Hi everyone-

I recently added a Short Shank Selmer Soloist to my collection.  I am a
bit confused about some of the playing characteristics it demonstrates
based on what I thought I knew about mouthpiece design.  I am a
professional player and I'm messing around with refacing to further
understand the saxophone and how everything works.  Over my years of
experience I think I've gotten all my facts straight about how different
design characterisitics of a mouthpiece affect it's sound/playability
(i.e. - how the tip opening, facing length, baffle, chamber size/shape
etc affects sound, pitch, volume, etc).

The reason I'm bothering to let you all know about this is that my
expectations for this mouthpiece don't match the results and I'd love to
find out why.  I've been playing a Meyer 6M (tip = .078) and have been a
"Meyer guy" for years.  This Soloist is only a C facing (tip = .064) and
I've found the Soloists I've tried in the past to be too buzzy and thin
for my liking.  This one, however, sounds fantastic, responds better
than my Meyer and still gets a full-bodied sound (playing on Vandoren
V16 3's and a Vandoren Optimum Lig).  The most surprising thing is that
I have no problem getting the volume and projection I need.  I've used
it to play lead in a big band and on some salsa gigs without ever
feeling like I'm pushing on it (as I would have expected with such a
small tip opening).  I measured the facing curve and it read like this
on my glass guage:
    * .0015 - 38     * .005 - 32     * .010 - 28     * .016 - 24     *
.024 - 19     * .034 - 14     * .050 - 7     * tip - .064

When I ran that through Keith's spreadsheet for facing curves (if I did
it right) it was almost a perfect radial curve.

So, my questions for all of you out there are:
    1. How can this mouthpiece with such a small tip opening get the
volume it does?     2. Does the qualtiy of the curve on the facing
really have this much of an effect on a mouthpiece?     3. Is it
possible that the smaller tip opening contributes to the fact that I
like the sound of this soloist (less buzzy - with more body) as opposed
to others of a more open tip that I have played in the past?

Thanks in advance for your insight.  What I thought I knew about
mouthpieces is being turned upside down by this little guy!

Wil Swindler
www.wilswindler.com <http://www.wilswindler.com/>
www.singlereedconsultants.com <http://www.singlereedconsultants.com/>
www.chamberjazzensemble.com <http://www.chamberjazzensemble.com/>

> 
> Hi everyone-
> 
> I recently added a Short Shank Selmer Soloist to my collection.  I am a
> bit confused about some of the playing characteristics it demonstrates
> based on what I thought I knew about mouthpiece design.  I am a
> professional player and I'm messing around with refacing to further
> understand the saxophone and how everything works.  Over my years of
> experience I think I've gotten all my facts straight about how different
> design characterisitics of a mouthpiece affect it's sound/playability
> (i.e. - how the tip opening, facing length, baffle, chamber size/shape
> etc affects sound, pitch, volume, etc).
>
> The reason I'm bothering to let you all know about this is that my
> expectations for this mouthpiece don't match the results and I'd love to
> find out why.  I've been playing a Meyer 6M (tip = .078) and have been a
> "Meyer guy" for years.  This Soloist is only a C facing (tip = .064) and
> I've found the Soloists I've tried in the past to be too buzzy and thin
> for my liking.  This one, however, sounds fantastic, responds better
> than my Meyer and still gets a full-bodied sound (playing on Vandoren
> V16 3's and a Vandoren Optimum Lig).  The most surprising thing is that
> I have no problem getting the volume and projection I need.  I've used
> it to play lead in a big band and on some salsa gigs without ever
> feeling like I'm pushing on it (as I would have expected with such a
> small tip opening).  I measured the facing curve and it read like this
> on my glass guage:
>     * .0015 - 38     * .005 - 32     * .010 - 28     * .016 - 24     *
> .024 - 19     * .034 - 14     * .050 - 7     * tip - .064
>
> When I ran that through Keith's spreadsheet for facing curves (if I did
> it right) it was almost a perfect radial curve.
>
> So, my questions for all of you out there are:
>     1. How can this mouthpiece with such a small tip opening get the
> volume it does?     2. Does the qualtiy of the curve on the facing
> really have this much of an effect on a mouthpiece?     3. Is it
> possible that the smaller tip opening contributes to the fact that I
> like the sound of this soloist (less buzzy - with more body) as opposed
> to others of a more open tip that I have played in the past?
>
> Thanks in advance for your insight.  What I thought I knew about
> mouthpieces is being turned upside down by this little guy!
>
> Wil Swindler
> www.wilswindler.com <http://www.wilswindler.com/>
> www.singlereedconsultants.com <http://www.singlereedconsultants.com/>
> www.chamberjazzensemble.com <http://www.chamberjazzensemble.com/>
>
>



Jon Van Wie has said, "The old cathedral chamber Selmer mouthpieces are of
much greater interest to me. Those pieces were made with a hump right behind
the tip rail, which has a way of canceling out the high-end frequencies
produced at the tip of the reed. Cutting that hump out of the baffle makes
the piece brighter. If you compare their design to other small chamber
pieces you will see that those differences behind the tip rail are subtle,
yet have a profound impact on a sonic level."

