Volume? Still trying to get my head around the difference between weight and mass!

 

I believe it is not the tip per se

Volume comes from how you make the reed vibrate, generally by pushing more air across it but you can also get volume by creating disrtions such as growling.

The point about bigger tips (or hrader reeds possibly) is that they can allow you to put more air through before they "close off"

Also when the reed vibrates more , there is more of the reed cycle that is closed by the reed hitting the tip - this seems to cause more higher frequencies.

But it's worth bearing in mind the differemnce between volume and loudness.

Volume can be measured as energy oin decibels, loudness is the way we we perceive how "loud" and sometimes a sound with less volume can be perceived as louder, it all depends on the frequences involved.

That's what I think, but no need to believe me.

 

…But it's worth bearing in mind the difference between volume and loudness.… loudness is the way we we perceive how "loud" and sometimes a sound with less volume can be perceived as louder, it all depends on the frequencies involved.…

This is so true. It seems that some saxes can "cut through" the band by having a very focused mid-range, thus seeming to be louder than it really is. I've also noticed a single violin can be very loud when played by itself in a room. But put that same violinist next to a roaring Marshall stack, and you won't hear a note.

 

Some of the 'old' R+R/ R+B stars used quite closed tips and achieved a huge sound....think Lee Allen or Clifford Scott (Bill Dogget Combo) plus many others. Coltrane reputably used a 5*/6 Link.so no, the theory don't really fit the equation....or vice versa!

 

Yes, you can get a lot of volume on a closed tip. But would they have been even louder on more open tips? We’ll never know.

I rarely agree with Pete, but in this case his reasoning is sound. You can only blow so hard before the reed closes off. On more open tips, you can blow harder before that happens. More pressure and velocity means more energy that gets converted to sound waves.

The issue in the other thread is that the OP has a relatively closed tip and wants to play louder. I think the first thing to try would be a bigger tip. Yes, he can probably get more volume from his current setup with reed and technique changes. But the volume ceiling would be higher on a more open piece. I experienced this directly just the other day playing a friend’s mouthpiece. It was exactly like mine except with a smaller tip. I could push mine harder than his and play a little louder.

 

It just how hard you blow. It not necessarily tip opening or reed strength but a tip and reed that let you blow as hard as possible without closing up.
The absolutely loudest tenor player I’ve ever heard was Billy Harper.
A tenor player who had the most dynamic range and could fill a room who I heard live was Stan Getz. He could honk when he wanted to and he used it for dramatic effect

 

I think proper breath support has a lot to do with it as well.

 

This is a topic that I find fascinating as well. I do know from my personal playing experience that reed stiffness, mouthpiece tip opening, mouthpiece baffle, amount of mouthpiece in the mouth, amount of lip "dampening" the reed are all interrelated and effect the energy of the soundwave(s) generated at the front of the mouthpiece. I also know from my reading of acoustic literature that when the reed "beats" at louder dynamic levels the reed momentarily closes the opening of the mouthpiece during a portion of its cycle. On the clarinet the tip is open 50% of the cycle and closed 50% of the cycle. However on a conical reed instrument, the portion of time the tip is closed is less than 50% and is approximately equal to the relative "truncation" of the cone. It is thought that this is one explanation for why the saxophone is considerably louder than the clarinet. In "acoustic aspects of woodwind instruments" by cj nederveen on p.127 he discusses the physics involved which gives a woodwind its "loudness". While this is above my level of understanding due to the math involved, perhaps someone could review this information and translate it into layman's terms for the rest of us.

My only other comment is that another area that contributes to the "loudness" of a saxophone, although not as great as the effects inside the mouthpiece, is the energy losses inside the body tube of the instrument and its harmonicity based upon the interior geometry.

 

I recently heard a statement from a very experienced choral coach.

Among other things, he pointed out that our ears are a lot more sensitive to a certain range of frequencies than for the rest of the range that is audible to us.
I've forgotten what this range was, but we can adjust the relative volume of the harmonics when we play a note - what we call timbre.
He said that if we adjust the timbre for increased volume in this harmonics range, then the audience hears the note as considerably louder, even when it is, considering all the frequencies involved, no louder.
We are just capitalising on the ear's sensitivity over a certain range.

He said that this was well-used technique for unamplified opera singers, filling concert halls with sound.
Perhaps this is what we commonly call "projection".

 

I recently heard a statement from a very experienced choral coach.

