Dear Experts
Let me tell you a story with a Dukoff and ask your expert advice.
It is a Dukoff D7 soprano MP bought some years ago 2nd hand. Looks to be a recent model of Silverite material.
Did not use it so much at that time because it squeeked too much and could not compensate that with my embouchure of that time.
I then sticked to using instead a Chinese Otto Link clone that was giving me very good results, not to mention the remarkable value/money ratio!
As following this group since a couple of years or more, I decided to work on the Dukoff and experiment some things on it.
Story starts here:
I started by flattening the table (was more or less falt though).
Tried some different reeds (brands/strenghts) to see if they perform better but no significant improvement,
Then I noticed by measuring that its rails that where uneven in thickness. I ffiled with care and made them even.
(the hardest part was filling near the tip btw!)
Unfortunately squeeks were still there (perhaps slightly less)
Then I took the (hard) decision to work (file) on the baffle just after the tip rail trying to lower it and see how it may affect squeeking.
The results were remarkable as squeeks almost dissappeared. This is the good part of the story.
The bad part is that it seems that a side-effect was triggered by the baffle height reduction. 

High (2nd octave) notes come our harder and third octave became almost impossible. Not to speak about overtones...
I was dissapointed by that and left the D7 aside for a while.
Last week I had a somehow crazy idea. I made a temp baffle by "blue-tak" (the adhesive plasteline) starting 2-3 millimetres after the tip rail and having the shape of a "waterfall" (dont know how to describe better).
To my surpise this improved significanlty the ability to play the higher notes, without loss in the first octave.
Of course the shape of this temp baffle is not at all perfect but gives me the indication of correcting the problem AND squeeks are still very avoided!
So I would like to ask you the experts.
1) How can explain the modifications and their effects described above. Hope there should be logical explanations that help understanding "cause and effect(s)"
2) How would you treat this case (initianlly and before my modificaitions). Did I do something wrong and why?
3) What is my best course of action now? Perhaps create a fixed waterfall baffle with aluminun or any other material?
Any other tips are very welcome.  I hope my post and your following comments will give not only to me but also to the other members some usefull insights on MP works.
Many thanks in advance!

GV

Could you upload a photo showing your baffle?

> On May 4, 2014, at 11:59 AM, Gianni Veloce <gianniveloce@...> wrote:
> 
> Dear Experts
> Let me tell you a story with a Dukoff and ask your expert advice.
> It is a Dukoff D7 soprano MP bought some years ago 2nd hand. Looks to be a recent model of Silverite material.
> Did not use it so much at that time because it squeeked too much and could not compensate that with my embouchure of that time.
> I then sticked to using instead a Chinese Otto Link clone that was giving me very good results, not to mention the remarkable value/money ratio!
> As following this group since a couple of years or more, I decided to work on the Dukoff and experiment some things on it.
> Story starts here:
> I started by flattening the table (was more or less falt though).
> Tried some different reeds (brands/strenghts) to see if they perform better but no significant improvement,
> Then I noticed by measuring that its rails that where uneven in thickness. I ffiled with care and made them even.
> (the hardest part was filling near the tip btw!)
> Unfortunately squeeks were still there (perhaps slightly less)
> Then I took the (hard) decision to work (file) on the baffle just after the tip rail trying to lower it and see how it may affect squeeking.
> The results were remarkable as squeeks almost dissappeared. This is the good part of the story.
> The bad part is that it seems that a side-effect was triggered by the baffle height reduction. 
> High (2nd octave) notes come our harder and third octave became almost impossible. Not to speak about overtones...
> I was dissapointed by that and left the D7 aside for a while.
> Last week I had a somehow crazy idea. I made a temp baffle by "blue-tak" (the adhesive plasteline) starting 2-3 millimetres after the tip rail and having the shape of a "waterfall" (dont know how to describe better).
> To my surpise this improved significanlty the ability to play the higher notes, without loss in the first octave.
> Of course the shape of this temp baffle is not at all perfect but gives me the indication of correcting the problem AND squeeks are still very avoided!
> So I would like to ask you the experts.
> 1) How can explain the modifications and their effects described above. Hope there should be logical explanations that help understanding "cause and effect(s)"
> 2) How would you treat this case (initianlly and before my modificaitions). Did I do something wrong and why?
> 3) What is my best course of action now? Perhaps create a fixed waterfall baffle with aluminun or any other material?
> Any other tips are very welcome.  I hope my post and your following comments will give not only to me but also to the other members some usefull insights on MP works.
> Many thanks in advance!
> 
> GV
> 
> 
> 

Good idea (a pic >> 10.000 words!).
But have to find the way never done it before.
GV

On Monday, May 5, 2014 12:21 AM, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@yahoo.com> wrote:
 
  
Could you upload a photo showing your baffle?

On May 4, 2014, at 11:59 AM, Gianni Veloce <gianniveloce@...> wrote:


  
>Dear Experts
>Let me tell you a story with a Dukoff and ask your expert advice.
>It is a Dukoff D7 soprano MP bought some years ago 2nd hand. Looks to be a recent model of Silverite material.
>Did not use it so much at that time because it squeeked too much and could not compensate that with my embouchure of that time.
>I then sticked to using instead a Chinese Otto Link clone that was giving me very good results, not to mention the remarkable value/money ratio!
>As following this group since a couple of years or more, I decided to work on the Dukoff and experiment some things on it.
>Story starts here:
>I started by flattening the table (was more or less falt though).
>Tried some different reeds (brands/strenghts) to see if they perform better but no significant improvement,
>Then I noticed by measuring that its rails that where uneven in thickness. I ffiled with care and made them even.
>(the hardest part was filling near the tip btw!)
>Unfortunately squeeks were still there (perhaps slightly less)
>Then I took the (hard) decision to work (file) on the baffle just after the tip rail trying to lower it and see how it may affect
 squeeking.
>The results were remarkable as squeeks almost dissappeared. This is the good part of the story.
>The bad part is that it seems that a side-effect was triggered by the baffle height reduction. 
>
>High (2nd octave) notes come our harder and third octave became almost impossible. Not to speak about overtones...
>I was dissapointed by that and left the D7 aside for a while.
>Last week I had a somehow crazy idea. I made a temp baffle by "blue-tak" (the adhesive plasteline) starting 2-3 millimetres after the tip rail and having the shape of a "waterfall" (dont know how to describe better).
>To my surpise this improved significanlty the ability to play
 the higher notes, without loss in the first octave.
>Of course the shape of this temp baffle is not at all perfect but gives me the indication of correcting the problem AND squeeks are still very avoided!
>So I would like to ask you the experts.
>1) How can explain the modifications and their effects described above. Hope there should be logical explanations that help understanding "cause and effect(s)"
>2) How would you treat this case (initianlly and before my modificaitions). Did I do something wrong and why?
>3) What is my best course of action now? Perhaps create a fixed waterfall baffle with aluminun or any other material?
>Any other tips are very welcome.  I hope my post and your following comments will give not only to me but also to the other members some usefull insights on MP works.
>Many thanks in
 advance!
>
>GV
>
>
>
>

Hello again
I think Ihave managed to upload a zip file with 2 photos of the D7 mouthpiece.
Hope they can shed some light.
(many excuses if uploaded in the wrong place)
Awaiting your reponses.

many thnx
GV

On Monday, May 5, 2014 6:50 AM, Gianni Veloce <gianniveloce@...> wrote:
 
  
Good idea (a pic >> 10.000 words!).
But have to find the way never done it before.
GV

On Monday, May 5, 2014 12:21 AM, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...m> wrote:
 
  
Could you upload a photo showing your baffle?

On May 4, 2014, at 11:59 AM, Gianni Veloce <gianniveloce@...> wrote:


  
>Dear Experts
>Let me tell you a story with a Dukoff and ask your expert advice.
>It is a Dukoff D7 soprano MP bought some years ago 2nd hand. Looks to be a recent model of Silverite material.
>Did not use it so much at that time because it squeeked too much and could not compensate that with my embouchure of that time.
>I then sticked to using instead a Chinese Otto Link clone that was giving me very good results, not to mention the remarkable value/money ratio!
>As following this group since a couple of years or more, I decided to work on the Dukoff and experiment some things on
 it.
>Story starts here:
>I started by flattening the table (was more or less falt though).
>Tried some different reeds (brands/strenghts) to see if they perform better but no significant improvement,
>Then I noticed by measuring that its rails that where uneven in thickness. I ffiled with care and made them even.
>(the hardest part was filling near the tip btw!)
>Unfortunately squeeks were still there (perhaps slightly less)
>Then I took the (hard) decision to work (file) on the baffle just after the tip rail trying to lower it and see how it may affect
 squeeking.
>The results were remarkable as squeeks almost dissappeared. This is the good part of the story.
>The bad part is that it seems that a side-effect was triggered by the baffle height reduction. 
>
>High (2nd octave) notes come our harder and third octave became almost impossible. Not to speak about overtones...
>I was dissapointed by that and left the D7 aside for a while.
>Last week I had a somehow crazy idea. I made a temp baffle by "blue-tak" (the adhesive plasteline) starting 2-3 millimetres after the tip rail and having the shape of a "waterfall"
 (dont know how to describe better).
>To my surpise this improved significanlty the ability to play
 the higher notes, without loss in the first octave.
>Of course the shape of this temp baffle is not at all perfect but gives me the indication of correcting the problem AND squeeks are still very avoided!
>So I would like to ask you the experts.
>1) How can explain the modifications and their effects described above. Hope there should be logical explanations that help understanding "cause and effect(s)"
>2) How would you treat this case (initianlly and before my modificaitions). Did I do something wrong and why?
>3) What is my best course of action now? Perhaps create a fixed waterfall baffle with aluminun or any other material?
>Any other tips are very welcome.  I hope my post and your following
 comments will give not only to me but also to the other members some usefull insights on MP works.
>Many thanks in
 advance!
>
>GV
>
>
>
>

1. The lowering of the baffle near the tip reduced the Venturi effect force on the reed. This adds resistance to how easily the reed "speaks".  When it speaks too easily, unwanted altissimo notes can occur (squeaks).  This also depends on the facing curve, facing evenness, reed choice and embouchure.  

