I had a very good night last night.  I did some work on a couple of mouthpieces that was most satisfactory.  I had been messing with an old white Brilhart 3*.  I found the short facing very limiting and redid it to approximately a Link 6 or 6*.  It was responsive but choked.  Following the technique that had helped out my extensively worked Link STM NY, I removed quite a bit of material from immediately behind the tip rail.  It went from an attractive but not especially useful mouthpiece to a definite player.  With that success under my belt, I next attacked a Wolf Tayne I had that has always had a pronounced tendency to chirp.  The same technique produced similar results.  It now has a much more open sound, better projection, and it no longer chirps!  I guess I am becoming a believer in the importance of the baffle!

I know you pros on the list know about this stuff already, but, between trial and error and the information I get in this forum, this rank amateur is learning a lot.  Thanks!

Bill Hausmann

If you have to mic a saxophone, the rest of the band is TOO LOUD!


      

Too cool!




________________________________
From: Bill Hausmann <zoot51@yahoo.com>
To: mouthpiecework@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, February 7, 2010 4:24:51 PM
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Oddly Enough, Mouthpiece Work

  
I had a very good night last night.  I did some work on a couple of mouthpieces that was most satisfactory.  I had been messing with an old white Brilhart 3*.  I found the short facing very limiting and redid it to approximately a Link 6 or 6*.  It was responsive but choked.  Following the technique that had helped out my extensively worked Link STM NY, I removed quite a bit of material from immediately behind the tip rail.  It went from an attractive but not especially useful mouthpiece to a definite player.  With that success under my belt, I next attacked a Wolf Tayne I had that has always had a pronounced tendency to chirp.  The same technique produced similar results.  It now has a much more open sound, better projection, and it no longer chirps!  I guess I am becoming a believer in the importance of the baffle!

I know you pros on the list know about this stuff already, but, between trial and error and the information I get in this forum, this rank amateur is learning a lot.  Thanks!

Bill Hausmann

If you have to mic a saxophone, the rest of the band is TOO LOUD!


 


      

And today I did a little further tweaking and evening out of yesterday's work.  More improvement.  That Brilhart might wind up replacing my Links!

Bill Hausmann

If you have to mic a saxophone, the rest of the band is TOO LOUD!

--- On Sun, 2/7/10, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:


From: MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Oddly Enough, Mouthpiece Work
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, February 7, 2010, 6:10 PM












Too cool!





From: Bill Hausmann <zoot51@...>
To: mouthpiecework@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, February 7, 2010 4:24:51 PM
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Oddly Enough, Mouthpiece Work

  

I had a very good night last night. I did some work on a couple of mouthpieces that was most satisfactory. I had been messing with an old white Brilhart 3*. I found the short facing very limiting and redid it to approximately a Link 6 or 6*. It was responsive but choked. Following the technique that had helped out my extensively worked Link STM NY, I removed quite a bit of material from immediately behind the tip rail. It went from an attractive but not especially useful mouthpiece to a definite player. With that success under my belt, I next attacked a Wolf Tayne I had that has always had a pronounced tendency to chirp. The same technique produced similar results. It now has a much more open sound, better projection, and it no longer chirps! I guess I am becoming a believer in the importance of the baffle!

I know you pros on the list know about this stuff already, but, between trial and error and the information I get in this forum, this rank amateur is learning a lot. Thanks!

Bill Hausmann

If you have to mic a saxophone, the rest of the band is TOO LOUD!








      

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Bill Hausmann <zoot51@...> wrote:
>
> I had a very good night last night.  I did some work on a couple of mouthpieces that was most satisfactory.  I had been messing with an old white Brilhart 3*.  I found the short facing very limiting and redid it to approximately a Link 6 or 6*.  It was responsive but choked.  Following the technique that had helped out my extensively worked Link STM NY, I removed quite a bit of material from immediately behind the tip rail.  It went from an attractive but not especially useful mouthpiece to a definite player.  With that success under my belt, I next attacked a Wolf Tayne I had that has always had a pronounced tendency to chirp.  The same technique produced similar results.  It now has a much more open sound, better projection, and it no longer chirps!  I guess I am becoming a believer in the importance of the baffle!
> 
> I know you pros on the list know about this stuff already, but, between trial and error and the information I get in this forum, this rank amateur is learning a lot.  Thanks!
> 
> Bill Hausmann
> 
> If you have to mic a saxophone, the rest of the band is TOO LOUD!
>
Your successful experiment Bill prompts me to ask the group for advice on my Chinese metal tenor MPC,  which I think is a Selmer type clone. 
I have levelled the table, reinstated the lay and narrowed the tip rail. This has effectively raised the wedge baffle, making the area immediately behind the tip slightly higher (0.001") than the tip itself.
It blows OK, but I feel that it might be improved with some material removed from this area, but have no idea by how much and where exactly.   
Should this be across the entire width of the tip area or as a 'dimple' in the centre and what will be the resultant response ?