Among other things, he pointed out that our ears are a lot more sensitive to a certain range of frequencies than for the rest of the range that is audible to us.
I've forgotten what this range was, but we can adjust the relative volume of the harmonics when we play a note - what we call timbre.

The functions describing this frequency/loudness relationship are called Fletcher-Munson (or Equal Loudness) curves. As you can see in the graph below, peak sensitivity occurs around the 4kHz range.

 

Having played trombone for some years (before becoming a gentleman...:mrgreen, the main effort on brasswinds is always put on air stream and support, for range, evenness and volume. The same applies to saxes. I remember when I first switched from tenor to baritone, how the good old trombone practices came-in handy. Once you manage to make a baritone roar, the same air support does miracles on all smaller saxes, whatever setup.

 

Wow. If I understand that correctly, the difference in audibility for different frequencies is massive!

 

Obviously. On saxes, you can notice how easily you get heard on alto, and how much you struggle on baritone. Clarinets, and specially bass clarinet are a perfect example too. The tone is not much more than a clean sine with few harmonics, at least fewer than saxes. If you play in the low range of a bass clarinet, like soloing over a typical rhythm section, you just fade in the infinite nowhere (which in many cases is rather good news...).

 

I think I am rather simplistic on the whole thing. I find that on closed tip opening mouthpieces, I perform much better on pianissimo. On large tip openings, I perform much better on fortissimo. It is not that I can't do fortissimo on closed tip openings or pianissimo on open tips.....but each tip size has its affinity. (Note: large tip openings tend to be correlated with more baffle. Small tip openings tend to be correlated with less baffle; so my comparison is not strictly related to the tip opening size).

I think that an infinitely strong and flexible embouchure can compensate for any of these issues, but my embouchure is imperfect so I play the tip opening that best matches my current skill level to the music I am playing.

 

Exactly.

But coming back to the OP's question: What determines the volume, the spl (i.e. the number of dB, not the perception)?

 

Other things being equal, SPL is a function of root-mean-square sound pressure.
RMS sound pressure is in turn a function of frequency and the rate of airflow being put though the horn.

So I predict that for a single horn, two totally different players on two totally different mouthpieces will generate the same SPL, as long as they're exciting the same frequencies at the same airflow rate.

opcorn:

 

No argument there. But we're talking about the upper limit of a closed MP vs. an open one. Blowing as hard as you can will ultimately cause the reed to close and stay closed. This happens at a lower pressure on a closed MP than an open one. So at some point the SPL on the closed MP goes to zero since the airflow goes to zero. Blowing just as hard on the open MP will not cause the reed to close up, producing a higher SPL at the higher flow rate which was unobtainable on the closed MP.

Since you know your physics, you know you can get more flow through a garden hose than through a straw. Same principle.

My point is, since the upper limit on flow rate is higher on a bigger opening, the upper limit on volume is as well. But I agree that there are many other factors at play (reed hardness, baffle, embouchure, etc.), and that an opening can be so big you reach a point of diminishing returns.

 

Two comments on this thread so far about "proper breath support". But what does that actually mean? Air pressure (which is not the same as velocity)? Maintaining a rigid oral/throat cavity?

 

In my view, "breath support" means "pressurized air' which IMO is a far more accurate description. The oral cavity and throat should be open, not "rigid".

 

Thanks for continuing the discussion, folks.

Another factor that comes to mind as I read these discussions, is the variation in restoring force of the tapered reed. Most mouthpieces vary the length of the lay as they go to larger tip openings. Since reeds are similarly tapered - although not a match - there must be other than a linear relationship in the restoring force of the reed as it swings from max back to center. There is also the matter of single cut reeds vs double cut.

If we consider that spl is a function of frequency, when the peak frequency shifts for any reason, there will be a commensurate shift in measured output, even if overall energy output is constant.

Bottom line: For a given reed, there must be a set of optimum tip opening/lay length parameters. In the second order, there are factors of chamber design and geometric volume.

 

I believe that the overall "amplitude" of the sound waves is directly proportional to the distance traveled by the reed throughout it's opening and closing cycle. This travel is determined by the tip opening, and lay of the mouthpiece. the tightness of the player's embouchure. the amount of mouthpiece in the mouth, the amount of lip in contact with the reed, and the volume and velocity of the air. The amplitude of each of the harmonics in relation to the fundamental pitch is partly determined by the baffle and other geometry inside the mouthpiece and by the amplitude of the fundamental itself.