2. Adjusting the baffle is a last resort adjustment unless you know that you want a darker sound and less high frequencies in the sound spectrum.  Make sure the facing is even and has some resistance in its shape for sop sax.  A +6 to +8 elliptical facing is a good target compared to +3 to +5 on the larger saxes.

3. I would try taking the baffle out/in a few times to make sure this is what you want.  We often call this shape a wedge baffle.  I would then make it more permanent out of an epoxy putty.  

> On May 4, 2014, at 11:59 AM, Gianni Veloce <gianniveloce@...> wrote:
> 
> 
> 1) How can explain the modifications and their effects described above. Hope there should be logical explanations that help understanding "cause and effect(s)"
> 2) How would you treat this case (initianlly and before my modificaitions). Did I do something wrong and why?
> 3) What is my best course of action now? Perhaps create a fixed waterfall baffle with aluminun or any other material?
> Any other tips are very welcome.  I hope my post and your following comments will give not only to me but also to the other members some usefull insights on MP works.
> Many thanks in advance!
> 
> GV
> 
> 
> __._,_.__
> 
> 

Dear Keith
thank you for the descriptive answer and advices,
I understand the Venturi effect rationale. That means that perhaps I over-did it on sanding the near-the-tip baffle....
I do not understand though what is the meaning of "+6 to +8 elliptical facing"? Can you pls explain this?
Also, could it be another approach to try to make the tip rail bit narrower. Would this improve Venturi and compensate the baffle lowering?
many thanks again. Any other's  hints are of course very welcome!
GV



On Tuesday, May 6, 2014 3:33 PM, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:
 
  
1. The lowering of the baffle near the tip reduced the Venturi effect force on the reed. This adds resistance to how easily the reed "speaks".  When it speaks too easily, unwanted altissimo notes can occur (squeaks).  This also depends on the facing curve, facing evenness, reed choice and embouchure.  

2. Adjusting the baffle is a last resort adjustment unless you know that you want a darker sound and less high frequencies in the sound spectrum.  Make sure the facing is even and has some resistance in its shape for sop sax.  A +6 to +8 elliptical facing is a good target compared to +3 to +5 on the larger saxes.

3. I would try taking the baffle out/in a few times to make sure this is what you want.  We often call this shape a wedge baffle.  I would then make it more permanent out of an epoxy putty.  

On May 4, 2014, at 11:59 AM, Gianni Veloce <gianniveloce@...> wrote:


  
>
>
>1) How can explain the modifications and their effects described above. Hope there should be logical explanations that help understanding "cause and effect(s)"
>2) How would you treat this case (initianlly and before my modificaitions). Did I do something wrong and why?
>3) What is my best course of action now? Perhaps create a fixed waterfall baffle with aluminun or any other material?
>Any other tips are very welcome.  I hope my post and your following comments will give not only to me but also to the other members some usefull insights on MP works.
>Many thanks in
 advance!
>
>GV
>
>
>
>

Sorry, the +# is a notation I use for the aspect ratio of the elliptical facing curve shape.  So a +6 would be a/b ratio = 6.  Where a and b are the major and minor axis lengths of the ellipse.

> On May 6, 2014, at 12:08 PM, Gianni Veloce <gianniveloce@...> wrote:
> 
> Dear Keith
> thank you for the descriptive answer and advices,
> I understand the Venturi effect rationale. That means that perhaps I over-did it on sanding the near-the-tip baffle....
> I do not understand though what is the meaning of "+6 to +8 elliptical facing"? Can you pls explain this?
> Also, could it be another approach to try to make the tip rail bit narrower. Would this improve Venturi and compensate the baffle lowering?
> many thanks again. Any other's  hints are of course very welcome!
> GV
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, May 6, 2014 3:33 PM, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:
>  
> 1. The lowering of the baffle near the tip reduced the Venturi effect force on the reed. This adds resistance to how easily the reed "speaks".  When it speaks too easily, unwanted altissimo notes can occur (squeaks).  This also depends on the facing curve, facing evenness, reed choice and embouchure.  
> 
> 2. Adjusting the baffle is a last resort adjustment unless you know that you want a darker sound and less high frequencies in the sound spectrum.  Make sure the facing is even and has some resistance in its shape for sop sax.  A +6 to +8 elliptical facing is a good target compared to +3 to +5 on the larger saxes.
> 
> 3. I would try taking the baffle out/in a few times to make sure this is what you want.  We often call this shape a wedge baffle.  I would then make it more permanent out of an epoxy putty.  
> 
>> On May 4, 2014, at 11:59 AM, Gianni Veloce <gianniveloce@...> wrote:
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> 1) How can explain the modifications and their effects described above. Hope there should be logical explanations that help understanding "cause and effect(s)"
>> 2) How would you treat this case (initianlly and before my modificaitions). Did I do something wrong and why?
>> 3) What is my best course of action now? Perhaps create a fixed waterfall baffle with aluminun or any other material?
>> Any other tips are very welcome.  I hope my post and your following comments will give not only to me but also to the other members some usefull insights on MP works.
>> Many thanks in advance!
>> 
>> GV
> 
> 
> 
> 

thanks for clarifying that.

But I think I should try to find my high school mathematic books!
Do you thing that trying to make the tip rail bit narrower it would this improve Venturi and compensate the baffle lowering?

Thanks and regards
GV


On Tuesday, May 6, 2014 8:00 PM, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:
 
  
Sorry, the +# is a notation I use for the aspect ratio of the elliptical facing curve shape.  So a +6 would be a/b ratio = 6.  Where a and b are the major and minor axis lengths of the ellipse.

On May 6, 2014, at 12:08 PM, Gianni Veloce <gianniveloce@yahoo.com> wrote:


  
>Dear Keith
>thank you for the descriptive answer and advices,
>I understand the Venturi effect rationale. That means that perhaps I over-did it on sanding the near-the-tip baffle....
>I do not understand though what is the meaning of "+6 to +8 elliptical facing"? Can you pls explain this?
>Also, could it be another approach to try to make the tip rail bit narrower. Would this improve Venturi and compensate the baffle lowering?
>many thanks again. Any other's  hints are of course very welcome!
>GV
>
>
>
>
>On Tuesday, May 6, 2014 3:33 PM, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:
> 
>  
>1. The lowering of the baffle near the tip reduced the Venturi effect force on the reed. This adds resistance to how easily the reed "speaks".  When it speaks too easily, unwanted altissimo notes can occur (squeaks).  This also depends on the facing curve, facing evenness, reed choice and embouchure.  
>
>
>2. Adjusting the baffle is a last resort adjustment unless you know that you want a darker sound and less high frequencies in the sound spectrum.  Make sure the facing is even and has some resistance in its shape for sop sax.  A +6 to +8 elliptical facing is a good target compared to +3 to +5 on the larger saxes.
>
>
>3. I would try taking the baffle out/in a few times to make sure this is what you want.  We often call this shape a wedge baffle.  I would then make it more permanent out of an epoxy putty.  
>
>
>On May 4, 2014, at 11:59 AM, Gianni Veloce <gianniveloce@...> wrote:
>
>
>  
>>
>>
>>1) How can explain the modifications and their effects described above. Hope there should be logical explanations that help understanding "cause and effect(s)"
>>2) How would you treat this case (initianlly and before my modificaitions). Did I do something wrong and why?
>>3) What is my best course of action now? Perhaps create a fixed waterfall baffle with aluminun or any other material?
>>Any other tips are very welcome.  I hope my post and
 your following comments will give not only to me but also to the other members some usefull insights on MP works.
>>Many thanks in
 advance!
>>
>>GV
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

  



On Tuesday, May 6, 2014 10:00 AM, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:
 
  
Sorry, the +# is a notation I use for the aspect ratio of the elliptical facing curve shape.  So a +6 would be a/b ratio = 6.  Where a and b are the major and minor axis lengths of the ellipse.

On May 6, 2014, at 12:08 PM, Gianni Veloce <gianniveloce@yahoo.com> wrote:


  
>Dear Keith
>thank you for the descriptive answer and advices,
>I understand the Venturi effect rationale. That means that perhaps I over-did it on sanding the near-the-tip baffle....
>I do not understand though what is the meaning of "+6 to +8 elliptical facing"? Can you pls explain this?
>Also, could it be another approach to try to make the tip rail bit narrower. Would this improve Venturi and compensate the baffle lowering?
>many thanks again. Any other's  hints are of course very welcome!
>GV
>
>
>
>
>On Tuesday, May 6, 2014 3:33 PM, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:
> 
>  
>1. The lowering of the baffle near the tip reduced the Venturi effect force on the reed. This adds resistance to how easily the reed "speaks".  When it speaks too easily, unwanted altissimo notes can occur (squeaks).  This also depends on the facing curve, facing evenness, reed choice and embouchure.  
>
>
>2. Adjusting the baffle is a last resort adjustment unless you know that you want a darker sound and less high frequencies in the sound spectrum.  Make sure the facing is even and has some resistance in its shape for sop sax.  A +6 to +8 elliptical facing is a good target compared to +3 to +5 on the larger saxes.
>
>
>3. I would try taking the baffle out/in a few times to make sure this is what you want.  We often call this shape a wedge baffle.  I would then make it more permanent out of an epoxy putty.  
>
>
>On May 4, 2014, at 11:59 AM, Gianni Veloce <gianniveloce@...> wrote:
>
>
>  
>>
>>
>>1) How can explain the modifications and their effects described above. Hope there should be logical explanations that help understanding "cause and effect(s)"
>>2) How would you treat this case (initianlly and before my modificaitions). Did I do something wrong and why?
>>3) What is my best course of action now? Perhaps create a fixed waterfall baffle with aluminun or any other material?
>>Any other tips are very welcome.  I hope my post and
 your following comments will give not only to me but also to the other members some usefull insights on MP works.
>>Many thanks in
 advance!
>>
>>GV
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

There was a scientific report some years ago that cutting a channel just behind the tip rail improved the reed response significantly. If you wish to build the baffle back up you might try leaving it low for the first 1-2mm immediately behind the tip rail.

Toby

Many mouthpieces with low flat baffles or even concave baffles have essentially no Bernoulli effect, and still speak quickly and easily.  Good articulation response occurs when the air column and the reed can negotiate a stable regime after just a couple of wave cycles - when the mouthpiece provides optimal volume/frequency completion to the cone for well-aligned resonance peaks without inducing undue distortion.  

The lumpy, excessively high, wedge baffle in the picture will cause a partial reflection of the returning pressure wave, before it has a chance to reach the reed tip.  
On Tuesday, May 6, 2014 6:31 PM, "kymarto123@..." <kymarto123@ybb.ne.jp> wrote:
 
  
There was a scientific report some years ago that cutting a channel just behind the tip rail improved the reed response significantly. If you wish to build the baffle back up you might try leaving it low for the first 1-2mm immediately behind the tip rail.

Toby

Thanks for the responses.
We are talking about a Dukoff here so perhaps it has different characteristics than others.
The idea of making a channel just behind the tip rail seems have some logic (Venturi effect again?)
Another idea besides making the rail thinner (will be a hard job-will it give results?) is to increase the tip opening (any elliptical data there?) to allow shape a higher rollover baffle after it(as before)
Comments?
many thanks
GV

On Wednesday, May 7, 2014 5:59 AM, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
 
  
Many mouthpieces with low flat baffles or even concave baffles have essentially no Bernoulli effect, and still speak quickly and easily.  Good articulation response occurs when the air column and the reed can negotiate a stable regime after just a couple of wave cycles - when the mouthpiece provides optimal volume/frequency completion to the cone for well-aligned resonance peaks without inducing undue distortion.  

The lumpy, excessively high, wedge baffle in the picture will cause a partial reflection of the returning pressure wave, before it has a chance to reach the reed tip.  
On Tuesday, May 6, 2014 6:31 PM, "kymarto123@..." <kymarto123@...> wrote:
 
  
There was a scientific report some years ago that cutting a channel just behind the tip rail improved the reed response significantly. If you wish to build the baffle back up you might try leaving it low for the first 1-2mm immediately behind the tip rail.

Toby

I just added a file to the "Misc Other" folder entitled "Curve Calculation Graphic.pdf" that may help you with the math and the a/b ratio of an elliptical curve.  If a and b are equal (a ratio of 1), then the result is a circle and the curve on the mouthpiece would simply be a radial curve.  By lengthening the numerator a, you get an elliptical curve where the rate of the curve increases as you reach the tip.  Lots of the spreadsheets available in the files section allow you to calculate this quite easily.  Transferring that curve to an actual mouthpiece?  That's art.

This pdf is a good illustration.  To put it into use, you need to take it further.  Add a term to correct for the zero point being at the tip of the mouthpiece/end of the glass gage (Facing Length - X equation).  Add some conversion factors if using mixed units. Inches for feelers and mm*2 for the glass gage.


> On May 7, 2014, at 7:21 AM, <mnordinnc@...> wrote:
> 
> I just added a file to the "Misc Other" folder entitled "Curve Calculation Graphic.pdf" that may help you with the math and the a/b ratio of an elliptical curve.  If a and b are equal (a ratio of 1), then the result is a circle and the curve on the mouthpiece would simply be a radial curve.  By lengthening the numerator a, you get an elliptical curve where the rate of the curve increases as you reach the tip.  Lots of the spreadsheets available in the files section allow you to calculate this quite easily.  Transferring that curve to an actual mouthpiece?  That's art.
> 
> 

 

My own experience is that a slight hump just behind the tip rail can
make a mouthpiece feel stuffy, and it's been the case both for some
tenor mouthpieces and soprano mouthpieces I play that taking off a tiny
bit here makes the mouthpieces more free-blowing. I find it's a
sensitive adjustment, best done a little at a time. Sometimes I'll do an
adjustment (to a reed or mouthpiece), blow a little, and think "that's
fine." Then when I belly up to some Bach or bebop, I find it's not quite
so fine. 

A narrower tip rail will brighten the sound a bit. I think
it's more accurate to say that a tip rail that is too wide will dull the
sound. 

As for baffle inserts, your photo, as best as I can tell,
pretty much agrees with my own placement and size of such inserts.
Generally they work best being about 1/3 the length of the window, and
placed in the middle third, maybe sl. more towards the tip. The closer
towards the reed tip the insert is, the brighter (and thinner) the
sound. A somewhat steeper slope at the front edge of the insert is
sometimes better than a long sloping wedge, but it's a matter of taste
and the individual mouthpiece-reed combination. 

If the sidewalls of
the mouthpiece are parallel, you can wedge a baffle insert in place
without gluing. This allows for more experimentation over time. Try
different shapes, lengths also. You may be surprised at what the right
baffle insert can do for a mouthpiece. 

On 2014-05-07 00:00, Gianni
Veloce wrote: 

> Thanks for the responses. 
> We are talking about a
Dukoff here so perhaps it has different characteristics than others. 
>
The idea of making a channel just behind the tip rail seems have some
logic (Venturi effect again?) 
> Another idea besides making the rail
thinner (will be a hard job-will it give results?) is to increase the
tip opening (any elliptical data there?) to allow shape a higher
rollover baffle after it(as before) 
> Comments? 
> many thanks 
> GV
>

> On Wednesday, May 7, 2014 5:59 AM, MartinMods wrote:
> 
> Many
mouthpieces with low flat baffles or even concave baffles have
essentially no Bernoulli effect, and still speak quickly and easily.
Good articulation response occurs when the air column and the reed can
negotiate a stable regime after just a couple of wave cycles - when the
mouthpiece provides optimal volume/frequency completion to the cone for
well-aligned resonance peaks without inducing undue distortion. 
> 
>
The lumpy, excessively high, wedge baffle in the picture will cause a
partial reflection of the returning pressure wave, before it has a
chance to reach the reed tip. 
> 
> On Tuesday, May 6, 2014 6:31 PM,
"kymarto123@..." wrote:
> 
> There was a scientific report some
years ago that cutting a channel just behind the tip rail improved the
reed response significantly. If you wish to build the baffle back up you
might try leaving it low for the first 1-2mm immediately behind the tip
rail.
> 
> Toby 
> 
> 

 

Links:
------
[1]
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/MouthpieceWork/conversations/messages/11731;_ylc=X3oDMTJxazdncW5qBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzYyODI5MDAEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDMyMTk4BG1zZ0lkAzExNzMxBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3JwbHkEc3RpbWUDMTM5OTQzNTQwMg--?act=reply&messageNum731
[2]
mailto:gianniveloce@...?subject=Re%3A%20Re%3A%20%5BMouthpieceWork%5D%20Soprano%20Dukoff%20-%20Fighting%20squeeks%20story%2E%2E%2E
[3]
mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com?subject=Re%3A%20Re%3A%20%5BMouthpieceWork%5D%20Soprano%20Dukoff%20-%20Fighting%20squeeks%20story%2E%2E%2E
[4]
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/MouthpieceWork/conversations/newtopic;_ylc=X3oDMTJlYTFnaXRoBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzYyODI5MDAEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDMyMTk4BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA250cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM5OTQzNTQwMg--
[5]
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/MouthpieceWork/conversations/topics/11719;_ylc=X3oDMTM2aTU0OGMzBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzYyODI5MDAEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDMyMTk4BG1zZ0lkAzExNzMxBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3Z0cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM5OTQzNTQwMgR0cGNJZAMxMTcxOQ--
[6]
http://yahoogroups.tumblr.com/post/79361353100/photo-and-files-search-launched
[7]
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo;_ylc=X3oDMTExc2JuanI3BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGNmMTADQ1AEc2VjA21lZ2FwaG9uZQ--
[8]
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MouthpieceWork
[9]
http://groups.yahoo.com/mygroups
[10]
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/MouthpieceWork/info;_ylc=X3oDMTJlZ240Y3UyBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzYyODI5MDAEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDMyMTk4BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTM5OTQzNTQwMg--
[11]
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo;_ylc=X3oDMTJkNjFmMmQ3BF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzYyODI5MDAEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDMyMTk4BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzk5NDM1NDAy
[12]
https://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/groups/details.html
[13]
mailto:MouthpieceWork-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe
[14]
https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/

