Hi!
I would like to know which factors make the mouthpiece resistant. 
With gratitude,
Sakshama

A common mistake when refacing, and I did this too when I first started, was to try to continue the curve all the way to the very tip, the middle of the tip rail.  As you continue to draw the mouthpiece across the cutting paper, and as you get to the tip rail, and continue to lift the shank end of the mouthpiece, the tendency is to apply the same pressure. 
   
  But you apply the same pressure over a smaller and smaller area, so the is more material removed.  When that happes you put a "flip" on the very end of the tip rail which causes the reed to have a difficult time closing.  In other words, at the tip rail, the radius of the curve becomes too small.
   
  What you should do, as you draw the mouthpiece across the cutting paper (and I use 320 and 400 silicon carbide paper on metal, usually brass, and 600 silicon carbide on plastic and hard rubber) you will see two lines being drawn, the side rails.  Just as soon as you see it draw a solid wide mark, meaning you are cutting the tip rail, stop lifting the shank end of the mouthpiece but continue the stroke about one inch (2.5 cm) and stop.  
   
  This flattening of the curve at the tip rail will cause the entire tip end of the reed to seal at one time, and make for an easier blowing mouthpiece.
   
  Another cause of resistance is having no baffle, like Caravan, Rascher, etc.  Or even a concave baffle.  While it will produce a dark tone, it will also make the mouthpiece resistant.  Some players like a lot of resistance, but I am not among those players.
   
  On the other hand, I have seen very long rollover baffles that it is almost impossible to distinguish where the tip rail ends and the baffle begins.  This type of tip rail/baffle tends to produce chirps and squeeks, and to have a "spitty" tone.  Saliva gets in there and has no place to go, and stick there causing that spitty sound.  Even if it moved on down away from the tip it is still there causing that sound.  
   
  When I reface a mouthpiece, unless very little material was removed, such as just "cleaning up" and refreshing a worn facing, rather than a large change in tip opening, the tip rail will become wider.  Then it is necessary to file away some of the baffle to reestablish the baffle and tip rail.  I do this by holding the mouthpiece in such a way that it can't move up and down and change angle, and I hold the file so that the edge of my hand touches the workbench.  In this way I can file at a constant angle.
   
  I will first file (using a circular motion in the middle, and a diagonal stroke from the corners toward the middle) at a shallow angle to the tip rail, so that the file cannot touch the actual tip rail.  And I will form the tip rail.
   
  Then I will reset the mouthpiece so that I will be filing just behind the first area filed, a slightly greater angle.  This will file an area about 1 mm or 1/16" away from the tip rail on back toward the chamber.
   
  I will change angles again and file a wider area even farther back, and flowing into the roof of the chamber.  
   
  Do you know what a "three angle valve job" is on an engine cylinder head?  Similar principle.
   
  So, once I have these three angles done, I then tear strips from the edge of the cutting paper about 3/16" wide (4-5 mm) and one inch long (about 25 mm).  I tear these off the same paper I used to do the facing work.
   
  I place the strip of cutting paper on the baffle, place my thumb on top, and draw the strip of cutting paper out at such an angle that it cannot sand the tip rail but will sand across the angles I have filed.  You will have to learn how much pressure to apply with your thumb, and the strip will sometimes tear.  But as you do this across the width of the baffle, you will smooth those angles into a nice curve that flows from the tip rail back into the chamber.
   
  At this point the mouthpiece will have a nice "rollover" baffle that will play with low resistance yet the angle is enough to avoid that spitty tone.
   
  The mouthpiece is playable, but the dull sanded area will not please your customer.  You know it plays well, I know it will play well, but the customer will see that.
   
  So, for hard rubber or plastic I repeat sanding the baffle, but now with 800 grit instead of the original 600 grit.  Then one more time with 1000 grit.
   
  For metal, I will use 600 grit followed by 800 grit.
   
  If you were to continue to 1200, 1500, then 2000 grit, you could have a very nice finish, but that is time consuming and not really necessary.  So, I use a little tool that Santy Runyon showed me how to make.
   
  I use a 3/8" (that's about 9 mm) diameter wood dowel rod (a hobby shop and craft store item) and file a flat on one end about 1" (25 mm) long.  On that flat area I glue a piece of cork (1/16" or 2 mm thick) with CA glue or contact cement.  On top of that I glue, using contact cement, a piece of chamois.  This is our polishing tool.  It is narrow enough to get into the mouthpiece and polish the baffle.
   
  For a polishing compound I use Kit Scratchout.  This is a plastic polishing compound sold in automotive stores to polish acrylic, polycarbonate, plexiglass, etc., face shields on motorcycle helmets, windshields, etc.  I apply a little Scratchout (always shake the bottle well) to the chamois and then polish the baffle.  Again, use the tool at an angle that will not touch the tip rail.
   
