I find that(on sax) the flat spot can play very well over the normal 
range of the horn, but the harmonics don't play as easily as they 
should. When I first started refacing I found that I left a flat spot 
sometimes when opening up a tip.I found it hard to keep the curve going 
through the tip in a perfect arc without tipping it up too far or 
leaving it flat.  I now check for flat tip by rolloing the tip against 
the top of the glass facing gauge to make sure that the curve keeps 
rolling evenly all the way. 
As a result of tip problems, I designed a facing machine in Autocad and 
manufactured it. I use it sometimes to get the tips right. It takes a 
bit of setting up but it does work.I still prefer to handface. The 
machine is based on a pendulum theory. 

Ross McIntyre
 

Hey guys,
   
   I come from a tool & die bacgkround....and have been fiddling around with m morgan kit for a bit now...maybe we can mix tthe two.
   
   Check out the link on rad. guages.......can we use that technology to first, measure. When i worked in the E.D.M. department..we used them to "dress" ofor "semi-finish a rad on an electrode,this was done by CAREFULLY using the appropriate size radius gauge to scrape away the excess, the lightly dress the "trode" woth 600 grit Voila a 1/64" rad...perfect to size.......can we use this?? Any discussion
   
   Check out the links below.
   
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_discharge_machining
   
   
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radius_gauge
   
  Ciao Joe

charvel50 <mk6sax@...> wrote:
          I find that(on sax) the flat spot can play very well over the normal 
range of the horn, but the harmonics don't play as easily as they 
should. When I first started refacing I found that I left a flat spot 
sometimes when opening up a tip.I found it hard to keep the curve going 
through the tip in a perfect arc without tipping it up too far or 
leaving it flat. I now check for flat tip by rolloing the tip against 
the top of the glass facing gauge to make sure that the curve keeps 
rolling evenly all the way. 
As a result of tip problems, I designed a facing machine in Autocad and 
manufactured it. I use it sometimes to get the tips right. It takes a 
bit of setting up but it does work.I still prefer to handface. The 
machine is based on a pendulum theory. 

Ross McIntyre




         

       
---------------------------------
Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail  

Hey there
   
  I am a tool guy.....do you have any drawings? I am very interested.
   
  Joe

charvel50 <mk6sax@...> wrote:
          I find that(on sax) the flat spot can play very well over the normal 
range of the horn, but the harmonics don't play as easily as they 
should. When I first started refacing I found that I left a flat spot 
sometimes when opening up a tip.I found it hard to keep the curve going 
through the tip in a perfect arc without tipping it up too far or 
leaving it flat. I now check for flat tip by rolloing the tip against 
the top of the glass facing gauge to make sure that the curve keeps 
rolling evenly all the way. 
As a result of tip problems, I designed a facing machine in Autocad and 
manufactured it. I use it sometimes to get the tips right. It takes a 
bit of setting up but it does work.I still prefer to handface. The 
machine is based on a pendulum theory. 

Ross McIntyre




         

       
---------------------------------
Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers. 

Talking of curves, I recently bought a Rousseau JDX7 tenor mouthpiece.
It is the strangest design I've ever seen.
 From the point at which the reed leaves the mouthpiece to the tip  
it's virtually a straight line.
Could this be a mistake in manufacture?
Without radically altering the embouchure it's almost unplayable.

David Bowater

On 23/05/2007, at 11:12 AM, charvel50 wrote:

> I find that(on sax) the flat spot can play very well over the normal
> range of the horn, but the harmonics don't play as easily as they
> should. When I first started refacing I found that I left a flat spot
> sometimes when opening up a tip.I found it hard to keep the curve  
> going
> through the tip in a perfect arc without tipping it up too far or
> leaving it flat. I now check for flat tip by rolloing the tip against
> the top of the glass facing gauge to make sure that the curve keeps
> rolling evenly all the way.
> As a result of tip problems, I designed a facing machine in Autocad  
> and
> manufactured it. I use it sometimes to get the tips right. It takes a
> bit of setting up but it does work.I still prefer to handface. The
> machine is based on a pendulum theory.
>
> Ross McIntyre
>
>
>
> 

I have analyzed mouthpiece facings carefully done using radius gages.  They
were not up to the task.  A glass gage with feelers is superior.  With a
glass gage you can get precision on the order of .0001".  Eyeballing a
radius gage could only get to ~.0005" of a true radius.  These sound small
but the mouthpiece response is significantly better with the more precise
facing.

--- joe piccolo <manzollomusic@...> wrote:

> Hey guys,
>    
>    I come from a tool & die bacgkround....and have been fiddling around
> with m morgan kit for a bit now...maybe we can mix tthe two.
>    
>    Check out the link on rad. guages.......can we use that technology to
> first, measure. When i worked in the E.D.M. department..we used them to
> "dress" ofor "semi-finish a rad on an electrode,this was done by
> CAREFULLY using the appropriate size radius gauge to scrape away the
> excess, the lightly dress the "trode" woth 600 grit Voila a 1/64"
> rad...perfect to size.......can we use this?? Any discussion
>    
>    Check out the links below.
>    
>   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_discharge_machining
>    
>    
>   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radius_gauge
>    



       
____________________________________________________________________________________Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell. 
http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/

--- David Bowater <davebow@...> wrote:
> Talking of curves, I recently bought a Rousseau JDX7 tenor mouthpiece.
> It is the strangest design I've ever seen.
>  From the point at which the reed leaves the mouthpiece to the tip  
> it's virtually a straight line.
> Could this be a mistake in manufacture?
> Without radically altering the embouchure it's almost unplayable.
> 

I doubt this facing is an intentional design.  Just bad quality control.



 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection. 
Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta.
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/features_spam.html

Doesn't sound right to me.
The flat spot that I was referring to was very close to the tip.
I have seen a mouthpiece filed flat entirely from the break point to the tip. It played surprisingly well considering what was done to it but would not play harmonics.
 Ross McIntyre
www.saxman.com.au

OK, I am a total newcomer to this - played on them for years but never worked on them - so maybe this is a dumb question, but... Why is the ideal curve a radius of a circle? Given the increasing thickness (and thus decreasing flexibility) of the reed, I would imagine that a progressive curve would be more effective. Perhaps a section of a parabola?

Inquiring mind(s) want to know.

Fred Bauer

----- Original Message -----
From: Ross and Helen McIntyre
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 7:56 AM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Flat Spot

Doesn't sound right to me.
The flat spot that I was referring to was very close to the tip.
I have seen a mouthpiece filed flat entirely from the break point to the tip. It played surprisingly well considering what was done to it but would not play harmonics.
 Ross McIntyre
www.saxman.com.au
  

I think there may be a general consensus that a well-constructed radial
curve is a very good for a sax mouthpiece.  As for being ideal for all
players' needs, I do not think that is the case.  As you have suggested, a
curve that gets gradually tighter near the tip may have some advantages.  I
use elliptical curve sections with various ratios of major/minor diameters.
 If the major/minor = 1, the ellipse is the same as a circle (= radial).  I
think radial is generally a little more free blowing.  But some players
like a little more resistance at the tip.

A good radial curve will beat a poorly constructed elliptical curve.  So
radial is a good place to start until you get your facing chops down.

For clarinet facing curves, all bets are off.  Radial will work, but most
players are looking for resitance in the different registers that I find
comes from some unusual facing curves.  

--- Fred Bauer <frbauer@...> wrote:

> OK, I am a total newcomer to this - played on them for years but never
> worked on them - so maybe this is a dumb question, but... Why is the
> ideal curve a radius of a circle? Given the increasing thickness (and
> thus decreasing flexibility) of the reed, I would imagine that a
> progressive curve would be more effective. Perhaps a section of a
> parabola?
> 
> Inquiring mind(s) want to know.
> 
> Fred Bauer
> 



       
____________________________________________________________________________________Got a little couch potato? 
Check out fun summer activities for kids.
http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=summer+activities+for+kids&cs=bz 

Clarinet facings are much shorter, and much smaller tip openings.  Also, there is another thing to consider.
   
  The clarinet has only odd overtones.  If you know anything about wave shapes, you will know that the clarinet wave shape resembles a "square wave".  With reed instruments, we know that the reed vibrates in such a way as to follow the wave shape for half of the cycle.  
   
  The reed is open, allowing a puff of air to enter the instrument bore, for half of the cycle, and is closed for the other half of the cycle.
   
  For a clarinet producing a squarewave, all the reed must do is open and close.  It must snap to full open, hold there for approximately 180 degrees, and snap closed for 180 degrees.  A "flat" facing curve, that is, just a small radius at the "break", and then flat on out to the tip, can work quite well.  Review the pdf file of Santy Runyon's mouthpiece article in our files.
   
  But a saxophone has both odd and even overtones.  It has a "sawtooth" wave shape.  The reed is open for 180 degrees, and closed for 180 degrees.  Again, the reed follows the wave motion during the open portion, and is closed for the other half, the bore alone producing the overtones.
   
  The reed must snap open, and then close in a series of jerks that correspond to the overtones.  It must smoothly wrap around the facing curve.  And yes, that section near the tip is the last to close, and corresponds to the high overtones.
   
  The reed cannot do this if there are kinks in the "curve".  Or flat spots.  
   
  OK, place an old fashioned yard stick (a long wooden ruler for our non-English speaking members) in a vise, and bend it.  It does not bend right at the place where it comes out of the vise, but bends in a curve.  That is the natural flexing shape it forms.  It does not want to bend at that tight angle.
   
  Now, try to bend that same yard stick around a large chemical drum.  It will bend, and smoothly touch.  Well, it may break first, but you see what I am pointing out.
   
  The radial curve matches what the reed wants to do naturally.  It works WITH the reed, not against it.  It allows the reed to smoothly follow the various overtones and close the facing smoothly.
   
  Now remember that the clarinet has a very short facing as compared to the larger saxophones.  A flat facing would only allow the lip to touch at one spot for best vibration.  And the clarinet has a small enough area available to touch the reed.
   
  The lips must not only seal around the mouthpiece and reed, but also control the vibration of the reed by touching at the "break", the point where the facing curve first begins.
   
  But with a curved facing, the lip can be placed anywhere along that curve and still the mouthpiece will work, not well, but it will work.  The reed vibration will be damped by the lip, but will still work.  This allows the embouchure manipulation we do to color the sound, subtone, etc.
   
  Paul
   
  

Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:
          I think there may be a general consensus that a well-constructed radial
curve is a very good for a sax mouthpiece. As for being ideal for all
players' needs, I do not think that is the case. As you have suggested, a
curve that gets gradually tighter near the tip may have some advantages. I
use elliptical curve sections with various ratios of major/minor diameters.
If the major/minor = 1, the ellipse is the same as a circle (= radial). I
think radial is generally a little more free blowing. But some players
like a little more resistance at the tip.

A good radial curve will beat a poorly constructed elliptical curve. So
radial is a good place to start until you get your facing chops down.

For clarinet facing curves, all bets are off. Radial will work, but most
players are looking for resitance in the different registers that I find
comes from some unusual facing curves. 

