Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: possible easy solution 2 Jay's pet peeve


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ TubeNet BBS ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Gerald J. on July 15, 1999 at 17:35:34:

In Reply to: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: possible easy solution 2 Jay's pet peeve posted by Jay Bertolet on July 15, 1999 at 14:47:09:

As far as I can detect, few have noticed that parallel. But its there. the same wave equations fit.

The gap can be minimized by adding a sleeve inside the conical receiver that matches the inside diameter of the end of the mouthpiece. But that makes its position very critical so it just buts the square end of the mouthpiece but lets the mouthpiece fit in the taper enough to be held in place. Not a place for interchangeable mouthpieces. I suppose it could be made tapered and split so its diameter can shrink to fill the space. A slit would be less bother than the change in diameter without it.

It would be a better acoustical path if the mouthpiece outside was cylindrical and the receiver made to match so that the square cut end of the mouthpiece butted against a mating pipe in the receiver with the same inside diameter. We couldn't use tapered friction to hold the mouthpiece in place, probably have to use a set screw from the side or a collet. But I'm sure it would be better acoustically. Or more clumsily, a fitting like a pipe union.

But unless its really proven to be that picky, probably there's more difference between mouthpieces or between lacquer and silver plate that what the fitting of the mouthpiece has. We've lived with this tapered receiver now for at least 150 years.... Can it be all that bad?

Gerald J.


Follow Ups: