Sax on the Web Forum banner

261 - 277 of 277 Posts

·
Distinguished SOTW Member/Mouthpiece Maker
Joined
·
1,816 Posts
The basic Helmholtz model remains valid.
I'm pretty sure it doesn't. Fortunately, we don't need to argue about it, this is easy to test. Make yourself a Helmholtz resonator for which you can alter the shape of the chamber leaving everything else the same. For instance, take a mouthpiece sealed at the reed end, some putty, and a tube in the other end. Move the putty to various places and examine the pitch as you blow across the top like a bottle.

With a large chamber tenor piece, 4cc or so of putty, and a neck about 13mm X 70mm inserted up to the throat, I can vary the pitch by as much as a half step depending on where the putty is (long baffle, very large throat is ~340Hz, short baffle, medium throat (still larger than neck bore) is ~320Hz). This is in a Helmholtz resonator with constant chamber volume and length, and constant port diameter and length.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,793 Posts
I'm pretty sure it doesn't. Fortunately, we don't need to argue about it, this is easy to test. Make yourself a Helmholtz resonator for which you can alter the shape of the chamber leaving everything else the same. For instance, take a mouthpiece sealed at the reed end, some putty, and a tube in the other end. Move the putty to various places and examine the pitch as you blow across the top like a bottle.

With a large chamber tenor piece, 4cc or so of putty, and a neck about 13mm X 70mm inserted up to the throat, I can vary the pitch by as much as a half step depending on where the putty is (long baffle, very large throat is ~340Hz, short baffle, medium throat (still larger than neck bore) is ~320Hz). This is in a Helmholtz resonator with constant chamber volume and length, and constant port diameter and length.
Yes. There really isn't anything to disagree about, other than disagreement for it's own sake, and that of little actual utility. Change is universal, even within the order of the Acoustic Society. :)

What we can see then, is that basing a mouthpiece analysis/design upon volume exclusively, provides no accurate indication of what pitch the mouthpiece will play at. Ultimately, in most cases, the cork placement and thus, that volume, will be altered in order to best negotiate over-all tuning at A=440.

Through controlled volume distribution, one can arrive at a perfect match of the two essential acoustical requirements of any mouthpiece, volume and Frs (played short-tube pitch), at the same, normal embouchure, A = 440 tuning placement on the cork, for that specific horn/player combination. This condition is essential to the realization of your horn's full potential.

C.J. Nederveen was kind enough to offer reviewing an accurate description of this mouthpiece matching procedure and it's implications, so we should have an expert's opinion on the actual matter shortly.
 

·
Distinguished SOTW Member
selmer 26 nino, 22 curved sop, super alto, King Super 20 and Martin tenors, Stowasser tartogatos
Joined
·
3,383 Posts
I'm pretty sure it doesn't. Fortunately, we don't need to argue about it, this is easy to test. Make yourself a Helmholtz resonator for which you can alter the shape of the chamber leaving everything else the same. For instance, take a mouthpiece sealed at the reed end, some putty, and a tube in the other end. Move the putty to various places and examine the pitch as you blow across the top like a bottle.

With a large chamber tenor piece, 4cc or so of putty, and a neck about 13mm X 70mm inserted up to the throat, I can vary the pitch by as much as a half step depending on where the putty is (long baffle, very large throat is ~340Hz, short baffle, medium throat (still larger than neck bore) is ~320Hz). This is in a Helmholtz resonator with constant chamber volume and length, and constant port diameter and length.
Good point. I played with this, and could get as much as a full tone difference moving a mass to different points in the mpc, notably getting a much higher frequency filling in the baffle. Obviously this is much more than a simple Helmholtz resonator, as the chamber is nowhere near a sphere. There are a whole bunch of different Helmholtz formulae for different shapes of port and chamber. Fine, I'm back where I was about 100 posts ago: do it all empirically and see what you end up with. I still don't believe that the results are as dramatic as Lance claims. Let's see when and if we get more reports. Since Morgan is a dedicated mpc guy, I am especially interested in what you find out in the course of your explorations.
 

·
Forum Contributor 2011, SOTW's pedantic pet rodent
Joined
·
8,322 Posts
C.J. Nederveen was kind enough to offer reviewing an accurate description of this mouthpiece matching procedure and it's implications, so we should have an expert's opinion on the actual matter shortly.
That will be interesting. You guys are putting a lot of work into this (and thanks, BTW).
 

