I've refaced a Ponzol M1, which now plays just great on my tenor.  It 
required extensive table flattening, which closed the tip opening quite 
a bit.  I opened it back up to .110, and I notice a slight tendency to 
get flat up in the palm-key notes - I imagine I lost some chamber 
volume.  I've increased chamber volume in other mouthpieces to 
successfully address this problem.  I like the way this one plays so 
much that I want to do this without affecting the playing 
characteristics.  It has a very long baffle with a straight drop-off 
into the chamber, and I think that taking some material from the end of 
that baffle would do the trick (rather than undercutting sidewalls or 
changing other chamber dimensions).  Any suggestions?

Dan T

Take off material at the back of the baffle, where it drops off into the throat.  That will have the least effect on tone and response.
   
  Paul

Dan Torosian <dtorosian@...> wrote:
          I've refaced a Ponzol M1, which now plays just great on my tenor. It 
required extensive table flattening, which closed the tip opening quite 
a bit. I opened it back up to .110, and I notice a slight tendency to 
get flat up in the palm-key notes - I imagine I lost some chamber 
volume. I've increased chamber volume in other mouthpieces to 
successfully address this problem. I like the way this one plays so 
much that I want to do this without affecting the playing 
characteristics. It has a very long baffle with a straight drop-off 
into the chamber, and I think that taking some material from the end of 
that baffle would do the trick (rather than undercutting sidewalls or 
changing other chamber dimensions). Any suggestions?

Dan T


                         


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@...
       
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing.   Make Yahoo your homepage.

No suggestions.

But I am curious - this is a metal mouthpiece, so I'm wondering why the
table needed flattening. Did the mouthpiece get dropped, stomped on, etc?
> 
> I've refaced a Ponzol M1, which now plays just great on my tenor.  It
> required extensive table flattening, which closed the tip opening quite
> a bit.  I opened it back up to .110, and I notice a slight tendency to
> get flat up in the palm-key notes - I imagine I lost some chamber
> volume.  I've increased chamber volume in other mouthpieces to
> successfully address this problem.  I like the way this one plays so
> much that I want to do this without affecting the playing
> characteristics.  It has a very long baffle with a straight drop-off
> into the chamber, and I think that taking some material from the end of
> that baffle would do the trick (rather than undercutting sidewalls or
> changing other chamber dimensions).  Any suggestions?
> 
> Dan T
> 

This html message parsed with html2text ---------------------------Mouthpieces don't all come off the production line with flat tables, which
then get out of whack somehow. Many just aren't flat when they're brand new.
This was one of those.  
And it wasn't a simple concavity (like all the Links I've seen), but was an
odd "terrain" of high spots and low spots, which is why I needed to flatten it
so much. One of the rails, at the point near the back of the window, had a
section that wasn't contacting the sandpaper until I had taken lots of
material off the rest of the table. Also, one of the corners at the butt end
had a severe drop-off (since the table isn't as long as a reed, I had to
address that issue as well).  
  
  
DT  
  
Barry Isaac Levine wrote:

> No suggestions.  
>  
>  But I am curious - this is a metal mouthpiece, so I'm wondering why the  
>  table needed flattening. Did the mouthpiece get dropped, stomped on, etc?  
>  >  
>  > I've refaced a Ponzol M1, which now plays just great on my tenor. It  
>  > required extensive table flattening, which closed the tip opening quite  
>  > a bit. I opened it back up to .110, and I notice a slight tendency to  
>  > get flat up in the palm-key notes - I imagine I lost some chamber  
>  > volume. I've increased chamber volume in other mouthpieces to  
>  > successfully address this problem. I like the way this one plays so  
>  > much that I want to do this without affecting the playing  
>  > characteristics. It has a very long baffle with a straight drop-off  
>  > into the chamber, and I think that taking some material from the end of  
>  > that baffle would do the trick (rather than undercutting sidewalls or  
>  > changing other chamber dimensions). Any suggestions?  
>  >  
>  > Dan T  
>  >  
>  
>

I could understand that on a metal Link for < $100. Although I'd think that
machining a flat table would be one of the least difficult things they could
do. 

But this is a mouthpiece that cost $250 the last time I looked (a few years
ago) and was claimed to be hand finished by Peter Ponzol.