  Now, here's a good trick.  That sandpaper you have not thrown away yet... OK, get it out of the trash can, you are not finished with it yet.
   
  Place the sandpaper backside up.  There is enough silicon carbide dust on the paper from the manufacturing process and being shipped with other sandpaper to do some nice fine polishing.  
   
  Stroke the mouthpiece on the backside of the cutting paper on your glass or granite work surface.  Three or four strokes on the table only, followed by one or two strokes on the side and tip rails, and you will have a nicely polished table and facing!  
   
  Now, using the same Scratchout, apply a little to a soft cloth and by hand only, polish the body and beak of the mouthpiece.  Do not use a buffing wheel.  It is far too easy to damage the side rails.  Yes, there are techniques to avoid that damage, but just don't do it.
   
  Finally, wash the mouthpiece with lukewarm water and a little soap to remove all of the polishing compound.  I use a Gerber Baby Bottle Nipple Brush to brush the chamber and bore.  This brush has a plastic tube on the twisted wire shank so that it can not scratch the tip rail while you clean the mouthpiece.  Then dry it with a soft cloth so there will be no water spots.
   
  And there you have it, a nice looking, good playing mouthpiece.  As a final garnish, I place a clear mylar patch on the beak.
   
  Paul Coats

sakshama1 <sakshama1@...> wrote:
          Hi!
I would like to know which factors make the mouthpiece resistant. 
With gratitude,
Sakshama



                           


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@...
       

Hi Paul,

  I  got more or less the same great explanation  from you about  tips
and roll-over baffles a couple of months ago and also acquired some
Runyon 22's from you to practise on.

Your explanation has helped me improve my technique quite a bit ,but
honestly, those Runyon 22's are to good to practise on. I have finished
off a couple of them and included them with student horns I was selling.

   One point. I found that I got much better  results with your method if
I used a pull stroke of the file towards the tip, rather than a push
stroke into the throat. Is that just an obvious technique that you
thought not worthy of mention or do different people find success using
one way or the other?

    Thanks for sharing your knowledge and for the added technique you
just described for  the curve as you approach the tip.  In reading this,
I immediately recognized the problem I was having with a couple of
refacings I did that were not quite working out.   Peter Deley