Thank you Barry for your detail answer.
Really appreciate all of the others that contributed.
After the baffle play, my next project will be a re facing to a more open tip to compensate the lost rollover baffle.
Cheers
GV


On Wednesday, May 7, 2014 4:13 PM, barrylevine <barrylevine@...> wrote:
 
My own experience is that a slight hump just behind the tip rail can make a mouthpiece feel stuffy, and it's been the case both for some tenor mouthpieces and soprano mouthpieces I play that taking off a tiny bit here makes the mouthpieces more free-blowing. I find it's a sensitive adjustment, best done a little at a time. Sometimes I'll do an adjustment (to a reed or mouthpiece), blow a little, and think "that's fine." Then when I belly up to some Bach or bebop, I find it's not quite so fine.
A narrower tip rail will brighten the sound a bit. I think it's more accurate to say that a tip rail that is too wide will dull the sound.
As for baffle inserts, your photo, as best as I can tell, pretty much agrees with my own placement and size of such inserts. Generally they work best being about 1/3 the length of the window, and placed in the middle third, maybe sl. more towards the tip. The closer towards the reed tip the insert is, the brighter (and thinner) the sound. A somewhat steeper slope at the front edge of the insert is sometimes better than a long sloping wedge, but it's a matter of taste and the individual mouthpiece-reed combination.
If the sidewalls of the mouthpiece are parallel, you can wedge a baffle insert in place without gluing. This allows for more experimentation over time. Try different shapes, lengths also. You may be surprised at what the right baffle insert can do for a mouthpiece.
 
On 2014-05-07 00:00, Gianni Veloce wrote:
  
> 
>Thanks for the responses.
>We are talking about a Dukoff here so perhaps it has different characteristics than others.
>The idea of making a channel just behind the tip rail seems have some logic (Venturi effect again?)
>Another idea besides making the rail thinner (will be a hard job-will it give results?) is to increase the tip opening (any elliptical data there?) to allow shape a higher rollover baffle after it(as before)
>Comments?
>many thanks
>GV
>
>On Wednesday, May 7, 2014 5:59 AM, MartinMods wrote:
>
>  
>Many mouthpieces with low flat baffles or even concave baffles have essentially no Bernoulli effect, and still speak quickly and easily.  Good articulation response occurs when the air column and the reed can negotiate a stable regime after just a couple of wave cycles - when the mouthpiece provides optimal volume/frequency completion to the cone for well-aligned resonance peaks without inducing undue distortion.  
>
>
>The lumpy, excessively high, wedge baffle in the picture will cause a partial reflection of the returning pressure wave, before it has a chance to reach the reed tip.  
>On Tuesday, May 6, 2014 6:31 PM, "kymarto123@..." wrote:
>
>
>  
>There was a scientific report some years ago that cutting a channel just behind the tip rail improved the reed response significantly. If you wish to build the baffle back up you might try leaving it low for the first 1-2mm immediately behind the tip rail.
>
>Toby
> 
>
>
> 
> 
>
>
>

Turning the Dukoff into a Metalite (recessed flat baffle) would solve your high baffle squeak problems.  That is not an easy feat though, by hand.
On Wednesday, May 7, 2014 6:13 AM, barrylevine <barrylevine@...> wrote:
 
My own experience is that a slight hump just behind the tip rail can make a mouthpiece feel stuffy, and it's been the case both for some tenor mouthpieces and soprano mouthpieces I play that taking off a tiny bit here makes the mouthpieces more free-blowing. I find it's a sensitive adjustment, best done a little at a time. Sometimes I'll do an adjustment (to a reed or mouthpiece), blow a little, and think "that's fine." Then when I belly up to some Bach or bebop, I find it's not quite so fine.
A narrower tip rail will brighten the sound a bit. I think it's more accurate to say that a tip rail that is too wide will dull the sound.
As for baffle inserts, your photo, as best as I can tell, pretty much agrees with my own placement and size of such inserts. Generally they work best being about 1/3 the length of the window, and placed in the middle third, maybe sl. more towards the tip. The closer towards the reed tip the insert is, the brighter (and thinner) the sound. A somewhat steeper slope at the front edge of the insert is sometimes better than a long sloping wedge, but it's a matter of taste and the individual mouthpiece-reed combination.
If the sidewalls of the mouthpiece are parallel, you can wedge a baffle insert in place without gluing. This allows for more experimentation over time. Try different shapes, lengths also. You may be surprised at what the right baffle insert can do for a mouthpiece.
 
On 2014-05-07 00:00, Gianni Veloce wrote:
  
> 
>Thanks for the responses.
>We are talking about a Dukoff here so perhaps it has different characteristics than others.
>The idea of making a channel just behind the tip rail seems have some logic (Venturi effect again?)
>Another idea besides making the rail thinner (will be a hard job-will it give results?) is to increase the tip opening (any elliptical data there?) to allow shape a higher rollover baffle after it(as before)
>Comments?
>many thanks
>GV
>
>On Wednesday, May 7, 2014 5:59 AM, MartinMods wrote:
>
>  
>Many mouthpieces with low flat baffles or even concave baffles have essentially no Bernoulli effect, and still speak quickly and easily.  Good articulation response occurs when the air column and the reed can negotiate a stable regime after just a couple of wave cycles - when the mouthpiece provides optimal volume/frequency completion to the cone for well-aligned resonance peaks without inducing undue distortion.  
>
>
>The lumpy, excessively high, wedge baffle in the picture will cause a partial reflection of the returning pressure wave, before it has a chance to reach the reed tip.  
>On Tuesday, May 6, 2014 6:31 PM, "kymarto123@..." wrote:
>
>
>  
>There was a scientific report some years ago that cutting a channel just behind the tip rail improved the reed response significantly. If you wish to build the baffle back up you might try leaving it low for the first 1-2mm immediately behind the tip rail.
>
>Toby
> 
>
>
> 
> 
>
>
>

The Mojo master is absolutely correct.  I created the illustration just to visualize the application of an ellipse to a mouthpiece curve using the basic ellipse formulas to keep it a bit more simple.  But to make the basic ellipse math work for purposes of charting a curve that actually makes sense, you have to do the additional math gymnastics that Keith points out.  The spreadsheets in the files section that support elliptical curves do those mathematical adjustments for you.

Looks like fun.  As a player for whom note voicing is of paramount importance, I prefer keeping control of mechanical resistance and acoustical resistance completely separate. A radial facing gives me optimally efficient, even mechanical resistance, and that means even, optimal control over the reed resonance frequency, so critical for good note voicing.  Control over the range, shape, magnitude, and placement of internal air pressure and Bernoulli force response, on the downward slope of that mechanical resistance is accomplished via chamber shape and fine baffle adjustments.  That is why the baffle contour between the corners and center of the tip rail is so critical.  
On Thursday, May 8, 2014 3:50 AM, "mnordinnc@yahoo.com" <mnordinnc@...> wrote:
 
  
The Mojo master is absolutely correct.  I created the illustration just to visualize the application of an ellipse to a mouthpiece curve using the basic ellipse formulas to keep it a bit more simple.  But to make the basic ellipse math work for purposes of charting a curve that actually makes sense, you have to do the additional math gymnastics that Keith points out.  The spreadsheets in the files section that support elliptical curves do those mathematical adjustments for you.

Dear Experts, I really appreciate your comments and advices, hopelfully helpful not only for me but for the community as well.
My baffle inserts experiments are almost done and would like to share my experience. For sure inserting a baffle at about the middle of the window projecting air streem to the center of the bore, improved the higher frequencies and facilitated the upper register. Did not notice seriously afftecting of the lower though. But...
It still does not sound as a Dukoff... I have "D" Dukoffs for my alto and tenor and my ears "know" it.

After that I plan to try refacing  this soprano D7 to a D8 or even D9 in order to be able to "sculpture" a good Dukoff style rollover baffle. 

So I need some more advice here.
1) Is this idea a good idea? (Theoretically I think yes, hm?)

2) Are there any facing data for Dukoff sop D8 or D9 to use for this task?
3) (the most important) Toos. Dont have the glass guage and filler set. I will try to make my own glass gauge by printing the scale on a transparency film and use microscope glasses for a "sandwitch". Is this advised? I will buy filers from automotive store (hope they have sizes)

4) Being an total amateur in this I will try first on a chinese clone MP (made of steel though). For me the most challenging part will be making the (new) tip rail and the (new) rollover baffle. Any hints here very welcome.
Just note that i am not amateur "in general" but only in sax MP refacing!! LOL!
 many thanks
GV


On Thursday, May 8, 2014 6:53 PM, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
 
  
Looks like fun.  As a player for whom note voicing is of paramount importance, I prefer keeping control of mechanical resistance and acoustical resistance completely separate. A radial facing gives me optimally efficient, even mechanical resistance, and that means even, optimal control over the reed resonance frequency, so critical for good note voicing.  Control over the range, shape, magnitude, and placement of internal air pressure and Bernoulli force response, on the downward slope of that mechanical resistance is accomplished via chamber shape and fine baffle adjustments.  That is why the baffle contour between the corners and center of the tip rail is so critical.  
On Thursday, May 8, 2014 3:50 AM, "mnordinnc@yahoo.com" <mnordinnc@...> wrote:
 
  
The Mojo master is absolutely correct.  I created the illustration just to visualize the application of an ellipse to a mouthpiece curve using the basic ellipse formulas to keep it a bit more simple.  But to make the basic ellipse math work for purposes of charting a curve that actually makes sense, you have to do the additional math gymnastics that Keith points out.  The spreadsheets in the files section that support elliptical curves do those mathematical adjustments for you.