This area of the baffle seems to be very crucial. I'll bet that if you
measure the baffle curvature of the two pieces near the tip, you'll find the
big difference is there.

I have a Bari HR soprano mpc I've been working on, very near identical in
design to a Ponzol HR mpc I have. The Bari actually has a wider facing, but
doesn't project nearly as well, and it has a slight greater curvature in the
baffle just behind the tip compared to the Ponzol, and is higher there. As
I've taken down this area of the baffle bit by bit, the Bari's projection
has improved.

It appears that if the baffle is too high just behind the tip, it kills the
projection of the piece. It also seems that if the baffle cuts away too
sharply from the tip rail (as in the Rico Royal mouthpieces) this also
reduces projection. Most baffles look flat until they reach this region near
the tip, then they have a subtle curve. The curvature of this small region
seems as important to get right as the curvature of the rails.

One needs a depth gauge to measure the baffle shape accurately in this
region close to the tip rail.

My own (recent) solution to this measuring need has been to adapt an old
Fowler caliper with a depth gauge, by gluing it at its bottom end to the end
of slab of plexiglas so that it is standing perpendicular to the plexi. and
the gauge rod end is zeroed and flush to the bottom of the plexiglas. I use
microscope slides (1 mm thick) to space this adapted depth gauge 1,2,3 etc
mm from the mpc tip rail. It's a bit klugey, but works.

>     1. How can this mouthpiece with such a small tip opening get the
> volume it does? 
The squeeze in the throat area gives some "pop" to the sound.  Hard to
define but it is projection without brightness.  It is a quickness and
exageration of the articulation too.  

>     2. Does the qualtiy of the curve on the facing
> really have this much of an effect on a mouthpiece?

I did not plot your readings, but you said the curve looks radial, which is
a very responsive curve.  It generates sound with minimal effort.  It is an
efficiant system.  

     3. Is it
> possible that the smaller tip opening contributes to the fact that I
> like the sound of this soloist (less buzzy - with more body) as opposed
> to others of a more open tip that I have played in the past?

If you were using a softer reed on the wider tips, then surely yes.  If
not, maybe.  Softer reeds on wider tips sound more reedy and buzzy.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "Wil Swindler" <wjswindler@...>
wrote:
>
> 
> Hi everyone-
> 
> I recently added a Short Shank Selmer Soloist to my collection.  I am a
> bit confused about some of the playing characteristics it demonstrates
> based on what I thought I knew about mouthpiece design.  I am a
> professional player and I'm messing around with refacing to further
> understand the saxophone and how everything works.  Over my years of
> experience I think I've gotten all my facts straight about how different
> design characterisitics of a mouthpiece affect it's sound/playability
> (i.e. - how the tip opening, facing length, baffle, chamber size/shape
> etc affects sound, pitch, volume, etc).
> ******************************************************************
As I see it Wil, your Soloist with its longer lay than the Meyer 
(+54 thou) will give more body to the sound, despite the closer tip.

The V16 #3 reed will also be effectively softer on the Soloist when
compared to the Meyer, as it does not have to make such an acute curve
to meet the tip, thus giving increased vibrancy over the longer lay.  

Internal differences in the mouthpiece may be enhancing these changes
to your advantage.IMHO                   Eddie
 ********************************************************************

> The reason I'm bothering to let you all know about this is that my
> expectations for this mouthpiece don't match the results and I'd love to
> find out why.  I've been playing a Meyer 6M (tip = .078) and have been a
> "Meyer guy" for years.  This Soloist is only a C facing (tip = .064) and
> I've found the Soloists I've tried in the past to be too buzzy and thin
> for my liking.  This one, however, sounds fantastic, responds better
> than my Meyer and still gets a full-bodied sound (playing on Vandoren
> V16 3's and a Vandoren Optimum Lig).  The most surprising thing is that
> I have no problem getting the volume and projection I need.  I've used
> it to play lead in a big band and on some salsa gigs without ever
> feeling like I'm pushing on it (as I would have expected with such a
> small tip opening).  I measured the facing curve and it read like this
> on my glass guage:
>     * .0015 - 38     * .005 - 32     * .010 - 28     * .016 - 24     *
> .024 - 19     * .034 - 14     * .050 - 7     * tip - .064
> 
> When I ran that through Keith's spreadsheet for facing curves (if I did
> it right) it was almost a perfect radial curve.
> 
> So, my questions for all of you out there are:
>     1. How can this mouthpiece with such a small tip opening get the
> volume it does?     2. Does the qualtiy of the curve on the facing
> really have this much of an effect on a mouthpiece?     3. Is it
> possible that the smaller tip opening contributes to the fact that I
> like the sound of this soloist (less buzzy - with more body) as opposed
> to others of a more open tip that I have played in the past?
> 
> Thanks in advance for your insight.  What I thought I knew about
> mouthpieces is being turned upside down by this little guy!
> 
> Wil Swindler
> www.wilswindler.com <http://www.wilswindler.com/>
> www.singlereedconsultants.com <http://www.singlereedconsultants.com/>
> www.chamberjazzensemble.com <http://www.chamberjazzensemble.com/>
>

