What makes a mouthpiece project more?

[SuperTourist]

I actually asked this question on the clarinet forum a couple weeks ago. I have always assumed (rightly? wrongly?) that if you want to project, get an open mouthpiece. The answers I got from my question there led me to believe that there were other factors that made for good projection, and that if I reacquainted myself sufficiently with the clarinet, I could project quite well, even on mouthpieces that were not particularly open.

I noticed a recent thread on this section about open vs. closed pieces, but it mainly seems to concern the tone or responsiveness of the mouthpiece, or the macho-ness of the reed strength. I searched the forums with the word "projection", but I don't seem to find what I'm looking for.

So now, I'm wondering what sax players think about this. Again, my question is about volume only. Let's say maybe you are playing lead alto in a big band, or tenor with a rock band that lost its microphone, or you're the only sax player in a marching band. Or maybe you're subbing for a tenore in a Catalunian cobla!! You simply have to have the volume or it won't work.

This is a separate question, I think, from whether the mouthpiece's tone is bright or not, because bright-sounding mouthpieces would tend to cut through and sound louder than another horn played at the same decibels.

That would leave, let's see, besides tip opening, the size/shape of the chamber, the length of the curve on the facing, maybe the thickness of the walls? The cut of the reeds? What makes a mouthpiece project more? Or maybe it's nothing to do with the mouthpiece and only a function of the horn you're playing?

[Rahspeak]

AIR

by the way...not trying to be condescending....it is my experience playing/practicing/improving, and my experience of observing the habits of players who are a lot better than me that lead me to believe that a player with enough air, will be heard, and a certain mouthpiece just helps them out a little.

[Grumps]

That would leave, let's see, besides tip opening, the size/shape of the chamber, the length of the curve on the facing, maybe the thickness of the walls? The cut of the reeds? What makes a mouthpiece project more?
The missing piece of this puzzle?
The baffle.

[ving]

Projection and volume aren't the same thing--a high baffle will give you maybe more volume and high overtones, but at the expense of others--I would argue that it may actually project less if you are talking about an extemely high baffle. You can test this out for yourself by playing or recording in a large room with a piece with a smaller baffle and larger one. I have found the higher baffle pieces to seem louder to me as I am playing, but in a larger room the projection isn;t there. Of course, there are all sort of inbetweens there I suppose, but in general thats what I have found.

[Dr G]

What makes a mouthpiece project more?

The player!

[SuperTourist]

players who are a lot better than me that lead me to believe that a player with enough air, will be heard, and a certain mouthpiece just helps them out a little.

So, then, assuming you can put more air through a more open mouthpiece because there is more space to push it through, then it would be true that if you want to project more, then get an open mouthpiece?

As to the baffle, I intentionally left that out of my previous list on the theory that it affects the brightness of the sound more than the actual volume of the horn.

[Grumps]

Projection and volume aren't the same thing--a high baffle will give you maybe more volume and high overtones, but at the expense of others--I would argue that it may actually project less if you are talking about an extemely high baffle.
Interesting, but when I'm playing my high baffle RPC on tenor and I'm still cutting through a rock band despite having forgotten to switch off the mute on my wireless... I consider it both projection and volume.

[ving]

I guess I relate the feel of playing on a higher baffle piece as slicing the air with a razor as opposed to a sledgehammer--less work but a more narrow swath of sound, although quite effective...but probably not as complex to listen to

[ranma503]

I equate the baffle to something akin to putting your thumb in the stream of water coming out of a garden hose, thus creating a bottle neck and speeding up the water coming out the other side. It's not more water, just faster.

Does faster air project? I think so. I used to play on a baffle but now I don't, and part of the reason is, I feel like I can do something similar with my throat position that doesn't change the character of the sound as much, but it does the same thing in that it focuses the air and makes it faster. It seems to me that focusing the air is part of what needs to happen in order to project.

[dirty]

Depends on your definition of project. A high baffle piece can often be heard because it has a brighter sound, with more "cut." Even if a great player had the ability to project a darker tone to the back of the hall, it would be difficult to hear in the mix if he were playing with, say, a rock band. The same player with a high baffle mouthpiece could be heard a little better. I think the whole baffle/no baffle thing has more to do with the sound that the player feels is most appropriate for the situation.

