Ive been noticing that many of the "older" mouthpieces I have been
measuring and play testing seem to have been originally faced with a
radius between 5.3 and 5.9 when I put the numbers into the excel
spreadsheet.  However, I have gotten my hands on about 2 dozen new
alto Meyers and Tenor Links, and while measuring them these past few
weeks I have noticed that their facing curves produce a radius of
around 4.5 on average.  In addition, they all have very short lengths
given their tip openings: ex. length 31, tip opening .067 on one
Meyer.  Now I know that the quality of facing coming from Babbitt isnt
always the greatest, but I have fixed two of these Meyer's now and
both play so much better that I have had students buy them off me
already.  So, my question is, does anyone know the reason behind these
flatter curves and shorter facings?    Has anyone worked for Babbitt
and know what the thinking is behind these measurements that create
stuffier and less playable mouthpieces?  It is possible that my sample
of a dozen Meyer 5M altos and a dozen Link 6* Tenors is too small? 
Any thoughts?  

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "richardpkelley" 
<richardpkelley@...> wrote:
>
> So, my question is, does anyone know the reason behind these
> flatter curves and shorter facings?   ? 
> Any thoughts?
>

Unforunately your question extends into quality control issues with 
many companies that mass produce fast and cheaply made products. The 
primary focus of concern with too many businesses is PROFIT not quality 
or bang for your buck. Resin and plastic mouthpieces???????????? 
YUCK!!!!

Speaking as someone who is in the mouthpiece manufacturing business, this is
a design issue, not a production cost issue. It simply doesn't cost any more
(or less) to cut any given reasonable facing.

  _____  

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Greg Wier
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 11:36 AM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Old vs. New Radius in Excel file



--- In MouthpieceWork@ <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
yahoogroups.com, "richardpkelley" 
<richardpkelley@...> wrote:
>
> So, my question is, does anyone know the reason behind these
> flatter curves and shorter facings? ? 
> Any thoughts?
>

Unforunately your question extends into quality control issues with 
many companies that mass produce fast and cheaply made products. The 
primary focus of concern with too many businesses is PROFIT not quality 
or bang for your buck. Resin and plastic mouthpieces???????????? 
YUCK!!!!



 

Steve, thanks for the reply.  It actually helps add some clarity to my scrambled thinking, so let me ask the question in a different way.  I took a new stock Meyer 5M and put the "vintage" 5M facing on it.  Now, knowing that the new Meyer's do not have the same chamber and baffle shapes as the old, I still refaced it and was able to gain an actual jazz alto sound out of it.  So, I guess my question is: what are some of the factors that companies like Babbitt take into consideration when designing these facings?  They obviously do not play or sound nearly as good as tried and true facings of the past.  Even the Limited Edition New York Meyer that was put out a few years ago was supposed to have the same facing as the classic 5M, but upon measuring one this morning, it wasnt close!  As Steve pointed out, the initial manufacturing could not have a huge cost increase to alter the basic facing.  The finishing work done could increase costs significantly, but it seems that if my
 number crunching is correct, these mouthpieces do not start with a viable facing, therefore leaving the finish work no chance of making the mouthpiece play great.  Is that a fair assumption or am I missing something?


 STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...> wrote:                                  
Speaking as someone who is in the mouthpiece  manufacturing business, this is a design issue, not a production cost issue. It  simply doesn't cost any more (or less) to cut any given reasonable  facing.

  
---------------------------------
 From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com  [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Greg  Wier
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 11:36 AM
To:  MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Old vs.  New Radius in Excel file


 
  --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com,  "richardpkelley" 
<richardpkelley@...> wrote:
>
> So,  my question is, does anyone know the reason behind these
> flatter curves  and shorter facings? ? 
> Any thoughts?
>

Unforunately your  question extends into quality control issues with 
many companies that mass  produce fast and cheaply made products. The 
primary focus of concern with  too many businesses is PROFIT not quality 
or bang for your buck. Resin and  plastic mouthpieces???????????? 
YUCK!!!!



 
     
                               

To mouthpiecework members:

Let's take the bull by the horns.

To J.J. Babbit Co:

Sirs:

This is part of a recent discussion at the mouthpiece work group at
yahoogroups.  Does anyone at JJ Babbit care to submit a comment on?

Regards,

Barry Levine



> I took a new stock Meyer 5M and put the "vintage" 5M facing on it.  Now,
> knowing that 
> the new Meyer's do not have the same chamber and baffle shapes as the old, I
> still refaced it and was able to gain an actual jazz alto sound out of it.
> So, I guess my question is: what are some of the factors that companies like
> Babbitt take into consideration when designing these facings?  They obviously
> do not play or sound nearly as good as tried and true facings of the past.
> Even the Limited Edition New York Meyer that was put out a few years ago was
> supposed to have the same facing as the classic 5M, but upon measuring one
> this morning, it wasnt close!  As Steve pointed out, the initial manufacturing
> could not have a huge cost increase to alter the basic facing.  The finishing
> work done could increase costs significantly, but it seems that if my
> number crunching is correct, these mouthpieces do not start with a viable
> facing, therefore leaving the finish work no chance of making the mouthpiece
> play great.  Is that a fair assumption or am I missing something?