·
Distinguished SOTW Member
selmer 26 nino, 22 curved sop, super alto, King Super 20 and Martin tenors, Stowasser tartogatos
Joined
·
3,383 Posts
That will be interesting. You guys are putting a lot of work into this (and thanks, BTW).
Great! Whichever way it goes, I will be most happy to hear what he has to say. Getting to the truth is the only thing that matters. As Buddha said, three things are hard to hide: the sun, the moon and the truth.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,793 Posts
I still don't believe that the results are as dramatic as Lance claims.
Perhaps you would be so kind as to clarify here, just which claims exactly, you find questionable.

Recap:

First, my claim that the mouthpiece functioned as a cylinder (i.e. has a 4 x L wavelength) was disputed. Now that is established.

Then, my claim that manipulation of cavity length and breadth (volume distribution) affects the played pitch was disputed. Now that is established and we can dispense with Scavone's models.

Now the issue seems to be the degree of pitch variation (due to the aforementioned "impossibilities") that I claim. You were able to vary the pitch of the mouthpiece a full tone, so I'm wondering which claim you still label as "dubious", since ultimately, you have only confirmed my results.
 

·
Distinguished SOTW Member
selmer 26 nino, 22 curved sop, super alto, King Super 20 and Martin tenors, Stowasser tartogatos
Joined
·
3,383 Posts
First of all, the mpc functions somewhat as a cylinder, in that length is not the only determinant of pitch, as it would be in a cylinder. Clearly it is not a simple Helmholtz resonator, but it is certainly not a cylinder either.

Nor can we dispense with Scavone's models. Clearly, again, volume distributions affect the mpc impedances. How and how much is the subject of Scavone's modeling, and absolutely pertains. More importantly, Scavone gives us an idea of how impedance changes should actually affect the intonation and timbre, and those are not in accord with your claims.

I have three mpcs here, of very different lengths (~2 cm difference tip to neck insertion point). The shortest plays more than a semitone lower than the longest. Actual difference of the played pitch of the B2/B3 octave, when they play in tune in the longer tube octaves, does not vary more than about 10 cents between them, as far as I can tell. Only in the palms does the intonation of these mpcs vary significantly. This is in accord with Wyman's results and Scavone's predictions, however I cannot make firm claims since I know how easy it is to vary pitch quite considerably with very subtle embouchure adjustments and dynamic changes.

Speaking of which, you said that you were willing to post sound files of yourself playing octaves measurable at +-0 cents. Are you still willing to do that, so that I can convince myself that such a feat is actually possible with a human player?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,793 Posts
First of all, the mpc functions somewhat as a cylinder, in that length is not the only determinant of pitch, as it would be in a cylinder. Clearly it is not a simple Helmholtz resonator, but it is certainly not a cylinder either.
Well, first of all, to be accurate, you asserted that the mouthpiece behaves as a cone, i.e. the wavelength is 2 x the length of the tube. You were totally incorrect. There has never been an issue in my mind, as to what the mouthpiece is or how it behaves. I have always agreed with Fletcher and Nederveen.

Clearly, again, volume distributions affect the mpc impedances.
What do you mean, again? This is what I said from the beginning and exactly what you disagreed with.

More importantly, Scavone gives us an idea of how impedance changes should actually affect the intonation and timbre, and those are not in accord with your claims.
And I ask you once again. What exactly are the claims that I have made that are not in accord with Scavone?

I have three mpcs here, of very different lengths (~2 cm difference tip to neck insertion point). The shortest plays more than a semitone lower than the longest. Actual difference of the played pitch of the B2/B3 octave, when they play in tune in the longer tube octaves, does not vary more than about 10 cents between them, as far as I can tell. Only in the palms does the intonation of these mpcs vary significantly. This is in accord with Wyman's results and Scavone's predictions, however I cannot make firm claims since I know how easy it is to vary pitch quite considerably with very subtle embouchure adjustments and dynamic changes.
So what? The only thing you could possibly do that would discount my claims would be for you perform my routine as specified, and get different results. Everything else (fiddling around with 3 mouthpieces in an unsystematic, helter-skelter manner) is BS.