[sinkdraiN]

Projection and volume aren't the same thing--a high baffle will give you maybe more volume and high overtones, but at the expense of others--I would argue that it may actually project less if you are talking about an extemely high baffle. You can test this out for yourself by playing or recording in a large room with a piece with a smaller baffle and larger one. I have found the higher baffle pieces to seem louder to me as I am playing, but in a larger room the projection isn;t there. Of course, there are all sort of inbetweens there I suppose, but in general thats what I have found.

I agree with this. My metal V16 has a small rollover baffle and a medium chamber. It's pretty bright and seems very loud to me behind the horn. However, my Shelf STM is much louder/more projecting without a microphone than my V16 is with the same amount of air driving it. I know this from recordings (from the audience) and from people listening in the audience on those nights when I'm going CrAzY...by switching from mouthpiece to mouthpiece....

In my experience high baffled mouthpieces bring out the highs and diminish the fundamental. Close up or in a studio situation they work very well. But I find mouthpieces with a stronger core tend to be heard with more clarity from a distance.

[bfoster64]

I'm no expert, but I'll take a stab at it:

For any given individual there are two primary ways to change the mouthpiece that will make the most difference in projection. The first is to add a high baffle. Examples: JJ DV, Dukoff, Guardala, SR Tech Fusion, Lamberson DD, Lawton BB. The other way is to create a pinch chamber. Example: Morgan Excalibur, Lakey soprano. The thumb on the garden hose analogy is dead on. This phenomenon is known as the Venturi Effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venturi

If you restrict the size of the tube, the speed of the air or liquid going through it will increase. Faster air = more projection. Voila.

The horn can also demonstrate this principle. Big Bs have a broader bell than New Aristocrats. Which ones are known for better projection? Answer: the New Aristo. Which is known for a broad, spread sound? The Big B, of course.

[MojoBari]

Faster air = lower pressure that can equate to lift or vacuum. It is quite a leap to conclude more projection directly from this phenomenom. One needs to apply some acoustic science, not just fluids and aerodynamics, if you want to try to explain the phenomenon.

But, I do not think this is neccessary. Just rely on your emperical experiances. There is no need for an analogy.

The garden hose analogy fails in that it predicts that smaller tip openings project more than larger tip openings.

[Grumps]

In my experience high baffled mouthpieces bring out the highs and diminish the fundamental.
Both small and large chambered high baffled mouthpieces?

[ranma503]

Faster air = lower pressure that can equate to lift or vacuum. It is quite a leap to conclude more projection directly from this phenomenom. One needs to apply some acoustic science, not just fluids and aerodynamics, if you want to try to explain the phenomenon.

But, I do not think this is neccessary. Just rely on your emperical experiances. There is no need for an analogy.

The garden hose analogy fails in that it predicts that smaller tip openings project more than larger tip openings.

You got me, I'm not an engineer. Thanks for your insight. If you have a thought about the actual question about what is going on, maybe you could add that too instead of just saying I'm wrong and stopping there.

And yeah, I was thinking about two mouthpieces where the tip openings were the same, etc. Obviously if you change the variable of the tip opening, results will be affected by that.

[MojoBari]

A lot of what I would contribute is already in another thread:

http://www.saxontheweb.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=48948

Projection and volume are 90%+ the same. Wider tips, higher baffles, straight sidewalls, smaller throat ("pea shooter"). See a Guardala Super King for an example. That does not mean it will sound good, though. A small throat with a high baffle is generally not a good combo in my opinion. Either one alone has a better, more balanced sound.

There are diminishing returns to consider too. You can not go too open with the tip or too high with the baffle, etc.

[Roger Aldridge]

This is a subject that's of great interest to me since most of my playing these days is in a big band.

So, how does a classicial clarinetist project in a symphony orchestra?....perhaps using a mouthpiece that only has a .98 mm tip opening. The answer is there is not a single answer. Rather, I've come to the conclusion that any number of factors are at work.

The player, as it's already been mentioned, is a large factor in developing an ability to project and have a big sound.

I've also come to the conclusion that the mouthpiece material plays a significant role in the amount of projection that one is able to achieve. I understand that some players are of a different opinion about this....that the mouthpiece material doesn't make that much of a difference. However, the experiences and trials & errors that I've had with various mouthpieces and in tweaking my set up have led me to the conviction that, yes, it does make a difference.