In "The Fundamentals of Musical Acoustics" p.442 Benade writes:

". . . starting from pianissimo playing levels there are virtually no harmonics present in the tone beyond the fundamental; then for every doubling in the amplitude of the fundamental component, harmonic 2 increases from its initial tiny value by a factor of 2² = 4; similarly harmonic 3 will grow by a factor of 2³ = 8 for each doubling of the fundamental component. . . . Once the blowing pressure is raised to the point where the reed is blown entirely closed for a portion of each cycle of its oscillation, the player notices a change of feel, the listener notices a change of tone, and the higher partials tend to grow in a way that parallels the growth of the fundamental."

 

I believe that the overall "amplitude" of the sound waves is directly proportional to the distance traveled by the reed throughout it's opening and closing cycle. This travel is determined by the tip opening, and lay of the mouthpiece. the tightness of the player's embouchure. the amount of mouthpiece in the mouth, the amount of lip in contact with the reed, and the volume and velocity of the air. The amplitude of each of the harmonics in relation to the fundamental pitch is partly determined by the baffle and other geometry inside the mouthpiece and by the amplitude of the fundamental itself.

Thanks for the reference. Matches my earlier statement that started this thread:

If you want more power and volume while un-mic'd, you must get a bigger tip opening due to the laws of physics. Bigger tip means higher max amplitude which translates to higher max volume.

So keeping everything except tip opening constant, the science shows that bigger tip = longer travel = bigger max amplitude = bigger max volume.

 

More than you ever wanted to know about Loudness and Volume

 

This is not so simple, as it involves the reed mechanics, and is also partially dependent on baffle and rails, since those affect the way the tip closes via Bernoulli forces. Nor is sound pressure level everything, as timbre will have some effect on this, depending on the weighting of the measurement. It is highly dependent on how much air enters past the reed on every "puff" between reed closures. This is not only dependent on the opening, but the reed timing. I believe it is probable that *with the same strength reed* a larger tip opening will give more volume, but all bets are off if you match reed strength to the tip opening. I have seen charts showing that there is a range between where the reed starts to oscillate and thus produce a standing wave and the point where the pressure of the oral cavity becomes so great that it closes the reed. The latter is obviously the cutoff point for maximum volume. However a stiffer reed will accept more pressure before closing off, ostensibly creating more volume, but becoming much harder to play and control. So I am not at all sure that a more open tip with a reed that matches it will actually have a louder max volume as compared to a more closed tip with a reed that is stiffer to match it. And a lot will have to do with the curve of the side rails after the break, AND the scrape of the reed.

 

It is worthwhile to actually use an SPL meter. I have two flutes, of which I perceive one as being much louder than the other. Imagine my surprise when I actually measured them and found no difference in actual output. Our perceptions of volume have a lot to do with the harmonic components of the sound, as well as the output/input. concerning the former, a sound with less fundamental and more harmonic content will always be perceived as louder. And then some mpcs/headjoints are more efficient, giving the impression that they are louder because they are louder for a given breath input, but this has little or nothing to do with the actual maximum output.

 

It is worthwhile to actually use an SPL meter. I have two flutes, of which I perceive one as being much louder than the other. Imagine my surprise when I actually measured them and found no difference in actual output. Our perceptions of volume have a lot to do with the harmonic components of the sound, as well as the output/input. Concerning the former, a sound with less fundamental and more harmonic content will always be perceived as louder. And then some mpcs/headjoints are more efficient, giving the impression that they are louder because they are louder for a given breath input, but this has little or nothing to do with the actual maximum output.

Yes this seems true. It's similar to what Pete Thomas wrote above:

…it's worth bearing in mind the difference between volume and loudness. Volume can be measured as energy in decibels, loudness is the way we we perceive how "loud" and sometimes a sound with less volume can be perceived as louder, it all depends on the frequencies involved.

 

Nice to read you again, Kymarto. Hope you're well.

 

I'm good. Just went in other directions for a while.

 

A friend of mine who is a very accomplished clarinet player in the traditional jazz style told me of his recent experience with regard to "perceived" loudness. He took a new mouthpiece he purchased to his clarinet lesson with a university professor because he was excited that it was finally the one he was looking for that gave him more volume and projection. The teacher told him to stand across the room and play the same excerpt on each mouthpiece so he could hear and compare them. At the conclusion of the demonstration the teacher said that one mouthpiece was noticeably louder than the other, but it was his old mouthpiece, not the new one---the exact opposite of his perception. Then to prove it the teacher made a recording with the microphone the same distance away so he could hear for himself.
[In speaking with my friend he reminded me that he heard the comparison with a recording, not the teacher playing the mouthpieces. This post was edited with this correction.]

