I've been trying to work backwards from a lot of the numbers that 
Ralph Morgan published some years ago in regards to the facing curves 
and tips of a variety of mouthpieces to discern how they arrived at 
these numbers.  My conclusion is that they just made them up!  
Actually I'm only partially serious.  I know we've had some 
discussions regarding radial curves versus what Ralph says he uses.  
When I pressed Ralph on this topic he gave me the answer that the 
numbers were derived from that being the point that the reed could 
vibrate most effectively.  Nice thought except as noted by Keith's 
spreadsheet and history that reeds are all cut differently to some 
degree.  Needless to say my brain hurts.

I have access to a whole bunch of old reeds and I think I'm going to 
measure them.

I've picked up a lot of great information from the list and I hope 
someone can shed some light on some of this.


Ed

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "ed_svoboda" <esvoboda@c...> 
wrote:
> I've been trying to work backwards from a lot of the numbers that 
> Ralph Morgan published some years ago in regards to the facing 
curves 
> and tips of a variety of mouthpieces to discern how they arrived at 
> these numbers.  My conclusion is that they just made them up!  
> Actually I'm only partially serious.  

The facing numbers Ralph published in the Sax Journal are from an 
earlier printing of the Erick Brand manual.  I can only speculate how 
they were determined.  If they are from measurements of one example 
of each mouthpiece, we know that mouthpieces are not that 
consistent.  I have spot checked a few vintage Woodwind mouthpiece 
facings against the charts and they do not agree that well.  Just 
Ballpark.  If you plot the curves, some are erratic shapes.  I 
concluded they were not that usefull.  I think if you use them as 
standards, you will be repeating some facing errors in your facings.

> I know we've had some 
> discussions regarding radial curves versus what Ralph says he 
uses.  
> When I pressed Ralph on this topic he gave me the answer that the 
> numbers were derived from that being the point that the reed could 
> vibrate most effectively.  Nice thought except as noted by Keith's 
> spreadsheet and history that reeds are all cut differently to some 
> degree.  Needless to say my brain hurts.

Ralph makes great mouthpieces, but he is not real articulate when it 
comes to explaining technical things.  He either does not fully 
understand the theory or is just not a great communicator.  I think 
the charts he uses were once derived from a reed cut.  The curvature 
of the facing depends on the the thickness of the reed cross secion.  
So the facing curve would have a shorter radius as it approaches the 
tip.  How much so would depend on some scaling factors (theoretical 
or emperical) and the reed cut used.  Alexander has 3 reed cuts.  
Vandoren has more.  What about reed strength?  

I've only measured a few Morgan pieces.  Not enough to determine what 
kind of curve he is shooting for.  They vary some, like most 
mouthpieces.

I use some elliptical facing curves that deviate from a pure radial 
curve.  But I have not found them to be significantly better than a 
well-constructed radial curve.   They usually blow with a little more 
resistance and edge, which some players actually like, some dont.  
Ponzols and most Bergs seem to have elliptical facings.  Bergs vary a 
lot.  But metal Ponzol tenors have ellipses where the major axis is 5 
times the minor axis.  This sounds like a lot, but only a very small 
section of the the ellipse is used for a facing curve.  You'll need 
to work out the math yourself.

I concluded early on that constructing my own facing curves using a 
spreadsheet was superior to measuring and duplicating facings from 
even good pieces.  You can get good results from duplication, but you 
always risk duplicating facing errors too.  It is tough to know what 
is an error and what is a desirable feature.  Some flat spots were 
desirable since they were a method of adding edge to a piece.  But I 
think they hurt response and there are other ways of adding edge 
besides messing with the facing curve.  

I've plotted a number of pieces this week using some of the wonderful spreadsheets that you have posted.  I started out by plotting the curve differences between a radial curve, parobolic curve, and the published curves.  After going through this excercise I was able to conclude that most of the published numbers match up better to a radial curve but are not exact.  I then repeated the process with all of my Morgan pieces and came to a similar conclusion.

I measured the pieces that I had that were on the list and like Mojo found that they varied - sometimes quite a bit.

I wonder if they weren't simply working off of some accepted ratios related to reed thickness or they may have been simply derived from trial and error.