It's my sense that one reason why certain old clarinet mouthpieces are in such demand in classical circles is because of the quality of the hard rubber that was used in those pieces in addition to the special design features and high level of craftsmanship. Why else are modern clarinet mouthpiece designers trying to come as close as possible to the type of hard rubber that was used by Chedeville and Kaspar? It's because that old hard rubber projects like gang-busters and has truly gorgeous tonal qualities.

A whole new world of sound opened up for me when I started using Ralph Morgan saxophone mouthpieces. Really, it came as a revelation. Ralph uses a very pure hard rubber formula and I've become convinced -- based on quite a bit of experimentation -- that it makes a significant difference in my sound and level of projection. The Walter Grabner mouthpieces I use on Bb and bass clarinet are also made from high quality hard rubber.

Having said that, the design features and facing of the mouthpiece are essential to one's sound and projection. A poorly faced mouthpiece that's made from a very high quality blank will still be a crap mouthpiece. This is where mouthpiece design becomes much more subtle and mysterious. For example, I have several Morgan and Grabner mouthpieces in the same model and facing; however, they play differently. One might be darker than the other. One might articulate cleaner and faster. It's impossible to tell any differences between the mouthpieces by simply eyeballing them. Thus, the differences come down to very subtle measurements.

In my experience, I've found that I get a bigger and more vibrant sound with a greater level of projection when I use a high quality hard rubber mouthpiece that has a middle-of-the-road tip opening, a large chamber, and only a touch of baffle. It seems to me that this approach is more along classical lines than what a lot of jazz players typically use. I discovered that I get much more projection with a Morgan C than with the Morgan L, M, or EL models. The C has a larger chamber and less baffle. In a similar way, I use a Grabler K14 (1.08 mm) on Bb clarinet and a Grabner LB (around 1.76 mm) on bass clarinet. I'm very impressed with how big of a sound I get with these mouthpieces. Clearly, this is NOT due to having a large tip opening or a high baffle.

On purely an intuitive hunch it seems to me that the reason why I'm drawn to large chamber Morgan and Grabner mouthpieces is because both of them emphasise the fundamental and lower harmonics rather than the higher harmonics. Walter Grabner does something tricky with the design of his Kaspar-style mouthpieces. He describes it as having an enhanced lower baffle. I suspect that Ralph Morgan may be doing something along similar lines with my 6C tenor mouthpiece in his chamber design. This enables me to have a DARK sound that projects and fills up the room with sound.

The final thing that has become an important part of my set up is to use reeds that have a thick cut. Again, more of a classical approach. I've tried a lot of reeds over the years. For me, having a reed with a lot of "wood" in the heart plays a big role in getting a sound that has a strong tonal core. I'm convinced that this helps with my level of projection. I discovered that if I use a thick cut reed on a large chamber mouthpiece with a middle-of-the-road tip opening and (importantly) to take in A LOT of the mouthpiece beak into my mouthpiece -- so my oral cavity is really open -- I don't need to use a real stiff reed. Therefore, my reed strength is also middle-of-the-road.

Anyway, these are the key things that I've discovered in my search for having a dark sound that projects through a big band.

Roger

[Swingin' Cat]

What makes a mouthpiece project more?

The player!Yes!!!

[nichwan]

Ok, the last thing you want is a baffle, It muffles the middle notes and stops the high palm key notes from speaking, and makes the low notes difficult to play well.
Un-baffled pieces, a good amount of tonal practice, a good mpc (such as a Super Big Bore Zagar piece- as i have found), and lots of air and lip control will give you far more projection.

[Grumps]

Ok, the last thing you want is a baffle, It muffles the middle notes and stops the high palm key notes from speaking, and makes the low notes difficult to play well.
Many high baffled pieces also have small, pea-shooter chambers. Trick is finding one with a large chamber. Then it may be tougher to generalize.

[sinkdraiN]

....a good mpc (such as a Super Big Bore Zagar piece- as i have found), and lots of air and lip control will give...

:D Your plugs crack me up...

[Grumps]

Yeah, 19 posts and all of them plugs for Zagar. I've asked nichwan to clarify his relationship with the Zagar company in another thread... though it's becoming obvious.