An observation on your observation:

"Air stream" - there is no air stream inside the mouthpiece, as you describe it.  You are thinking with common sense, whistle, organ pipe, flute blow hole, oscillating air jet analogies, and that is not the way a saxophone mouthpiece works at all.  That idea needs to be encased in cement and tossed in the Grand  Cayman Trench once and for all.   If you want to understand anything about mouthpiece design, you have to think about a sound wave travelling back and forth inside the instrument and mouthpiece....at the speed of sound.  As it collides with itself going opposite directions, it forms the standing wave - alternating, speed of sound +/- air pressure changes.  These air pressure changes push the reed open and then alternately suck the reed closed.  The less space there is between the the reed at any point along it's vibrating portion and the mouthpiece baffle, the faster the + pressure builds up and pushes the reed open and the faster the -
 pressure builds up and sucks the reed closed (or near closed).  The faster the reed moves the brighter the harmonic content.  You should forget about blown air and what it is doing, until this concept is clear.  Relate it to what you have done with your baffle.



On Sunday, May 11, 2014 12:16 AM, "Gianni Veloce gianniveloce@... [MouthpieceWork]" <MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 
  
Dear Experts, I really appreciate your comments and advices, hopelfully helpful not only for me but for the community as well.
My baffle inserts experiments are almost done and would like to share my experience. For sure inserting a baffle at about the middle of the window projecting air streem to the center of the bore, improved the higher frequencies and facilitated the upper register. Did not notice seriously afftecting of the lower though. But...
It still does not sound as a Dukoff... I have "D" Dukoffs for my alto and tenor and my ears "know" it.

After that I plan to try refacing  this soprano D7 to a D8 or even D9 in order to be able to "sculpture" a good Dukoff style rollover baffle. 

So I need some more advice here.
1) Is this idea a good idea? (Theoretically I think yes, hm?)

2) Are there any facing data for Dukoff sop D8 or D9 to use for this task?
3) (the most important) Toos. Dont have the glass guage and filler set. I will try to make my own glass gauge by printing the scale on a transparency film and use microscope glasses for a "sandwitch". Is this advised? I will buy filers from automotive store (hope they have sizes)

4) Being an total amateur in this I will try first on a chinese clone MP (made of steel though). For me the most challenging part will be making the (new) tip rail and the (new) rollover baffle. Any hints here very welcome.
Just note that i am not amateur "in general" but only in sax MP refacing!! LOL!
 many thanks
GV


On Thursday, May 8, 2014 6:53 PM, MartinMods <lancelotburt@yahoo.com> wrote:
 
  
Looks like fun.  As a player for whom note voicing is of paramount importance, I prefer keeping control of mechanical resistance and acoustical resistance completely separate. A radial facing gives me optimally efficient, even mechanical resistance, and that means even, optimal control over the reed resonance frequency, so critical for good note voicing.  Control over the range, shape, magnitude, and placement of internal air pressure and Bernoulli force response, on the downward slope of that mechanical resistance is accomplished via chamber shape and fine baffle adjustments.  That is why the baffle contour between the corners and center of the tip rail is so critical.  
On Thursday, May 8, 2014 3:50 AM, "mnordinnc@..." <mnordinnc@...> wrote:
 
  
The Mojo master is absolutely correct.  I created the illustration just to visualize the application of an ellipse to a mouthpiece curve using the basic ellipse formulas to keep it a bit more simple.  But to make the basic ellipse math work for purposes of charting a curve that actually makes sense, you have to do the additional math gymnastics that Keith points out.  The spreadsheets in the files section that support elliptical curves do those mathematical adjustments for you.

 Martin wrote:

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

 An observation on your observation:
 

 "Air stream" - there is no air stream inside the mouthpiece, as you describe it.  You are thinking with common sense, whistle, organ pipe, flute blow hole, oscillating air jet analogies, and that is not the way a saxophone mouthpiece works at all.  That idea needs to be encased in cement and tossed in the Grand  Cayman Trench once and for all.   If you want to understand anything about mouthpiece design, you have to think about a sound wave travelling back and forth inside the instrument and mouthpiece....at the speed of sound.  As it collides with itself going opposite directions, it forms the standing wave - alternating, speed of sound +/- air pressure changes.  These air pressure changes push the reed open and then alternately suck the reed closed.  The less space there is between the the reed at any point along it's vibrating portion and the mouthpiece baffle, the faster the + pressure builds up and pushes the reed open and the faster the - pressure builds up and sucks the reed closed (or near closed).  The faster the reed moves the brighter the harmonic content.  You should forget about blown air and what it is doing, until this concept is clear.  Relate it to what you have done with your baffle.
 
My response (Paul C.)

 
This is 100% correct!  The air THROUGH the instrument does not matter except that it is the only place for the air to escape.  On the flute the airstream does not enter the bore except for very small amounts.  The airstream escapes into the space out in front of the player.  The airstream of the flutist, or air and reed of a reed player air and lips, etc, are the tool that excite the airstream to vibrate in the same way that a violin bow excites the string.

But in the case of all other winds, the air escapes into the bore of the instrument.  But its function is to set the air column into vibration.  

A standing wave.

How the mouthpiece affects that standing wave is what we are trying to understand.  How does the facing affect the overtones produced?  The baffle?  Etc.

Here's something for you all to think about.  As you play louder and louder on a wind instrument, sax in our case, the number and strength of the overtones increase making it sound louder, yet the fundamental changes very little.  Most all of the additional energy that goes into making it play louder goes into the overtones (or harmonics).

Further, the overtones in the 1000 - 2500 hz region is where the ear is most sensitive.  

A long facing with hard reed and narrow tip opening produces more odd numbered overtones.  Why?  Because the reed only has room to do two things... open and close.  A square wave is that produced by odd numbered harmonics only... the clarinet.  A mouthpiece with such a facing will sound more like a clarinet and less like a sax.  A guitar amp driven to full saturation will take on that hollow, woody tone.  That is a nearly pure square wave.

In the case of the long facing with hard reed and narrow tip opening the reed and mouthpiece overcome the natural overtones that want to be produced by the sax body and the odd overtones forced.

The normal wave shape for a sax or trumpet approaches (not quite) a "sawtooth" waveform.  It has both odd and even numbered harmonics.  This can happen when a mouthpiece has a larger tip opening and a reed that is compliant enough to allow it to open and close smoothly and momentarily pause along the way corresponding to the harmonics.  This has been photographed and documented.  The reed does not smoothly open and close, but moves in small jerks along the way.  When open (for 180 degrees cycle) the reed tries to allow the same natural waveform (odd and even harmonics) as produced when it is closed for the remaining 180* of the cycle.

Back to the long, narrow tip, hard reed... when the reed is closed, the reed has no effect on that 180* of the cycle.  The waveform is that which naturally is produced by the bore of the sax, which is both odd and even numbered harmonics.  When open, much more of the odd numbered harmonics.  So, while producing both odd and even numbered harmonics throughout the whole 360* of the cycle, there is a higher amount of the odd numbered harmonics.

So, the facing alone can have a big effect.

We need to study each facet... facing, and the contour of the facing... tip and side rails, baffle, etc.   And the scientific method... change only one thing at a time and compare.

That's what we try to do here as a group.

But Martin's description of what is really going on, standing wave, should help us stay focused.

Thanks,

Paul C.



 






 


 












 


 

Interesting perspective.  I have not noticed any significant difference in tone due to tip opening or facing length or curve shape (unless it has irregularities in it).  I have notice a lot of change due to baffle and some due to chamber shape.  Also, a lot of difference due to playing volume.  Louder has more upper harmonics.  Louder is not be possible on some close tip facings.  So they may be limited to a more square wave type of tone.  But if the baffles are similar and they are played at the same volumes, I think different facings sound similar.  I tell my clients that facing curve give the response you like and mouthpiece geometry gives the tone you like.  I know there is overlap and it is not this pure and simple.  But it is a workable approach to getting a mouthpiece you like.
 
Reed buzz/clarity is another issue.  So if different facings make you use different reeds to play at the same volume, you will hear a difference from that.  
 
 

________________________________
From: "tenorman1952@... [MouthpieceWork]" <MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 9:54 AM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Soprano Dukoff - Fighting squeeks story...