My goal of this excercise was to try and work through the numbers in order to get a better feel for any school of thought of the old makers.  Thus far, I haven't really accomplished that goal.  But it was interesting anyways.

I'm thinking that what Ralph didn't say was that his pieces are designed around a given reed (which guys like Phil point out about their pieces).  I'm still planning on doing some measuring of a lot of the really old reeds that I have in the hopes of generating some standard numbers.  Thankfully most of the old reeds that I have are original and have not been worked over.

I remember commenting years ago that I wouldn't ever find a need for any of the advanced math I took in High School and College.  Lately, I've been using most of the stuff I figured I could forget!

Putting a good curve on a piece that allows it to perform as well as possible is the goal.
I wonder how the major companies like Runyon and others decide on their curves.

Ed  



-------------- Original message -------------- 

> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "ed_svoboda" 
> wrote: 
> > I've been trying to work backwards from a lot of the numbers that 
> > Ralph Morgan published some years ago in regards to the facing 
> curves 
> > and tips of a variety of mouthpieces to discern how they arrived at 
> > these numbers. My conclusion is that they just made them up! 
> > Actually I'm only partially serious. 
> 
> The facing numbers Ralph published in the Sax Journal are from an 
> earlier printing of the Erick Brand manual. I can only speculate how 
> they were determined. If they are from measurements of one example 
> of each mouthpiece, we know that mouthpieces are not that 
> consistent. I have spot checked a few vintage Woodwind mouthpiece 
> facings against the charts and they do not agree that well. Just 
> Ballpark. If you plot the curves, some are erratic shapes. I 
> concluded they were not that usefull. I think if you use them as 
> standards, you will be repeating some facing errors in your facings. 
> 
> > I know we've had some 
> > discussions regarding radial curves versus what Ralph says he 
> uses. 
> > When I pressed Ralph on this topic he gave me the answer that the 
> > numbers were derived from that being the point that the reed could 
> > vibrate most effectively. Nice thought except as noted by Keith's 
> > spreadsheet and history that reeds are all cut differently to some 
> > degree. Needless to say my brain hurts. 
> 
> Ralph makes great mouthpieces, but he is not real articulate when it 
> comes to explaining technical things. He either does not fully 
> understand the theory or is just not a great communicator. I think 
> the charts he uses were once derived from a reed cut. The curvature 
> of the facing depends on the the thickness of the reed cross secion. 
> So the facing curve would have a shorter radius as it approaches the 
> tip. How much so would depend on some scaling factors (theoretical 
> or emperical) and the reed cut used. Alexander has 3 reed cuts. 
> Vandoren has more. What about reed strength? 
> 
> I've only measured a few Morgan pieces. Not enough to determine what 
> kind of curve he is shooting for. They vary some, like most 
> mouthpieces. 
> 
> I use some elliptical facing curves that deviate from a pure radial 
> curve. But I have not found them to be significantly better than a 
> well-constructed radial curve. They usually blow with a little more 
> resistance and edge, which some players actually like, some dont. 
> Ponzols and most Bergs seem to have elliptical facings. Bergs vary a 
> lot. But metal Ponzol tenors have ellipses where the major axis is 5 
> times the minor axis. This sounds like a lot, but only a very small 
> section of the the ellipse is used for a facing curve. You'll need 
> to work out the math yourself. 
> 
> I concluded early on that constructing my own facing curves using a 
> spreadsheet was superior to measuring and duplicating facings from 
> even good pieces. You can get good results from duplication, but you 
> always risk duplicating facing errors too. It is tough to know what 
> is an error and what is a desirable feature. Some flat spots were 
> desirable since they were a method of adding edge to a piece. But I 
> think they hurt response and there are other ways of adding edge 
> besides messing with the facing curve. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got a Mouthpiece Work question? Send it to MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
> 
> Visit the site at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MouthpieceWork to see the Files, 
> Photos and Bookmarks relating to Mouthpiece Work. 
> 
> To see and modify your groups, go to http://groups.yahoo.com/mygroups 
> Yahoo! Groups Links 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

--- Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:

> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "ed_svoboda"
> <esvoboda@c...> 
> wrote:
> > I've been trying to work backwards from a lot of
> the numbers that 
> > Ralph Morgan published some years ago in regards
> to the facing 
> curves 
> > and tips of a variety of mouthpieces to discern
> how they arrived at 
> > these numbers.  My conclusion is that they just
> made them up!  
> > Actually I'm only partially serious.  
> 
> The facing numbers Ralph published in the Sax
> Journal are from an 
> earlier printing of the Erick Brand manual.  I can
> only speculate how 
> they were determined.  If they are from measurements
> of one example 
> of each mouthpiece, we know that mouthpieces are not
> that 
> consistent.  I have spot checked a few vintage
> Woodwind mouthpiece 
> facings against the charts and they do not agree
> that well.  Just 
> Ballpark.  If you plot the curves, some are erratic
> shapes.  I 
> concluded they were not that usefull.  I think if
> you use them as 
> standards, you will be repeating some facing errors
> in your facings.
> 
> > I know we've had some 
> > discussions regarding radial curves versus what
> Ralph says he 
> uses.  
> > When I pressed Ralph on this topic he gave me the
> answer that the 
> > numbers were derived from that being the point
> that the reed could 
> > vibrate most effectively.  Nice thought except as
> noted by Keith's 
> > spreadsheet and history that reeds are all cut
> differently to some 
> > degree.  Needless to say my brain hurts.
> 
> Ralph makes great mouthpieces, but he is not real
> articulate when it 
> comes to explaining technical things.  He either
> does not fully 
> understand the theory or is just not a great
> communicator.  I think 
> the charts he uses were once derived from a reed
> cut.  The curvature 
> of the facing depends on the the thickness of the
> reed cross secion.  
> So the facing curve would have a shorter radius as
> it approaches the 
> tip.  How much so would depend on some scaling
> factors (theoretical 
> or emperical) and the reed cut used.  Alexander has
> 3 reed cuts.  
> Vandoren has more.  What about reed strength?  
> 
> I've only measured a few Morgan pieces.  Not enough
> to determine what 
> kind of curve he is shooting for.  They vary some,
> like most 
> mouthpieces.
> 
> I use some elliptical facing curves that deviate
> from a pure radial 
> curve.  But I have not found them to be
> significantly better than a 
> well-constructed radial curve.   They usually blow
> with a little more 
> resistance and edge, which some players actually
> like, some dont.  
> Ponzols and most Bergs seem to have elliptical
> facings.  Bergs vary a 
> lot.  But metal Ponzol tenors have ellipses where
> the major axis is 5 
> times the minor axis.  This sounds like a lot, but
> only a very small 
> section of the the ellipse is used for a facing
> curve.  You'll need 
> to work out the math yourself.
> 
> I concluded early on that constructing my own facing
> curves using a 
> spreadsheet was superior to measuring and
> duplicating facings from 
> even good pieces.  You can get good results from
> duplication, but you 
> always risk duplicating facing errors too.  It is
> tough to know what 
> is an error and what is a desirable feature.  Some
> flat spots were 
> desirable since they were a method of adding edge to
> a piece.  But I 
> think they hurt response and there are other ways of
> adding edge 
> besides messing with the facing curve.  
> 
> 
> 
Keith:

I could use the following tip opening plus facing
schedules for a Selmer table stamp D soprano piece in
hard rubber, also, for an E.

I appreciate your time,

Bob Knapp 


	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail 

Greetings,
I am in receipt of my new (stainless steel)  Berg Larsen 110/0M. It was 
a new "B stock" MP, which the vendor claimed meant that it was 
cosmetically flawed but it would have nothing to do with function. 
Therein lies my question. (Asked because I can return it.) The only flaw 
is a small casting flaw right at the very tip. About a fingernail width, 
it goesparallel to the lenght of the MP, and if one closes off the end, 
you can see light though it - perhaps the size of a sewing thread. What 
say you? Play it and forget it? Put on a day of epoxy and sand it down? 
Thanks for any input. By the way, the B stock did lower the price to 
around $125, so it was a considerable savings for a new MP. Thanks for 
any input. JimG

If the void goes through the tip rail, you will need to fill it in with
epoxy.  $125 does not sound like a super great deal unless it is the newest
edition of Bergs instead of new old stock.  I have not seen the new ones
but I'm hopin they are worth their higher price.

I would be inclined to buy a Berg on eBay if I wanted to fix one up.


