Index of classical mouthpieces - Page 5

Page 5 of 15 FirstFirst 123456789101112131415 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 283
  1. #81
    ThunderWhale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    MN
    Posts
    447
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Add the old Goldbeck metal moutpieces to the list. I just bought one recently, and it's extremly dark. It sounds like a Rascher piece. HUGE chamber, no baffle, and very closed.

  2. #82

    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    State College, PA
    Posts
    1,870
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by J.Max
    It's like playing a high baffle vs low baffle piece. You can use a larger tip opening with a higher baffle.
    J.Max, can you expound on this?

  3. #83

    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    State College, PA
    Posts
    1,870
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'm not quite understanding this resistance thing with mouthpieces. To me, blowing resistance has everything to do with the reed in both strength and cut. I find I can play on any mouthpiece as long as the reed is right. The sound may not be the same for all mouthpieces (of course) but they're all certainly playable with the right reeds.

  4. #84
    Distinguished Member
    Forum Contributor 2013-2016
    J.Max's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Richmond,VA
    Posts
    6,959
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SaxyAcoustician
    I'm not quite understanding this resistance thing with mouthpieces. To me, blowing resistance has everything to do with the reed in both strength and cut. I find I can play on any mouthpiece as long as the reed is right. The sound may not be the same for all mouthpieces (of course) but they're all certainly playable with the right reeds.
    There are actually a couple of factors that can affect how a mouthpiece feels:

    1. Facing curve - Try playing two mouthpieces sometime (use the same lig and reed) - one that's a stock piece, and one that's a "perfected" piece. You'll find that the perfected piece feels more free blowing everytime, because the facing curve is working efficiently.

    2. Baffle - A high baffle piece will usually feel more free blowing with less resistence, because you aren't having to fill as much air volume in the window and chamber areas. (Remember - the baffle's purpose is to "squeeze" the air into the chamber, so the more work that it does, the less work you will have to do.) This means that the air moves faster into the horn, (and you have to keep filling it up), so there's less volume, and more air velocity, which is why it's more free blowing. If you take a typical rollover baffle piece vs. a ramp baffle, the actual volume of the entire mouthpiece may be the same (the ramp piece will likely have a longer shank), but the chamber volume is smaller.

    This is the reason that a mouthpiece like a Rascher has so much resistence, even though it may have a small facing. You are having to fill a larger area, and there's not as much baffle squeezing the air into the chamber. It's like blowing through a cone as opposed to a cylinder - you'll have a harder time filling the same volume cylinder that you would with a cone, because the cone has a smaller end that you can blow through faster. On a saxophone mouthpiece, though, you have a reed to work against...which means that theres also something pressing against the airstream, causing resistance.

    Now, all of this is assuming that you are using the same reed and ligature combination on the high baffle vs. low baffle piece, and that the facing curves are equal.

    I used to have a diagram that actually showed this (I believe it was Ralph Morgan who drew it, although my memory is a little foggy on this).

    Try it sometime - take two mouthpieces (when I demonstrate this, I used to use a Rascher and a Dukoff, both with the same tip opening, and standard two screw ligatures) and use the same reed. See which one feels less stuffy.

    EDIT: It's a bit counter-intuitve because you'd think that having less of an obstruction would mean that you'd have a more free blowing piece. But it just isn't the case.
    Current setups:
    Yamaha YSS-875EX, Rousseau RC3 (refaced by Joe Giardullo), BG Tradition lig,Hemke 3.5
    Yamaha YAS-875EXS, Rousseau RC4 (refaced by Brian Powell), Rousseau lig,Hemke 3.5
    Yamaha YTS-875EX, Rousseau NC4, BG Tradition lig, Hemke 3.5
    Unison Black Nickel Bari, Rousseau NC4, BG Tradition lig, Hemke 3.5

  5. #85
    Distinguished Member
    Forum Contributor 2013-2016
    J.Max's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Richmond,VA
    Posts
    6,959
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThunderWhale
    Add the old Goldbeck metal moutpieces to the list. I just bought one recently, and it's extremly dark. It sounds like a Rascher piece. HUGE chamber, no baffle, and very closed.

    Yeah, those are like metal Raschers...I had never seen one until recently...
    Current setups:
    Yamaha YSS-875EX, Rousseau RC3 (refaced by Joe Giardullo), BG Tradition lig,Hemke 3.5
    Yamaha YAS-875EXS, Rousseau RC4 (refaced by Brian Powell), Rousseau lig,Hemke 3.5
    Yamaha YTS-875EX, Rousseau NC4, BG Tradition lig, Hemke 3.5
    Unison Black Nickel Bari, Rousseau NC4, BG Tradition lig, Hemke 3.5

  6. #86

    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    State College, PA
    Posts
    1,870
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by J.Max
    Now, all of this is assuming that you are using the same reed and ligature combination on the high baffle vs. low baffle piece, and that the facing curves are equal.
    Yes, exactly. This is why I don't understand the point of mentioning resistance. A player should be expected to change or adjust the reed as he sees necessary to achieve a resistance he's comfortable with.

    The ideal facing curve is reed dependent, no? As well, it's embouchure dependent too, e.g. how much mouthpiece is taken into the mouth by the player, how hard he "bites", etc, no?

  7. #87

    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    State College, PA
    Posts
    1,870
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by J.Max
    It's a bit counter-intuitve because you'd think that having less of an obstruction would mean that you'd have a more free blowing piece. But it just isn't the case.
    Actually, not counterintuitive at all (at least to an acoustician ). All else being equal, the higher baffle makes the air flow underneath the reed faster. The resistance observed by the player is less.

  8. #88
    Distinguished Member
    Forum Contributor 2013-2016
    J.Max's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Richmond,VA
    Posts
    6,959
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The ideal facing curve is reed dependent, no? As well, it's embouchure dependent too, e.g. how much mouthpiece is taken into the mouth by the player, how hard he "bites", etc, no?
    The ideal facing curve is perfect on both sides, but yes, it is somewhat embrouchure dependent. That being said, a longer facing curve is usually preferable for more control because it gives you more room to work with for bending pitches, etc. It also exposes more of the reed to vibrate, which theoretically gives a darker sound. (I don't know that the last part is necessarily true because the baffle and chamber will have a lot more to do with the sound than the facing.)

    Now as far as resistence goes, maybe it's the wrong term to use...when I'm talking about it, I'm assuming that you use the same reed and ligature. You are correct when you say that any piece feels free blowing with the right reed - but you might have to use a lower reed strength on a large chamber, low baffle piece and a higher one on a high baffle, small chambered piece to get the same effect. (Assuming that they have the same tip opening.)
    Current setups:
    Yamaha YSS-875EX, Rousseau RC3 (refaced by Joe Giardullo), BG Tradition lig,Hemke 3.5
    Yamaha YAS-875EXS, Rousseau RC4 (refaced by Brian Powell), Rousseau lig,Hemke 3.5
    Yamaha YTS-875EX, Rousseau NC4, BG Tradition lig, Hemke 3.5
    Unison Black Nickel Bari, Rousseau NC4, BG Tradition lig, Hemke 3.5

  9. #89
    Distinguished Member
    Forum Contributor 2013-2016
    J.Max's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Richmond,VA
    Posts
    6,959
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Oh, I forgot one other thing...the bore of the horn and the throat of the mouthpiece have to line up properly too...
    Current setups:
    Yamaha YSS-875EX, Rousseau RC3 (refaced by Joe Giardullo), BG Tradition lig,Hemke 3.5
    Yamaha YAS-875EXS, Rousseau RC4 (refaced by Brian Powell), Rousseau lig,Hemke 3.5
    Yamaha YTS-875EX, Rousseau NC4, BG Tradition lig, Hemke 3.5
    Unison Black Nickel Bari, Rousseau NC4, BG Tradition lig, Hemke 3.5

  10. #90

    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    State College, PA
    Posts
    1,870
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by J.Max
    Oh, I forgot one other thing...the bore of the horn and the throat of the mouthpiece have to line up properly too...
    There is a lot in this statement and I think it warrants clarification. From what I've observed it's not so much the bore of the instrument that affects how a particular horn/mouthpiece combo plays but the neck. But it's not in the way that most might think which would be the radius of the neck cross section. The length of the neck pipe particularly at the end where the mouthpiece goes on affects what J.Max alludes to in previous posts: the effective mouthpiece chamber volume.

    The neck itself (where the cork is glued to) can decrease or increase the effective mouthpiece chamber volume depending on how long the length of that portion of the neck is. It's clearly obvious to those who own various makes of horns that this part of the neck varies from maker to maker, from model to model. Think of it this way: the more you push a mouthpiece in, the more the neck takes up volume in the chamber, and vice versa.