[sinkdraiN]

Another important element to "projection" is intonation. A harder blowing out of tune player will not project as far as an in tune player.

Orchestral flute players are sometimes known for trying to play above the pitch in unison lines with other players. The sharper player will perceive that he/she is louder but actually it decreases the projection of the unison line as a whole.

[martysax]

Project further?

I've done the outdoor festivals with less than perfect sound systems in the past with various combinations of electric bands.

The only notes that get past half the crowd are the lower notes. Break out the oscilloscopes gentlemen, the lower frequencies travel further due to lower energy. All the high notes are only heard through your monitors. The speakers are too far from the crowds ears!

I may be totally wrong, I need another coffee, but I think I'm right. Break out the Sousaphone solo!

[ving]

I don't know about volume and projection being the same; its all in the ear of the listener I suppose. Its hard to generalize, is a loud sound necessarily a big sound? Brecker has a very free open sound which I would say is quite loud, but is thata big sound? Or does that kind of sound project more than a Joe Lovano type sound which is very dense? To me, I hear the density of that type of sound as being "bigger" and projecting more. I would like to have some kind of best of both in my own sound, free and open and with a lot of body. I just find that you can hear the difference if you listen.

[ving]

By the way, I recently ordered a Zagar vintage bronze to try out and that particular mouthpiece didn't have really any volume or projection. (It wasn't horrible--I have played worse--but I it wasn't something I could consider playing on regularly. )

[JL]

Many high baffled pieces also have small, pea-shooter chambers. Trick is finding one with a large chamber. Then it may be tougher to generalize.

This is an important point. It's not really an "either or situation" with baffles. A lot depends on the size of the mpc chamber vs size of the baffle. And Grumps, does your "high baffle" RPC really have a high baffle? I think Ron adjusts the so-called high baffle according to what the player is after. On mine, the baffle is not very high. It's definitely there, but is rounded and not very high. It seems to give just enough cut and projection without thinning out the sound.

My point is, there is lots of grey area possible between the "pea shooters" and the huge chamber, no baffle, mpcs.

[dirty]

One of the most important things I've learned from playing clarinet in the orchestra this last quarter at school is how to focus my air properly. I've always been able to move tons and tons of air, but without the proper focus, the sound comes out "blatty" and thin. When focused, the sound comes out cleanly, evenly and prettily. This same concept seems to be true on sax. I'm still working on it, but this seems like the real key to projecting and playing in real life situations.

[sinkdraiN]

One of the most important things I've learned from playing clarinet in the orchestra this last quarter at school is how to focus my air properly. I've always been able to move tons and tons of air, but without the proper focus, the sound comes out "blatty" and thin. When focused, the sound comes out cleanly, evenly and prettily. This same concept seems to be true on sax. I'm still working on it, but this seems like the real key to projecting and playing in real life situations.

Dirty, well said. I too am playing clarinet in a local symphony and the ability to focus the sound is key. The philadelphia orchestra is known for having a "big sound" compared to other orchestras. They really want the strings to play out and Anthony Gigliotti struggled during the early parts of his time in Philly trying to be heard. He and the other woodwinds spent a lot of time discussing ways to get more sound out of their instruments while maintaining a nice tone to play through the strings. Gigliotti certainly projected with a huge strong sound with lots of air...but focused.

Gigiotti became a huge advocate of proper use of the air to focus the sound. He, of course did that with your typical small tipped clarinet mouthpiece.

[shmuelyosef]

...the lower frequencies travel further due to lower energy...
Actually, the lower notes are just reflected and absorbed less...that is why they carry.

My two cents include the concept of efficient conversion of pressure (from the abdomen) into sound pressure level (commonly known as SPL). A great player can provide pressure at will through diaphragm control. Turning this pressure into vibration requires controlling the reed effectively with your embouchre (again, player) to create an appropriate resistance. The reed, ligature, facing and surface hardness of the mouthpiece all conspire in various ways...all can rob energy from the conversion into SPL. The reed cell structure breaks down over time and becomes lossy (why rosewood claves are better than balsa), the ligature can both crush and damp the reed, and the mouthpiece can suck up rebound (why a pool ball bounces better off of concrete than off of hardwood). The shape of the chamber merely selects the frequency range (fundamental vs. overtones) of SPL that is created. The tip opening sets the maximum amplitude of reed vibration (but achieving the maximum requires killer embouchre and pressure control) which in turn allows the maximum SPL creation. As a physicist, this is my lay/artist viewpoint (and I'm sticking to it...it has served me well...I run 25 miles per week for pressure control, practice longtones for embouchre control, play a large chamber...for full harmonic content, and use medium to large tip openings...the most that I can and still retain a wide dynamic range with good control).

that was probably three cents worth...