New stock, or older piece?

thx,

Barry
> 
> Mouthpieces don't all come off the production line with flat tables, which
> then get out of whack somehow.  Many just aren't flat when they're brand new.
> This was one of those.
> And it wasn't a simple concavity (like all the Links I've seen), but was an
> odd "terrain" of high spots and low spots, which is why I needed to flatten it
> so much.  One of the rails, at the point near the back of the window, had a
> section that wasn't contacting the sandpaper until I had taken lots of
> material off the rest of the table.  Also, one of the corners at the butt end
> had a severe drop-off (since the table isn't as long as a reed, I had to
> address that issue as well).
> 
> 
> DT
> 
> Barry Isaac Levine wrote:
> No suggestions.
> 
> But I am curious - this is a metal mouthpiece, so I'm wondering why the
> table needed flattening. Did the mouthpiece get dropped, stomped on, etc?
>> 
>> I've refaced a Ponzol M1, which now plays just great on my tenor. It
>> required extensive table flattening, which closed the tip opening quite
>> a bit. I opened it back up to .110, and I notice a slight tendency to
>> get flat up in the palm-key notes - I imagine I lost some chamber
>> volume. I've increased chamber volume in other mouthpieces to
>> successfully address this problem. I like the way this one plays so
>> much that I want to do this without affecting the playing
>> characteristics. It has a very long baffle with a straight drop-off
>> into the chamber, and I think that taking some material from the end of
>> that baffle would do the trick (rather than undercutting sidewalls or
>> changing other chamber dimensions). Any suggestions?
>> 
>> Dan T
>> 
> 
>  

This html message parsed with html2text ---------------------------Older, I guess - don't know when it was made. It was an ebay purchase.  
  
Barry Isaac Levine wrote:

> I could understand that on a metal Link for < $100. Although I'd think that  
>  machining a flat table would be one of the least difficult things they
> could  
>  do.  
>  
>  But this is a mouthpiece that cost $250 the last time I looked (a few years  
>  ago) and was claimed to be hand finished by Peter Ponzol.  
>  
>  New stock, or older piece?  
>  
>  thx,  
>  
>  Barry  
>  >  
>  > Mouthpieces don't all come off the production line with flat tables,
> which  
>  > then get out of whack somehow. Many just aren't flat when they're brand
> new.  
>  > This was one of those.  
>  > And it wasn't a simple concavity (like all the Links I've seen), but was
> an  
>  > odd "terrain" of high spots and low spots, which is why I needed to
> flatten it  
>  > so much. One of the rails, at the point near the back of the window, had
> a  
>  > section that wasn't contacting the sandpaper until I had taken lots of  
>  > material off the rest of the table. Also, one of the corners at the butt
> end  
>  > had a severe drop-off (since the table isn't as long as a reed, I had to  
>  > address that issue as well).  
>  >  
>  >  
>  > DT  
>  >  
>  > Barry Isaac Levine wrote:  
>  > No suggestions.  
>  >  
>  > But I am curious - this is a metal mouthpiece, so I'm wondering why the  
>  > table needed flattening. Did the mouthpiece get dropped, stomped on, etc?  
>  >>  
>  >> I've refaced a Ponzol M1, which now plays just great on my tenor. It  
>  >> required extensive table flattening, which closed the tip opening quite  
>  >> a bit. I opened it back up to .110, and I notice a slight tendency to  
>  >> get flat up in the palm-key notes - I imagine I lost some chamber  
>  >> volume. I've increased chamber volume in other mouthpieces to  
>  >> successfully address this problem. I like the way this one plays so  
>  >> much that I want to do this without affecting the playing  
>  >> characteristics. It has a very long baffle with a straight drop-off  
>  >> into the chamber, and I think that taking some material from the end of  
>  >> that baffle would do the trick (rather than undercutting sidewalls or  
>  >> changing other chamber dimensions). Any suggestions?  
>  >>  
>  >> Dan T  
>  >>  
>  >  
>  >  
>  
>

I have a M1 too.  The table was a little wavy but not as bad as the
concavity in most STMs.  Your sounds like it was a lot worse than mine was.

The amount of chamber volume lost should not be significant.  You would
just pull out a little to compensate.  Like 1/32"-1/16".  But maybe you
took a lot off the table.


      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page. 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

This html message parsed with html2text ---------------------------I think if I had figured out the "terrain" of the table early on and adjusted
my 'lean' on the mouthpiece while flattening, I could have gotten to a flat
table with less tip closing. But I didn't - just flattened straight across
until it was good. The metal seemed unusually hard, also, BTW.  
  
DT  
  
Keith Bradbury wrote:

> I have a M1 too. The table was a little wavy but not as bad as the  
>  concavity in most STMs. Your sounds like it was a lot worse than mine was.  
>  
>  The amount of chamber volume lost should not be significant. You would  
>  just pull out a little to compensate. Like 1/32"-1/16". But maybe you  
>  took a lot off the table.  
>  
>  __________________________________________________________  
>  Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.  
>  [http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs](http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs)  
>

Probably due to the layer of nickel plating under the gold.