		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, dan lunsford 
<bluesnote2000@y...> wrote:
> > 
> Keith:
> 
> I could use the following tip opening plus facing
> schedules for a Selmer table stamp D soprano piece in
> hard rubber, also, for an E.
> 
> I appreciate your time,
> 
> Bob Knapp 
> 

I can generate what I would use, but I do not know Selmer's specs.

What set of feelers are you using?

--- Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:

> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, dan lunsford 
> <bluesnote2000@y...> wrote:
> > > 
> > Keith:
> > 
> > I could use the following tip opening plus facing
> > schedules for a Selmer table stamp D soprano piece
> in
> > hard rubber, also, for an E.
> > 
> > I appreciate your time,
> > 
> > Bob Knapp 
> > 
> 
> I can generate what I would use, but I do not know
> Selmer's specs.
> 
> What set of feelers are you using?

Hi:

It's the Morgan stuff. .15,(4) 10, 24,34, 50.
Thanks,

Bob 
> 
> 



	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail 

Look in the Files Methods area for the file:

Sop Facing Curves Selmer.xls 

Just type in your feeler set.

>I wonder how the major companies like Runyon and others decide on their
curves.

Look in the Files Clarinet section for an article by Santy Runyon.  This
gets you into his head a little.  

He decided radial facings were the best for his goals and even designed a
machine that makes only radial facings.  


		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Ed:   Runyon, for the most part, has medium length facings on all of 
their mouthpieces.  There are a few exceptions, such as the Jaguars are 
1mm longer.

They keep the facing length constant, and vary the tip opening. 

They have two facing machines.  One is their "old facing machine", which 
is infinitely adjustable.  It moves the cutter along a straight track, 
cutting the table.  Then it hits a stop, and rotates on a radius, 
cutting the facing curve.  This is the arc of a perfect circle.

The mouthpiece is put in a fixture that exactly fits the contour of the 
top half of the mouthpiece and supports the bore section and beak.  
There is a bar that goes into the bore and is clamped down to hold the 
mouthpiece solidly in place.

By adjusting where the pivot is, they can adjust length of facing.  By 
adjusting length of radius, they adjust tip opening.

This "old facing machine" takes about 1 minute to cut the table and 
facing, and is used for all of the Customs, and other pro plastic and 
metal mouthpieces.

The "new facing machine" (which is about 25 years old) works like a key 
copier.  It works by use of a "template" (like copying the original key) 
to guide the cutter.  The template is made on the "old machine". 

The mouthpiece is clamped into a similar fixture, and the cutter cuts 
the facing following the template.  It is very fast, and cuts the facing 
in under 1 second.   Cutting the facing on both machines is done under a 
jet of water to cool the cutting tool and mouthpiece.

It takes far more time to place a blank in the fixture, ZAP!--the facing 
is cut, then to remove it, than the actual cutting of the facing.

This new machine is used for the various student models, where very 
large numbers are done with a single facing.

By measurement, I see that most of the Runyon baris are 24 mm long 
facings, tenors 22 mm, altos 21 mm.  And this seems to be "medium" and 
used by other makers.

Paul



esvoboda@... wrote:

> I've plotted a number of pieces this week using some of the wonderful 
> spreadsheets that you have posted.  I started out by plotting the 
> curve differences between a radial curve, parobolic curve, and the 
> published curves.  After going through this excercise I was able to 
> conclude that most of the published numbers match up better to a 
> radial curve but are not exact.  I then repeated the process with all 
> of my Morgan pieces and came to a similar conclusion.
>
>  
>
> I measured the pieces that I had that were on the list and like Mojo 
> found that they varied - sometimes quite a bit.
>
>  
>
> I wonder if they weren't simply working off of some accepted ratios 
> related to reed thickness or they may have been simply derived from 
> trial and error.
>
>  
>
> My goal of this excercise was to try and work through the numbers in 
> order to get a better feel for any school of thought of the old 
> makers.  Thus far, I haven't really accomplished that goal.  But it 
> was interesting anyways.
>
>  
>
> I'm thinking that what Ralph didn't say was that his pieces are 
> designed around a given reed (which guys like Phil point out about 
> their pieces).  I'm still planning on doing some measuring of a lot of 
> the really old reeds that I have in the hopes of generating some 
> standard numbers.  Thankfully most of the old reeds that I have are 
> original and have not been worked over.
>
>  
>
> I remember commenting years ago that I wouldn't ever find a need for 
> any of the advanced math I took in High School and College.  Lately, 
> I've been using most of the stuff I figured I could forget!
>
>  
>
> Putting a good curve on a piece that allows it to perform as well as 
> possible is the goal.
>
> I wonder how the major companies like Runyon and others decide on 
> their curves.
>
>  
>
> Ed 
>
>  
>
>
>  
>
>     -------------- Original message --------------
>
>     > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "ed_svoboda"
>     > wrote:
>     > > I've been trying to work backwards from a lot of the numbers that
>     > > Ralph Morgan published some years ago in regards to the facing
>     > curves
>     > > and tips of a variety of mouthpieces to discern how they
>     arrived at
>     > > these numbers. My conclusion is that they just made them up!
>     > > Actually I'm only partially serious.
>     >
>     > The facing numbers Ralph published in the Sax Journal are from an
>     > earlier printing of the Erick Brand manual. I can only speculate
>     how
>     > they were determined. If they are from measurements of one example
>     > of each mouthpiece, we know that mouthpieces are not that
>     > consistent. I have spot checked a few vintage Woodwind mouthpiece
>     > facings against the charts and they do not agree that well. Just
>     > Ballpark. If you plot the curves, some are erratic shapes. I
>     > concluded they were not that usefull. I think if you use them as
>     > standards, you will be repeating some facing errors in your
>     facings.
>     >
>     > > I know we've had some
>     > > discussions regarding radial curves versus what Ralph says he
>     > uses.
>     > > When I pressed Ralph on this topic he gave me the answer that the
>     > > numbers were derived from that being the point that the reed
>     could
>     > > vibrate most effectively. Nice thought except as noted by Keith's
>     > > spreadsheet and history that reeds are all cut differently to
>     some
>     > > degree. Needless to say my brain hurts.
>     >
>     > Ralph makes great mouthpieces, but he is not real articulate
>     when it
>     > comes to explaining technical things. He either does not fully
>     > understand the theory or is just not a great communicator. I think
>     > the charts he uses were once derived from a reed cut. The curvature
>     > of the facing depends on the the thickness of the reed cross
>     secion.
>     > So the facing curve would have a shorter radius as it approaches
>     the
>     > tip. How much so would depend on some scaling factors (theoretical
>     > or emperical) and the reed cut used. Alexander has 3 reed cuts.
>     > Vandoren has more. What about reed strength?
>     >
>     > I've only measured a few Morgan pieces. Not enough to determine
>     what
>     > kind of curve he is shooting for. They vary some, like most
>     > mouthpieces.
>     >
>     > I use some elliptical facing curves that deviate from a pure radial
>     > curve. But I have not found them to be significantly better than a
>     > well-constructed radial curve. They usually blow with a little more
>     > resistance and edge, which some players actually like, some dont.
>     > Ponzols and most Bergs seem to have elliptical facings. Bergs
>     vary a
>     > lot. But metal Ponzol tenors have ellipses where the major axis
>     is 5
>     > times the minor axis. This sounds like a lot, but only a very small
>     > section of the the ellipse is used for a facing curve. You'll need
>     > to work out the math yourself.
>     >
>     > I concluded early on that constructing my own facing curves using a
>     > spreadsheet was superior to measuring and duplicating facings from
>     > even good pieces. You can get good results from duplication, but
>     you
>     > always risk duplicating facing errors too. It is tough to know what
>     > is an error and what is a desirable feature. Some flat spots were
>     > desirable since they were a method of adding edge to a piece. But I
>     > think they hurt response and there are other ways of adding edge
>     > besides messing with the facing curve.
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
>     >
>     > Got a Mouthpiece Work question? Send it to
>     MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>     >
>     > Visit the site at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MouthpieceWork
>     to see the Files,
>     > Photos and Bookmarks relating to Mouthpiece Work.
>     >
>     > To see and modify your groups, go to
>     http://groups.yahoo.com/mygroups
>     > Yahoo! Groups Links
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > 
>
>
>
> Got a Mouthpiece Work question?  Send it to MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>
> Visit the site at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MouthpieceWork to see 
> the Files, Photos and Bookmarks relating to Mouthpiece Work.
>
> To see and modify your groups, go to http://groups.yahoo.com/mygroups
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
> <http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG94kl4tk/M06910.5263657.6380312.2248467/D=grplch/S05032198:HM/EXP92150074/A"90377/R=0/SIGs2a4jvk/*http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/N3390.yahoocom/B1408521.15;sz00x250;ord92063674799938?> 
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>     * To visit your group on the web, go to:
>       http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MouthpieceWork/
>        
>     * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>       MouthpieceWork-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>       <mailto:MouthpieceWork-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>        
>     * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
>       Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>

Return it, ask for another.

