Sax on the Web Forum banner

big bore/big chamber, small bore/small chamber?

1926 Views 14 Replies 8 Participants Last post by  bfoster64
I've noticed while trying out mouthpieces, that there is a big difference between my old Selmer Signet and my new Chicago Jazz Series in responsiveness with the same mouthpiece.

My own BergLarsen Steel 115/2/SMS responds great on the Selmer, but is more difficult to play, especially in the low register, on my CJS. The sound is great, but it requires a lot more control.

On the other hand, trying a Lebayle jazz (great mouthpiece by the way!) I noticed it played beautifully on my CJS, but had a boring sound on my Selmer. I didn't buy it (yet), I want to try out some other ones before getting me a new mouthpiece. But it's defenitely a candidate, more than the dukoff I tried (honkin' only), or the Meyer (far too classical for me)

I believed I read something here about an influence of the bore on the size of the chamber optimal for that saxophone. Is there any mouthpiece specialist willing to shine a light on this? It would help me in my search for a new mpc, as it can narrow the search.

Thank you in advance.
1 - 3 of 15 Posts
I could be wrong here, but if you start measuring the IDs and lengths of body tubing, compare bow dimensions, etc. I venture the CJS and the Signet are going to be too close physically to infer any expected differences in mpc compatibility. Could it be their necks?

This "bore" discussion should keep in mind that for horns to be tenors, they have to share the same volumetric displacement inside. Having a "big" bore at one cross-section dictates having smaller dimensions elsewhere.
bfoster64 said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the SDA generally has a bigger bore that the B&S....
I don't have a modern B&S to compare, but as best I can tell, the ID of the SDA tenor body tube alone is about 1/2 mm wider than many other horns, top to bottom. However, it seems to be the bow size & curvature where the differences really start to crop up. The SDA bow isn't that substantial; perhaps you could label it a small-bore horn if that were the criterion. The bows on Zephyrs and many (not all) JK horns are huge by comparison. The Zeph moreover has a runty body tube, almost a cm shorter than most others [=those I've measured] in length from high-F center to low-D center.
jbtsax said:
It would follow that a larger bore saxophone would have a larger missing cone area ....
I vaguely recall the Ferron text but you've lost me here. Considering that tenors in general need to have pretty much the same displacement to be tenors, I don't understand how a larger bore at some cross-section within the horn proper dictates using a *larger* mouthpiece chamber. More importantly, mouthpiece chambers vary perhaps only a couple cm3, something that can be compensated for by adjusting the distance the mouthpiece is placed onto the cork. Are you certain Ferron wasn't merely discussing theoretical requirements for proper tuning? (I'd better go hunt that book down ..... I have it but haven't seen it lately.)
1 - 3 of 15 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.