--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "Paul C." <tenorman1952@...>
wrote:
>
> A common mistake when refacing, and I did this too when I first
started, was to try to continue the curve all the way to the very tip,
the middle of the tip rail. As you continue to draw the mouthpiece
across the cutting paper, and as you get to the tip rail, and continue
to lift the shank end of the mouthpiece, the tendency is to apply the
same pressure.
>
> But you apply the same pressure over a smaller and smaller area, so
the is more material removed. When that happes you put a "flip" on the
very end of the tip rail which causes the reed to have a difficult time
closing. In other words, at the tip rail, the radius of the curve
becomes too small.
>
> What you should do, as you draw the mouthpiece across the cutting
paper (and I use 320 and 400 silicon carbide paper on metal, usually
brass, and 600 silicon carbide on plastic and hard rubber) you will see
two lines being drawn, the side rails. Just as soon as you see it draw a
solid wide mark, meaning you are cutting the tip rail, stop lifting the
shank end of the mouthpiece but continue the stroke about one inch (2.5
cm) and stop.
>
> This flattening of the curve at the tip rail will cause the entire tip
end of the reed to seal at one time, and make for an easier blowing
mouthpiece.
>
> Another cause of resistance is having no baffle, like Caravan,
Rascher, etc. Or even a concave baffle. While it will produce a dark
tone, it will also make the mouthpiece resistant. Some players like a
lot of resistance, but I am not among those players.
>
> On the other hand, I have seen very long rollover baffles that it is
almost impossible to distinguish where the tip rail ends and the baffle
begins. This type of tip rail/baffle tends to produce chirps and
squeeks, and to have a "spitty" tone. Saliva gets in there and has no
place to go, and stick there causing that spitty sound. Even if it moved
on down away from the tip it is still there causing that sound.
>
> When I reface a mouthpiece, unless very little material was removed,
such as just "cleaning up" and refreshing a worn facing, rather than a
large change in tip opening, the tip rail will become wider. Then it is
necessary to file away some of the baffle to reestablish the baffle and
tip rail. I do this by holding the mouthpiece in such a way that it
can't move up and down and change angle, and I hold the file so that the
edge of my hand touches the workbench. In this way I can file at a
constant angle.
>
> I will first file (using a circular motion in the middle, and a
diagonal stroke from the corners toward the middle) at a shallow angle
to the tip rail, so that the file cannot touch the actual tip rail. And
I will form the tip rail.
>
> Then I will reset the mouthpiece so that I will be filing just behind
the first area filed, a slightly greater angle. This will file an area
about 1 mm or 1/16" away from the tip rail on back toward the chamber.
>
> I will change angles again and file a wider area even farther back,
and flowing into the roof of the chamber.
>
> Do you know what a "three angle valve job" is on an engine cylinder
head? Similar principle.
>
> So, once I have these three angles done, I then tear strips from the
edge of the cutting paper about 3/16" wide (4-5 mm) and one inch long
(about 25 mm). I tear these off the same paper I used to do the facing
work.
>
> I place the strip of cutting paper on the baffle, place my thumb on
top, and draw the strip of cutting paper out at such an angle that it
cannot sand the tip rail but will sand across the angles I have filed.
You will have to learn how much pressure to apply with your thumb, and
the strip will sometimes tear. But as you do this across the width of
the baffle, you will smooth those angles into a nice curve that flows
from the tip rail back into the chamber.
>
> At this point the mouthpiece will have a nice "rollover" baffle that
will play with low resistance yet the angle is enough to avoid that
spitty tone.
>
> The mouthpiece is playable, but the dull sanded area will not please
your customer. You know it plays well, I know it will play well, but the
customer will see that.
>
> So, for hard rubber or plastic I repeat sanding the baffle, but now
with 800 grit instead of the original 600 grit. Then one more time with
1000 grit.
>
> For metal, I will use 600 grit followed by 800 grit.
>
> If you were to continue to 1200, 1500, then 2000 grit, you could have
a very nice finish, but that is time consuming and not really necessary.
So, I use a little tool that Santy Runyon showed me how to make.
>
> I use a 3/8" (that's about 9 mm) diameter wood dowel rod (a hobby shop
and craft store item) and file a flat on one end about 1" (25 mm) long.
On that flat area I glue a piece of cork (1/16" or 2 mm thick) with CA
glue or contact cement. On top of that I glue, using contact cement, a
piece of chamois. This is our polishing tool. It is narrow enough to get
into the mouthpiece and polish the baffle.
>
> For a polishing compound I use Kit Scratchout. This is a plastic
polishing compound sold in automotive stores to polish acrylic,
polycarbonate, plexiglass, etc., face shields on motorcycle helmets,
windshields, etc. I apply a little Scratchout (always shake the bottle
well) to the chamois and then polish the baffle. Again, use the tool at
an angle that will not touch the tip rail.
>
> Now, here's a good trick. That sandpaper you have not thrown away
yet... OK, get it out of the trash can, you are not finished with it
yet.
>
> Place the sandpaper backside up. There is enough silicon carbide dust
on the paper from the manufacturing process and being shipped with other
sandpaper to do some nice fine polishing.
>
> Stroke the mouthpiece on the backside of the cutting paper on your
glass or granite work surface. Three or four strokes on the table only,
followed by one or two strokes on the side and tip rails, and you will
have a nicely polished table and facing!
>
> Now, using the same Scratchout, apply a little to a soft cloth and by
hand only, polish the body and beak of the mouthpiece. Do not use a
buffing wheel. It is far too easy to damage the side rails. Yes, there
are techniques to avoid that damage, but just don't do it.
>
> Finally, wash the mouthpiece with lukewarm water and a little soap to
remove all of the polishing compound. I use a Gerber Baby Bottle Nipple
Brush to brush the chamber and bore. This brush has a plastic tube on
the twisted wire shank so that it can not scratch the tip rail while you
clean the mouthpiece. Then dry it with a soft cloth so there will be no
water spots.
>
> And there you have it, a nice looking, good playing mouthpiece. As a
final garnish, I place a clear mylar patch on the beak.
>
> Paul Coats
>
> sakshama1 sakshama1@... wrote:
> Hi!
> I would like to know which factors make the mouthpiece resistant.
> With gratitude,
> Sakshama
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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@...
>

Peter, my comments are interspersed below.

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "pfdeley" <pfdeley@...> wrote:
>
> 
> Hi Paul,
> 
>   I  got more or less the same great explanation  from you about  
tips
> and roll-over baffles a couple of months ago and also acquired some
> Runyon 22's from you to practise on.
> 
> Your explanation has helped me improve my technique quite a bit ,but
> honestly, those Runyon 22's are to good to practise on. I have 
finished
> off a couple of them and included them with student horns I was 
selling.

Yes, I told you to begin with, these are excellent mouthpieces and 
perfectly playable as they are.  You should play them first and use 
that as a comparison... did I make it better or worse?  Many look 
down on "student mouthpieces", but I can tell you that Santy took 
great pride in coming up with a mouthpiece for students that (1) 
responded easily, (2) played well in tune, (3) did not easily produce 
squeeks and chirps, (4) had a good tone that was easy to produce, and 
(5) could be made consistently and at low cost so students could 
afford them.  He accomplished all of this with that model.  So, it is 
an ideal mouthpiece to experiment with.