Thanks for your input, Eddie.  I am confused though - so far every 
Meyer I've measured (which is only about 5 or 6) has had a facing 
length in the 38-42 range (on the glass gauge).  My Soloist measures 38 
and the Meyer 6 I play has a length of 39 on one rail and 40 on the 
other.  It is likely that I measured wrong as I'm still relatively new 
to this field.  

What is the standard facing length for a soloist and a Meyer?

thanks again
 wil swindler

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "Wil Swindler" <wjswindler@...>
wrote:
>
> Thanks for your input, Eddie.  I am confused though - so far every 
> Meyer I've measured (which is only about 5 or 6) has had a facing 
> length in the 38-42 range (on the glass gauge).  My Soloist measures 38 
> and the Meyer 6 I play has a length of 39 on one rail and 40 on the 
> other.  It is likely that I measured wrong as I'm still relatively new 
> to this field.  
> 
> What is the standard facing length for a soloist and a Meyer?
> 
> thanks again
>  wil swindler
>
Hi Wil,

I plotted your readings out of interest, but it seems to me that your
facing curve is not radial.  Rather, it starts off with a greater
curve near the table and then straightens out near the tip.  I think
the effective length of the curve is more like 48 (total length, where
curve meets table).  But because of the tighter curve in this area, it
read shorter.

I've seen this type of facing on some clarinet and soprano pieces. 
The intention seems to be a greater degree of resistance in the lower
register and less in the high register as compared with a pure radial
curve.  It is a facing that seems to be associated with low baffle pieces.

I've started experimenting with curves that straighten out near the
tip, and they do seem to work better on some mouthpieces.

Regards,
Andrew

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "Wil Swindler" <wjswindler@...>
wrote:
>
> Thanks for your input, Eddie.  I am confused though - so far every 
> Meyer I've measured (which is only about 5 or 6) has had a facing 
> length in the 38-42 range (on the glass gauge).  My Soloist measures 38 
> and the Meyer 6 I play has a length of 39 on one rail and 40 on the 
> other.  It is likely that I measured wrong as I'm still relatively new 
> to this field.  
> 
> What is the standard facing length for a soloist and a Meyer?
> 
> thanks again
>  wil swindler
>*********************************************************************
Current Meyer's may be different, but my chart from 1987 gives the 6M
as 76/812. This is close to 21mm or 42 on your glass gauge, suggesting
that your 6M lay is a little short.

The early Soloist's were longer at .906" or 23mm
If your measurements are accurate, this makes your Soloist 4mm shorter
than it should be and completely destroys the logic of my previous
post. Oh well!                                         Eddie

Hello all-

This is a follow-up on my previous post here about my Soloist C that
played with a surprising amount of projection and volume.

I'm still playing it for all my live gigs and having no trouble with
volume.  I went through a 3 week period where I switched from my
Vandoren Optimum Ligature to an Oleg 4G.  I hadn't realized it at the
time but as soon as I switched I started doubting the mouthpiece.  I
came home from a rehearsal thinking, "Well, that's the first time I've
felt like this mouthpiece doesn't get enough sound."

Then upon listening back to recordings of myself playing on the two
ligatures, there was a marked difference with the Optimum.  I've used
this ligature for 5 years now on alto and I've always loved it.  It
definitely allowed more sound and had less of a deadening effect on the
reed.

The lig is definitely only a small part of the contributing factors to
this mouthpiece's unique properties, but without it the C plays more
like a C should.

Anybody else out there on the optimum?  It's definitely my battle-tested
favorite, and yes, I own a Francios-Louis - also great but not as
complex of a tone as the optimum.

Wil Swindler
www.wilswindler.com <http://www.wilswindler.com>
www.singlereedconsultants.com <http://www.singlereedconsultants.com>
www.chamberjazzensemble.com <http://www.chamberjazzensemble.com>

I do not fuss with ligatures as much as I used to.  But the Optimum is a
great ligature, especially on Meyer-like alto mouthpieces.  Easy to put on,
it does not slip, does not mark the mouthpiece, and it has good response.  

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com