I am looking for some advice on modifying Dukoff mouthpieces.

I have played Guardala mouthpieces for about 12 years now and I've 
never found anything to equal their response, projection and 
volume.  I am interested in playing with the interior dimensions of 
the chamber/baffle to create something with a less overtone heavy 
tone, but retain some of that projection and volume- ideally with a 
less open tip.  

I know... it would be nice to be able to have the cake and eat it 
too.

Of course, I'm not about to start slicing into my 4 digit pre-
Brecker model, so I thought that a Dukoff would be the best 
sacrificial lamb (and silverite would be easier to work with than 
stainless or brass.)

Knowing nothing about what I am doing, I was going to shorten the 
length of the baffle to about 1/2" or slightly less (grind it down 
to the floor), take down the baffle a little at an angle, thin the 
rails like a guardala and round out the chamber more like a Link.  I 
didn't want to mess with the tip, table or facing if possible.  That 
kind of work is for experts!

I had purchased a Dremel and a set of files when a friend cautioned 
me to join this group and ask some questions first.

Is there any geometry I should take into account or a better way to 
accomplish the desired result?  What is your advice?

Put down the Dremel and step away from the mouthpiece!!!
   
  Seriously, it is easy to take out far too much material too quickly with a Dremel tool.  One little slip will ruin a mouthpiece.
   
  All of that mouthpiece volume you are about to fool with will change intonation of the instrument.  
   
  How can this be? you ask.  You just move the mouthpiece back and forth on the cork until it's in tune, right?
   
  Not necessarily.  If a mouthpiece plays with good intonation throughout the range, and on up into the palm keys, it's internal volume is good for that instrument.
   
  Remember, it does not matter what the bore is, how far that is onto the cork... what counts in the volume past the end of the neckpipe.
   
  So, you hog out the chamber and put it back on the sax to test play.  It's flat.  Of course it is.  The volume past then end of the neck must be equal to the volume of the missing conical section of the bore.  Well, that is, to tune the low register.
   
  So, you push in the mouthpiece... there, now the middle C of the tenor is in tune with concert Bb. 
   
  You start playing again... but now as you get to high C, and on up into the palm key notes, the tenor is sharp.  You can barely lip it down into tune.
   
  What happened?  Now the mouthpiece is too short.  It is shoved farther onto the cork.  Now you understand why old "large chamber" mouthpiece had short shanks.
   
  OK, so, let's go the other way.  What if instead you wanted to put in a high baffle, and tighten up the throat, get a more focused center to the tone.  So you fill in with epoxy putty, form a nice new smaller chamber.  What happens when you play?
   
  I can tell you exactly... you will be sharp.  You will have to pull the mouthpiece out on the cork.  It might even be such that the shank is not long enough and the mouthpiece just barely hangs on the neck cork. 
   
  You continue playing and the palm key notes are flat.  Why?  Because now the mouthpiece is too long for the upper register.
   
  Fact... the low register tunes by chamber volume.  The upper register tunes by length.
   
  So, what must be done, if you take away volume at one place, you have to add it to another.
   
   
  Paul

skabio2000 <silversonic@...> wrote:
          I am looking for some advice on modifying Dukoff mouthpieces.

I have played Guardala mouthpieces for about 12 years now and I've 
never found anything to equal their response, projection and 
volume. I am interested in playing with the interior dimensions of 
the chamber/baffle to create something with a less overtone heavy 
tone, but retain some of that projection and volume- ideally with a 
less open tip. 

I know... it would be nice to be able to have the cake and eat it 
too.

Of course, I'm not about to start slicing into my 4 digit pre-
Brecker model, so I thought that a Dukoff would be the best 
sacrificial lamb (and silverite would be easier to work with than 
stainless or brass.)

Knowing nothing about what I am doing, I was going to shorten the 
length of the baffle to about 1/2" or slightly less (grind it down 
to the floor), take down the baffle a little at an angle, thin the 
rails like a guardala and round out the chamber more like a Link. I 
didn't want to mess with the tip, table or facing if possible. That 
kind of work is for experts!

I had purchased a Dremel and a set of files when a friend cautioned 
me to join this group and ask some questions first.

Is there any geometry I should take into account or a better way to 
accomplish the desired result? What is your advice?



                           


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@...
       

This html message parsed with html2text ---------------------------Also, you'll get more improvement in response and fullness by putting a good
facing (and tip rail) on the mouthpiece. I think it's easy to assume that the
visible changes to the mouthpiece (like baffle structure or thinness of side
rails) make the most difference, but my experience is that a good facing and
tip rail make a mouthpiece play its best. I'd put away the Dremel and files
for now and get some feeler gauges, a glass gauge, fine sandpaper, and plate
glass. And some junker mouthpieces to work on. On the other hand, if you're
not interested in messing with facings and measurements, changing a baffle by
using some temporary putty is easy to do, and totally reversible, so you can
experiment all you want without risking ruining the piece.  
  
DT  
  
Paul C. wrote:

> Put down the Dremel and step away from the mouthpiece!!!
>
> Seriously, it is easy to take out far too much material too quickly with a
> Dremel tool. One little slip will ruin a mouthpiece.
>
> All of that mouthpiece volume you are about to fool with will change
> intonation of the instrument.
>
> How can this be? you ask. You just move the mouthpiece back and forth on the
> cork until it's in tune, right?
>
> Not necessarily. If a mouthpiece plays with good intonation throughout the
> range, and on up into the palm keys, it's internal volume is good for that
> instrument.
>
> Remember, it does not matter what the bore is, how far that is onto the
> cork... what counts in the volume past the end of the neckpipe.
>
> So, you hog out the chamber and put it back on the sax to test play. It's
> flat. Of course it is. The volume past then end of the neck must be equal to
> the volume of the missing conical section of the bore. Well, that is, to
> tune the low register.
>
> So, you push in the mouthpiece... there, now the middle C of the tenor is in
> tune with concert Bb.
>
> You start playing again... but now as you get to high C, and on up into the
> palm key notes, the tenor is sharp. You can barely lip it down into tune.
>
> What happened? Now the mouthpiece is too short. It is shoved farther onto
> the cork. Now you understand why old "large chamber" mouthpiece had short
> shanks.
>
> OK, so, let's go the other way. What if instead you wanted to put in a high
> baffle, and tighten up the throat, get a more focused center to the tone. So
> you fill in with epoxy putty, form a nice new smaller chamber. What happens
> when you play?
>
> I can tell you exactly... you will be sharp. You will have to pull the
> mouthpiece out on the cork. It might even be such that the shank is not long
> enough and the mouthpiece just barely hangs on the neck cork.
>
> You continue playing and the palm key notes are flat. Why? Because now the
> mouthpiece is too long for the upper register.
>
> Fact... the low register tunes by chamber volume. The upper register tunes
> by length.
>
> So, what must be done, if you take away volume at one place, you have to add
> it to another.
>
> Paul  
>  
>  **_skabio2000 rocketmail.com>_** wrote:
>

>> I am looking for some advice on modifying Dukoff mouthpieces.  
>  
>  I have played Guardala mouthpieces for about 12 years now and I've  
>  never found anything to equal their response, projection and  
>  volume. I am interested in playing with the interior dimensions of  
>  the chamber/baffle to create something with a less overtone heavy  
>  tone, but retain some of that projection and volume- ideally with a  
>  less open tip.  
>  
>  I know... it would be nice to be able to have the cake and eat it  
>  too.  
>  
>  Of course, I'm not about to start slicing into my 4 digit pre-  
>  Brecker model, so I thought that a Dukoff would be the best  
>  sacrificial lamb (and silverite would be easier to work with than  
>  stainless or brass.)  
>  
>  Knowing nothing about what I am doing, I was going to shorten the  
>  length of the baffle to about 1/2" or slightly less (grind it down  
>  to the floor), take down the baffle a little at an angle, thin the  
>  rails like a guardala and round out the chamber more like a Link. I  
>  didn't want to mess with the tip, table or facing if possible. That  
>  kind of work is for experts!  
>  
>  I had purchased a Dremel and a set of files when a friend cautioned  
>  me to join this group and ask some questions first.  
>  
>  Is there any geometry I should take into account or a better way to  
>  accomplish the desired result? What is your advice?  
>  
>
>
>  
>  
>  
>  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

If you want the Dukoff to respond like a handmade Guardala, your are going to have to improve the facing curve.  Chamber and baffle work will mostly effect the tone.
 
I agree with Paul's chamber volume science.  But I'm beginning to understand that a player can do a lot to compensate for chamber volume changes.  They can lip the notes in tune and use muscle memory to do this consistently.  But this is not a great strategy if you play multiple instruments.  
 
The other approach is to change your pitch center as described in the Mouthpiece Placement Tuning and Tone article written by Stephen Duke in 2001.  It is available on the Yamaha band site.  The gist is you arrive at a embouchure support target that may be a little looser or tighter than you are currently using.  It may agree with the target from the Runyon mouthpiece pitch exercise or not.  Usually you need to play a little looser and push in for improved intonation between octaves.  
 
If you look at the line of Guardala LT mouthpiece designs, they all have the same length and exterior dimensions.  The Super King has a very high baffle and small chamber.  The Crescent has a small baffle and a "cheeked out" throat" area.  The SK had a wider tip than the Crescent, but I think that helps more with response than chamber volume.   Many players can deal with this amount of chamber volume variation and still play these MPs.  If they can not, they can look to Stephen Duke's article for help.  If they are not willing to change their embouchure, they can look too the Science Paul describes for help in selecting a mouthpiece design that matches up to their embouchure.
 