Wyman is a nice guy, and his conclusions are accurate for compromised mouthpiece performance, but, since he never matched volume nor Frs on a single test mouthpiece, I really don't see how his study could be relevant to a discussion on doing just that.

If you take one of Scavone's models, and rearrange the volume so it plays 100 cents flatter, as you did with your mouthpiece, It won't have an even scale when played on a horn. The high end will be very flat. To play at A=440 with a somewhat even scale, you will need to push in considerable amount, which will result in too little volume, and screw things up even more. Then you will have a Scavone model that plays just like many real world mouthpieces do on some horns. My routine brings the volume distribution of a mouthpiece like that, back to where it agrees with the impedance profile of the instrument.

You argue simply for the sake of argument.
 

·
Distinguished SOTW Member
selmer 26 nino, 22 curved sop, super alto, King Super 20 and Martin tenors, Stowasser tartogatos
Joined
·
3,383 Posts
I won't get back into this. I stated my opinions, and they are just that: opinions. You reject them on procedural grounds, fine--but I know what I have experienced, and the intonational trends going much further in changing chamber volume than your procedure. I would have a hard time doing your procedure since I don't have any mpcs that are apparently as intonationally screwy as the ones you start with.

My whole-step change in resonance involved blocking off almost the entire baffle; the same amount of material spread more evenly throughout the chamber varied the resonance frequency much less. I was simply interested in confirming that one could get resonance changes by changing volume distribution. None of those experimental volume changes would have been the least playable, as they filled up at least 1/3 the volume of the mpc.

Post your sound files and then we'll talk again.

I'm also very interested in what Nederveen has to say, and I hope if/when you get a response you will be nice enough to post it in its entirety, as I always do with any communication I receive from the experts.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,793 Posts
I won't get back into this. I stated my opinions, and they are just that: opinions. You reject them on procedural grounds, fine--but I know what I have experienced, and the intonational trends going much further in changing chamber volume than your procedure. I would have a hard time doing your procedure since I don't have any mpcs that are apparently as intonationally screwy as the ones you start with.
Well. If you paid attention to what was being said, rather than just being concerned about making a point about anything at all, just so you can be seen making a point, you would know that I have been describing the procedure, specifically, on a Martin Baritone using an Otto Link HR 8. There is nothing wrong with the mouthpiece. The Link is great. The Martin bari however, is notorious for needing a huge mouthpiece chamber and as you should realize if you really understood as much as you claim that you do yet obviously don't, the mouthpiece must match the horn, whatever the horn is. It is no reflection on the inherent quality or design of the mouthpiece. There just aren't any stock mouthpieces that match a Martin. That is how much you know about what you have been talking about for the last 200+ posts....absolutely nothing.
 

·
Distinguished SOTW Member
selmer 26 nino, 22 curved sop, super alto, King Super 20 and Martin tenors, Stowasser tartogatos
Joined
·
3,383 Posts
Congratulations to him. I guess I should have said that between four horns and 10 mpcs, I have no combination as intonationally screwy as that to which he was referring. Too late now...<sigh>

Since I lost, does that mean he no longer has to post those sound files?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,793 Posts
Congratulations to him. I guess I should have said that between four horns and 10 mpcs, I have no combination as intonationally screwy as that to which he was referring. Too late now...<sigh>
Some may be interested in your evaluation of a The Martin Baritone's intonation characteristics, but until you actually play one and experience them yourself, you are only capable of an uninformed opinion, regardless of how many sopranos, altos, and tenors, and assorted mouthpieces you own. When you get a Martin baritone, let us know.

Perhaps you could have found some combination amongst the horns mouthpieces that you have, that would be as "off" as that of a Martin bari, but, as you weren't willing/able to perform even the simple, non-destructive analysis part of the routine, as specified, on any one of your 4 horns and 10 mouthpieces, even once, we will never know. In spite of that, you consider yourself qualified to label it, "snake oil".

