Intonation Soprano Sax Tuning

As someone with an interest in both soprano saxophone and clarinet, could someone explain why the conical bore of the saxophone dictates a different mouthpiece angle than the cylindrical bore of the clarinet?

Or is the saxophone mouthpiece different acoustically to the clarinet mouthpiece?

John Harle recommends a shallower playing angle for soprano, similar to clarinet, so this is an issue which intrigues me.
 
As someone with an interest in both soprano saxophone and clarinet, could someone explain why the conical bore of the saxophone dictates a different mouthpiece angle than the cylindrical bore of the clarinet?
I don't think that it does. You'll find plenty of clarinet and soprano sax players that play with an angle of 40 degree or so to the body and gradually upward to the playing position of an oboe.
My guess re Harle is that a lesser angle will help focus and give a more upfront sound. Bringing the angle downward is like a crowbar effect and will give some pressure to the reed without being "jaw bite" as such.
 
As someone with an interest in both soprano saxophone and clarinet, could someone explain why the conical bore of the saxophone dictates a different mouthpiece angle than the cylindrical bore of the clarinet?
Good question. In order for the clarinet to play with its best "classical" sound and intonation the "input pitch" or mouthpiece pitch needs to be as high as possible. That means that if the embouchure is made any tighter, the reed closes off. The downward angle of the clarinet mouthpiece along with the placement of the top teeth and the stretching of the lower lip to be firm and tight all help to facilitate producing this quality of sound. I added the term "classical" because in "Traditional Jazz" players generally play lower on the mouthpiece pitch and with a somewhat looser embouchure to get a sound more "characteristic" to that style of playing and to allow the use of stylistic inflections.

The saxophone on the other hand plays its best when it is played lower than the top of its input pitch. This is where all the fuss about what note the mouthpiece should play off the instrument started. When the saxophone is played at or near the top of its input pitch the tone is "pinched" and thin and the upper register is sharp. The mouthpiece angle that is straight into the mouth or tilted down slightly, the placement of the top teeth and a "softer" lower lip help to produce the quality of sound characteristic of a saxophone.

There are a few individual saxophone players who play with the mouthpiece at a sharp downward angle, and clarinet players who play with the mouthpiece going straight into the mouth, and even though they are excellent players, their methods are exceptions to the more common and accepted methods used by the majority of players.

Or is the saxophone mouthpiece different acoustically to the clarinet mouthpiece?
One of the primary differences is that the "effective volume" of the saxophone mouthpiece must be a close match to the "missing cone". For the clarinet mouthpiece there is no such acoustic requirement.

John Harle recommends a shallower playing angle for soprano, similar to clarinet, so this is an issue which intrigues me.
If that is what works best for him that is fine, but I encourage you to check out other professional soprano players to see how they play before making a decision. The challenge with that approach to me would be to avoid playing too high on the mouthpiece pitch which that severe downward angle tends facilitate when playing clarinet.
 
Did you know that Sanborn had Polio as a child? He has described how his neck muscles tire and he fights to keep his head up and straight.
My mate ended up having dinner with Ricky Peterson's band in Hawaii (he played for Ricky) and Sanborn came into town and Ricky was on the gig. My mate sat next to Sanborn. He said that he was absolutely obsessed with weight (because of the Polio) and would have his sax tech shave metal off his sax mic tripod and anything else he could get away with. He also eats the same meal before every gig and has for decades.
 
SORRY - on a roll here folks!

Michael Kamen described the time he first met Sanborn:

He was conducting a full orchestra in a studio for a film score. During the recording the studio door burst open and Sanborn staggered in drunk, laughed out loud and then staggered off.

Kamen said that Sanborn knew much more than him about harmony. Quite an accolade.
 
This is definitely misinformation. Think about all of the bends and "U-turns" in most typical brass instruments. Soundwaves "bend" around curves in these instruments with no negative effect upon the intonation. That said, Benade writes that the sound waves "going around" a "U-turn" bend in a saxophone "see" a tube that is slightly longer and wider than its actual geometry. Instrument manufacturers must take this into account in order for the notes low C and below to play in tune.

It is true that with an upward facing bell on any saxophone it is easier for the player to hear what is coming out the bell than if the instrument is straight and the bell points down and away. In my experience the mouthpiece angle should be the same whether the soprano sax is straight or curved. Many modern straight sopranos also come with a slightly curved neck which allows the instrument to be held in a more comfortable position using the slightly tilted downward mouthpiece angle.

Benade was wrong about there being no negative effects on intonation as players have long suspected. Benade didn't have access to the sort of computing power we have now for either calculation of theoretical results or for analysis of experimental results. More recent work has shown that the changes in impedance due to a bend are frequency dependent and lead to increased inharmonicity in the impedance plot. This has been predicted theoretically and verified experimentally.

See here: https://asa.scitation.org/doi/10.1121/1.424374
 
Benade was wrong about there being no negative effects on intonation as players have long suspected.
Thank you for that citation of a new study by Nederveen. It is great to find someone else with an interest in musical instrument acoustics.

Going just from memory, I mistakenly applied Benade's comments about the effects of closed toneholes making the bore wider and longer to the effects of a "bend". I apologize for giving the wrong information. In reviewing "Fundamentals of Musical Acoustics", Benade mentions the acoustical effects of bends only with regard to brass instruments. On page 409 he writes
The more or less sharp bends that are made in the tubing of brass instruments to fold them enough for easy portability have and acoustical effect of their own. . . .For all these reasons instruments with many sharp bends act quite differently from their straighter cousins. The resonances can be shifted quite enough to be noticed in playing steady tone, and the beginnings of notes can be affected even more."
In reviewing "Acoustical Aspects of Woodwind Instruments" it is Nederveen who describes the effect of a sharp bend in a conical bore is to produce a bore that is both "shortened and widened". He writes, "This will cause unevenness in the tuning when the bend is part of the oscillating air column in more than one register. It would be better to reduce a little both diameter and conicity in bends".[emphasis added] I think it is important to note that the sharp bend in the bow of a saxophone is normally part of the air column in only the low register.

In a specific reference to the saxophone on page 87 he writes:
In two places, tenor and alto saxophones have bends in the bore. The crook in the upper part of the bore shows very low curvature and does not exercise any appreciable influence. The reverse is the case for the sharp bend in the lower register. The length of the bend is about 12% of the acoustical length of the lowest fundamental. In Section 37 it was shown that such sharp bends correspond to a shortening and widening of the equivalent straight tube, where the differences may be of the order of 5% for the curved parts. This means that a perceptible increase of the resonance frequency is not unlikely.
He goes on to state, "no correction was applied, however, since . . . no accurate numerical values are available yet". Perhaps the new study that was cited provides this additional information.

Going back to the original statement: "Curved saxophones are more difficult to play in tune due to the shortness in length as well as the fact that the sound needs to bend around the curve." I believe the science indicates that a) the "bend around the curve" only affects the intonation of the notes below the curve, and b) these effects can be compensated for by engineering the bell bow to have a slightly reduced diameter and conicity.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads... or are they? Maybe not but they could be worth reading anyway 😀

Social

New! Social Feeds

Look out for the navigation icon:

Follow CafeSaxophone

Latest Song of the Month

Trending

Forum statistics

Topics
32,053
Messages
578,122
Members
8,121
Latest member
bbudd51
Back
Top Bottom