--- Dan Torosian <dtorosian@...> wrote:

...  The metal seemedunusually hard, also, BTW.




      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and 
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.  http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ 

This html message parsed with html2text ---------------------------Thanks - it's truly great to be able to check in with you guys when these
questions come up.  
  
DT  
  
Paul C. wrote:

> Take off material at the back of the baffle, where it drops off into the
> throat. That will have the least effect on tone and response.
>
> Paul  
>  
>  **_Dan Torosian.net>_** wrote:
>

>> I've refaced a Ponzol M1, which now plays just great on my tenor. It  
>  required extensive table flattening, which closed the tip opening quite  
>  a bit. I opened it back up to .110, and I notice a slight tendency to  
>  get flat up in the palm-key notes - I imagine I lost some chamber  
>  volume. I've increased chamber volume in other mouthpieces to  
>  successfully address this problem. I like the way this one plays so  
>  much that I want to do this without affecting the playing  
>  characteristics. It has a very long baffle with a straight drop-off  
>  into the chamber, and I think that taking some material from the end of  
>  that baffle would do the trick (rather than undercutting sidewalls or  
>  changing other chamber dimensions). Any suggestions?  
>  
>  Dan T  
>
>
>  
>  
>  
>  Link to Paul's articles from Main page of "Saxgourmet":  
>  et.com  
>  Listen to Paul's MP3's and view saxophone photos at:  
>  .yahoo.com/tenorman1952  
>  
>  Paul Coats is the sole US importer of SAXRAX products from  
>  .com  
>  For SAXRAX products, email Paul at saxraxus@saxrax.com
>
> * * *
>
> Never miss a thing. [ Make Yahoo your
> homepage.](http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evtQ438/*http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs)

That long high step baffle on the Ponzol is more material than the 
mouthpiece should have.  It weighs the piece down and slows the 
response for my tastes.  

I agree with Paul that you will improve the intonation and response of 
the mouthpiece by filing down the edge of the step baffle into about a 
22 degree angle so it looks like the Guardala piece. Then it will be a 
shorter step baffle with a ramp that leads to the chamber floor.

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "Greg Wier" <gregwier@...> wrote:
>
> That long high step baffle on the Ponzol is more material than the 
> mouthpiece should have.  It weighs the piece down and slows the 
> response for my tastes.  
> 
> I agree with Paul that you will improve the intonation and response of 
> the mouthpiece by filing down the edge of the step baffle into about a 
> 22 degree angle so it looks like the Guardala piece. Then it will be a 
> shorter step baffle with a ramp that leads to the chamber floor.
>

Hello Greg, 

I am curious whether you have modified a Ponzol M1 in the fashion you 
describe, and have gotten the results you predict here.

My own experiments with chambers and baffles suggests to me that an 
extended step baffle as seen in the M1 makes a piece brighter and somewhat 
more responsive - but at the cost of losing some of the fullness of the lower 
register. The added material certainly doesn't "weigh the piece down", unless 
you refer to its actual weight, which has little to do with its sound.

What the step baffle does, IMHO, is increase air velocity by narrowing the 
passage, which improves the output of the piece by heightening the bernoulli 
effect along the underside of the reed. The step may create air turbulence that 
further increases air velocity along the reed near the base of the vamp. I think 
that filing down the step baffle will decrease the air velocity under the reed 
towards the base of the vamp - and the mouthpiece may feel less responsive, 
not more - although, as previously noted, the low register may be a bit fuller.

This is my observation based on creating many different baffle inserts of 
varying lengths, heights, and shapes for a number of different mouthpieces. 

Taking off reed material at the base of the vamp improves the lower register 
response. My thought is that whether one increases air velocity under the 
base of the vamp or takes off material here,  either way, the lower register is 
somewhat facilitated.

On my own Ponzol M1, I made a custom baffle insert that adds about 1/8 inch 
to the step. I find this improves the responsiveness of the piece to my tastes - 
it's brighter and projects better; and is a little less demanding of air in the 
bottom register.  To take the baffle down as you suggest likely would have an 
opposite effect.

That said, the Ponzol in question may have had a significant amount of the 
facing removed. This has brought the baffle closer to the reed, and made the 
mouthpiece a bit brighter already. For a darker sound, taking material from the 
baffle as you suggest might be desirable.

Barry