--- Fred Bauer <frbauer@...> wrote:

> OK, I am a total newcomer to this - played on them for years but never
> worked on them - so maybe this is a dumb question, but... Why is the
> ideal curve a radius of a circle? Given the increasing thickness (and
> thus decreasing flexibility) of the reed, I would imagine that a
> progressive curve would be more effective. Perhaps a section of a
> parabola?
> 
> Inquiring mind(s) want to know.
> 
> Fred Bauer
> 

__________________________________________________________Got a little couch potato? 
Check out fun summer activities for kids.
http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=summer+activities+for+kids&cs=bz 


         


Link to Paul's articles from Main page of "Saxgourmet":
		http://www.saxgourmet.com
Listen to Paul's MP3's and view saxophone photos at:
           http://briefcase.yahoo.com/tenorman1952

Paul Coats is the sole US importer of SAXRAX products from 
http://www.saxrax.com 
For SAXRAX products, email Paul at saxraxus@...
       
---------------------------------
Got a little couch potato? 
Check out fun summer activities for kids.

Keith and Paul,

Thanks for your answers. I understand Keith's answer, because what works in practise is, of course, the bottom line. Theories are usually after the fact.

Paul's answer, however, has me wondering about a couple of things. I'm not an expert on woodwind acoustic theory, but I am pretty sure the interior geometry of the bore is what determines the primary wave form. I don't think putting a clarinet mouthpiece on a sax would make it sound at all like a clarinet. I know Paul didn't say it would, but that would seem to be one implication of what he did say.

The yardstick and barrel analogy is even more questionable applied to this situation. In fact my original question was regarding the opposite. A yardstick has the same thickness and flexibility over its entire length, whereas a reed gets progressively thicker. (Just as an interesting note, I recently read that the earliest clarinet reeds actually were the same thickness over their entire length. Sort of mini-yardsticks.) A (modern) reed is far more flexible at its tip than it is at its base, and that's why I asked why a radial curve would be considered ideal. If bending the yardstick would indeed result in a radial curve, then bending a reed almost certainly would not.

Keith, since I am more interested in clarinet facings, could you please explain about the "unusual" clarinet facing curves you mentioned?

Thanks,
FredB  

----- Original Message -----
From: Paul C.
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 12:03 PM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Ideal Facing Curve

Clarinet facings are much shorter, and much smaller tip openings.  Also, there is another thing to consider.

The clarinet has only odd overtones.  If you know anything about wave shapes, you will know that the clarinet wave shape resembles a "square wave"  With reed instruments, we know that the reed vibrates in such a way as to follow the wave shape for half of the cycle.   

The reed is open, allowing a puff of air to enter the instrument bore, for half of the cycle, and is closed for the other half of the cycle.

For a clarinet producing a squarewave, all the reed must do is open and close.  It must snap to full open, hold there for approximately 180 degrees, and snap closed for 180 degrees.  A "flat" facing curve, that is, just a small radius at the "break", and then flat on out to the tip, can work quite well.  Review the pdf file of Santy Runyon's mouthpiece article in our files.

But a saxophone has both odd and even overtones.  It has a "sawtooth" wave shape.  The reed is open for 180 degrees, and closed for 180 degrees.  Again, the reed follows the wave motion during the open portion, and is closed for the other half, the bore alone producing the overtones.

The reed must snap open, and then close in a series of jerks that correspond to the overtones.  It must smoothly wrap around the facing curve.  And yes, that section near the tip is the last to close, and corresponds to the high overtones.

The reed cannot do this if there are kinks in the "curve".  Or flat spots   

OK, place an old fashioned yard stick (a long wooden ruler for our non-English speaking members) in a vise, and bend it.  It does not bend right at the place where it comes out of the vise, but bends in a curve.  That is the natural flexing shape it forms.  It does not want to bend at that tight angle.

Now, try to bend that same yard stick around a large chemical drum.  It will bend, and smoothly touch.  Well, it may break first, but you see what I am pointing out.

The radial curve matches what the reed wants to do naturally.  It works WITH the reed, not against it.  It allows the reed to smoothly follow the various overtones and close the facing smoothly.

Now remember that the clarinet has a very short facing as compared to the larger saxophones.  A flat facing would only allow the lip to touch at one spot for best vibration.  And the clarinet has a small enough area available to touch the reed.

The lips must not only seal around the mouthpiece and reed, but also control the vibration of the reed by touching at the "break", the point where the facing curve first begins.

But with a curved facing, the lip can be placed anywhere along that curve and still the mouthpiece will work, not well, but it will work.  The reed vibration will be damped by the lip, but will still work.  This allows the embouchure manipulation we do to color the sound, subtone, etc.

Paul



Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@yahoo.com> wrote:
I think there may be a general consensus that a well-constructed radial
curve is a very good for a sax mouthpiece. As for being ideal for all
players' needs, I do not think that is the case. As you have suggested, a
curve that gets gradually tighter near the tip may have some advantages. I
use elliptical curve sections with various ratios of major/minor diameters.
If the major/minor = 1, the ellipse is the same as a circle (= radial). I
think radial is generally a little more free blowing. But some players
like a little more resistance at the tip.

A good radial curve will beat a poorly constructed elliptical curve. So
radial is a good place to start until you get your facing chops down.

For clarinet facing curves, all bets are off. Radial will work, but most
players are looking for resitance in the different registers that I find
comes from some unusual facing curves.  

--- Fred Bauer <frbauer@...> wrote:

> OK, I am a total newcomer to this - played on them for years but never
> worked on them - so maybe this is a dumb question, but... Why is the
> ideal curve a radius of a circle? Given the increasing thickness (and
> thus decreasing flexibility) of the reed, I would imagine that a
> progressive curve would be more effective. Perhaps a section of a
> parabola?
>  
> Inquiring mind(s) want to know.
>  
> Fred Bauer
>  

__________________________________________________________Got a little couch potato?  
Check out fun summer activities for kids.
http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=summer+activities+for+kids&cs=bz  




Link to Paul's articles from Main page of "Saxgourmet":
http://www.saxgourmet.com
Listen to Paul's MP3's and view saxophone photos at:
http://briefcase.yahoo.com/tenorman1952

Paul Coats is the sole US importer of SAXRAX products from  
http://www.saxrax.com  
For SAXRAX products, email Paul at saxraxus@...