Paul

Jim Goeckermann wrote:

> Greetings,
> I am in receipt of my new (stainless steel)  Berg Larsen 110/0M. It was
> a new "B stock" MP, which the vendor claimed meant that it was
> cosmetically flawed but it would have nothing to do with function.
> Therein lies my question. (Asked because I can return it.) The only flaw
> is a small casting flaw right at the very tip. About a fingernail width,
> it goesparallel to the lenght of the MP, and if one closes off the end,
> you can see light though it - perhaps the size of a sewing thread. What
> say you? Play it and forget it? Put on a day of epoxy and sand it down?
> Thanks for any input. By the way, the B stock did lower the price to
> around $125, so it was a considerable savings for a new MP. Thanks for
> any input. JimG
>
>
>
>
> Got a Mouthpiece Work question?  Send it to MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>
> Visit the site at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MouthpieceWork to see 
> the Files, Photos and Bookmarks relating to Mouthpiece Work.
>
> To see and modify your groups, go to http://groups.yahoo.com/mygroups
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
> <http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG9avdn5r/M06910.5263657.6380312.2248467/D=grplch/S05032198:HM/EXP92155349/A"90377/R=0/SIGs7sv3gi/*http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/N3390.yahoocom/B1408521.15;sz00x250;ord92068949472527?> 
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>     * To visit your group on the web, go to:
>       http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MouthpieceWork/
>        
>     * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>       MouthpieceWork-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>       <mailto:MouthpieceWork-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>        
>     * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
>       Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>

Keith, for the Soprano Sax D, use .051" tip opening.  For E use .053" 
tip.  Use 16 mm for facing length (.0015" feeler).  Most Selmers seem to 
be about 16mm length, but they are all crooked.

Also generate curves with the same tip openings, but with 17mm facing 
length, which I think is better.  I do 18mm and 19mm facings for a lot 
of soprano players.

Paul



Keith Bradbury wrote:

> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, dan lunsford
> <bluesnote2000@y...> wrote:
> > >
> > Keith:
> >
> > I could use the following tip opening plus facing
> > schedules for a Selmer table stamp D soprano piece in
> > hard rubber, also, for an E.
> >
> > I appreciate your time,
> >
> > Bob Knapp
> >
>
> I can generate what I would use, but I do not know Selmer's specs.
>
> What set of feelers are you using?
>
>
>
> Got a Mouthpiece Work question?  Send it to MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>
> Visit the site at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MouthpieceWork to see 
> the Files, Photos and Bookmarks relating to Mouthpiece Work.
>
> To see and modify your groups, go to http://groups.yahoo.com/mygroups
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
> <http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG9qu6vi3/M06910.5263657.6380312.2248467/D=grplch/S05032198:HM/EXP92165553/A"90377/R=0/SIGss4p445/*http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/N3390.yahoocom/B1408521.15;sz00x250;ord92079153245791?> 
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>     * To visit your group on the web, go to:
>       http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MouthpieceWork/
>        
>     * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>       MouthpieceWork-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>       <mailto:MouthpieceWork-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>        
>     * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
>       Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>

I agree with Paul--a flaw in the tip rail is definitely not "cosmetic only".

Toby
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Paul Coats 
  To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 12:15 PM
  Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Berg Larsen Question


  Return it, ask for another.