Keep one of those mouthpieces unaltered as a standard to judge your 
work by.  Play it and get very familiar.  Then as you work on another 
go back and forth.  After increasing the tip from, say, .066" 
to .072" did I reshape the baffle in such a way that the mouthpiece 
still has similar response and tone?  When I lengthed the facing, how 
did that affect response?  in the low register?  in the high 
register?  need for a harder reed?

And you can play with "Sticky Tac" or other materials to alter the 
chamber, see how that affects the mouthpiece.

And always go back to that unaltered mouthpiece.  The one I just 
worked on, did I make it better or worse?


> 
>    One point. I found that I got much better  results with your 
method if
> I used a pull stroke of the file towards the tip, rather than a push
> stroke into the throat. Is that just an obvious technique that you
> thought not worthy of mention or do different people find success 
using
> one way or the other?

If that works, good.  But I use a push stroke as I work on the 
baffle.  I'll try the other way and see how that works.

 
>     Thanks for sharing your knowledge and for the added technique 
you
> just described for  the curve as you approach the tip.  In reading 
this,
> I immediately recognized the problem I was having with a couple of
> refacings I did that were not quite working out.   Peter Deley

Peter, share that with us.  It is as important, no, more important to 
know what does not work, as to know what does, and why.  The 
word "experience" really means, "I screwed up like that already".  
Hahaha... 

My point about filing at a diagonal is that if you just saw in and 
out in one place you end up with a flat spot there... well, of 
course, you just filed it like that!  So, since we are dealing with 
compound curves, it is best to keep the file moving so that the tip 
rail can be made evenly, and the roll over baffle formed smoothly.  
Otherwise there is a series of flat spots that will be difficult to 
blend together.

Paul Coats

I've been wondering lately about the "flip at the tip" phenomenon,
especially on larger pieces such as for bari.  It first occurred to me
some time back when following published radial facing curves and
finding that, indeed, I ended up with a flip at the tip.  I wondered
how the reed could seal properly across this void in the center of the
tip rail.  In theory, at least, the entire arc of the tip rail ought
to be perfectly flat.  But the tip rail spans the last several
millimeters of the facing length, so that if you follow the radial
facing curve specs literally, you get the flip.

So what are you supposed to do?  I think I've arrived at the same
method Paul describes, but in so doing there is no way the curve
remains radial through the length of the tip rail.  Whatever
difference splitting you do to flatten the tip rail leaves you with a
curve veering toward the elliptical rather than radial, so that many
of the facing curves recommended out there just don't hold up.  Right? 
Wrong?  Otherwise?



--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "pfdeley" <pfdeley@...> wrote:
>
> 
> Hi Paul,
> 
>   I  got more or less the same great explanation  from you about  tips
> and roll-over baffles a couple of months ago and also acquired some
> Runyon 22's from you to practise on...
> 
>     Thanks for sharing your knowledge and for the added technique you
> just described for  the curve as you approach the tip.  In reading this,
> I immediately recognized the problem I was having with a couple of
> refacings I did that were not quite working out.   Peter Deley
> 
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "Paul C." <tenorman1952@>
> wrote:
> >
> > A common mistake when refacing, and I did this too when I first
> started, was to try to continue the curve all the way to the very tip,
> the middle of the tip rail. As you continue to draw the mouthpiece
> across the cutting paper, and as you get to the tip rail, and continue
> to lift the shank end of the mouthpiece, the tendency is to apply the
> same pressure.
> >
> > But you apply the same pressure over a smaller and smaller area, so
> the is more material removed. When that happes you put a "flip" on the
> very end of the tip rail which causes the reed to have a difficult time
> closing. In other words, at the tip rail, the radius of the curve
> becomes too small.
> >
> > What you should do, as you draw the mouthpiece across the cutting
> paper (and I use 320 and 400 silicon carbide paper on metal, usually
> brass, and 600 silicon carbide on plastic and hard rubber) you will see
> two lines being drawn, the side rails. Just as soon as you see it draw a
> solid wide mark, meaning you are cutting the tip rail, stop lifting the
> shank end of the mouthpiece but continue the stroke about one inch (2.5
> cm) and stop.
> >
> > This flattening of the curve at the tip rail will cause the entire tip
> end of the reed to seal at one time, and make for an easier blowing
> mouthpiece...
> >
> >
> > Paul Coats
> >
> > sakshama1 sakshama1@ wrote:
> > Hi!
> > I would like to know which factors make the mouthpiece resistant.
> > With gratitude,
> > Sakshama
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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@
> >
>

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "honkytone" <dwf@...> wrote:
>
> I've been wondering lately about the "flip at the tip" phenomenon,
> especially on larger pieces such as for bari.  It first occurred to 
me
> some time back when following published radial facing curves and
> finding that, indeed, I ended up with a flip at the tip.