Got a little couch potato?  
Check out fun summer activities for kids.
  

thanks for a reply
   
  please describe a glass gauge?
   
  Joe

Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:
          I have analyzed mouthpiece facings carefully done using radius gages. They
were not up to the task. A glass gage with feelers is superior. With a
glass gage you can get precision on the order of .0001". Eyeballing a
radius gage could only get to ~.0005" of a true radius. These sound small
but the mouthpiece response is significantly better with the more precise
facing.

--- joe piccolo <manzollomusic@...> wrote:

> Hey guys,
> 
> I come from a tool & die bacgkround....and have been fiddling around
> with m morgan kit for a bit now...maybe we can mix tthe two.
> 
> Check out the link on rad. guages.......can we use that technology to
> first, measure. When i worked in the E.D.M. department..we used them to
> "dress" ofor "semi-finish a rad on an electrode,this was done by
> CAREFULLY using the appropriate size radius gauge to scrape away the
> excess, the lightly dress the "trode" woth 600 grit Voila a 1/64"
> rad...perfect to size.......can we use this?? Any discussion
> 
> Check out the links below.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_discharge_machining
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radius_gauge
> 

__________________________________________________________Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell. 
http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/


         

       
---------------------------------
All new Yahoo! Mail  
---------------------------------
Get news delivered. Enjoy RSS feeds right on your Mail page.

"I don't think putting a clarinet mouthpiece on a sax would make it sound at all like a clarinet. I know Paul didn't say it would, but that would seem to be one implication of what he did say."
   
  No, sorry, I did not mean to imply that at all.  It is that the "flat facing" of some clarinet mouthpieces works well because (a) the tip opening is very narrow as compare to saxophone and this allows it to follow the natural overtones created by the clarinet bore, and (b) since the tip opening is narrow, the reed does not have to move very far to close against the facing.  These two factor mean that the facing is not working against the way the reeds wants to bend.
   
  And I also meant that a radial curve works with, not against, the natural motion of the reed, and how it reacts with the overtones of the saxophone.
   
  Paul

Fred Bauer <frbauer@...> wrote:
            Keith and Paul,
   
  Thanks for your answers. I understand Keith's answer, because what works in practise is, of course, the bottom line. Theories are usually after the fact.
   
  Paul's answer, however, has me wondering about a couple of things. I'm not an expert on woodwind acoustic theory, but I am pretty sure the interior geometry of the bore is what determines the primary wave form. I don't think putting a clarinet mouthpiece on a sax would make it sound at all like a clarinet. I know Paul didn't say it would, but that would seem to be one implication of what he did say.
   
  The yardstick and barrel analogy is even more questionable applied to this situation. In fact my original question was regarding the opposite. A yardstick has the same thickness and flexibility over its entire length, whereas a reed gets progressively thicker. (Just as an interesting note, I recently read that the earliest clarinet reeds actually were the same thickness over their entire length. Sort of mini-yardsticks.) A (modern) reed is far more flexible at its tip than it is at its base, and that's why I asked why a radial curve would be considered ideal. If bending the yardstick would indeed result in a radial curve, then bending a reed almost certainly would not.
   
  Keith, since I am more interested in clarinet facings, could you please explain about the "unusual" clarinet facing curves you mentioned?
   
  Thanks,
  FredB 
   
    ----- Original Message -----
  From: Paul C.
  Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 12:03 PM
  To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
  Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Ideal Facing Curve
   
      Clarinet facings are much shorter, and much smaller tip openings.  Also, there is another thing to consider.
   
  The clarinet has only odd overtones.  If you know anything about wave shapes, you will know that the clarinet wave shape resembles a "square wave".  With reed instruments, we know that the reed vibrates in such a way as to follow the wave shape for half of the cycle.  
   
  The reed is open, allowing a puff of air to enter the instrument bore, for half of the cycle, and is closed for the other half of the cycle.
   
  For a clarinet producing a squarewave, all the reed must do is open and close.  It must snap to full open, hold there for approximately 180 degrees, and snap closed for 180 degrees.  A "flat" facing curve, that is, just a small radius at the "break", and then flat on out to the tip, can work quite well.  Review the pdf file of Santy Runyon's mouthpiece article in our files.
   
  But a saxophone has both odd and even overtones.  It has a "sawtooth" wave shape.  The reed is open for 180 degrees, and closed for 180 degrees.  Again, the reed follows the wave motion during the open portion, and is closed for the other half, the bore alone producing the overtones.
   
  The reed must snap open, and then close in a series of jerks that correspond to the overtones.  It must smoothly wrap around the facing curve.  And yes, that section near the tip is the last to close, and corresponds to the high overtones.
   
  The reed cannot do this if there are kinks in the "curve".  Or flat spots.  
   
  OK, place an old fashioned yard stick (a long wooden ruler for our non-English speaking members) in a vise, and bend it.  It does not bend right at the place where it comes out of the vise, but bends in a curve.  That is the natural flexing shape it forms.  It does not want to bend at that tight angle.
   
  Now, try to bend that same yard stick around a large chemical drum.  It will bend, and smoothly touch.  Well, it may break first, but you see what I am pointing out.
   
  The radial curve matches what the reed wants to do naturally.  It works WITH the reed, not against it.  It allows the reed to smoothly follow the various overtones and close the facing smoothly.
   
  Now remember that the clarinet has a very short facing as compared to the larger saxophones.  A flat facing would only allow the lip to touch at one spot for best vibration.  And the clarinet has a small enough area available to touch the reed.
   
  The lips must not only seal around the mouthpiece and reed, but also control the vibration of the reed by touching at the "break", the point where the facing curve first begins.
   