So you can take a Dukoff D design, which is similar to a Guardala Studio, and take it to a MB2 style design.  You need to remove the wart, cheek out the sides, and lower the baffle near the tip.  I do this to almost all tenor Dukoffs I work on.  There are photos on my site of this work.  Facing work is needed to get good results.
 
You can go farther and take to more baffle away.  More towards a Crescent design.  But I would use coarse files for most of this work.  
 
Clients use to ask me to make MB2s from Studios.  Now that you can buy LT MB2s, I'm getting asked to make MB1s and Traditionals from MB2s.  So you can mess with the chamber volume some.
 
 


      

Thanks to everyone for their advice!  You brought up things that I hadn't even considered.  I have, for the moment, stored the Dremel in its case.  Now I'm just staring at the mouthpiece and singing "Stuck In the Middle With You".  One of us is going to lose an ear...  
 
I had to google Keith Bradbury to find your site!  I didn't know that I was getting advice directly from Mojo himself!  Thank you.  Your photos of the Dukoff mod were artful and educational!  About 5 years ago, I thought that I might like to learn how to design and reface mouthpieces and was unable to find any real information anywhere.  I was glad to see that it was not just my incompetence in researching the info.  There really is not a lot out there!  Now I have a little time for a hobby and I want to see what I can do.
 
I am curious about the refacing process.  I saw the template sheet, but I have no idea how to fill it out or plot the points or what they mean really.  Obviously, I will need to aquire some feeler guages and one of those glass things to do it properly.  
 
Okay- so I flatten the table, which is bound to open the tip.  Not a big deal, but this does affect the facing, yes?  Primarily I want to get a larger chamber, less baffley sound, but "unresponsive" is no good either.  If you can describe it without giving away your secrets, how does one plot the "ideal" curve for the facing?  I would like to have as much ease in the altissimo as possible without getting that airey sound.
 
Thanks

--- On Sun, 7/6/08, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:

From: Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Chamber Volume and Intonation
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, July 6, 2008, 1:25 PM











If you want the Dukoff to respond like a handmade Guardala, your are going to have to improve the facing curve.  Chamber and baffle work will mostly effect the tone.
 
I agree with Paul's chamber volume science.  But I'm beginning to understand that a player can do a lot to compensate for chamber volume changes.  They can lip the notes in tune and use muscle memory to do this consistently.  But this is not a great strategy if you play multiple instruments.  
 
The other approach is to change your pitch center as described in the Mouthpiece Placement Tuning and Tone article written by Stephen Duke in 2001.  It is available on the Yamaha band site.  The gist is you arrive at a embouchure support target that may be a little looser or tighter than you are currently using.  It may agree with the target from the Runyon mouthpiece pitch exercise or not.  Usually you need to play a little looser and push in for improved intonation between octaves.  
 
If you look at the line of Guardala LT mouthpiece designs, they all have the same length and exterior dimensions.  The Super King has a very high baffle and small chamber.  The Crescent has a small baffle and a "cheeked out" throat" area.  The SK had a wider tip than the Crescent, but I think that helps more with response than chamber volume.   Many players can deal with this amount of chamber volume variation and still play these MPs.  If they can not, they can look to Stephen Duke's article for help.  If they are not willing to change their embouchure, they can look too the Science Paul describes for help in selecting a mouthpiece design that matches up to their embouchure.
 
So you can take a Dukoff D design, which is similar to a Guardala Studio, and take it to a MB2 style design.  You need to remove the wart, cheek out the sides, and lower the baffle near the tip.  I do this to almost all tenor Dukoffs I work on.  There are photos on my site of this work.  Facing work is needed to get good results.
 
You can go farther and take to more baffle away.  More towards a Crescent design.  But I would use coarse files for most of this work.  
 
Clients use to ask me to make MB2s from Studios.  Now that you can buy LT MB2s, I'm getting asked to make MB1s and Traditionals from MB2s.  So you can mess with the chamber volume some.
 
 
 














      

--- On Mon, 7/7/08, Justin Berry <silversonic@...> wrote:
 
Okay- so I flatten the table, which is bound to open the tip.  Not a big deal, but this does affect the facing, yes?  Primarily I want to get a larger chamber, less baffley sound, but "unresponsive" is no good either.  If you can describe it without giving away your secrets, how does one plot the "ideal" curve for the facing?  I would like to have as much ease in the altissimo as possible without getting that airey sound.

Reply:
Flattening the table usually closes the tip and shortens the facing curve.  But as a beginner, you will most likely make the table convex while trying to flatten it.  

There several old posts on how to do facing work.  But you will need to search for them.  I would recommend you start looking in the Files - Methods section.  There are some recaps and tools lists to help you get started.  But you will still need to do some digging.  The site is a free archive of information.  But it is not an on-line how-to book.