    I noticed that there was a big difference between the G1 neck that came with my Yamaha 62II and the original 62 neck that I bought aftermarket. The original 62 neck is shorter on the cork side by maybe 1/2". Assuming I place the mouthpiece on the neck that would give the same pipe length, you can see that the effective interior volume of the mouthpiece will be drastically different. And it plays that way (at least that was my impression).

  11. #91
    Distinguished Member
    Forum Contributor 2013-2016
    J.Max's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Richmond,VA
    Posts
    6,959
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SaxyAcoustician
    There is a lot in this statement and I think it warrants clarification. From what I've observed it's not so much the bore of the instrument that affects how a particular horn/mouthpiece combo plays but the neck. But it's not in the way that most might think which would be the radius of the neck cross section. The length of the neck pipe particularly at the end where the mouthpiece goes on affects what J.Max alludes to in previous posts: the effective mouthpiece chamber volume.

    The neck itself (where the cork is glued to) can decrease or increase the effective mouthpiece chamber volume depending on how long the length of that portion of the neck is. It's clearly obvious to those who own various makes of horns that this part of the neck varies from maker to maker, from model to model. Think of it this way: the more you push a mouthpiece in, the more the neck takes up volume in the chamber, and vice versa.

    I noticed that there was a big difference between the G1 neck that came with my Yamaha 62II and the original 62 neck that I bought aftermarket. The original 62 neck is shorter on the cork side by maybe 1/2". Assuming I place the mouthpiece on the neck that would give the same pipe length, you can see that the effective interior volume of the mouthpiece will be drastically different. And it plays that way (at least that was my impression).

    It's funny that you bring this up...I just had a conversation with Paul Coates about this exact topic. This is why a large bore mouthpiece will have a shorter shank and vice versa...it's because you need that in order to line up the effective mouthpiece volume. I have a theory regarding Selmer mouthpieces that involves this that I have been trying to test.

    It's also why a lot of people say that you can't use a vintage piece on a modern horn and vice versa. I don't know if that's really true though, because the total chamber volume also has to take in to account the oral cavity of the person playing it, since the reed is resonating not only in the mouthpiece, but also in the mouth! (Otherwise, you'd be able to make a perfect horn that was in tune every time, because you could make the total volume a constant. Obviously, that isn't the case!)
    Current setups:
    Yamaha YSS-875EX, Rousseau RC3 (refaced by Joe Giardullo), BG Tradition lig,Hemke 3.5
    Yamaha YAS-875EXS, Rousseau RC4 (refaced by Brian Powell), Rousseau lig,Hemke 3.5
    Yamaha YTS-875EX, Rousseau NC4, BG Tradition lig, Hemke 3.5
    Unison Black Nickel Bari, Rousseau NC4, BG Tradition lig, Hemke 3.5

  12. #92

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    8
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Thanks.

  13. #93
    Distinguished Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Tempe, AZ
    Posts
    566
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I know we have covered this angle before, but just to restate an apposing view, I don't think there is an argument that the mouth has any contributing factors to the chamber volume of the mpc and how it relates to the neck or bore of the saxophone. The oral cavity will dictate air direction and speed of air, but the intonation factors with the mpc have to do with the wavelengths. The wavelengths begin at the tip of the reed and not inside the mouth.

    In relation to that, there is no way to make a saxophone perfectly intune, regardless of the chamber volume of the mpc, or the mouth. This is a matter of the number of octave vents, and nothing more.

  14. #94
    Distinguished Member
    Forum Contributor 2013-2016
    J.Max's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Richmond,VA
    Posts
    6,959
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin
    I know we have covered this angle before, but just to restate an apposing view, I don't think there is an argument that the mouth has any contributing factors to the chamber volume of the mpc and how it relates to the neck or bore of the saxophone. The oral cavity will dictate air direction and speed of air, but the intonation factors with the mpc have to do with the wavelengths. The wavelengths begin at the tip of the reed and not inside the mouth.

    In relation to that, there is no way to make a saxophone perfectly intune, regardless of the chamber volume of the mpc, or the mouth. This is a matter of the number of octave vents, and nothing more.
    Yes, but the reed (at least the tip) resonates in your oral cavity. That's why you can change the sound of the horn by closing your throat or by cutting off the throat by having improper tongue placement.

    So yes, the oral cavity ABSOLUTELY has to do with the sound that you produce, and by extension, the intonation. Otherwise, everyone would sound the same!