Actually, this is not the flip that I am talking about.  This is just 
the normal arch you see in the tip rail from implementing a radial 
facing curve (and most other curves) all the way to the tip.  When I 
talk about a flip, it is more exaggerated at the tip than a normal 
curve.

>  I wondered
> how the reed could seal properly across this void in the center of 
the
> tip rail.  In theory, at least, the entire arc of the tip rail ought
> to be perfectly flat.

I disagree here.  Why do you think the reed needs to stop bending in 
the tip rail area?  In fact, I think it needs to keep bending in 
order to play high frequencies like altissimo.

>  But the tip rail spans the last several
> millimeters of the facing length, so that if you follow the radial
> facing curve specs literally, you get the flip.

Again, you get a visual arch when looking at the tip.  

> 
> So what are you supposed to do?  I think I've arrived at the same
> method Paul describes, but in so doing there is no way the curve
> remains radial through the length of the tip rail.  Whatever
> difference splitting you do to flatten the tip rail leaves you with 
a
> curve veering toward the elliptical rather than radial, so that many
> of the facing curves recommended out there just don't hold up.  
Right? 
> Wrong?  Otherwise?

The elliptical curves that I use curve more near the tip.  More 
gradual thana flip.  Some members here have formulated the ellipse 
the other way, so that it curves less at the tip, but this is not 
good for sax (it may be good for clarinet). 

Flattening a curve near the tip can take some high frequencies out of 
the sound.  But I think the articulation suffers along with the 
altissimo response.   

In my mind I was equating tip rail "flip" and "arch" -- guess it
depends on whether you're looking at it from the side or from the tip.
Either way, very interesting. So you feel the arch across the tip rail
is a natural and desirable thing, and therefore you would differ with
Paul C's approach? Because if I read him right -- and I certainly
don't mean to put words in anyone's mouth -- it seems his method would
finish up with the tip rail flat.



--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "Keith Bradbury"
<kwbradbury@...> wrote:
>
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "honkytone" <dwf@> wrote:
> >
> > I've been wondering lately about the "flip at the tip" phenomenon,
> > especially on larger pieces such as for bari.  It first occurred to 
> me
> > some time back when following published radial facing curves and
> > finding that, indeed, I ended up with a flip at the tip.
> 
> Actually, this is not the flip that I am talking about.  This is just 
> the normal arch you see in the tip rail from implementing a radial 
> facing curve (and most other curves) all the way to the tip.  When I 
> talk about a flip, it is more exaggerated at the tip than a normal 
> curve.
> 
> >  I wondered
> > how the reed could seal properly across this void in the center of 
> the
> > tip rail.  In theory, at least, the entire arc of the tip rail ought
> > to be perfectly flat.
> 
> I disagree here.  Why do you think the reed needs to stop bending in 
> the tip rail area?  In fact, I think it needs to keep bending in 
> order to play high frequencies like altissimo.
> 
> >  But the tip rail spans the last several
> > millimeters of the facing length, so that if you follow the radial
> > facing curve specs literally, you get the flip.
> 
> Again, you get a visual arch when looking at the tip.  
> 
> > 
> > So what are you supposed to do?  I think I've arrived at the same
> > method Paul describes, but in so doing there is no way the curve
> > remains radial through the length of the tip rail.  Whatever
> > difference splitting you do to flatten the tip rail leaves you with 
> a
> > curve veering toward the elliptical rather than radial, so that many
> > of the facing curves recommended out there just don't hold up.  
> Right? 
> > Wrong?  Otherwise?
> 
> The elliptical curves that I use curve more near the tip.  More 
> gradual thana flip.  Some members here have formulated the ellipse 
> the other way, so that it curves less at the tip, but this is not 
> good for sax (it may be good for clarinet). 
> 
> Flattening a curve near the tip can take some high frequencies out of 
> the sound.  But I think the articulation suffers along with the 
> altissimo response.
>

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "honkytone" <dwf@...> wrote:

(trimmed)

> Paul C's approach? Because if I read him right -- and I certainly
> don't mean to put words in anyone's mouth -- it seems his method would
> finish up with the tip rail flat.

(trimmed)

Yes, that is what I am suggesting.

An arch is not bad, but the "flip" as seen from the side, gives poor 
results.  It is just difficult, by hand, to continue the same constant 
radius curve.

Paul

Yes, in my opinion the facing curve should be followed to the very tip without a flat section.  You need to do this by feel and eye since your feeler readings will typically not help in the tip rail region.  With practice it is not difficult to do.  You can look at the light reflecting off the tip rail to judge how smooth your facing curve is in the tip rail region.  You can also use reflected light to judge if it is flat, if this is what you want.  For good high altissimo, it needs to be curved and exaggerated a little bit.  But it does not help as much for the first half octave or so above F3.  
 