  

 
Martin wrote:

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


An observation on your observation:

"Air stream" - there is no air stream inside the mouthpiece, as you describe it.  You are thinking with common sense, whistle, organ pipe, flute blow hole, oscillating air jet analogies, and that is not the way a saxophone mouthpiece works at all.  That idea needs to be encased in cement and tossed in the Grand  Cayman Trench once and for all.   If you want to understand anything about mouthpiece design, you have to think about a sound wave travelling back and forth inside the instrument and mouthpiece....at the speed of sound.  As it collides with itself going opposite directions, it forms the standing wave - alternating, speed of sound +/- air pressure changes.  These air pressure changes push the reed open and then alternately suck the reed closed.  The less space there is between the the reed at any point along it's vibrating portion and the mouthpiece baffle, the faster the + pressure builds up and pushes the reed open and the faster the -
 pressure builds up and sucks the reed closed (or near closed).  The faster the reed moves the brighter the harmonic content.  You should forget about blown air and what it is doing, until this concept is clear.  Relate it to what you have done with your baffle.

My response (Paul C.)


This is 100% correct!  The air THROUGH the instrument does not matter except that it is the only place for the air to escape.  On the flute the airstream does not enter the bore except for very small amounts.  The airstream escapes into the space out in front of the player.  The airstream of the flutist, or air and reed of a reed player air and lips, etc, are the tool that excite the airstream to vibrate in the same way that a violin bow excites the string.

But in the case of all other winds, the air escapes into the bore of the instrument.  But its function is to set the air column into vibration.  

A standing wave.

How the mouthpiece affects that standing wave is what we are trying to understand.  How does the facing affect the overtones produced?  The baffle?  Etc.

Here's something for you all to think about.  As you play louder and louder on a wind instrument, sax in our case, the number and strength of the overtones increase making it sound louder, yet the fundamental changes very little.  Most all of the additional energy that goes into making it play louder goes into the overtones (or harmonics).

Further, the overtones in the 1000 - 2500 hz region is where the ear is most sensitive.  

A long facing with hard reed and narrow tip opening produces more odd numbered overtones.  Why?  Because the reed only has room to do two things... open and close.  A square wave is that produced by odd numbered harmonics only... the clarinet.  A mouthpiece with such a facing will sound more like a clarinet and less like a sax.  A guitar amp driven to full saturation will take on that hollow, woody tone.  That is a nearly pure square wave.

In the case of the long facing with hard reed and narrow tip opening the reed and mouthpiece overcome the natural overtones that want to be produced by the sax body and the odd overtones forced.

The normal wave shape for a sax or trumpet approaches (not quite) a "sawtooth" waveform.  It has both odd and even numbered harmonics.  This can happen when a mouthpiece has a larger tip opening and a reed that is compliant enough to allow it to open and close smoothly and momentarily pause along the way corresponding to the harmonics.  This has been photographed and documented.  The reed does not smoothly open and close, but moves in small jerks along the way.  When open (for 180 degrees cycle) the reed tries to allow the same natural waveform (odd and even harmonics) as produced when it is closed for the remaining 180* of the cycle.

Back to the long, narrow tip, hard reed... when the reed is closed, the reed has no effect on that 180* of the cycle.  The waveform is that which naturally is produced by the bore of the sax, which is both odd and even numbered harmonics.  When open, much more of the odd numbered harmonics.  So, while producing both odd and even numbered harmonics throughout the whole 360* of the cycle, there is a higher amount of the odd numbered harmonics.

So, the facing alone can have a big effect.

We need to study each facet... facing, and the contour of the facing... tip and side rails, baffle, etc.   And the scientific method... change only one thing at a time and compare.

That's what we try to do here as a group.

But Martin's description of what is really going on, standing wave, should help us stay focused.

Thanks,

Paul C.

A couple of things. There is an free jet inside the mouthpiece, that 
extends at least part way down the reed channel. For a fuller 
description see this paper:

http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/25/27/96/PDF/ajp-jp4199404C5120.pdf

I would be very interested in some documentation on your assertion that 
a long facing and hard reed emphasize odd harmonics. I have never seen 
such a statement in any acoustics book, and I think I have read most of 
them.

There is another clarification that is necessary. Harmonics increase as 
the power of their order as dynamics increase, which you state more 
generally. In other words, when the fundamental is increased to twice 
the volume, the second partial (octave) increase 4x, the third partial 
(12th) increases 9x, second octave increases 16x, etc (theoretically, 
although not in practice). But this only happens until the reed starts 
to beat, at which point all harmonics increase linearly from then on. In 
the saxophone, the reed beats almost all the time (except at very soft 
dynamics), so actually this hardly applies to saxophone, as opposed, for 
instance to the clarinet, where a good part of the dynamic range is 
achieve with a non-beating reed. That is explained, among other things, 
in this very good paper that is not too heavy on math:

http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/music/people/publications/Fletcher1979.pdf

Benade found that the baffle height affects the tone by an alteration in 
the way the reed closes based on Bernoulli forces. As the reed closes, 
the Bernoulli force increases more rapidly with a high baffle, snapping 
the reed shut quickly at the end of its cycle, and in effect "clipping" 
the signal, if I may be rather inaccurate. This emphasizes higher 
partials at the expense of lower partials. As to the reed cycle itself, 
there is a big difference between the timing of a clarinet and a 
saxophone. The open/closed cycle on a clarinet is 50/50, based solely on 
the travel time of the reflected wave in the tube. In the sax something 
else happens; a partial wave is reflected back at the junction of the 
mpc and neck, which opens the reed early. Exact timing varies with the 
truncation ratio of the tube, and this is a function of the note being 
played, but it averages ~75/25 open closed, which is one of the reasons 
the sax is much louder than the clarinet.

Toby




On 5/13/2014 9:54 PM, tenorman1952@... [MouthpieceWork] wrote:
>
>
> Martin wrote:
>
> ---In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <lancelotburt@...> wrote :
>
> An observation on your observation:
>
> "Air stream" - there is no air stream inside the mouthpiece, as you 
> describe it.  You are thinking with common sense, whistle, organ pipe, 
> flute blow hole, oscillating air jet analogies, and that is not the 
> way a saxophone mouthpiece works at all.  That idea needs to be 
> encased in cement and tossed in the Grand  Cayman Trench once and for 
> all.   If you want to understand anything about mouthpiece design, you 
> have to think about a sound wave travelling back and forth inside the 
> instrument and mouthpiece....at the speed of sound.  As it collides 
> with itself going opposite directions, it forms the standing wave - 
> alternating, speed of sound +/- air pressure changes.  These air 
> pressure changes push the reed open and then alternately suck the reed 
> closed.  The less space there is between the the reed at any point 
> along it's vibrating portion and the mouthpiece baffle, the faster the 
> + pressure builds up and pushes the reed open and the faster the - 
> pressure builds up and sucks the reed closed (or near closed).  The 
> faster the reed moves the brighter the harmonic content.  You should 
> forget about blown air and what it is doing, until this concept is 
> clear.  Relate it to what you have done with your baffle.
>
> My response (Paul C.)
>
> This is 100% correct!  The air THROUGH the instrument does not matter 
> except that it is the only place for the air to escape.  On the flute 
> the airstream does not enter the bore except for very small amounts.  
> The airstream escapes into the space out in front of the player.  The 
> airstream of the flutist, or air and reed of a reed player air and 
> lips, etc, are the tool that excite the airstream to vibrate in the 
> same way that a violin bow excites the string.
>
> But in the case of all other winds, the air escapes into the bore of 
> the instrument.  But its function is to set the air column into 
> vibration.
>
> A standing wave.
>
> How the mouthpiece affects that standing wave is what we are trying to 
> understand.  How does the facing affect the overtones produced?  The 
> baffle?  Etc.
>
> Here's something for you all to think about.  As you play louder and 
> louder on a wind instrument, sax in our case, the number and strength 
> of the overtones increase making it sound louder, yet the fundamental 
> changes very little.  Most all of the additional energy that goes into 
> making it play louder goes into the overtones (or harmonics).
>
> Further, the overtones in the 1000 - 2500 hz region is where the ear 
> is most sensitive.
>
> A long facing with hard reed and narrow tip opening produces more odd 
> numbered overtones. Why?  Because the reed only has room to do two 
> things... open and close.  A square wave is that produced by odd 
> numbered harmonics only... the clarinet.  A mouthpiece with such a 
> facing will sound more like a clarinet and less like a sax.  A guitar 
> amp driven to full saturation will take on that hollow, woody tone.  
> That is a nearly pure square wave.
>
> In the case of the long facing with hard reed and narrow tip opening 
> the reed and mouthpiece overcome the natural overtones that want to be 
> produced by the sax body and the odd overtones forced.
>
> The normal wave shape for a sax or trumpet approaches (not quite) a 
> "sawtooth" waveform.  It has both odd and even numbered harmonics.  
> This can happen when a mouthpiece has a larger tip opening and a reed 
> that is compliant enough to allow it to open and close smoothly and 
> momentarily pause along the way corresponding to the harmonics.  This 
> has been photographed and documented.  The reed does not smoothly open 
> and close, but moves in small jerks along the way. When open (for 180 
> degrees cycle) the reed tries to allow the same natural waveform (odd 
> and even harmonics) as produced when it is closed for the remaining 
> 180* of the cycle.
>
> Back to the long, narrow tip, hard reed... when the reed is closed, 
> the reed has no effect on that 180* of the cycle.  The waveform is 
> that which naturally is produced by the bore of the sax, which is both 
> odd and even numbered harmonics. When open, much more of the odd 
> numbered harmonics.  So, while producing both odd and even numbered 
> harmonics throughout the whole 360* of the cycle, there is a higher 
> amount of the odd numbered harmonics.
>
> So, the facing alone can have a big effect.
>
> We need to study each facet... facing, and the contour of the 
> facing... tip and side rails, baffle, etc.   And the scientific 
> method... change only one thing at a time and compare.
>
> That's what we try to do here as a group.
>
> But Martin's description of what is really going on, standing wave, 
> should help us stay focused.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Paul C.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 

Dear Experts
I see quite some very interesting postings triggered by my "Squeak Fight Story". Glad.

