensive experiments to verify his writings. I assume i's not about the hard-walled dimensions changing, rather, how the air next to the wall behaves. > > > >
FROM: lancelotburt (MartinMods)
SUBJECT: Re: Mouthpiece Material test
FMA, Woodwinds II, end of chapter, for wall vibrations.
https://ccrma.stanford.edu/marl/Benade/documents/Benade-Physics323-1977.pdf - last few pages on reed transconductance.
Anyway, I thought I might have noticed some very slight brightness differences on note attacks (termed transients - that specterally rapid changing first part of the note from which we recognize (mostly) the type of instrument it is) but it was hard to nail down since Dave was playing different licks in the samples. I guess for Joe Blow's practical purposes it debunks the "material" issue if you have to get that nit-picky.
--- On Wed, 2/15/12, Morgan <frymorgan@...> wrote:
From: Morgan <frymorgan@...>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Mouthpiece Material test
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, February 15, 2012, 12:18 PM
Very interesting. Do you recall where Benade has written about this? I know we can always test in the normal way to see how well the volume/frequency matches requirements, and I'll have a look at that with these two samples sometime soon. The main thing, though, is I'm just trying to get an accurate picture in my head of what's going on.
--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
>
> Excessive wall vibrations alter the effective cross-sectional size of the air column for resonances according to frequency relationships. Resonances with frequencies below the wall frequency will behave as if the bore were enlarged. Those above wall frequency behave as if it were decreased. So states Benade, who did extensive experiments to verify his writings. I assume i's not about the hard-walled dimensions changing, rather, how the air next to the wall behaves.
>
FROM: saxgourmet (STEVE GOODSON)
SUBJECT: Re: Mouthpiece Material test
shouldn't this be on the mouthpiece acoustics site and not here? On Feb 15, 2012, at 11:09 AM, MartinMods wrote: > FMA, Woodwinds II, end of chapter, for wall vibrations. > > https://ccrma.stanford.edu/marl/Benade/documents/Benade-Physics323-1977.pdf > - last few pages on reed transconductance. > > Anyway, I thought I might have noticed some very slight brightness > differences on note attacks (termed transients - that specterally > rapid changing first part of the note from which we recognize > (mostly) the type of instrument it is) but it was hard to nail down > since Dave was playing different licks in the samples. I guess for > Joe Blow's practical purposes it debunks the "material" issue if you > have to get that nit-picky. > > > > --- On Wed, 2/15/12, Morgan <frymorgan@...> wrote: > > From: Morgan <frymorgan@...> > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Mouthpiece Material test > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com > Date: Wednesday, February 15, 2012, 12:18 PM > > > Very interesting. Do you recall where Benade has written about this? > I know we can always test in the normal way to see how well the > volume/frequency matches requirements, and I'll have a look at that > with these two samples sometime soon. The main thing, though, is I'm > just trying to get an accurate picture in my head of what's going on. > > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> > wrote: > > > > Excessive wall vibrations alter the effective cross-sectional size > of the air column for resonances according to frequency > relationships. Resonances with frequencies below the wall > frequency will behave as if the bore were enlarged. Those above > wall frequency behave as if it were decreased. So states Benade, > who did extensive experiments to verify his writings. I assume i's > not about the hard-walled dimensions changing, rather, how the air > next to the wall behaves. > > > > >
FROM: lancelotburt (MartinMods)
SUBJECT: Re: Mouthpiece Material test
Do you have any experience working with polycarbonate vs. hard rubber? I'm inclined to think that hr is preferred since pc (bullet-proof windows) dulls cutting tools about as fast as stainless steel.
--- On Wed, 2/15/12, Morgan <frymorgan@...> wrote:
From: Morgan <frymorgan@...m>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Mouthpiece Material test
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, February 15, 2012, 12:18 PM
Very interesting. Do you recall where Benade has written about this? I know we can always test in the normal way to see how well the volume/frequency matches requirements, and I'll have a look at that with these two samples sometime soon. The main thing, though, is I'm just trying to get an accurate picture in my head of what's going on.
--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
>
> Excessive wall vibrations alter the effective cross-sectional size of the air column for resonances according to frequency relationships. Resonances with frequencies below the wall frequency will behave as if the bore were enlarged. Those above wall frequency behave as if it were decreased. So states Benade, who did extensive experiments to verify his writings. I assume i's not about the hard-walled dimensions changing, rather, how the air next to the wall behaves.