Most mouthpieces in use are machined faced and are curved to the very tip.  But I find a little more curve is beneficial in the tip rail, not less.  You can tell if you have gone too far if the tone in the normal range sounds airy.  Also, if a beginner is having trouble with squeeks, a fat flat tip rail will help them out (for now).


      

> I disagree here.  Why do you think the reed needs to stop bending in 
> the tip rail area?  In fact, I think it needs to keep bending in 
> order to play high frequencies like altissimo.

An observation:

I notice that my reeds (and this was exaggerated before I flattened
the table on my meyer) tend to show a slight tendency to develop a
minor concavity past the rails, toward the chamber, as viewed from the
outside of the mouthpiece. The reed is not completely rigid across its
width, and though most of the curvature is along the length of the
facing, there can be curvature across the width. After all, the air
pressure is evenly distributed across the surface of the reed, but
only the rails (and the tip) support the reed.

If I'm not making my point with words, the visual experiment is to
take some plastic wrap and cover a bowl with a little water in it,
then place it in the microwave for a minute.  When it's done, the wrap
sinks in as the pressure is reduced internally.  Same thing with the
reed, but many orders of magnitude less severe. So I'm not sure the
reed will stop bending in the tip area even if it is completely flat
(though I am sure Keith's observations are also valid).

I would bet a fair sum that if you could measure the reed as it
vibrates, the center of the back of the reed passes beyond the curved
threshold formed by the rails.

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "Keith Bradbury"
<kwbradbury@...> wrote:
>
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "honkytone" <dwf@> wrote:
> >
> > I've been wondering lately about the "flip at the tip" phenomenon,
> > especially on larger pieces such as for bari.  It first occurred to 
> me
> > some time back when following published radial facing curves and
> > finding that, indeed, I ended up with a flip at the tip.
> 
> Actually, this is not the flip that I am talking about.  This is just 
> the normal arch you see in the tip rail from implementing a radial 
> facing curve (and most other curves) all the way to the tip.  When I 
> talk about a flip, it is more exaggerated at the tip than a normal 
> curve.
> 
> >  I wondered
> > how the reed could seal properly across this void in the center of 
> the
> > tip rail.  In theory, at least, the entire arc of the tip rail ought
> > to be perfectly flat.
> 
> I disagree here.  Why do you think the reed needs to stop bending in 
> the tip rail area?  In fact, I think it needs to keep bending in 
> order to play high frequencies like altissimo.
> 
> >  But the tip rail spans the last several
> > millimeters of the facing length, so that if you follow the radial
> > facing curve specs literally, you get the flip.
> 
> Again, you get a visual arch when looking at the tip.  
> 
> > 
> > So what are you supposed to do?  I think I've arrived at the same
> > method Paul describes, but in so doing there is no way the curve
> > remains radial through the length of the tip rail.  Whatever
> > difference splitting you do to flatten the tip rail leaves you with 
> a
> > curve veering toward the elliptical rather than radial, so that many
> > of the facing curves recommended out there just don't hold up.  
> Right? 
> > Wrong?  Otherwise?
> 
> The elliptical curves that I use curve more near the tip.  More 
> gradual thana flip.  Some members here have formulated the ellipse 
> the other way, so that it curves less at the tip, but this is not 
> good for sax (it may be good for clarinet). 
> 
> Flattening a curve near the tip can take some high frequencies out of 
> the sound.  But I think the articulation suffers along with the 
> altissimo response.
>

Thanks for everyone's input on the facing curvature through the tip
rail area.  I'm not sure I've gleaned a consensus in either theory or
approach, but I have a better understanding of the issues. 
Intuitively I thought you'd want the tip of the reed to meet up with
an essentially flat surface across the tip rail, but I can also see
how altissimo would benefit from an arch across it, and with the reed
being at its most pliable at that point, there's no reason why it
shouldn't bend width-wise to meet the contour of the arch.  I get it.
 Thanks again.