But still did not get a feedback about my question if there areany facing data for Dukoff sop D8 or D9 to use for the reface task?
Are there any ? Without data I cannot go for it.....

Thanx
GV
On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 10:21 AM, "Toby kymarto123@... [MouthpieceWork]" <MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 
  
A couple of things. There is an free jet inside the mouthpiece, that extends at least part way down the reed channel. For a fuller description see this paper:

http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/25/27/96/PDF/ajp-jp4199404C5120.pdf

I would be very interested in some documentation on your assertion
      that a long facing and hard reed emphasize odd harmonics. I have
      never seen such a statement in any acoustics book, and I think I
      have read most of them.

There is another clarification that is necessary. Harmonics
      increase as the power of their order as dynamics increase, which
      you state more generally. In other words, when the fundamental is
      increased to twice the volume, the second partial (octave)
      increase 4x, the third partial (12th) increases 9x, second octave
      increases 16x, etc (theoretically, although not in practice). But
      this only happens until the reed starts to beat, at which point
      all harmonics increase linearly from then on. In the saxophone,
      the reed beats almost all the time (except at very soft dynamics),
      so actually this hardly applies to saxophone, as opposed, for
      instance to the clarinet, where a good part of the dynamic range
      is achieve with a non-beating reed. That is explained, among other
      things, in this very good paper that is not too heavy on math:

http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/music/people/publications/Fletcher1979.pdf

Benade found that the baffle height affects the tone by an
      alteration in the way the reed closes based on Bernoulli forces.
      As the reed closes, the Bernoulli force increases more rapidly
      with a high baffle, snapping the reed shut quickly at the end of
      its cycle, and in effect "clipping" the signal, if I may be rather
      inaccurate. This emphasizes higher partials at the expense of
      lower partials. As to the reed cycle itself, there is a big
      difference between the timing of a clarinet and a saxophone. The
      open/closed cycle on a clarinet is 50/50, based solely on the
      travel time of the reflected wave in the tube. In the sax
      something else happens; a partial wave is reflected back at the
      junction of the mpc and neck, which opens the reed early. Exact
      timing varies with the truncation ratio of the tube, and this is a
      function of the note being played, but it averages ~75/25 open
      closed, which is one of the reasons the sax is much louder than
      the clarinet.

Toby




On 5/13/2014 9:54 PM, tenorman1952@... [MouthpieceWork] wrote:

  
>
>
>Martin wrote:
>
>---In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <lancelotburt@...> wrote :
>
>
>An observation on your observation:
>
>
>"Air stream" - there is no air stream inside the mouthpiece, as you describe it.  You are thinking with common sense, whistle, organ pipe, flute blow hole, oscillating air jet analogies, and that is not the way a saxophone mouthpiece works at all.  That idea needs to be encased in cement and tossed in the Grand  Cayman Trench once and for all.   If you want to understand anything about mouthpiece design, you have to think about a sound wave travelling back and forth inside the instrument and mouthpiece....at the speed of sound.  As it collides with itself going opposite directions, it forms the standing wave - alternating, speed of sound +/- air pressure changes.  These air pressure changes push the reed open and then alternately suck the reed closed.  The less space there is between the the reed at any point along it's vibrating portion and the mouthpiece baffle, the faster the + pressure builds up and pushes the reed open and the faster the -
 pressure builds up and sucks the reed closed (or near closed).  The faster the reed moves the brighter the harmonic content.  You should forget about blown air and what it is doing, until this concept is clear.  Relate it to what you have done with your baffle.
>
>My response (Paul C.)
>
>
>This is 100% correct!  The air THROUGH the
                      instrument does not matter except that it is the
                      only place for the air to escape.  On the flute
                      the airstream does not enter the bore except for
                      very small amounts.  The airstream escapes into
                      the space out in front of the player.  The
                      airstream of the flutist, or air and reed of a
                      reed player air and lips, etc, are the tool that
                      excite the airstream to vibrate in the same way
                      that a violin bow excites the string.
>
>But in the case of all other winds, the air
                      escapes into the bore of the instrument.  But its
                      function is to set the air column into vibration.  
>
>A standing wave.
>
>How the mouthpiece affects that standing wave is
                      what we are trying to understand.  How does the
                      facing affect the overtones produced?  The
                      baffle?  Etc.
>
>Here's something for you all to think about.  As
                      you play louder and louder on a wind instrument,
                      sax in our case, the number and strength of the
                      overtones increase making it sound louder, yet the
                      fundamental changes very little.  Most all of the
                      additional energy that goes into making it play
                      louder goes into the overtones (or harmonics).
>
>Further, the overtones in the 1000 - 2500 hz
                      region is where the ear is most sensitive.  
>
>A long facing with hard reed and narrow tip
                      opening produces more odd numbered overtones. 
                      Why?  Because the reed only has room to do two
                      things... open and close.  A square wave is that
                      produced by odd numbered harmonics only... the
                      clarinet.  A mouthpiece with such a facing will
                      sound more like a clarinet and less like a sax.  A
                      guitar amp driven to full saturation will take on
                      that hollow, woody tone.  That is a nearly pure
                      square wave.
>
>In the case of the long facing with hard reed and
                      narrow tip opening the reed and mouthpiece
                      overcome the natural overtones that want to be
                      produced by the sax body and the odd overtones
                      forced.
>
>The normal wave shape for a sax or trumpet
                      approaches (not quite) a "sawtooth" waveform.  It
                      has both odd and even numbered harmonics.  This
                      can happen when a mouthpiece has a larger tip
                      opening and a reed that is compliant enough to
                      allow it to open and close smoothly and
                      momentarily pause along the way corresponding to
                      the harmonics.  This has been photographed and
                      documented.  The reed does not smoothly open and
                      close, but moves in small jerks along the way. 
                      When open (for 180 degrees cycle) the reed tries
                      to allow the same natural waveform (odd and even
                      harmonics) as produced when it is closed for the
                      remaining 180* of the cycle.
>
>Back to the long, narrow tip, hard reed... when
                      the reed is closed, the reed has no effect on that
                      180* of the cycle.  The waveform is that which
                      naturally is produced by the bore of the sax,
                      which is both odd and even numbered harmonics. 
                      When open, much more of the odd numbered
                      harmonics.  So, while producing both odd and even
                      numbered harmonics throughout the whole 360* of
                      the cycle, there is a higher amount of the odd
                      numbered harmonics.
>
>So, the facing alone can have a big effect.
>
>We need to study each facet... facing, and the
                      contour of the facing... tip and side rails,
                      baffle, etc.   And the scientific method... change
                      only one thing at a time and compare.
>
>That's what we try to do here as a group.
>
>But Martin's description of what is really going
                      on, standing wave, should help us stay focused.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Paul C.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Yes, there is a free jet, and my previous "it doesn't work that way" statement was obviously an over simplification, as most encapsulations of the saxophone acoustical system have to be.  My point is that almost all discussion of mouthpiece particulars is based upon an erroneous, common sense, whistle/wind tunnel visualization, with absolutely no regard for the well established essentials of reed valve flow control, reed transconductance, reed resonance, and effectively placing the Beroulli effect response in relation to the former considerations.  

When recutting flute embouchure holes, I think air jet, and get excellent results.  When designing saxophone mouthpieces, I think -(P-p) flow control + Bernoulli reed response + air mass/air compliance and am ecstatic, now having the mouthpieces I always wanted.  I'm inclined to believe that thinking about conducting the internal p pressure variations to the underside of the reed tip area effectively, vastly more important than visualizing an air jet.  Nothing influences sound and response quite as much as how well the reed couples with the air column, as every sax player's search for good reeds indicates.


The study is interesting.  There are numerous references to the noticeable effects of making adjustments to the exit area of the reed channel which was confusing for me.  From the player's point of view, that would be the far, ramp end of the window or the baffle drop-off, where the air exits the reed channel.  The authors are actually referring to the entrance of the reed channel, just behind the tip rail.
On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 10:37 AM, "Gianni Veloce gianniveloce@... [MouthpieceWork]" <MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 
  
Dear Experts
I see quite some very interesting postings triggered by my "Squeak Fight Story". Glad.

But still did not get a feedback about my question if there areany facing data for Dukoff sop D8 or D9 to use for the reface task?
Are there any ? Without data I cannot go for it.....

Thanx
GV
On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 10:21 AM, "Toby kymarto123@... [MouthpieceWork]" <MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 
  
A couple of things. There is an free jet inside the mouthpiece, that extends at least part way down the reed channel. For a fuller description see this paper:

http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/25/27/96/PDF/ajp-jp4199404C5120.pdf

I would be very interested in some documentation on your assertion
      that a long facing and hard reed emphasize odd harmonics. I have
      never seen such a statement in any acoustics book, and I think I
      have read most of them.

