I'm a new member, and boy this discussion forum fits exactly with a current 
pursuit of mine.  Thank you for providing it. 

I'm trying to eliminate excess buzz in at least one legit mouthpiece for 
Concert Band.  I've read in one of Santy Runyon's articles (and I saw your 
commentthat having straight sections in the facing curve, especially near the 
tip, will cause reed buzz.  I've done some (hopefully accurate enough) 
measurements of my various mouthpieces, and most have straight sections from 
the tip to about 10mm back.  A couple even appear to curve back down(concave) 
near the tip.  

A couple of my pieces do show facing curves similar to your ideal Link arcs 
(Thank You for putting those out there!).  Those appear to vindicate my 
measurement process.  They play fine, but neither is a legit HR tenor piece.

I'm focussing right now on a Link 5* and comparing it to your curves. Hopefully 
my Excel attachment will come with this email.  Basically it shows that the 
curve on mine starts out from the table following the curve of your 7, but then 
goes straight out intersect the ideal 5* opening at the tip.  Several other of 
my mouthpieces have similar curves, like the curves were just not 'completed'.  

Is this a common characteristic of production mouthpieces?

A related question is whether I might be getting systematic errors at the wider 
openings.  I'm stacking (new and cleaned) automotive feeler gauges for openings 
larger than .025".  It's a hassle keeping them neatly stacked but a spare 
feeler gauge held up on edge to slide them into place seems to work.  I don't 
take a measurement if their edges are not lined up precisely. 

Thanks,
Len

> 
> I'm focussing right now on a Link 5* and comparing it to your 
curves. Hopefully 
> my Excel attachment will come with this email.  Basically it shows 
that the 
> curve on mine starts out from the table following the curve of your 
7, but then 
> goes straight out intersect the ideal 5* opening at the tip.  
Several other of 
> my mouthpieces have similar curves, like the curves were just 
not 'completed'.  
> 
> Is this a common characteristic of production mouthpieces?

I did get your file with the curves plotted.  I think is went out to 
all the subscribers who get each individual post mailed to them.

The curve for your Link 5* looks more wavy than what is typical.  But 
it could be a worse than average one.  Have you plotted repeats of 
your measurements to see how repeatable you are?  

> 
> A related question is whether I might be getting systematic errors 
at the wider 
> openings.  I'm stacking (new and cleaned) automotive feeler gauges 
for openings 
> larger than .025".  It's a hassle keeping them neatly stacked but a 
spare 
> feeler gauge held up on edge to slide them into place seems to 
work.  

When I started I made up stacked sets by taping each end with wraps 
of electrical tape.  Then I measured the thicknesses with a caliper.  
These worked for a while but then they seemed to bow apart and get 
thicker due to gaps between the feelers.  I had to press them 
together with my fingers while measuring to get decent results.  I 
was sure glad when Jeff Rosner took on getting us some better gages.

Measure everything you can get your hands on.  If most of your 
measurements have highs and lows in the same places, suspect your 
gages are faulty.

Stacking feelers will not give consistent results.

Mr. Rosner here on the Mouthpiece Work Group has a set of feelers up to 
.125" that are excellent.

Paul

BATES, LEONARD wrote:

> I'm a new member, and boy this discussion forum fits exactly with a 
> current
> pursuit of mine.  Thank you for providing it.
>
> I'm trying to eliminate excess buzz in at least one legit mouthpiece for
> Concert Band.  I've read in one of Santy Runyon's articles (and I saw 
> your
> commentthat having straight sections in the facing curve, especially 
> near the
> tip, will cause reed buzz.  I've done some (hopefully accurate enough)
> measurements of my various mouthpieces, and most have straight 
> sections from
> the tip to about 10mm back.  A couple even appear to curve back 
> down(concave)
> near the tip. 
>
> A couple of my pieces do show facing curves similar to your ideal Link 
> arcs
> (Thank You for putting those out there!).  Those appear to vindicate my
> measurement process.  They play fine, but neither is a legit HR tenor 
> piece.
>
> I'm focussing right now on a Link 5* and comparing it to your curves. 
> Hopefully
> my Excel attachment will come with this email.  Basically it shows 
> that the
> curve on mine starts out from the table following the curve of your 7, 
> but then
> goes straight out intersect the ideal 5* opening at the tip.  Several 
> other of
> my mouthpieces have similar curves, like the curves were just not 
> 'completed'. 
>
> Is this a common characteristic of production mouthpieces?
>
> A related question is whether I might be getting systematic errors at 
> the wider
> openings.  I'm stacking (new and cleaned) automotive feeler gauges for 
> openings
> larger than .025".  It's a hassle keeping them neatly stacked but a spare
> feeler gauge held up on edge to slide them into place seems to work.  
> I don't
> take a measurement if their edges are not lined up precisely.
>
> Thanks,
> Len
>
>
> 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
>
>     *  Visit your group "MouthpieceWork
>       <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MouthpieceWork>" on the web.
>        
>     *  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/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>