--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...>
wrote:
>
> Yes, in my opinion the facing curve should be followed to the very
tip without a flat section.  You need to do this by feel and eye
since your feeler readings will typically not help in the tip rail
region.  With practice it is not difficult to do.  You can look at
the light reflecting off the tip rail to judge how smooth your facing
curve is in the tip rail region.  You can also use reflected light to
judge if it is flat, if this is what you want.  For good high
altissimo, it needs to be curved and exaggerated a little bit.  But
it does not help as much for the first half octave or so above F3.  
> Â 
> Most mouthpieces in use are machined faced and are curved to the
very tip.  But I find a little more curve is beneficial in the tip
rail, not less.  You can tell if you have gone too far if the tone in
the normal range sounds airy.  Also, if a beginner is having trouble
with squeeks, a fat flat tip rail will help them out (for now).
>

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Keith Bradbury 
<kwbradbury@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, in my opinion the facing curve should be followed to the very 
tip without a flat section.  You need to do this by feel and eye 
since your feeler readings will typically not help in the tip rail 
region.  With practice it is not difficult to do.  You can look at 
the light reflecting off the tip rail to judge how smooth your facing 
curve is in the tip rail region.  You can also use reflected light 
to judge if it is flat, if this is what you want.  For good high 
altissimo, it needs to be curved and exaggerated a little bit.  But 
it does not help as much for the first half octave or so above F3.  
>  
> Most mouthpieces in use are machined faced and are curved to the 
very tip.  But I find a little more curve is beneficial in the tip 
rail, not less.  You can tell if you have gone too far if the tone 
in the normal range sounds airy.  Also, if a beginner is having 
trouble with squeeks, a fat flat tip rail will help them out (for 
now).
>
>                                                                     
                                                                      
                                                                      
                                                                      
 >>From Jimmitch I have to say what Keith says here has worked great 
for me.I have two Oleg tenor pieces one I refaced and one I never 
touched. The one I refaced plays altissimo better then any 
mouthpieces I have ever played.It also play great through the entire 
range.I was happy to find another one to compare it to.The untouched 
one plays very well but my refaced one is best.This is what refacing 
is all about.If you only get the one great mouthpiece out of this 
it's worth it.Jim

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "honkytone" <dwf@...> wrote:
>
>... but I can also see
> how altissimo would benefit from an arch across it, and with the 
reed
> being at its most pliable at that point, there's no reason why it
> shouldn't bend width-wise to meet the contour of the arch.  I get 
it.

Actually, I do not think the reed needs to bend in an arch across its 
width in order to seal with the tip rail.  I think you are 
visualizing that when the reed meets the corners of the mouthpiece, 
the center needs to bow up to seal.  Actually the tip of the reed 
just needs to continue to bend up in the same way as the rest of the 
reed is bending.  If you looked at the curvature of the centerline of 
the reed, it would would be the same as the facing curve to the very 
tip.  

I would say try it both ways on mouthpiece or two.  Convince yourself 
if it is worth fussing over or not.

Today:
I just had a client visit me with his Sugal SG1.  After trying a 
bunch of mouthpieces I had here, we concluded he gets along just fine 
on his Sugal (it was a better-than-average one).  He really knows the 
mouthpiece.  But he wished the altissimo response was better.  The 
original tip rail had no thickness to it.  After a few light passes 
of the tip rail on my sandpaper work surface, the tip rail was 
about .015" wide with a slight roll to it.  After play testing, he 
was convinced no harm was done to the sound or response, but there 
was not much improvement either.  So we went a little farther.  The 
rail ended up about .035" thick with a little more curve to it.  The 
altissimo difference was subtle but was there.  Even his G3 was more 
solid, which does not usually improve unless the entire facing curve 
is "good".  But we'll take it when we can get it!  If he complained 
that the articulation changed, I would have thinned the tip rail a 
little.  But he was happy so we stopped there.  I was already 
convinced, now so is he.

Hi, 
I have been following this discussion, and found it very interesting. I have
done some refacing for classical alto sax players, and they seems to prefer
a little more curve on  the last 7-8 mm of the facing to have a little bit
more resistance. Not much, maybe a thousand or two of an inch more than the
radial curve says on the tip. This is when we are talking about small tip
openings from .060 and till .067 or so. It seems that they may want
something more resistance in the mouthpiece. -- Anyone else with the same
experience? ( BTW, I prefer this on my own classical mouthpiece myself )

 

Best Helge 

 

  _____  

Fra: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
På vegne av Keith Bradbury
Sendt: 20. februar 2009 23:14
Til: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Emne: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Resistance in the mouthpiece - flip at the tip?

 

--- In MouthpieceWork@ <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
yahoogroups.com, "honkytone" <dwf@...> wrote:
>
>... but I can also see
> how altissimo would benefit from an arch across it, and with the 
reed
> being at its most pliable at that point, there's no reason why it
> shouldn't bend width-wise to meet the contour of the arch. I get 
it.

Actually, I do not think the reed needs to bend in an arch across its 
width in order to seal with the tip rail. I think you are 
visualizing that when the reed meets the corners of the mouthpiece, 
the center needs to bow up to seal. Actually the tip of the reed 
just needs to continue to bend up in the same way as the rest of the 
reed is bending. If you looked at the curvature of the centerline of 
the reed, it would would be the same as the facing curve to the very 
tip. 

I would say try it both ways on mouthpiece or two. Convince yourself 
if it is worth fussing over or not.