  But with a curved facing, the lip can be placed anywhere along that curve and still the mouthpiece will work, not well, but it will work.  The reed vibration will be damped by the lip, but will still work.  This allows the embouchure manipulation we do to color the sound, subtone, etc.
   
  Paul
   
  

Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:
      I think there may be a general consensus that a well-constructed radial
curve is a very good for a sax mouthpiece. As for being ideal for all
players' needs, I do not think that is the case. As you have suggested, a
curve that gets gradually tighter near the tip may have some advantages. I
use elliptical curve sections with various ratios of major/minor diameters.
If the major/minor = 1, the ellipse is the same as a circle (= radial). I
think radial is generally a little more free blowing. But some players
like a little more resistance at the tip.

A good radial curve will beat a poorly constructed elliptical curve. So
radial is a good place to start until you get your facing chops down.

For clarinet facing curves, all bets are off. Radial will work, but most
players are looking for resitance in the different registers that I find
comes from some unusual facing curves. 

--- Fred Bauer <frbauer@...> wrote:

> OK, I am a total newcomer to this - played on them for years but never
> worked on them - so maybe this is a dumb question, but... Why is the
> ideal curve a radius of a circle? Given the increasing thickness (and
> thus decreasing flexibility) of the reed, I would imagine that a
> progressive curve would be more effective. Perhaps a section of a
> parabola?
> 
> Inquiring mind(s) want to know.
> 
> Fred Bauer
> 

__________________________________________________________Got a little couch potato? 
Check out fun summer activities for kids.
http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=summer+activities+for+kids&cs=bz 





Link to Paul's articles from Main page of "Saxgourmet":
http://www.saxgourmet.com
Listen to Paul's MP3's and view saxophone photos at:
http://briefcase.yahoo.com/tenorman1952

Paul Coats is the sole US importer of SAXRAX products from 
http://www.saxrax.com 
For SAXRAX products, email Paul at saxraxus@...     
---------------------------------
  Got a little couch potato? 
Check out fun summer activities for kids.   

  

         


Link to Paul's articles from Main page of "Saxgourmet":
		http://www.saxgourmet.com
Listen to Paul's MP3's and view saxophone photos at:
           http://briefcase.yahoo.com/tenorman1952

Paul Coats is the sole US importer of SAXRAX products from 
http://www.saxrax.com 
For SAXRAX products, email Paul at saxraxus@...
  
---------------------------------
Looking for earth-friendly autos? 
 Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center.  

The clarinet sounds like it does in large measure because of the largely cylindrical bore, which acts as if it is closed at one end (which it IS about 1/2 the time).  This also results in the pitch being MUCH lower than the length would indicate, and makes it overblow a 12th, not an octave.  The saxophone bore is conical, as is the oboe, so it overblows the octave.  And, of course, the sax bore is MUCH larger than a clarinet bore.  You can sometimes get a clarinet mouthpiece to fit on an alto or soprano sax, but it still sounds like a sax, just not a very good one.

Fred Bauer <frbauer@...> wrote:     
  Paul's answer, however, has me wondering about a couple of things. I'm not an expert on woodwind acoustic theory, but I am pretty sure the interior geometry of the bore is what determines the primary wave form. I don't think putting a clarinet mouthpiece on a sax would make it sound at all like a clarinet. I know Paul didn't say it would, but that would seem to be one implication of what he did say.
   


Bill Hausmann

If you have to mic a saxophone, the rest of the band is TOO LOUD!
       
---------------------------------
Need a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel. 

I've just sent Joe glass gauge info and how to measure with feelers.
   
  Paul

joe piccolo <manzollomusic@...> wrote:
            thanks for a reply
   
  please describe a glass gauge?
   
  Joe

Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:
      I have analyzed mouthpiece facings carefully done using radius gages. They
were not up to the task. A glass gage with feelers is superior. With a
glass gage you can get precision on the order of .0001". Eyeballing a
radius gage could only get to ~.0005" of a true radius. These sound small
but the mouthpiece response is significantly better with the more precise
facing.

--- joe piccolo <manzollomusic@...> wrote:

> Hey guys,
> 
> I come from a tool & die bacgkround....and have been fiddling around
> with m morgan kit for a bit now...maybe we can mix tthe two.
> 
> Check out the link on rad. guages.......can we use that technology to
> first, measure. When i worked in the E.D.M. department..we used them to
> "dress" ofor "semi-finish a rad on an electrode,this was done by
> CAREFULLY using the appropriate size radius gauge to scrape away the
> excess, the lightly dress the "trode" woth 600 grit Voila a 1/64"
> rad...perfect to size.......can we use this?? Any discussion
> 
> Check out the links below.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_discharge_machining
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radius_gauge
> 

__________________________________________________________Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell. 
http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/



    
---------------------------------
  All new Yahoo! Mail   
---------------------------------
  Get news delivered. Enjoy RSS feeds right on your Mail page.  

         


Link to Paul's articles from Main page of "Saxgourmet":
		http://www.saxgourmet.com
Listen to Paul's MP3's and view saxophone photos at:
           http://briefcase.yahoo.com/tenorman1952

Paul Coats is the sole US importer of SAXRAX products from 
http://www.saxrax.com 
For SAXRAX products, email Paul at saxraxus@...
       
---------------------------------
Got a little couch potato? 
Check out fun summer activities for kids.

Thanks a ton.
   
  I have the morgan kit.......i was "kornfused" I am familiar with the glass gauge, I was still thinking about the radius gauges, thought you ment there was glass ones, thats why I was curious.
   
   How long have you been refacing,and repairing?
   
  .Regards
   
  Joe

"Paul C." <tenorman1952@...> wrote:
            I've just sent Joe glass gauge info and how to measure with feelers.
   
  Paul

joe piccolo <manzollomusic@...> wrote:
        thanks for a reply
   
  please describe a glass gauge?
   