>
FROM: frymorgan (Morgan)
SUBJECT: Re: Mouthpiece Material test
Yeah, that's the problem with pc. I've never used it, just dismissed it out of hand because it's hard to machine. Actually, hard rubber dulls cutters pretty well, too -- it cuts fast but it's pretty abrasive, seems like I'm always going through roughing cutters. IDK, maybe I'm feeding too slow. If I was going to use anything besides hard rubber I'd probably use acetal (delrin). Cuts like butter, holds tolerances well, cheap, machined finish is good. Bit of a pain to hand finish and never got it to polish well, though. --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote: > > Do you have any experience working with polycarbonate vs. hard rubber? I'm inclined to think that hr is preferred since pc (bullet-proof windows) dulls cutting tools about as fast as stainless steel. > > > --- On Wed, 2/15/12, Morgan <frymorgan@...> wrote: > > From: Morgan <frymorgan@...> > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Mouthpiece Material test > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com > Date: Wednesday, February 15, 2012, 12:18 PM > > > > > > > > >  > > > > > > > > > > Very interesting. Do you recall where Benade has written about this? I know we can always test in the normal way to see how well the volume/frequency matches requirements, and I'll have a look at that with these two samples sometime soon. The main thing, though, is I'm just trying to get an accurate picture in my head of what's going on. > > > > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@> wrote: > > > > > > Excessive wall vibrations alter the effective cross-sectional size of the air column for resonances according to frequency relationships.àResonances with frequencies below the wall frequency will behave as if the bore were enlarged.àThose above wall frequency behave as if it were decreased.àSo states Benade, who did extensive experiments to verify his writings.àI assume i's not about the hard-walled dimensions changing, rather, how the air next to the wall behaves. > > > >
FROM: lancelotburt (MartinMods)
SUBJECT: Re: Mouthpiece Material test
Though I've done pretty well on PC using carbide grit so maybe a carbide tipped cutter will work better. Have to try it. It's nice (when it happens by accident) to be able to drop the mouthpiece on it's tip from 4 ft, on a cement floor, and not get a scratch on it. LOL.
--- On Wed, 2/15/12, Morgan <frymorgan@...> wrote:
From: Morgan <frymorgan@yahoo.com>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Mouthpiece Material test
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, February 15, 2012, 11:32 PM
Yeah, that's the problem with pc. I've never used it, just dismissed it out of hand because it's hard to machine.
Actually, hard rubber dulls cutters pretty well, too -- it cuts fast but it's pretty abrasive, seems like I'm always going through roughing cutters. IDK, maybe I'm feeding too slow. If I was going to use anything besides hard rubber I'd probably use acetal (delrin). Cuts like butter, holds tolerances well, cheap, machined finish is good. Bit of a pain to hand finish and never got it to polish well, though.
--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
>
> Do you have any experience working with polycarbonate vs. hard rubber? I'm inclined to think that hr is preferred since pc (bullet-proof windows) dulls cutting tools about as fast as stainless steel.
>
>
> --- On Wed, 2/15/12, Morgan <frymorgan@...> wrote:
>
> From: Morgan <frymorgan@...>
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Mouthpiece Material test
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Wednesday, February 15, 2012, 12:18 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Very interesting. Do you recall where Benade has written about this? I know we can always test in the normal way to see how well the volume/frequency matches requirements, and I'll have a look at that with these two samples sometime soon. The main thing, though, is I'm just trying to get an accurate picture in my head of what's going on.
>
>
>
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > Excessive wall vibrations alter the effective cross-sectional size of the air column for resonances according to frequency relationships. Resonances with frequencies below the wall frequency will behave as if the bore were enlarged. Those above wall frequency behave as if it were decreased. So states Benade, who did extensive experiments to verify his writings. I assume i's not about the hard-walled dimensions changing, rather, how the air next to the wall behaves.
>
> >
>
FROM: kwbradbury (Keith Bradbury)
SUBJECT: Re: Mouthpiece Material test
I am allowing the occasional mouthpiece acoustic discussion here. If it degrades to a repetitive cycle of back and forth, that is when I get the most complaints from members requesting to move it. ________________________________ From: STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 12:16 PM Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Mouthpiece Material test shouldn't this be on the mouthpiece acoustics site and not here? On Feb 15, 2012, at 11:09 AM, MartinMods wrote: >FMA, Woodwinds II, end of chapter, for wall vibrations. > >https://ccrma.stanford.edu/marl/Benade/documents/Benade-Physics323-1977.pdf - last few pages on reed transconductance. > >Anyway, I thought I might have noticed some very slight brightness differences on note attacks (termed transients - that specterally rapid changing first part of the note from which we recognize (mostly) the type of instrument it is) but it was hard to nail down since Dave was playing different licks in the samples. I guess for Joe Blow's practical purposes it debunks the "material" issue if you have to get that nit-picky. > > > >--- On Wed, 2/15/12, Morgan <frymorgan@...> wrote: > > >>From: Morgan <frymorgan@...m> >>Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Mouthpiece Material test >>To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com >>Date: Wednesday, February 15, 2012, 12:18 PM >> >> >> >>Very interesting. Do you recall where Benade has written about this? I know we can always test in the normal way to see how well the volume/frequency matches requirements, and I'll have a look at that with these two samples sometime soon. The main thing, though, is I'm just trying to get an accurate picture in my head of what's going on. >> >>--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote: >>> >>> Excessive wall vibrations alter the effective cross-sectional size of the air column for resonances according to frequency relationships. Resonances with frequencies below the wall frequency will behave as if the bore were enlarged. Those above wall frequency behave as if it were decreased. So states Benade, who did extensive experiments to verify his writings. I assume i's not about the hard-walled dimensions changing, rather, how the air next to the wall behaves. >>> >> >>