[Grumps]

And Grumps, does your "high baffle" RPC really have a high baffle? I think Ron adjusts the so-called high baffle according to what the player is after. On mine, the baffle is not very high. It's definitely there, but is rounded and not very high. It seems to give just enough cut and projection without thinning out the sound.
Oh, it's a high baffle; cut with the expoxy, and with a bullet chamber. I just don't think it sticks out to the eye like a high baffle would on a metal piece. Also, he didn't make it for me, as I got it second hand. It's marked 125, but it measures more like .134, and it's the loudest piece I've ever played.

[Peter Stevens]

Yeah, 19 posts and all of them plugs for Zagar. I've asked nichwan to clarify his relationship with the Zagar company in another thread... though it's becoming obvious.

Yea, Same question to you grumps... Why all the interest to s--t can a reasonable product, for an equally reasonable price (and honest return policy...)

I'm sure that all us SOTW members would realy like to know the full story...

Personally, ive been keeping watch on this forum, and it has inspired me to try out the V-serius alto mpc...it rocks!!!

[Grumps]

Yea, Same question to you grumps... Why all the interest to s--t can a reasonable product, for an equally reasonable price (and honest return policy...)
It's not the product I'm after, it the way it's being marketed. Are you getting a discount for plugging it here?

[JL]

Oh, it's a high baffle; cut with the expoxy, and with a bullet chamber. I just don't think it sticks out to the eye like a high baffle would on a metal piece. Also, he didn't make it for me, as I got it second hand. It's marked 125, but it measures more like .134, and it's the loudest piece I've ever played.

Sounds like a great mpc! This confirms my suspicion that Ron custom tailors most of his mpcs. As I said my "high baffle" .115 mpc has a fairly rounded baffle (no bullet chamber). When I ordered it I told him I wanted something with the guts and projection of the Ponzol M2 I was using, but with a bit warmer tone. That's what I got, and more. I've got a .120 on order now. I'll get it one of these days.....just thought I needed another one so I'd have a replacement and I might as well try a bit larger tip.

And no, I don't work for Ron. I'm just a satisfied customer.

[Peter Stevens]

Sounds like a great mpc! This confirms my suspicion that Ron custom tailors most of his mpcs. As I said my "high baffle" .115 mpc has a fairly rounded baffle (no bullet chamber). When I ordered it I told him I wanted something with the guts and projection of the Ponzol M2 I was using, but with a bit warmer tone. That's what I got, and more. I've got a .120 on order now. I'll get it one of these days.....just thought I needed another one so I'd have a replacement and I might as well try a bit larger tip.

And no, I don't work for Ron. I'm just a satisfied customer.

Next thing you know, all us SOTW members will be asking grumps if its ok to go for a toilet break... and no, I dont work for the toilet paper companies, nor am i getting a kick-back for this toilet=break ad. hehehehe..burp.

[JL]

LOL, hey Peter, actually I wasn't worried that Grumps would think I was stumping for RPC. After reviewing my post, it appeared to me that I was doing that. I've made no secret of my satisfaction with that particular mpc, and I really haven't played anything I like as much. But I should include the caveat that there are many other great choices in a mpc, and just because it works for me doesn't mean it will work for everyone. Grumps won't mind; he's discovered the magic of an RPC himself.

[shmuelyosef]

Maybe Grumps is a shill for Ron C....

[Grumps]

Maybe Grumps is a shill for Ron C....
Of course I am... but I have other somewhat interesting stuff to say every now and again between plugs.
On occasion.

Oh, and Peter. Though given what you've had to offer the site, it's probably too late... but go ahead and go to the can for cryin' out loud. But you don't have to ask me for anything. Or read anything I write. Simply ignore it... as I'm going to do, for you.