  Joe

Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:
      I have analyzed mouthpiece facings carefully done using radius gages. They
were not up to the task. A glass gage with feelers is superior. With a
glass gage you can get precision on the order of .0001". Eyeballing a
radius gage could only get to ~.0005" of a true radius. These sound small
but the mouthpiece response is significantly better with the more precise
facing.

--- joe piccolo <manzollomusic@...> wrote:

> Hey guys,
> 
> I come from a tool & die bacgkround....and have been fiddling around
> with m morgan kit for a bit now...maybe we can mix tthe two.
> 
> Check out the link on rad. guages.......can we use that technology to
> first, measure. When i worked in the E.D.M. department..we used them to
> "dress" ofor "semi-finish a rad on an electrode,this was done by
> CAREFULLY using the appropriate size radius gauge to scrape away the
> excess, the lightly dress the "trode" woth 600 grit Voila a 1/64"
> rad...perfect to size.......can we use this?? Any discussion
> 
> Check out the links below.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_discharge_machining
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radius_gauge
> 

__________________________________________________________Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell. 
http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/



    
---------------------------------
  All new Yahoo! Mail   
---------------------------------
  Get news delivered. Enjoy RSS feeds right on your Mail page.   






Link to Paul's articles from Main page of "Saxgourmet":
http://www.saxgourmet.com
Listen to Paul's MP3's and view saxophone photos at:
http://briefcase.yahoo.com/tenorman1952

Paul Coats is the sole US importer of SAXRAX products from 
http://www.saxrax.com 
For SAXRAX products, email Paul at saxraxus@...    
---------------------------------
  Got a little couch potato? 
Check out fun summer activities for kids.  

         

       
---------------------------------
Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail  

> Keith, since I am more interested in clarinet facings, could you please
> explain about the "unusual" clarinet facing curves you mentioned?
> 

My experiance with clarinet facings is far less than with sax facings.  I
can mostly offer an analysis of my personal set-up.  I consider clarinet my
third instrument after saxes and flutes.  But I have a decent clarinet tone
even though my fingers dont fly.

My clarinet is a 1940's era Leblanc Symphonie II.  A slightly larger bore,
like a Pete Fountain model today.  I tried some Buffet R-13s a few years
ago when I was on a upgrading campaign for my instruments.  They seemed way
too resistant for my tastes.  But I now believe that if I used a more
free-blowing clarinet mouthpiece, I could have made it work for me.  I
think I was on a Vandoren B46 at the time when I came away with the
Leblanc.

I was given a box of various mouthpieces from a church acquaintence.  In
the box were several nice clarinet mouthpiece.  Along with a few of my own,
I trialed about 8 of them until I narrowed them down to a Selmer C85 120 as
the winner.  I was just getting into refacing but I did not measure any of
the facings until after I was done with my selection.  To my surprise, the
Selmer had what I thought was an unusual facing curve.  The table was flat,
it curved, then was flat, curved again and was flat out to the tip.  This
may be what clarinet makers call a "3-segment" curve.  I read some
reference to this on Pillinger's site.

So I can just relay from my own semi-blind test that I like this "odd"
curve on my Leblanc better than other smoother curves that I have tried.  I
also play some more open tips for jazz like a 5JB and RR Metalite.  These
have smoother curves and are more free-blowing.  But these are more
dixieland vibrato pieces and are more difficult to lock into pitch and
sound more classical.  

I do not know if this is the standard Selmer C85 120 or some freak of
manufacturing variation.  I just know that I like it and I would have never
have tried such a curve based on my sax experiance.


       
____________________________________________________________________________________Choose the right car based on your needs.  Check out Yahoo! Autos new Car Finder tool.
http://autos.yahoo.com/carfinder/

This html message parsed with html2text ---------------------------The clarinet facings I have measured all have a flat or near-flat section in
the middle. I believe most of the clarinet facings that Merlin Williams posted
(in the files section) share this attribute. I have tried putting radial
facings on clarinet mouthpieces, but they didn't play very well. There are
guys on this newsgroup who have lots of experience and knowledge in this area
(Merlin? Ben Redwine?). I'd love to hear what they have to say. Also, there
are old threads in which this was discussed somewhat.  
  
Dan T  
  
Keith Bradbury wrote:

> > Keith, since I am more interested in clarinet facings, could you please  
>  > explain about the "unusual" clarinet facing curves you mentioned?  
>  >  
>  
>  My experiance with clarinet facings is far less than with sax facings. I  
>  can mostly offer an analysis of my personal set-up. I consider clarinet my  
>  third instrument after saxes and flutes. But I have a decent clarinet tone  
>  even though my fingers dont fly.  
>  
>  My clarinet is a 1940's era Leblanc Symphonie II. A slightly larger bore,  
>  like a Pete Fountain model today. I tried some Buffet R-13s a few years  
>  ago when I was on a upgrading campaign for my instruments. They seemed way  
>  too resistant for my tastes. But I now believe that if I used a more  
>  free-blowing clarinet mouthpiece, I could have made it work for me. I  
>  think I was on a Vandoren B46 at the time when I came away with the  
>  Leblanc.  
>  
>  I was given a box of various mouthpieces from a church acquaintence. In  
>  the box were several nice clarinet mouthpiece. Along with a few of my own,  
>  I trialed about 8 of them until I narrowed them down to a Selmer C85 120 as  
>  the winner. I was just getting into refacing but I did not measure any of  
>  the facings until after I was done with my selection. To my surprise, the  
>  Selmer had what I thought was an unusual facing curve. The table was flat,  
>  it curved, then was flat, curved again and was flat out to the tip. This  
>  may be what clarinet makers call a "3-segment" curve. I read some  
>  reference to this on Pillinger's site.  
>  
>  So I can just relay from my own semi-blind test that I like this "odd"  
>  curve on my Leblanc better than other smoother curves that I have tried. I  
>  also play some more open tips for jazz like a 5JB and RR Metalite. These  
>  have smoother curves and are more free-blowing. But these are more  
>  dixieland vibrato pieces and are more difficult to lock into pitch and  
>  sound more classical.  
>  
>  I do not know if this is the standard Selmer C85 120 or some freak of  
>  manufacturing variation. I just know that I like it and I would have never  
>  have tried such a curve based on my sax experiance.  
>  
>  __________________________________________________________Choose the right
> car based on your needs. Check out Yahoo! Autos new Car Finder tool.  
>  [http://autos.yahoo.com/carfinder/](http://autos.yahoo.com/carfinder/)  
>
>  
>  
>  
>  
>     * * *
>  
>      No
>     virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version:
>     7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.7/816 - Release Date: 5/23/2007 3:59 PM