    Oh, and as far as the octave vents go...there have been horns with more than two octave vents. The Leblanc Rationale horns had up to four, and they were just as in tune as any horn ever made.
    Current setups:
    Yamaha YSS-875EX, Rousseau RC3 (refaced by Joe Giardullo), BG Tradition lig,Hemke 3.5
    Yamaha YAS-875EXS, Rousseau RC4 (refaced by Brian Powell), Rousseau lig,Hemke 3.5
    Yamaha YTS-875EX, Rousseau NC4, BG Tradition lig, Hemke 3.5
    Unison Black Nickel Bari, Rousseau NC4, BG Tradition lig, Hemke 3.5

  15. #95
    Distinguished Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Tempe, AZ
    Posts
    566
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It's pointless to argue about the acoustics of the saxophone in regards to the octave vents. If all the tone holes are placed in the optimum positions, considering the compromises, the intonation will be close enough that many players adjust without really noticing. It is, however, impossible for a saxophone to be PERFECTLY intune without an octave vent for every note.

    The reed vibrates within the mouth because the mpc is in the mouth, but the sound waves begin at the tip of the reed. You do not dispute this, do you? The length of the soundwaves, or the wavelength, is thus measured from the tip of the reed. You may do whatever you want in your mouth...open it up, move the tongue to the roof of your mouth, move it to the bottom, left, right...but the wavelengths still begin at the tip of the reed. You can adjust pitch with your oral cavity, but the wavelengths still begin at the tip of the reed. If the volume of the mpc does not accomodate the taper of neck, the wavelengths will never align the way they are supposed to inside the saxophone. Intonation tendencies are DIFFERENT if you pull the mpc out to equal 5 cents under pitch, and then use your mouth to raise the pitch up.

    Yes, are "sound" is determined by our oral cavity, our throats, and our sinus passages, but intonation is determined by the precision of the manufacturer to get the tone holes in the best possible places, and the volume relation of the mpc to the neck taper. The best scenario would be for the proper mpc to be matched with the proper saxophone, and placed in the proper place on the neck (I don't know exactly how to easily figure that out), and then the player would adjust their oral cavities to play in tune with that configuration.

  16. #96
    Distinguished Member
    Forum Contributor 2013-2016
    J.Max's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Richmond,VA
    Posts
    6,959
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Yes, are "sound" is determined by our oral cavity, our throats, and our sinus passages, but intonation is determined by the precision of the manufacturer to get the tone holes in the best possible places, and the volume relation of the mpc to the neck taper. The best scenario would be for the proper mpc to be matched with the proper saxophone, and placed in the proper place on the neck (I don't know exactly how to easily figure that out), and then the player would adjust their oral cavities to play in tune with that configuration.
    This is correct...but the resonance starts in the oral cavity. Yes, the sound wave starts with the vibrating reed, but the reed vibrates in the oral cavity like it does in the mouthpiece.

    I think you may be misunderstanding me about the function of the oral cavity...it is not the cause of an out of tune of a saxophone being out of tune with itself, because you are correct in that it has more to do with with the way that the horns is built. However, it does affect the sound and by extension, intonation.

    Try playing when you have a sinus infection sometime. You'll find that you're sharp (er) every single time. Why? Because the resonance chamber inside of your face is smaller because it's full of mucus.

    Now when I said that the "because the total chamber volume also has to take in to account the oral cavity of the person playing it", I was attempting to explain in simpler terms why a particular horn/mouthpiece combination can be sharp for one person, and flat for another. Its far simpler to explain that than to try and explain the physics of why the horn has to resonate in the sinus cavity. (See below.)

    The best scenario would be for the proper mpc to be matched with the proper saxophone, and placed in the proper place on the neck (I don't know exactly how to easily figure that out), and then the player would adjust their oral cavities to play in tune with that configuration.
    True, but the throat doesn't always stay in the same position while playing. (This is due to individul voicings and sometimes extended techniques such as altissimo and multiphonics that require the node and antinode to be placed in different places in the horn) In an ideal situation, each horn could be matched up perfectly to each player, and custom built to their (oral cavity) specifications...unfortunately, that isn't realistic. So, instead, we use mouthpieces. (and sometimes necks).

    When you play, you are (either consciously or unconsciously) adjusting your oral cavity and embrouchure to account for out of tune notes - itis one of the reasons why beginners are more out of tune than more experienced players.

    Now, what does this have to do with effective mouthpiece volume...well, frankly, nothing! (It was a poor choice of words on my part as I was attempting to oversimplify). It has to do with the total volume of the air and resonance cavities of the entire saxophone tone production method.

