"It causes a frequency hole or formant"
I mean anti-formant
http://www.acoustics.org/press/151st/Dalmont.html
I mean anti-formant
http://www.acoustics.org/press/151st/Dalmont.html
I read this as saying you know more than Benade on this topic. Given a choice, I think I will go with Benade's interpretation in his published works, if you don't mind. You are of course welcome to your theories built upon your misinterpretation of his use of the term "constriction". I can think of much better uses of my time than to continue a pointless debate on the fine points of your theory about what Benade should have actually said had he not been so vague.I agree, and that is not contradictory to what I posted. Benade's use of "mouthpiece on it's neck" and "....it (the constriction) is the sax neck." is vague, and not to be taken word-for-word. (Though you earlier seemed to imply that it was.)
I read this as saying you know more than Benade on this topic.
What exactly does this mean?What I can say, without the slightest doubt, is that the example of the one-piece, straight sided soprano, every bit as much a true saxophone as any other, is the clearest demonstration of what a saxophone is, what it's essential mechanical and acoustical parts are, and how Benade's sometimes generalized statements apply. I think anyone can see that.
Once one understands why the mouthpiece/constriction, the substitution, the surrogate missing cone, ...whatever you want to call it.... has it's own resonant frequency, when ON the saxophone body under normal playing conditions,
. . .and the influence it has on the other resonances of the complete air column, one can understand Benade's substitution frs requirement, and the insistence, for primarily convenience and mechanical reasons (you can't separate the neck opening from the neck tube) upon the mouthpiece + neck as the testing unit.
Again, this statement makes no sense to me. Exactly what point are you trying to get across?Testing the frs of the mouthpiece + entire neck is a mere approximation of whether the actual and very real, occurring in the horn under playing conditions, mouthpiece + constriction resonance is the same as it's theoretical, measured from the apex to that point, equivalent.
To borrow your original terminology - that is the "True" frs requirement.
All of the post-Benade studies substantiate what exactly? Which study of mine are you making reference to. I have done several and put them on my website. Can you make a numbered list of all of the information in said study that you believe is in error?All of the post-Benade studies substantiate this, except for yours.
Now I have a question about the Mouthpiece Equivalent Volume Study, which you posted this link to above:
http://jbtsaxmusic.homestead.com/mou...lume_study.pdf
It appears to me, that here you made tests with the tube/cork inserted 10mm into the mouthpiece shank exclusively, from which you calculated the actual equivalent volume (reed compliance) added 28% more volume to the hard-walled, mouthpiece chamber, actually used. I think these results are accurate, however, I question your conclusion, that based upon these results at 10mm insertion, you claim that increasing or decreasing the amount of insertion, and therefore mouthpiece volume actually used, that the same 28% increase would apply in every case.
If you made tests with the tube at different insertion lengths, with the same results, then of course, you must be correct. You don't mention any however, and as such, your conclusion would seem scientifically, a bit premature.
I'm inclined to think that, though changing the mouthpiece volume used would have some effect, that to a substantial degree, the reed compliance is fixed, determined by the reed, the lay of the mouthpiece, and the players vocal tract, and independent of the mouthpiece chamber volume.
Let's say we substituted a clarinet tenon-style coupling for the mouthpiece and the tube, and the mouthpiece had the same inner diameter as the tube. What would the added volume be then? It would be 28% of what then, the entire tube volume?
I think this requires more testing before any such absolute conclusion (add 28% in every case - as per your Missing Cone Volume Study) can be made.
Your point is well taken. .....
I plan to do another mouthpiece effective volume measurement with the mouthpiece on the cork 28.2 mm and then put that result into the missing cone study. I am also going to use my beaded string device to check the neck length and the graduated cylinder measurement for the mouthpiece volume as well in the interest of accuracy. I will announce when the study with these revisions is posted.
The more I read the more confused I get.
John,The correct volume unit for these tests is the cubic centimeter, or cc = 1000mm3. The centi-liter, or cl, is actually 10,000mm3.
Here is the latest installment in the study of ways to find the frequency requirement to match that of the missing cone.
http://jbtsaxmusic.homestead.com/Calculating_missing_cone_frequency.pdf
Just from a quick glance, I see that you calculate the frequency of your neck section using the formula for a perfect, straight sided cone, yet in your last neck study, you showed us that your neck was far from anything straight sided, having, according to your measurements, 6 different conical tapers. I see no reference in this latest study to your previous neck measurements, nor any reference to how you treat the 21mm of cylindrical tenon, so clearly diagrammed, which are considered neck length and volume. In that light, I'm not sure how to interpret the results of this study compared to those previous . There seems to be conflicting information.
John,
No problem. The open tube is the same as a flute or recorder, so just blow across the small end, and you will hear the pitch. It doesn't form a strong regime. Actually, it's very weak, but you can hear a definite pitch. It's the same, blowing on the large end, though even softer. Don't forget to plug the register hole.
The played pitch of my alto neck was 932Hz. The calculated pitch was 1018Hz. That's a difference of 153 cents, or, a half step + quarter tone.
Lance
I'm curious as to how your are measuring the Frequency of your played note so exactly.
Also how is it you are getting the same blown pitch with both ends open as before with one end closed. What's up with that, as Jerry Seinfeld would say?