Will someone out there like to explain to me what the morgan kit is?  Thanks

       
---------------------------------
Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally,  mobile search that gives answers, not web links. 

I'm 55, and have known that the mouthpiece and facing can affect my playing since high school, when I had the opportunity to play a rack full of Selmer mouthpieces from B through F facings.  And I did not know I was supposed to play the C* and only the C*, and instead chose one that played best for me.  Hah!  Seriously, the C* is way too small for tenor sax (and bari).  
   
  In college I started experimenting with carving out and filling in chambers, seeing what affected what.  I ruined a number of mouthpieces.  But I learned a lot, too.  I still had not learned how to reface at that time.
  
I met Santy Runyon while still in college buying a tenor mpce.  After college I was invited to play 3rd alto in a local big band.  I was mainly a tenor man.  All I had was a Selmer Soloist and that just does not cut it for jazz, I don't care what anyone says.  You can't play all styles on one mouthpiece.  Again I sought Santy's advice for an alto piece.
   
  And I began calling Santy for advice for students and other players.  After a few years Santy invited me to attend trade shows with him, assist him in the booth.  And about that time I expressed my interest in refacing.  I asked him where to buy tools, and he turned me over to his old friend John Winslow.  Did you know Winslow ran the facing machine for Runyon in Chicago many years ago?  Bill Street, Frank Wells, Wolfe Tannenbaum aka Wolfe Tayne, and quite a few other mouthpiece makers were also former Runyon employees.
   
  Anyway, Santy taught me the fine art of refacing.  At trade shows he would often hand me a mouthpiece to reface to a different size for a player.
   
  So, that is how I got into this.
   
  Paul

joe piccolo <manzollomusic@...> wrote:
            Thanks a ton.
   
  I have the morgan kit.......i was "kornfused" I am familiar with the glass gauge, I was still thinking about the radius gauges, thought you ment there was glass ones, thats why I was curious.
   
   How long have you been refacing,and repairing?
   
  .Regards
   
  Joe

"Paul C." <tenorman1952@...> wrote:
        I've just sent Joe glass gauge info and how to measure with feelers.
   
  Paul

joe piccolo <manzollomusic@...> wrote:
        thanks for a reply
   
  please describe a glass gauge?
   
  Joe

Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:
      I have analyzed mouthpiece facings carefully done using radius gages. They
were not up to the task. A glass gage with feelers is superior. With a
glass gage you can get precision on the order of .0001". Eyeballing a
radius gage could only get to ~.0005" of a true radius. These sound small
but the mouthpiece response is significantly better with the more precise
facing.

--- joe piccolo <manzollomusic@...> wrote:

> Hey guys,
> 
> I come from a tool & die bacgkround....and have been fiddling around
> with m morgan kit for a bit now...maybe we can mix tthe two.
> 
> Check out the link on rad. guages.......can we use that technology to
> first, measure. When i worked in the E.D.M. department..we used them to
> "dress" ofor "semi-finish a rad on an electrode,this was done by
> CAREFULLY using the appropriate size radius gauge to scrape away the
> excess, the lightly dress the "trode" woth 600 grit Voila a 1/64"
> rad...perfect to size.......can we use this?? Any discussion
> 
> Check out the links below.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_discharge_machining
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radius_gauge
> 

__________________________________________________________Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell. 
http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/



    
---------------------------------
  All new Yahoo! Mail   
---------------------------------
  Get news delivered. Enjoy RSS feeds right on your Mail page.   






Link to Paul's articles from Main page of "Saxgourmet":
http://www.saxgourmet.com
Listen to Paul's MP3's and view saxophone photos at:
http://briefcase.yahoo.com/tenorman1952

Paul Coats is the sole US importer of SAXRAX products from 
http://www.saxrax.com 
For SAXRAX products, email Paul at saxraxus@...     
---------------------------------
  Got a little couch potato? 
Check out fun summer activities for kids.   




    
---------------------------------
  Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail   

         


Link to Paul's articles from Main page of "Saxgourmet":
		http://www.saxgourmet.com
Listen to Paul's MP3's and view saxophone photos at:
           http://briefcase.yahoo.com/tenorman1952

Paul Coats is the sole US importer of SAXRAX products from 
http://www.saxrax.com 
For SAXRAX products, email Paul at saxraxus@...
       
---------------------------------
Get the Yahoo! toolbar and be alerted to new email wherever you're surfing. 

Go to the Files section of MouthpieceWork, Clarinet folder, and find "Runyon Mpce Articles Web Rev 8-2-02.pdf"
   
  In this series of three articles written for Woodwind World magazine in 1960.  I had, with Santy's permission, retyped the original article and redrew the illustrations for the above pdf file.  The original is available, too, but is difficult to read.
   
  Santy also wrote a series of 5 or 6 articles for the old Woodwind magazine in the 1950's.  If anyone has those, or knows of a library that has those issues, I would love to have copies and will pay whatever costs are incurred.
   
