Measurement of vocal-tract influence during saxophone performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents experimental results that quantify the range of influence of vocal tract manipulations used in saxophone performance. The experiments utilized a measurement system that provides a relative comparison of the upstream windway and downstream air column impedances under normal playing conditions, allowing researchers and players to investigate the effect of vocal-tract manipulations in real time. Playing experiments explored vocal-tract influence over the full range of the saxophone, as well as when performing special effects such as pitch bending, multiphonics, and "bugling." The results show that, under certain conditions, players can create an upstream windway resonance that is strong enough to override the downstream system in controlling reed vibrations. This can occur when the downstream air column provides only weak support of a given note or effect, especially for notes with fundamental frequencies an octave below the air column cutoff frequency and higher. Vocal-tract influence is clearly demonstrated when pitch bending notes high in the traditional range of the alto saxophone and when playing in the saxophone's extended register. Subtle timbre variations via tongue position changes are possible for most notes in the saxophone's traditional range and can affect spectral content from at least 800-2000 Hz.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".