Saxophones Saxophone Material: Does it Affect the Sound?

[Nick Wyver]

To devise a decent scientific experiment to verify any of this stuff is an immense challenge. You have to take the human element out by using artificial embouchures, lungs, etc. Using cane reeds is probably out of the question too. It's not surprising that few have accepted this challenge. Which is all good news for snake-oil salespeople and means debates like this on forums everywhere will continue with no conclusions whatsoever being reached.

 

[aldevis]

But you end up measuring the sound produced by an artificial embouchure. BTW Pillinger did it on clarinet but ended up with a more interesting statistical spectrographic method.

Still I think that these debates help defining that "Nick has a great bari sound with any ligature" or "Aldevis is a sacher for bare brass horns".

 

[Nick Wyver]

But you end up measuring the sound produced by an artificial embouchure.

Well, yes. But it's still probably the only sensible way of going about it. Humans are too variable.

Here's a little experiment that most here could do.
Record yourself playing a long note, holding it as steady as possible.
Plonk the recording into something like Audacity or Transcribe!.
Sample the spectrum of the note at different points along its length.
Note the lack of similarity.
This is the same sax, reed, mouthpiece and even the same note.
Take the reed off and put it on again.
Record the same note.
Sample it again.
Even more differences.
Change any of the variables and it gets worse.

Using real people in any experiment just obliges you to do hundreds of recordings and subject them to some sort of statistical analysis. It'd take forever.

 

[Pete Thomas]

But you end up measuring the sound produced by an artificial embouchure. BTW Pillinger did it on clarinet but ended up with a more interesting statistical spectrographic method.

Well, yes. But it's still probably the only sensible way of going about it. Humans are too variable.

I think so too. According to Ed, many top players had to reluctantly agree that his artificial embouchure sounded not only quite realistic but quite good.

The only variable you couldn't eliminate would be the gradual wearing out of the reed from one take to the next - but i think it might be agreed that is negligible enough to make this a good experiment.

 

[jbtsax]

The Dalmont study of the effects of wall vibrations that I previously cited did use an artificial embouchure with a clarinet mouthpiece.

 

[aldevis]

Using real people in any experiment just obliges you to do hundreds of recordings and subject them to some sort of statistical analysis. It'd take forever.

But every case will get you closer to a general rule, like "xxx mouthpieces have a stronger 9th harmonic"

I think so too. According to Ed, many top players had to reluctantly agree that his artificial embouchure sounded not only quite realistic but quite good.

The only variable you couldn't eliminate would be the gradual wearing out of the reed from one take to the next - but i think it might be agreed that is negligible enough to make this a good experiment.

If you read his dissertation (available for free on the British Library website) you will see his statistic method too. Nowadays it would be even easier.

 

[kernewegor]

If we were to ask this guy to make one out of a parsnip, would that get us anywhere?

http://cafesaxophone.com/threads/vegetable-jazz.13372/#post-170730

 

[tzadik]

There are many physical factors to consider to describe how a saxophone will sound.

Since now... there are many scientific articles which enunciate theories and models (with strict starting hypothesis)... that basically works.
I mean... all the mathematical formalism written it's real and it works.
But it's not complete.

And another important think to point up is that nobody considered to make a study upon a real statistical approach... and (the most important) thing with real instrument, assembled and playable!

So you can trust that tubes of different materials... when you send inside them a sound with a certain frequency spectrum, with a certain pressure and speed... they will produce the same final frequency spectrum... ok, it's good.
But it's rather different to have real saxophones involved in the experiment!!!!

And remember the scientist knows that.

I'm pretty sure that it's almost impossible to understand the real physics of a saxophone without making multiphysics analysis.
Because every wind instruments has inside acoustics, mechanics and fluid mechanics. Not just acoustics.
And you made acoustics experiments... you will have results a sense only from an acoustic perspective.

 

[jbtsax]

This has been a subject of interest of mine for a long time, and I have downloaded and studied all of the research I can find. I can tell you this---that acoustic scientists have been investigating wall vibrations having an effect upon the sound in real instruments in order to show it exists, not to disprove it as so many musicians think. These scientists state in their research that there are more questions to be answered, but at this point in time no evidence exists that wall vibrations have an effect upon the sound produced by a woodwind instrument, whether played by a human player or an artificial embouchure.

 

[tzadik]

There are more than wall vibrations... they have been still not invistigated. 🙂

Wall vibrations, then, are also transitory process...
I don't remember right now (I should re-read the relative article)... but since we are talking about a transitory you have to study the passing from note to note, from dynamic to dynamic... and the speed of the variations.
Of course in a stationary process is much more easier to study.


It's clear if you don't consider the attack of the note, of every note at every dynamic... you can barely can distinguish a wind instrument from a string instrument.
Or... if you are in the mid register... an alto saxophone from a tenor saxophone...

It's like when you record a long note, you go to the wave editor/DAW, you cut the very first milliseconds of the sample (the attack of the note)... and then you reproduce the sample.
What do you get? 🙂


For example... nobody have never considered the axial stiffness of the body... and... (try to imagine for a moment).

 

[aldevis]

For example... nobody have never considered the axial stiffness of the body... and... (try to imagine for a moment).

I know at least one maker experimenting with work hardening/annealing (that affects stiffness in many directions). Also at Yamaha's they are said to have worked on the subject.
One of the points is that instrument making, is often not supported by scientific research but simply by trial and error or traditional know how.

Few years ago, a clarinet maker developed a model, redesigning tonehole positioning and bore.
While still in the prototype phase, he compared his creation with a beautifully sounding late 19th century Cuesnon (or it was another French manufacturer of the same league).
Since the tonehole positioning was higher on the old clarinet, he simply moved the toneholes on his creation, throwing away all the maths he spent so much time doing.

In case you were wondering, the resulting model was very good and precise, but quite bland sounding, and has been recently discontinued.

 

[aldevis]

It's clear if you don't consider the attack of the note, of every note at every dynamic... you can barely can distinguish a wind instrument from a string instrument.

This is an often forgotten point.
A saxophone perceived sound does not just come from the formants of the static sound but also by the envelope of the attack and by the frequencies involved there.

 

[jbtsax]

This is an often forgotten point.
A saxophone perceived sound does not just come from the formants of the static sound but also by the envelope of the attack and by the frequencies involved there.

This is true, but the effects of wall vibrations, if any, upon the emitted sound waves is most logically investigated measuring the "steady-state" tone quality of the instrument.

 

[MontyMac]

......
One of the points is that instrument making, is often not supported by scientific research but simply by trial and error or traditional know how.

I think that may be the best conclusion.
Consider the acquired experience of a fifth or sixth generation saxophone maker like Claudio Zolla of Rampone e Cazzani. They have a youtube video of the company and while they were developing the Due Voce with different materials.
Rampone & Cazzani: L'antica tradizione della fami…: http://youtu.be/gtVSHEO87ZM
He compares the materials at 14:27 if you care to skip ahead.

 

[aldevis]

They have a youtube video of the company and while they were developing the Due Voce with different materials.
Rampone & Cazzani: L'antica tradizione della fami…: http://youtu.be/gtVSHEO87ZM
He compares the materials at 14:27 if you care to skip ahead.

That is a very good example of experience and experimentation often dismissed as gullibility, of marketing hype.

Then some R&C horns have a sound to die for, and you don't really mind about science any more.

 

[Nick Wyver]

That is a very good example of experience and experimentation often dismissed as gullibility, of marketing hype.

Or dismissed because saxophones are not bells.

 

[aldevis]

Or dismissed because saxophones are not bells.

Still it affects the maker's choice. Right or wrong.

 

[Colin the Bear]

Science and Art come from different points of view. Science looks for empirical facts and Art is about perception. Just because you can't measure something doesn't mean the brain can't perceive it. If changing something on an instrument allows a competent player to perform the magic, science may be looking in the wrong place to find the reason why or how it happens.

When scientists looked into ESP and telekinesis it took a professional magician to explain why they couldn't measure and explain what their human senses were experiencing and how they were being duped.

The same sort of thing may be happening with perceived sound. The magic happens in the brain and may not be measurable in the room. Music is a human condition. Subtle changes to an instrument will affect the way it is played and the way it is able to be played. This may be perceived in an emotional way, which is the whole point of playingin the first place.

Science can explain the mechanics of music, but the perception of music is part of the human condition and remains largely unexplained.

 

[aldevis]

Science can explain the mechanics of music, but the perception of music is part of the human condition and remains largely unexplained.

And makers get caught in the middle...

 

[Targa]

And makers get caught in the middle...

It's the customers who get caught, the makers profit.