  In older versions of The Art of Saxophone Playing, by Larry Teal, you will find a list of those Runyon articles in the bibliograpy, though that has been deleted from the later printings for some reason.  Teal drove over from Ann Arbor, Michigan (University of Michigan) to Chicago, IL, where Runyon Studio was located at the time, to interview Runyon for what became the mouthpiece chapter of Teal's book.  Most of that chapter is straight from Runyon.
   
  After those Woodwind articles were published, a number of manufacturers used that information to redesign and improve their mouthpieces.
  
Paul

Dan Torosian <dtorosian@...> wrote:
          The clarinet facings I have measured all have a flat or near-flat section in the middle.  I believe most of the clarinet facings that Merlin Williams posted (in the files section) share this attribute. I have tried putting radial facings on clarinet mouthpieces, but they didn't play very well. There are guys on this newsgroup who have lots of experience and knowledge in this area (Merlin? Ben Redwine?).  I'd love to hear what they have to say.  Also, there are old threads in which this was discussed somewhat.

Dan T

Keith Bradbury wrote:       > Keith, since I am more interested in clarinet facings, could you please
> explain about the "unusual" clarinet facing curves you mentioned?
> 

My experiance with clarinet facings is far less than with sax facings. I
can mostly offer an analysis of my personal set-up. I consider clarinet my
third instrument after saxes and flutes. But I have a decent clarinet tone
even though my fingers dont fly.

My clarinet is a 1940's era Leblanc Symphonie II. A slightly larger bore,
like a Pete Fountain model today. I tried some Buffet R-13s a few years
ago when I was on a upgrading campaign for my instruments. They seemed way
too resistant for my tastes. But I now believe that if I used a more
free-blowing clarinet mouthpiece, I could have made it work for me. I
think I was on a Vandoren B46 at the time when I came away with the
Leblanc.

I was given a box of various mouthpieces from a church acquaintence. In
the box were several nice clarinet mouthpiece. Along with a few of my own,
I trialed about 8 of them until I narrowed them down to a Selmer C85 120 as
the winner. I was just getting into refacing but I did not measure any of
the facings until after I was done with my selection. To my surprise, the
Selmer had what I thought was an unusual facing curve. The table was flat,
it curved, then was flat, curved again and was flat out to the tip. This
may be what clarinet makers call a "3-segment" curve. I read some
reference to this on Pillinger's site.

So I can just relay from my own semi-blind test that I like this "odd"
curve on my Leblanc better than other smoother curves that I have tried. I
also play some more open tips for jazz like a 5JB and RR Metalite. These
have smoother curves and are more free-blowing. But these are more
dixieland vibrato pieces and are more difficult to lock into pitch and
sound more classical. 

I do not know if this is the standard Selmer C85 120 or some freak of
manufacturing variation. I just know that I like it and I would have never
have tried such a curve based on my sax experiance.

__________________________________________________________Choose the right car based on your needs. Check out Yahoo! Autos new Car Finder tool.
http://autos.yahoo.com/carfinder/




---------------------------------
  No virus found in this incoming message.  Checked by AVG Free Edition.   Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.7/816 - Release Date: 5/23/2007 3:59 PM    
  

         


Link to Paul's articles from Main page of "Saxgourmet":
		http://www.saxgourmet.com
Listen to Paul's MP3's and view saxophone photos at:
           http://briefcase.yahoo.com/tenorman1952

Paul Coats is the sole US importer of SAXRAX products from 
http://www.saxrax.com 
For SAXRAX products, email Paul at saxraxus@...
       
---------------------------------
Got a little couch potato? 
Check out fun summer activities for kids.

> Will someone out there like to explain to me what the morgan kit is? 

Ralph Morgan used to sell a basic refacing gages/tools kit.  So did E.Brand
and Winslow.  There are some comparisons of what was included in the Files
- Tools area.  


 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate 
in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid96545367

Ralph Morgan, who worked for Selmer for many years, and later wrote mouthpiece articles for Saxophone Journal, listed a kit of tools for mouthpiece refacing work.  Due to the number of requests, he put together kits which he sold.  I don't know if they are available now.  
   
  Junkdude.com carries his mouthpieces, so you may want to contact Dave at Junkdude to see if any mouthpiece refacing kits are available.  Apparently Dave knows Morgan and is in close contact.
   
  John Winslow, who was known for his Winslow ligatures, also made a fine refacing kit, which is the one I use.  Winslow is a retired machinist that worked for John Deere.  Many years ago, when Runyon Products was in Chicago, Winslow ran the facing machine and maintained the various machines.  Just FYI, other Runyon employees in that time period included Frank Wells, Bill Street, and Wolfe Tannenbaum, aka Wolfe Tayne, who later ran BARI Associates.
   
  Paul Coats

arnold montgomery <ammouthpieces@...> wrote:
            Will someone out there like to explain to me what the morgan kit is?  Thanks
    
---------------------------------
  Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search that gives answers, not web links.   

         


Link to Paul's articles from Main page of "Saxgourmet":
		http://www.saxgourmet.com
Listen to Paul's MP3's and view saxophone photos at:
           http://briefcase.yahoo.com/tenorman1952

Paul Coats is the sole US importer of SAXRAX products from 
http://www.saxrax.com 
For SAXRAX products, email Paul at saxraxus@...
 
---------------------------------
 Get your own web address.
 Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business.

Ferree's Tools sells the Morgan kits, or at least they did.  I bought
mine about a year ago and at that time I believe they got a few in
from Ralph as there was a hiatus in production for a long while before
that.  You can assemble your own, though, by getting the glass gauges
from JJ Babbitt, the feelers from an auto parts store, and using a
dial caliper or digital caliper to measure the tip.  The Morgan kit
comes with a tip wand that I have found not to be accurate.
Craig