At least in this instance, the auditory feedback to the player was not an accurate measure of the sound transmitted across the room. I was at a complete loss to offer my friend an explanation within my current understanding of acoustics. Has anyone else had a similar experience, or any idea of why this phenomenon occurred?

 

Chasing "tip opening" as the answer doesn't sit right with me. It's well known that certain mouthpieces are louder at the same tip opening and with the same blowing effort. High baffle pieces often have wider tips, but even at the same tip opening are characterized as very loud. Also, classical players can get extreme volumes out of very closed (by jazz standards) mouthpieces.

In the case of the high baffle pieces, this may be "loudness" rather than volume, but that doesn't explain the classical players. I've also found that I can get a lot more volume than I typically use out of every piece I own. The limit may be a function of tip + reed (and facing), as a soft reed on a closed piece can close off. But tip opening is not quite right. Tip opening has more effect on timbre, in my experience.

I think for a real test, a SPL meter would be absolutely necessary. If you want subjective loudness, I would say a metalite at .090 is going to be louder than an Otto Link at the same tip size. I wouldn't put any bets down on what the meter says, though.

All things considered, though, I think it's mostly unnecessary to pursue volume in and of itself. We all know that saxophones even played by unskilled players are loud enough to cause hearing damage. In an electric setting, a sax will always need a mic. That said, I would love to see actual tests.

 

Chasing "tip opening" as the answer doesn't sit right with me. It's well known that certain mouthpieces are louder at the same tip opening and with the same blowing effort. High baffle pieces often have wider tips, but even at the same tip opening are characterized as very loud. Also, classical players can get extreme volumes out of very closed (by jazz standards) mouthpieces.

In the case of the high baffle pieces, this may be "loudness" rather than volume, but that doesn't explain the classical players. I've also found that I can get a lot more volume than I typically use out of every piece I own. The limit may be a function of tip + reed (and facing), as a soft reed on a closed piece can close off. But tip opening is not quite right. Tip opening has more effect on timbre, in my experience.

I think for a real test, a SPL meter would be absolutely necessary. If you want subjective loudness, I would say a metalite at .090 is going to be louder than an Otto Link at the same tip size. I wouldn't put any bets down on what the meter says, though.

All things considered, though, I think it's mostly unnecessary to pursue volume in and of itself. We all know that saxophones even played by unskilled players are loud enough to cause hearing damage. In an electric setting, a sax will always need a mic. That said, I would love to see actual tests.

Yeah, I'd also love to see some controlled tests. But it's clear that there are several factors that enter into it. First, there are different weightings of sound pressure level. Linear (Z weighting) doesn't really take into account the way humans hear. You can have extreme sound pressure in the lows, for instance, that are not perceived as particularly loud, as human hearing is biased for the midrange. I'm posting a link that explains that well.

My personal observation is that a "bright" sax sound (such as that produced by a high-baffle" mpc) is generally perceived as louder than a more classical or darker sound. It's certainly possible with A weighting (or in very loud situations C weighting) to get an accurate measure of SPL, but two equal SPL readings might seem very different in terms of perceived loudness depending on the frequency distribution within the sound itself.

https://www.noisemeters.com/help/faq/frequency-weighting/

 

Claude Lakey

 

Another perspective:
Think of a 2-way HiFi loudspeaker with a large chassis for the lower frequencies and a small one for the higher frequencies. The large one takes 50 Watt, the small one 3 Watt. The bass frequencies draw the energy, that is why old-fashioned HiFi amplifiers had huge condensers. 100 Hz move a lot more air than 4000 Hz, bass peakers have a large membrane.
Let´s say the amount of energy that you can put into your horn shall be fix. Then you need much less of it to generate volume in the higher frequency range than in the lower one.
So when a mouthpiece has a large baffle, you can play loud easily = you have a lot of higher partials where you do not need a lot of energy.
With a lower baffle and less high partials, you need more energy to play loud, "blow harder", "proper breath support", ...
I am switching from a Berg Larsen type MPC to some Dukoff/Florida style type MPC now. And that is just what I sense, I need to put more energy in it to remain loud. This work pays off by a fuller, rounder tone, meaning less higher partials. Indeed, my Rock combo complained about me playing so loud (no mic), and they immediately noticed when I changed the MPC. I can still push, but what I get now is sound, not paint peeling off the wall...
Thinking about it, it´s loudness what I talk about. Well, that´s how I perceive the volume thing.