Mouthpieces and intonation

[kymarto]

Having now a bunch of mpcs for the Stowasswer, I thought I might adapt them to the Reményi. The latter is the opposite design--like a clarinet (body with tenon socket) rather than like sax (mpc with socket). So I made a neck to convert the Reményi. It is corked on both sides, with a bore equivalent to the bore of mpc and horn.
So imagine my surprise when all the mpcs were hopelessly out of tune--like 50 cents flat at the top of the horn. This is puzzling, since the length is the same and the internal volume appears about equivalent. Obviously it is not: I need to measure it and compare with the Reményi original.

What this does mean, however, is that the mpc can have a HUGE effect on the intonation. What I am seeing is more of an effect than a putting a tenor sax mpc on alto sax would have. So for those of you who are struggling with intonation issues, take note: it may have as much or more to do with a mpc mismatch than to problems with the horn {:-/

 

[Groovekiller]

When selecting mouthpieces on saxophone, the expected effects of chamber size and length usually show up, but my final judgement is always based on trial and error.

For example, selecting a mouthpiece for the Conn F Mezzo-soprano presented unexpected results. Alto mouthpieces sounded great, but they were almost universally unuseable because of the same problems you have experienced with your tárogató.

The issue seems to be with the size and configuration of the mouthpiece in general - chamber, facing, and shape. Sometimes the volume of the chamber is greater than it seems even with a high baffle mouthpiece. I would suggest making the chamber (Past the baffle) smaller somehow, and also shortening the mouthpiece. Then try filling the front of the mouthpiece (baffle area) with modeling clay so that you can experiment with shaping the front of the mouthpiece. To be honest, it's a lot of work.

Note: In past times, the baffle meant the first 1/2 inch to 1 inch of the inside of the mouthpiece. It blended gently into the chamber. The chamber was the inside of the mouthpiece just before the neck cork. The chamber was as big or bigger than the part that fit onto the neck cork. Today, description of chamber size is horse dookey.

What you probably need to do is reduce almost every measurement of the mouthpiece. That means the easy way out is to start with a smaller mouthpiece. I am completely unfamiliar with Taragato mouthpieces, so I have no suggestions for blanks to modify. If the mouthpiece you are working with now looks like an alto mouthpiece, try starting with a large chamber (Old Otto Link, Buescher, Caravan, Rascher, or other 1920s ) soprano sax mouthpiece. There will still be a lot of work to be done, including probably lengthening the facing. If the Taragato mouthpiece looks like a tenor or C melody mouthpiece, start with and alto blank.

 

[kymarto]

There are two tárogató designs--the original Shunda configuration is like a clarinet: top of the body is female and the mpc is male. Stowasser is the opposite, but in both cases the mpc fits flush to the body--not like sax, in which position can be adjusted along the cork.

The Stowasser mpcs to Reményi horn are female/female, so I made a male/male joint. Yesterday after writing the post, I put the joint in the mpcs, sealed the facing and blew across the end like a bottle to get the Helmholtz frequency, and compared it to the original Reményi mpc. Surprise, surprise: between a semitone and a full step flatter.

So that explains a lot. The original has basically the same baffle height, but the Stowassers have huge chambers and scalloped side walls.

Actually at this point I abort the experiment. The original mpc is fine, and the Stowasser is the main horn. If I decided to dedicate one mpc to the Reményi, I would use epoxy putty to reduce the chamber size and fill the side walls. Pretty sure that would work, since the lengths are similar.

What really surprised me about this experiment was the absolutely different mpc volume requirements of two ostensibly similar instruments: same key, same length. Yes, the cone angle varies somewhat: the Reményi has a bore that starts about 10% larger and ends about 10% smaller--so a larger bore with a narrower cone angle. And that obviously makes all the difference, to paraphrase Robert Frost.

One of those mpcs is modern: high baffle, narrow chamber and significantly longer to get the correct volume. That one is particularly bad on the Reményi: almost in tune on the long tube C1, and more than 50 cents flat on short-tube C2. Obviously length as well as volume is significant.

My main point in posting this is as a caution: Tárogatók vary tremendously in terms of internal geometry: much more than saxes. Clearly one has to take care in matching mpc to horn: just because it fits on the end is no guarantee that it's gonna be in tune.

I've seen many posts about how awfully out of tune tárogatók are. I begin to suspect that perhaps a lot of that can be chalked up to mpcs wrong for the particular bore of a given horn.

Of course the good news here is that it is a lot easier to experiment with some putty or chewing gum than it is to alter toneholes or bore profiles. By altering chamber size and throat diameter, there are lots of possibilities of adjusting nominal pitch, relationship of the registers and the relative intonation of long- vs. short-tube notes, albeit interactively