There is another clarification that is necessary. Harmonics
      increase as the power of their order as dynamics increase, which
      you state more generally. In other words, when the fundamental is
      increased to twice the volume, the second partial (octave)
      increase 4x, the third partial (12th) increases 9x, second octave
      increases 16x, etc (theoretically, although not in practice). But
      this only happens until the reed starts to beat, at which point
      all harmonics increase linearly from then on. In the saxophone,
      the reed beats almost all the time (except at very soft dynamics),
      so actually this hardly applies to saxophone, as opposed, for
      instance to the clarinet, where a good part of the dynamic range
      is achieve with a non-beating reed. That is explained, among other
      things, in this very good paper that is not too heavy on math:

http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/music/people/publications/Fletcher1979.pdf

Benade found that the baffle height affects the tone by an
      alteration in the way the reed closes based on Bernoulli forces.
      As the reed closes, the Bernoulli force increases more rapidly
      with a high baffle, snapping the reed shut quickly at the end of
      its cycle, and in effect "clipping" the signal, if I may be rather
      inaccurate. This emphasizes higher partials at the expense of
      lower partials. As to the reed cycle itself, there is a big
      difference between the timing of a clarinet and a saxophone. The
      open/closed cycle on a clarinet is 50/50, based solely on the
      travel time of the reflected wave in the tube. In the sax
      something else happens; a partial wave is reflected back at the
      junction of the mpc and neck, which opens the reed early. Exact
      timing varies with the truncation ratio of the tube, and this is a
      function of the note being played, but it averages ~75/25 open
      closed, which is one of the reasons the sax is much louder than
      the clarinet.

Toby




On 5/13/2014 9:54 PM, tenorman1952@... [MouthpieceWork] wrote:

  
>
>
>Martin wrote:
>
>---In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <lancelotburt@...> wrote :
>
>
>An observation on your observation:
>
>
>"Air stream" - there is no air stream inside the mouthpiece, as you describe it.  You are thinking with common sense, whistle, organ pipe, flute blow hole, oscillating air jet analogies, and that is not the way a saxophone mouthpiece works at all.  That idea needs to be encased in cement and tossed in the Grand  Cayman Trench once and for all.   If you want to understand anything about mouthpiece design, you have to think about a sound wave travelling back and forth inside the instrument and mouthpiece....at the speed of sound.  As it collides with itself going opposite directions, it forms the standing wave - alternating, speed of sound +/- air pressure changes.  These air pressure changes push the reed open and then alternately suck the reed closed.  The less space there is between the the reed at any point along it's vibrating portion and the mouthpiece baffle, the faster the + pressure builds up and pushes the reed open and the faster the -
 pressure builds up and sucks the reed closed (or near closed).  The faster the reed moves the brighter the harmonic content.  You should forget about blown air and what it is doing, until this concept is clear.  Relate it to what you have done with your baffle.
>
>My response (Paul C.)
>
>
>This is 100% correct!  The air THROUGH the
                      instrument does not matter except that it is the
                      only place for the air to escape.  On the flute
                      the airstream does not enter the bore except for
                      very small amounts.  The airstream escapes into
                      the space out in front of the player.  The
                      airstream of the flutist, or air and reed of a
                      reed player air and lips, etc, are the tool that
                      excite the airstream to vibrate in the same way
                      that a violin bow excites the string.
>
>But in the case of all other winds, the air
                      escapes into the bore of the instrument.  But its
                      function is to set the air column into vibration.  
>
>A standing wave.
>
>How the mouthpiece affects that standing wave is
                      what we are trying to understand.  How does the
                      facing affect the overtones produced?  The
                      baffle?  Etc.
>
>Here's something for you all to think about.  As
                      you play louder and louder on a wind instrument,
                      sax in our case, the number and strength of the
                      overtones increase making it sound louder, yet the
                      fundamental changes very little.  Most all of the
                      additional energy that goes into making it play
                      louder goes into the overtones (or harmonics).
>
>Further, the overtones in the 1000 - 2500 hz
                      region is where the ear is most sensitive.  
>
>A long facing with hard reed and narrow tip
                      opening produces more odd numbered overtones. 
                      Why?  Because the reed only has room to do two
                      things... open and close.  A square wave is that
                      produced by odd numbered harmonics only... the
                      clarinet.  A mouthpiece with such a facing will
                      sound more like a clarinet and less like a sax.  A
                      guitar amp driven to full saturation will take on
                      that hollow, woody tone.  That is a nearly pure
                      square wave.
>
>In the case of the long facing with hard reed and
                      narrow tip opening the reed and mouthpiece
                      overcome the natural overtones that want to be
                      produced by the sax body and the odd overtones
                      forced.
>
>The normal wave shape for a sax or trumpet
                      approaches (not quite) a "sawtooth" waveform.  It
                      has both odd and even numbered harmonics.  This
                      can happen when a mouthpiece has a larger tip
                      opening and a reed that is compliant enough to
                      allow it to open and close smoothly and
                      momentarily pause along the way corresponding to
                      the harmonics.  This has been photographed and
                      documented.  The reed does not smoothly open and
                      close, but moves in small jerks along the way. 
                      When open (for 180 degrees cycle) the reed tries
                      to allow the same natural waveform (odd and even
                      harmonics) as produced when it is closed for the
                      remaining 180* of the cycle.
>
>Back to the long, narrow tip, hard reed... when
                      the reed is closed, the reed has no effect on that
                      180* of the cycle.  The waveform is that which
                      naturally is produced by the bore of the sax,
                      which is both odd and even numbered harmonics. 
                      When open, much more of the odd numbered
                      harmonics.  So, while producing both odd and even
                      numbered harmonics throughout the whole 360* of
                      the cycle, there is a higher amount of the odd
                      numbered harmonics.
>
>So, the facing alone can have a big effect.
>
>We need to study each facet... facing, and the
                      contour of the facing... tip and side rails,
                      baffle, etc.   And the scientific method... change
                      only one thing at a time and compare.
>
>That's what we try to do here as a group.
>
>But Martin's description of what is really going
                      on, standing wave, should help us stay focused.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Paul C.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

There was a file with Sop Sax Dukoff D8 facing suggestions but it was corrupted.  I just uploaded it again.  
  
 https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/MouthpieceWork/files/Soprano%20Sax/ https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/MouthpieceWork/files/Soprano%20Sax/
 
 

Thanks  a lot Keith.
Got it. 

Will post results later on.

GV


On Friday, May 16, 2014 12:21 AM, "kwbradbury@... [MouthpieceWork]" <MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 


  
There was a file with Sop Sax Dukoff D8 facing suggestions but it was corrupted.  I just uploaded it again.  
 
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/MouthpieceWork/files/Soprano%20Sax/

 

> On May 14, 2014, at 4:12 PM, "MartinMods lancelotburt@... [MouthpieceWork]" <MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com> wrote:


" When designing saxophone mouthpieces, I think -(P-p) flow control + Bernoulli reed response + air mass/air compliance"

So facing, baffle, and chamber?

Well, of course the facing
establishes the flow control curve of the mouthpiece (P), the reed response to blowing
and embouchure pressure - mechanical forces.

The chamber style and baffle establish the distribution of air mass to air
compliance and determine the reed response to changing internal (chamber) air
pressure (p) and Bernoulli force - acoustical forces.

So, understanding intellectually and recognizing with artistic sensitivity (in
play-testing/performance) the various qualities of the P-p relationship - where
the changing acoustical forces lie on the slope of the mechanical flow control
curve encompasses everything there is to know about chamber, baffle, and
facing.  
 
The difference between a
good mouthpiece and a great mouthpiece is getting the acoustical forces in the
right place/proportion on the mechanical flow control curve.
 
Even Michaelangelo found
artistry alone to be insufficient.  His
great works came only after he understood intellectually how the body worked.


Since I give note voicing
depth and response importance over raw amplitude, I find keeping adjustments
for mechanical and acoustical factors separate to be extremely
advantageous.   Visualizations of air
jet, whistle, and/or wind tunnel scenarios are of no use whatsoever.
 
On Friday, May 16, 2014 6:43 AM, "Keith Bradbury kwbradbury@... [MouthpieceWork]" <MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 


  
> On May 14, 2014, at 4:12 PM, "MartinMods lancelotburt@... [MouthpieceWork]" <MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

" When designing saxophone mouthpieces, I think -(P-p) flow control + Bernoulli reed response + air mass/air compliance"

So facing, baffle, and chamber?

Hi,
 I am working on a Dukoff D soprano now: nice, big sound in the lower registers, but thin sound in higher. Is this what one could expect from a Dukoff, or is it something one could do to make a noticeable difference on the top tones?

You can lower the baffle near the tip.  Flatten it out if it is arched convex.  

> On Jul 2, 2014, at 7:28 PM, "efurre@... [MouthpieceWork]" <MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I am working on a Dukoff D soprano now: nice, big sound in the lower registers, but thin sound in higher. Is this what one could expect from a Dukoff, or is it something one could do to make a noticeable difference on the top tones?
> 
> 

Ok.
 It was convex, I made it (close to) flat and a little lower. was thinking of lowering the whole baffle more, but after reading this tread I am afraid of lowering the baffle too much. 
 

 - Opening 070, facing l 40, the change of fl from original 34 to 40 made the lower registers sound more open.