  <!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> 

  Paul

  Jim Goeckermann wrote:

    Greetings,
    I am in receipt of my new (stainless steel)  Berg Larsen 110/0M. It was 
    a new "B stock" MP, which the vendor claimed meant that it was 
    cosmetically flawed but it would have nothing to do with function. 
    Therein lies my question. (Asked because I can return it.) The only flaw 
    is a small casting flaw right at the very tip. About a fingernail width, 
    it goesparallel to the lenght of the MP, and if one closes off the end, 
    you can see light though it - perhaps the size of a sewing thread. What 
    say you? Play it and forget it? Put on a day of epoxy and sand it down? 
    Thanks for any input. By the way, the B stock did lower the price to 
    around $125, so it was a considerable savings for a new MP. Thanks for 
    any input. JimG




    Got a Mouthpiece Work question?  Send it to MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com

    Visit the site at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MouthpieceWork to see the Files, Photos and Bookmarks relating to Mouthpiece Work.

    To see and modify your groups, go to http://groups.yahoo.com/mygroups 





  Got a Mouthpiece Work question?  Send it to MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com

  Visit the site at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MouthpieceWork to see the Files, Photos and Bookmarks relating to Mouthpiece Work.

  To see and modify your groups, go to http://groups.yahoo.com/mygroups 


        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
              ADVERTISEMENT
             
       
       


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Yahoo! Groups Links

    a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MouthpieceWork/
      
    b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    MouthpieceWork-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      
    c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 

Paul wrote:

>>>>
Keith, for the Soprano Sax D, use .051� tip opening.  For E use .053� tip. 
Use 16 mm for facing length (.0015� feeler).  Most Selmers seem to be about
16mm length, but they are all crooked.

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> 

Also generate curves with the same tip openings, but with 17mm facing
length, which I think is better.  I do 18mm and 19mm facings for a lot of
soprano players.

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> 

<<<<

Those are the tip openings I used in the spreadsheet I posted.  However, I
used 20 mm facing lengths.  I think I found them on a Selmer web site. 
Perhaps the vintage ones are shorter.  Like you said, they vary a lot.  I
use a S80 C* on my Asian curved sop sax but it measures as a D.


		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Here's what Selmer has listed as their current Soprano specs:

Soprano	facing	20mm
Opening		
C	1.15	0.045275591
C*	1.20	0.047244094
C**	1.25	0.049212598
D	1.30	0.051181102
E	1.35	0.053149606
F	1.45	0.057086614
G	1.55	0.061023622
H	1.60	0.062992126


I wonder if Selmer is using 20mm as the 0 feeler rather than .0015.  I would think 18mm would be a more reasonable facing.

Ed


> Paul wrote:
> 
> >>>>
> Keith, for the Soprano Sax D, use .051� tip opening.  For E use .053� tip. 
> Use 16 mm for facing length (.0015� feeler).  Most Selmers seem to be about
> 16mm length, but they are all crooked.
> 
> <!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> 
> 
> Also generate curves with the same tip openings, but with 17mm facing
> length, which I think is better.  I do 18mm and 19mm facings for a lot of
> soprano players.
> 
> <!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> 
> 
> <<<<
> 
> Those are the tip openings I used in the spreadsheet I posted.  However, I
> used 20 mm facing lengths.  I think I found them on a Selmer web site. 
> Perhaps the vintage ones are shorter.  Like you said, they vary a lot.  I
> use a S80 C* on my Asian curved sop sax but it measures as a D.
> 
> 
> 		
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
> 
> 
> 
> Got a Mouthpiece Work question?  Send it to MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> 
> Visit the site at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MouthpieceWork to see the Files, 
> Photos and Bookmarks relating to Mouthpiece Work.
> 
> To see and modify your groups, go to http://groups.yahoo.com/mygroups 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 

--- esvoboda@... wrote:

> Here's what Selmer has listed as their current
> Soprano specs:
> 
> Soprano	facing	20mm
> Opening		
> C	1.15	0.045275591
> C*	1.20	0.047244094
> C**	1.25	0.049212598
> D	1.30	0.051181102
> E	1.35	0.053149606
> F	1.45	0.057086614
> G	1.55	0.061023622
> H	1.60	0.062992126
> 
> 
> I wonder if Selmer is using 20mm as the 0 feeler
> rather than .0015.  I would think 18mm would be a
> more reasonable facing.
> 
> Ed
> 
> 
> > Paul wrote:
> > 
> > >>>>
> > Keith, for the Soprano Sax D, use .051� tip
> opening.  For E use .053� tip. 
> > Use 16 mm for facing length (.0015� feeler).  Most
> Selmers seem to be about
> > 16mm length, but they are all crooked.
> > 
> > <!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> 
> > 
> > Also generate curves with the same tip openings,
> but with 17mm facing
> > length, which I think is better.  I do 18mm and
> 19mm facings for a lot of
> > soprano players.
> > 
> > <!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> 
> > 
> > <<<<
> > 
> > Those are the tip openings I used in the
> spreadsheet I posted.  However, I
> > used 20 mm facing lengths.  I think I found them
> on a Selmer web site. 
> > Perhaps the vintage ones are shorter.  Like you
> said, they vary a lot.  I
> > use a S80 C* on my Asian curved sop sax but it
> measures as a D.
> > 
> > 
> > 		
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
> > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Got a Mouthpiece Work question?  Send it to
> MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> > 
> > Visit the site at
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MouthpieceWork to see
> the Files, 
> > Photos and Bookmarks relating to Mouthpiece Work.
> > 
> > To see and modify your groups, go to
> http://groups.yahoo.com/mygroups 
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >  
> > 
> 
> 
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> --------------------~--> 
> Over 1 billion served! The most music videos on the
> web.
> Click to Watch now!
>
http://us.click.yahoo.com/Xkrq7C/IARHAA/n1hLAA/GoLolB/TM
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
> 
> 
> Got a Mouthpiece Work question?  Send it to
> MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> 
> Visit the site at
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MouthpieceWork to see
> the Files, Photos and Bookmarks relating to
> Mouthpiece Work.
> 
> To see and modify your groups, go to
> http://groups.yahoo.com/mygroups 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
>     MouthpieceWork-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> 
>  
> Hi:

Great.  Do you have a facing curve schedule?
Thanks,

Bob
> 



	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail 

I got 16mm (with .0015" feeler) from actual measurement of Selmer sopranos.

 

I notice that Vandoren's facing lengths are the actual calculated 
length, as if measured with a 0 thickness feeler.  It is longer than the 
.0015" measurement.  Perhaps Selmer does this, too.

 

So, I think we are both on the same page, Ed.

 

Though Selmers measure 16mm, I feel 17mm-18mm is better facing length 
for soprano.

 

Paul

esvoboda@... wrote:

>Here's what Selmer has listed as their current Soprano specs:
>
>Soprano	facing	20mm
>Opening		
>C	1.15	0.045275591
>C*	1.20	0.047244094
>C**	1.25	0.049212598
>D	1.30	0.051181102
>E	1.35	0.053149606
>F	1.45	0.057086614
>G	1.55	0.061023622
>H	1.60	0.062992126
>
>
>I wonder if Selmer is using 20mm as the 0 feeler rather than .0015.  I would think 18mm would be a more reasonable facing.
>
>Ed
>
>
>  
>
>>Paul wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>Keith, for the Soprano Sax D, use .051" tip opening.  For E use .053" tip. 
>>Use 16 mm for facing length (.0015" feeler).  Most Selmers seem to be about
>>16mm length, but they are all crooked.
>>
>><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> 
>>
>>Also generate curves with the same tip openings, but with 17mm facing
>>length, which I think is better.  I do 18mm and 19mm facings for a lot of
>>soprano players.
>>
>><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> 
>>
>><<<<
>>
>>Those are the tip openings I used in the spreadsheet I posted.  However, I
>>used 20 mm facing lengths.  I think I found them on a Selmer web site. 
>>Perhaps the vintage ones are shorter.  Like you said, they vary a lot.  I
>>use a S80 C* on my Asian curved sop sax but it measures as a D.
>>
>>
>>		
>>__________________________________
>>Do you Yahoo!?
>>Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
>>http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
>>
>>
>>
>>Got a Mouthpiece Work question?  Send it to MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>>
>>Visit the site at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MouthpieceWork to see the Files, 
>>Photos and Bookmarks relating to Mouthpiece Work.
>>
>>To see and modify your groups, go to http://groups.yahoo.com/mygroups 
>>Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>
>Got a Mouthpiece Work question?  Send it to MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>
>Visit the site at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MouthpieceWork to see the Files, Photos and Bookmarks relating to Mouthpiece Work.
>
>To see and modify your groups, go to http://groups.yahoo.com/mygroups 
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>  
>