The technology is there today to machine cut facings with an incredible
degree of accuracy. The technology doesn't come cheap. Quality control and
hand "touch ups" don't come cheap, either. A few USA companies (that I will
not name) are still using some pretty old equipment and molds, and as a
result of plain old ordinary wear, tolerances are less than they should be.
There's plenty of products out there today that show conclusively that it
can be done correctly. It just takes a commitment to quality control on the
part of the maker.

On our three lines of mouthpieces, we use three different levels of
tolerances, all dictated by manufacturing cost. You can't afford to do a
great deal of fine tuning on a $100 mouthpiece. That's reality. It's really
a case of you get what you pay for.

  _____  

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Richard Kelley
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 3:38 PM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Old vs. New Radius in Excel file



Steve, thanks for the reply.  It actually helps add some clarity to my
scrambled thinking, so let me ask the question in a different way.  I took a
new stock Meyer 5M and put the "vintage" 5M facing on it.  Now, knowing that
the new Meyer's do not have the same chamber and baffle shapes as the old, I
still refaced it and was able to gain an actual jazz alto sound out of it.
So, I guess my question is: what are some of the factors that companies like
Babbitt take into consideration when designing these facings?  They
obviously do not play or sound nearly as good as tried and true facings of
the past.  Even the Limited Edition New York Meyer that was put out a few
years ago was supposed to have the same facing as the classic 5M, but upon
measuring one this morning, it wasnt close!  As Steve pointed out, the
initial manufacturing could not have a huge cost increase to alter the basic
facing.  The finishing work done could increase costs significantly, but it
seems that if my number crunching is correct, these mouthpieces do not start
with a viable facing, therefore leaving the finish work no chance of making
the mouthpiece play great.  Is that a fair assumption or am I missing
something?


STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...> wrote: 


Speaking as someone who is in the mouthpiece manufacturing business, this is
a design issue, not a production cost issue. It simply doesn't cost any more
(or less) to cut any given reasonable facing.

  _____  

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Greg Wier
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 11:36 AM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Old vs. New Radius in Excel file


--- In MouthpieceWork@ <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
yahoogroups.com, "richardpkelley" 
<richardpkelley@...> wrote:
>
> So, my question is, does anyone know the reason behind these
> flatter curves and shorter facings? ? 
> Any thoughts?
>

Unforunately your question extends into quality control issues with 
many companies that mass produce fast and cheaply made products. The 
primary focus of concern with too many businesses is PROFIT not quality 
or bang for your buck. Resin and plastic mouthpieces???????????? 
YUCK!!!!




 

Hi Richard,
To me, the answer is very simple - people keep buying them. And 
further more SOME people keep recommending them...

Patrick

The calculated radius in the excel spreadsheet is a function of the 
tip opening AND the facing length. As you noted, some of the facing 
lengths are shorter. If I am not mistaken the facing length is 
directly proportional to the radius of the circle, since you need a 
larger circle to get a longer facing length.  Given the same tip 
opening, on two mouthpieces, the longer faced mouthpiece will have a 
larger radius in the excel spreadsheet.

So, if you have vintage mouthpiece at a given length and a given tip 
opening, you will have a certain radius.  If after some testing or 
some trend, the manufacturer determines newer versions of the 
mouthpiece sounds or responds better at a different facing length you 
will have a different radius.

Varying the facing length and the tip opening allows for some 
experimenting. Changing each does change the character of the sound 
produced and the response of the mouthpiece. If you follow the school 
that a radical curve works for you, then as long as the points you 
take and measure are on a radical curve then things are good.  It is 
not to say that the new radius you are measuring is wrong, it is just 
different from the vintage one you have, and will not respond like 
the vintage one.

I've sorta modified the excel spreadsheet in the files area so that I 
feed it a tip opening and a facing length.  I use the solve equation 
function in excel to generate a theoretical perfect radical curve for 
the given length and opening.  This works pretty well for 
experimenting with opening a mouthpiece or varying the length.

Willis

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "richardpkelley" 
<richardpkelley@...> wrote:
>
> Ive been noticing that many of the "older" mouthpieces I have been
> measuring and play testing seem to have been originally faced with a
> radius between 5.3 and 5.9 when I put the numbers into the excel
> spreadsheet.  However, I have gotten my hands on about 2 dozen new
> alto Meyers and Tenor Links, and while measuring them these past few
> weeks I have noticed that their facing curves produce a radius of
> around 4.5 on average.  In addition, they all have very short 
lengths
> given their tip openings: ex. length 31, tip opening .067 on one
> Meyer.  Now I know that the quality of facing coming from Babbitt 
isnt
> always the greatest, but I have fixed two of these Meyer's now and
> both play so much better that I have had students buy them off me
> already.  So, my question is, does anyone know the reason behind 
these
> flatter curves and shorter facings?    Has anyone worked for Babbitt
> and know what the thinking is behind these measurements that create
> stuffier and less playable mouthpieces?  It is possible that my 
sample
> of a dozen Meyer 5M altos and a dozen Link 6* Tenors is too small? 
> Any thoughts?
>