Today:
I just had a client visit me with his Sugal SG1. After trying a 
bunch of mouthpieces I had here, we concluded he gets along just fine 
on his Sugal (it was a better-than-average one). He really knows the 
mouthpiece. But he wished the altissimo response was better. The 
original tip rail had no thickness to it. After a few light passes 
of the tip rail on my sandpaper work surface, the tip rail was 
about .015" wide with a slight roll to it. After play testing, he 
was convinced no harm was done to the sound or response, but there 
was not much improvement either. So we went a little farther. The 
rail ended up about .035" thick with a little more curve to it. The 
altissimo difference was subtle but was there. Even his G3 was more 
solid, which does not usually improve unless the entire facing curve 
is "good". But we'll take it when we can get it! If he complained 
that the articulation changed, I would have thinned the tip rail a 
little. But he was happy so we stopped there. I was already 
convinced, now so is he.

Yes, some players like this for classical playing.  Also some jazz 
players on alto and soprano facings.  But an more extreme elliptical 
facing curve is often a better solution.  Sometimes the flip causes a 
player to squeak.

The tip rail adjustment I was trying to describe was in the last 1-2 
mm of the facing at the tip.

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "Helge Solvang" <helgsolv@...> 
wrote:
>
> Hi, 
> I have been following this discussion, and found it very 
interesting. I have
> done some refacing for classical alto sax players, and they seems 
to prefer
> a little more curve on  the last 7-8 mm of the facing to have a 
little bit
> more resistance. Not much, maybe a thousand or two of an inch more 
than the
> radial curve says on the tip. This is when we are talking about 
small tip
> openings from .060 and till .067 or so. It seems that they may want
> something more resistance in the mouthpiece. -- Anyone else with 
the same
> experience? ( BTW, I prefer this on my own classical mouthpiece 
myself )
> 

Interesting thread.  Either tip style would work.  

There's no physical reason for the curve to continue over the rail.  
The reed arcs over the lay, but the part that isn't bent over the lay 
would tend to remain flat, so it could seal against a flat surface at 
the end of the arc. 

Where the curve continues over the tip, the reed, if sufficiently 
flexible, would end up sealing, though it seems that it might produce 
a different sound texture. I could see where a flat section might 
produce a simple sound and be easier to blow.  The continued arc 
might produce a more nuanced sound and require more chops.  For the 
beginner, this might translate to the flat surface being easier to 
control, whereas the more experience player might find the mp 
inflexible and dull.  

This is another area where the shape of the reed would certainly 
effect which mp is "best."  Some reed designs show a flat area right 
at the tip, sort of a flat 1mm wide delta that is cresent shaped and 
corresponds to the tip rail.  Other reed pictures don't show this and 
may be a more constant wedge shape.  I've never gone through reeds 
with a micrometer, but maybe somebody has and could produce a 
topographical map of different brands.  It seems like the reed shape 
would influence which mp tip rail configuration works best or is 
least resistant.

In my limited experience, and before finding this website, I reasoned 
that the tip rail should be flat.  I also used the method of stopping 
the curve when the abrasive surface showed that I had full contact 
across the tip.  Time to rethink.

Another possibility is that continuing or even increasing the arc at 
the tip rail creates a different type of seal.  Think of rolled tone 
holes. It could be that now the reed tip comes down to a point where 
it seals, but the tip rail arc continues and the reed can't make the 
bend.  That would produce a more exact and thinner sealing point.

Mark

Thanks for your reply Keith and for your advice about elliptical facing
curve. I will try that and see how it works out on different tip openings
and length on the lay.

 

Best Helge

  _____  

Fra: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
På vegne av Keith Bradbury
Sendt: 21. februar 2009 15:58
Til: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Emne: SV: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Resistance in the mouthpiece - flip at the
tip?

 

Yes, some players like this for classical playing. Also some jazz 
players on alto and soprano facings. But an more extreme elliptical 
facing curve is often a better solution. Sometimes the flip causes a 
player to squeak.

The tip rail adjustment I was trying to describe was in the last 1-2 
mm of the facing at the tip.

--- In MouthpieceWork@ <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>
yahoogroups.com, "Helge Solvang" <helgsolv@...> 
wrote:
>
> Hi, 
> I have been following this discussion, and found it very 
interesting. I have
> done some refacing for classical alto sax players, and they seems 
to prefer
> a little more curve on the last 7-8 mm of the facing to have a 
little bit
> more resistance. Not much, maybe a thousand or two of an inch more 
than the
> radial curve says on the tip. This is when we are talking about 
small tip
> openings from .060 and till .067 or so. It seems that they may want
> something more resistance in the mouthpiece. -- Anyone else with 
the same
> experience? ( BTW, I prefer this on my own classical mouthpiece 
myself )
>