Since I lost, does that mean he no longer has to post those sound files?
My audio files won't help you with the idea of having a finely developed sense of "center of pitch" and "tonal center", and embouchure. You already rejected the idea that through years of serious study, a musician can develop a sense of a center of pitch, tone, and embouchure equilibrium, as their foundation for artistic performance, equal to the amazing sense of balance possessed by an advanced gymnast. Indeed, the player can not repeat consistently the exact same pitch for a series of repeated notes, but neither does the gymnast grab the bar in exactly the same place after each release either. Regardless, the gymnast is very aware of exactly how he grabs the bar each time, and the musician is aware of the characteristics of each note, after it sounds.

I'm not surprised that you reject this idea, given that it is something entirely foreign to your personal experience. One can't be expected to develop advanced skills on 60 minutes practice in 25 years. From that point of view, I know you interpreted my statement as meaning that I can put the tuning meter needle, "dead stop", on "O", without it moving. You would think that.

No-one can stop the needle, of course. What one does, is become aware of the center of the needle's range of movement, which is the player's center of equilibrium, of which he is hyper-aware. One simply tunes that center to "0".
 

·
Distinguished SOTW Member
selmer 26 nino, 22 curved sop, super alto, King Super 20 and Martin tenors, Stowasser tartogatos
Joined
·
3,383 Posts
Glad you explained that, as it wasn't at all clear in your post when you said 0 cents. Since I am easily able to adjust my embouchure 30 cents either side of center, and do so just as Wyman and Benade say (things must be in a range where the player can fine tune with the embouchure without too much effort) I find it difficult to play like a total noob and not try to hit pitch. And no, I don't have a Martin bari, although I did play a nice old Conn Chu in a jazz band for a while. So, as you point out, I am just not a skilled enough player. I'm waiting for some others to step forward who are skilled enough and have tried your routine, just as I stated so many posts ago.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,793 Posts
Glad you explained that, as it wasn't at all clear in your post when you said 0 cents. Since I am easily able to adjust my embouchure 30 cents either side of center, and do so just as Wyman and Benade say (things must be in a range where the player can fine tune with the embouchure without too much effort) I find it difficult to play like a total noob and not try to hit pitch. And no, I don't have a Martin bari, although I did play a nice old Conn Chu in a jazz band for a while. So, as you point out, I am just not a skilled enough player. I'm waiting for some others to step forward who are skilled enough and have tried your routine, just as I stated so many posts ago.
Well, you can put the upper register anywhere you want it. If you prefer having to make 10+ cent embouchure adjustments every time you play anything high B or above, suite yourself. I adjusted mine so I don't have to deal with the unnecessary extra muscular tension. It's much easier and the notes are more stable and sound better too.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,793 Posts
Mr Nederveen was kind enough to do some "arm waving" for us. While he stated that he could not comment on this method specifically (he actually requested the details, so likely he did not have a Martin baritone/HR Otto Link on hand), he did corroborate Dr. Fletcher's statement. I paraphrase: Overall tuning is achieved via the combined effects of cavity volume (Vo/V = 1 for 1st 2 octaves mainly) and input frequency. Adjusting input frequency was possible via "clever" manipulation of the cavity shape, as appeared to be the case here - "That seems to be a way to do it.".

I reiterate for those still unclear on the scientific method of discussing the volume/input frequency (frs) requirements - Satisfying the volume condition always precedes that of the input frequency. Discussion of input frequency always assumes the volume requirement is satisfied.
 

·
Distinguished SOTW Member
selmer 26 nino, 22 curved sop, super alto, King Super 20 and Martin tenors, Stowasser tartogatos
Joined
·
3,383 Posts
Mr Nederveen was kind enough to do some "arm waving" for us. While he stated that he could not comment on this method specifically (he actually requested the details, so likely he did not have a Martin baritone/HR Otto Link on hand), he did corroborate Dr. Fletcher's statement. I paraphrase: Overall tuning is achieved via the combined effects of cavity volume (Vo/V = 1 for 1st 2 octaves mainly) and input frequency. Adjusting input frequency was possible via "clever" manipulation of the cavity shape, as appeared to be the case here - "That seems to be a way to do it.".

I reiterate for those still unclear on the scientific method of discussing the volume/input frequency (frs) requirements - Satisfying the volume condition always precedes that of the input frequency. Discussion of input frequency always assumes the volume requirement is satisfied.
Thanks for posting the gist of Dr. Nederveen's reply.
 
261 - 277 of 277 Posts
Top