    There is an ideal total volume of air in any horn (and mouthpiece) that is going to make it possible for the effective voulmes to be applicable to all players...but when talking about intonation we still have to tak about an individual player's anatomy to get the whole picture. Having the tone holes in the proper places, the bore desgn, etc. does is to make sure that the horn is not out of tune with itself before the other variables (player anatomy, mouthpiece volume, etc.) comes into play.
    Current setups:
    Yamaha YSS-875EX, Rousseau RC3 (refaced by Joe Giardullo), BG Tradition lig,Hemke 3.5
    Yamaha YAS-875EXS, Rousseau RC4 (refaced by Brian Powell), Rousseau lig,Hemke 3.5
    Yamaha YTS-875EX, Rousseau NC4, BG Tradition lig, Hemke 3.5
    Unison Black Nickel Bari, Rousseau NC4, BG Tradition lig, Hemke 3.5

  17. #97
    Distinguished Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Tempe, AZ
    Posts
    566
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Your detailed clarification makes it clear to me that we are not all that far apart from eachother. I just did not want an inaccurate perception of what role the mouth plays in intonation. Just to be clear with what I was saying, the fact that a players oral cavity will, say, play pitches sharper than someone elses, it does not produce the same relationships from note to note. In other words, some notes that were sharp are now flat and some notes that were flat are now sharp when one person has the need to pull a mpc out farther to accommodate their sharper producing oral cavity.

    So yes, I agree that the oral cavity has an affect on intonation, but an incorrect sized mpc will still have adverse affects on intonation, and your oral cavity will either play sharp or flat, or when adjusted to an tuning pitch, will have different and most likely extreme adverse affects on intonation.

  18. #98
    Distinguished Member
    Forum Contributor 2013-2016
    J.Max's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Richmond,VA
    Posts
    6,959
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I got some information today on the Pyne-Clarion "Sonata" mouthpiece. This is quite an expensive piece ($195) and I've been wondering about it. (Pyne makes some excellent clarinet stuff...every clarinet player I know seems to use their mouthpieces.)

    According to Kyle Pyne it's an arched chamber piece...so I'm assuming that it's probably a hand faced Soloist copy. I'm working on a "saxpics" type website for mouthpieces (classical only, at first), so I'm going to try and get one from Fred Weiner on trial and take some pictures.

    I also recieved 4 Ridenour "C-Star" mouthpieces. These are absolutely copies of the Short Shank Soloist, made from a 50/50 blank (like the Kessler Custom piece) with the requisite .65 facing. No hand finishing on these, but they seem to be pretty good for a sort of "step-up" mouthpiece. The 4 I recieved were fairly inconsistent, as you would expect from a piece like this, although one of them had a bit of excess material at the tip (from an injection mold probably) that needed to be trimmed.
    Current setups:
    Yamaha YSS-875EX, Rousseau RC3 (refaced by Joe Giardullo), BG Tradition lig,Hemke 3.5
    Yamaha YAS-875EXS, Rousseau RC4 (refaced by Brian Powell), Rousseau lig,Hemke 3.5
    Yamaha YTS-875EX, Rousseau NC4, BG Tradition lig, Hemke 3.5
    Unison Black Nickel Bari, Rousseau NC4, BG Tradition lig, Hemke 3.5

  19. #99

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Dripping Springs TX
    Posts
    50
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Bob Scott reface vs. Optimum AL3

    For some reason (possibly insanity), after 30 years of playing on a Selmer LT on alto, I decided to experiment with mouthpieces.

    I wanted to stay close to the LT philosophy of the mpc. After some research and an email exchange with Bob Scott (Lansing MI), I decided to try an LT refaced by him to a popular facing he said he learned from Don Sinta and Larry Teal.

    I was just starting to get used to this mpc (it was more resistant to me than the stock LT) when I attended an Otis Murphy clinic at the 2007 Texas Music Educations Assn conference and heard his pitch for the Vandoren Optimum AL3. I picked one up at the Prowinds booth at the show and found it remarkably similar to the Bob Scott facing in terms of the advantages over the stock LT but easier to play overall. I expect the AL3 will be my standard alto mpc from now on. I'm very impressed with it.

    I don't have enough time on the two yet to better describe the similarities and differences, but I was just wondering if anyone has compared these two alto mpc choices and if so, would you be willing to share your observations.

    Thanks,
    Eddie Jennings

  20. #100
    A.Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    553
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    What was Otis Murphy's pitch? As an AL3 user I would be curious to know what he thought.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
VigLink badge