I've been experimenting with this, as in US Patent 5,293,805…….pretty impressive results….anybody else tried this and/or have any thoughts?

The shape shown as Fig 5 in the patent is not a true ellipse.  But I guess they did not know what to call it.  It is more of a circular cylinder with a slightly pointed ridge along the top.  Maybe they wanted to patent a broader claim that include all ellipse-like shapes.

I never made a chamber like this myself but I have played a Fatboy Guardala with ridge next to a regular Guardala.  I did not notice a difference.

On Sep 27, 2013, at 5:33 PM, STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...> wrote:

> I've been experimenting with this, as in US Patent 5,293,805…….pretty impressive results….anybody else tried this and/or have any thoughts?
> 
> 

There were more overtones present….a little more complex sound…..I thought there was a definite difference…..not huge, but very much real and very much there….


On Sep 27, 2013, at 7:02 PM, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:

> 
> The shape shown as Fig 5 in the patent is not a true ellipse.  But I guess they did not know what to call it.  It is more of a circular cylinder with a slightly pointed ridge along the top.  Maybe they wanted to patent a broader claim that include all ellipse-like shapes.
> 
> I never made a chamber like this myself but I have played a Fatboy Guardala with ridge next to a regular Guardala.  I did not notice a difference.
> 
> On Sep 27, 2013, at 5:33 PM, STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...> wrote:
> 
>>  
>> I've been experimenting with this, as in US Patent 5,293,805…….pretty impressive results….anybody else tried this and/or have any thoughts?
>> 
> 
> 

This html message parsed with html2text ---------------------------If you have a neck that is oval but the cross sectional area is otherwise the
same at every point, does it sound different or the same as a round one?
\\---In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com,  wrote: I've been experimenting with
this, as in US Patent 5,293,805…….pretty impressive results….anybody else
tried this and/or have any thoughts?

different……necks should have the proper length and taper for a specific instrument….if it's oval, it alters the taper


On Sep 29, 2013, at 3:20 PM, <frymorgan@...> wrote:

> 
> If you have a neck that is oval but the cross sectional area is otherwise the same at every point, does it sound different or the same as a round one?
> 
> 
> 
> ---In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <mouthpiecework@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
> 
> I've been experimenting with this, as in US Patent 5,293,805…….pretty impressive results….anybody else tried this and/or have any thoughts?
> 
> 

Elliptical just behaves slightly smaller than round.




________________________________
 From: STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2013 1:23 PM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] RE: Elliptical tone chambers
 


  
different……necks should have the proper length and taper for a specific instrument….if it's oval, it alters the taper



On Sep 29, 2013, at 3:20 PM, <frymorgan@...> wrote:

  
>
>
>If you have a neck that is oval but the cross sectional area is otherwise the same at every point, does it sound different or the same as a round one?
>
>
>---In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <mouthpiecework@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
>
>I've been experimenting with this, as in US Patent 5,293,805…….pretty impressive results….anybody else tried this and/or have any thoughts?
>
>

 

Theoretically, if the cross-sectional area across the neck is the same 
as in a round neck, it should sound the same. Of course, the more 
elliptical, the more area for wall losses. Also, this brings down the 
resonance frequencies of the walls, and if thin enough, they could 
couple with a playing frequency and vibrate, which might well change the 
sound somewhat. But for moderate ellipticity, I doubt those effects 
would matter.

Toby

Yeah.   Although, If the walls vibrate enough, they don't have to couple to change the effective cross sectional area of the tube (Benade/Nederveen) which would change the sound, but, that's all academic.  Steve is talking about mouthpiece chambers being oval, where there is a good deal of compliance - the mouthpiece bore is fatter than the conical extension of the neck.  There, stuffing the compliance in the corners of a square or in the far ends of an ellipse, instead of it being equally distributed around the bore axis, will just make the chamber behave narrower than it actually is.




________________________________
 From: Toby <kymarto123@ybb.ne.jp>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2013 6:00 PM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] RE: Elliptical tone chambers
 


  
Theoretically, if the cross-sectional area across the neck is the same 
as in a round neck, it should sound the same. Of course, the more 
elliptical, the more area for wall losses. Also, this brings down the 
resonance frequencies of the walls, and if thin enough, they could 
couple with a playing frequency and vibrate, which might well change the 
sound somewhat. But for moderate ellipticity, I doubt those effects 
would matter.

Toby