  Eddie McLean

A good time to take the baffle down behind the tip rail is just before or while you are working on shaping the tip rail width.  Doing it later, you risk messing up the tip rail.
 
My personal preference is to not use roll-over baflles with wedge baffles.  Both is just too much.  Add a pea-shooter throat and you have triple too much.  I'm talkin' Dukoff tenor and bari and similar MPs.  I keep the squeeze throats in half the Dukoff altos I work on and all the sops.  I advise the client what I think will work for their sound goals.
 
There are some photos on my site showing how much I take the baffle down on Dukoffs.  I shoot for a shape that looks like you depress the region behind the tip rail down with your thumb.  It is a flat region.   It make the sound less shrill and brittle.  It fattens up the highs and help to reduce chirps.  There is plenty of projection left over from the rest of the wedge baffle.  
 
If you can do it without messing up the tip rail, try taking off a little baffle at a time.  Unless you think the sound is really shrill.  Then be more agressive and flatten a region from the tip rail to about 1/2" away from it. 
 
 
From: Edward McLean:
Your successful experiment Bill prompts me to ask the group for advice on my Chinese metal tenor MPC, which I think is a Selmer type clone. 
I have levelled the table, reinstated the lay and narrowed the tip rail. This has effectively raised the wedge baffle, making the area immediately behind the tip slightly higher (0.001") than the tip itself.
It blows OK, but I feel that it might be improved with some material removed from this area, but have no idea by how much and where exactly. 
Should this be across the entire width of the tip area or as a 'dimple' in the centre and what will be the resultant response ?


      

"I have levelled the table, reinstated the lay and narrowed the tip
rail. This has effectively raised the wedge baffle, making the area
immediately behind the tip slightly higher (0.001") than the tip itself.  It blows OK, but I feel that it might be improved with some material
removed from this area, but have no idea by how much and where exactly. 
Should this be across the entire width of the tip area or as a 'dimple' in the centre and what will be the resultant response ?"

Hold the straight side of a reed, or a plastic straight edge up against the baffle, so it touches the tip rail.  You can then easily judge the degree of curvature and height (relative to the tip rail) of the first 1/4" of the baffle.  For a good roll-over baffle, the  surface should be just slightly curved (convex), dropping away from the tip.  Too curved, and there is resistance and stuffiness.  As you start to remove material, it gets better and better, opening up and blowing freer.  Too close to straight though, and the sound becomes brittle and harsh.  It should be even, from corner to corner. IMO.



      

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
>
> "I have levelled the table, reinstated the lay and narrowed the tip
> rail. This has effectively raised the wedge baffle, making the area
> immediately behind the tip slightly higher (0.001") than the tip itself.  It blows OK, but I feel that it might be improved with some material
> removed from this area, but have no idea by how much and where exactly. 
> Should this be across the entire width of the tip area or as a 'dimple' in the centre and what will be the resultant response ?"
> 
> Hold the straight side of a reed, or a plastic straight edge up against the baffle, so it touches the tip rail.  You can then easily judge the degree of curvature and height (relative to the tip rail) of the first 1/4" of the baffle.  For a good roll-over baffle, the  surface should be just slightly curved (convex), dropping away from the tip.  Too curved, and there is resistance and stuffiness.  As you start to remove material, it gets better and better, opening up and blowing freer.  Too close to straight though, and the sound becomes brittle and harsh.  It should be even, from corner to corner. IMO.
>
 Thank you Keith & Lancelot for your helpful replies.
I will do as you say, with care and frequent test blowing.
I appreciate this site very much, for the insight and pleasure it has 
given me, on the technical aspects of mouthpieces. Thanks all.

 Eddie McLean

Does someone have a cut away side view of mouthpieces with the different style baffle shapes that they can post or send the URL for? It would help with 3-d picturing the depth of the shapes.


--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "Edward McLean" <ed@...> wrote:

> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@> wrote:
> >
> > "I have levelled the table, reinstated the lay and narrowed the tip
> > rail. This has effectively raised the wedge baffle, making the area
> > immediately behind the tip slightly higher (0.001") than the tip itself.  It blows OK, but I feel that it might be improved with some material
> > removed from this area, but have no idea by how much and where exactly. 
> > Should this be across the entire width of the tip area or as a 'dimple' in the centre and what will be the resultant response ?"
> > 
> > Hold the straight side of a reed, or a plastic straight edge up against the baffle, so it touches the tip rail.  You can then easily judge the degree of curvature and height (relative to the tip rail) of the first 1/4" of the baffle.  For a good roll-over baffle, the  surface should be just slightly curved (convex), dropping away from the tip.  Too curved, and there is resistance and stuffiness.  As you start to remove material, it gets better and better, opening up and blowing freer.  Too close to straight though, and the sound becomes brittle and harsh.  It should be even, from corner to corner. IMO.
> >
>  Thank you Keith & Lancelot for your helpful replies.
> I will do as you say, with care and frequent test blowing.
> I appreciate this site very much, for the insight and pleasure it has 
> given me, on the technical aspects of mouthpieces. Thanks all.
> 
>  Eddie McLean
>

Theo Wanne has a page about different baffle types on his site.  Here's the link:http://www.theowanne.com/mouthpieces101/baffle.php 




________________________________
From: fidlershorns <grassinospam@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, February 8, 2010 7:39:58 PM
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Oddly Enough, Mouthpiece Work

   
Does someone have a cut away side view of mouthpieces with the different style baffle shapes that they can post or send the URL for? It would help with 3-d picturing the depth of the shapes.

--- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, "Edward McLean" <ed@...> wrote:

> --- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ > wrote:
> >
> > "I have levelled the table, reinstated the lay and narrowed the tip
> > rail. This has effectively raised the wedge baffle, making the area
> > immediately behind the tip slightly higher (0.001") than the tip itself.  It blows OK, but I feel that it might be improved with some material
> > removed from this area, but have no idea by how much and where exactly. 
> > Should this be across the entire width of the tip area or as a 'dimple' in the centre and what will be the resultant response ?"
> > 
> > Hold the straight side of a reed, or a plastic straight edge up against the baffle, so it touches the tip rail.  You can then easily judge the degree of curvature and height (relative to the tip rail) of the first 1/4" of the baffle.  For a good roll-over baffle, the  surface should be just slightly curved (convex), dropping away from the tip.  Too curved, and there is resistance and stuffiness.  As you start to remove material, it gets better and better, opening up and blowing freer.  Too close to straight though, and the sound becomes brittle and harsh.  It should be even, from corner to corner. IMO.
> >
>  Thank you Keith & Lancelot for your helpful replies.
> I will do as you say, with care and frequent test blowing.
> I appreciate this site very much, for the insight and pleasure it has 
> given me, on the technical aspects of mouthpieces. Thanks all.
> 
>  Eddie McLean
>


 


      

Ferron has some pics.  So does the Wyman thesis avialable in the Files - Literature section for download.   

I recall seeing a cutaway page of Runyon mouthpieces.  It was done by a retailer in Europe I think.  This was years ago.




________________________________
From: fidlershorns <grassinospam@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@...m
Sent: Mon, February 8, 2010 10:39:58 PM
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Oddly Enough, Mouthpiece Work

  
Does someone have a cut away side view of mouthpieces with the different style baffle shapes that they can post or send the URL for? It would help with 3-d picturing the depth of the shapes.

--- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, "Edward McLean" <ed@...> wrote:

> --- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ > wrote:
> >
> > "I have levelled the table, reinstated the lay and narrowed the tip
> > rail. This has effectively raised the wedge baffle, making the area
> > immediately behind the tip slightly higher (0.001") than the tip itself. It blows OK, but I feel that it might be improved with some material
> > removed from this area, but have no idea by how much and where exactly. 
> > Should this be across the entire width of the tip area or as a 'dimple' in the centre and what will be the resultant response ?"
> > 
> > Hold the straight side of a reed, or a plastic straight edge up against the baffle, so it touches the tip rail. You can then easily judge the degree of curvature and height (relative to the tip rail) of the first 1/4" of the baffle. For a good roll-over baffle, the surface should be just slightly curved (convex), dropping away from the tip. Too curved, and there is resistance and stuffiness. As you start to remove material, it gets better and better, opening up and blowing freer. Too close to straight though, and the sound becomes brittle and harsh. It should be even, from corner to corner. IMO.
> >
> Thank you Keith & Lancelot for your helpful replies.
> I will do as you say, with care and frequent test blowing.
> I appreciate this site very much, for the insight and pleasure it has 
> given me, on the technical aspects of mouthpieces. Thanks all.
> 
> Eddie McLean
>





      

I found the Runyon cut aways and put a copy of it in the Photos - Brochures section.

The cutaway pictures of the full Runyon line was done by East Coast Winds, the Runyon distributor for the UK. They haven’t had this graphic up for many years, and no longer have a copy. If anyone has a copy of this graphic in file, I would very much like to have a copy.

 

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Keith Bradbury
Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 7:36 AM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Oddly Enough, Mouthpiece Work

 

  

Ferron has some pics.  So does the Wyman thesis avialable in the Files - Literature section for download.   

 

I recall seeing a cutaway page of Runyon mouthpieces.  It was done by a retailer in Europe I think.  This was years ago.

 

 

  _____  

From: fidlershorns <grassinospam@gmail.com>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, February 8, 2010 10:39:58 PM
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Oddly Enough, Mouthpiece Work

  

Does someone have a cut away side view of mouthpieces with the different style baffle shapes that they can post or send the URL for? It would help with 3-d picturing the depth of the shapes.

--- In MouthpieceWork@ <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>  yahoogroups. com, "Edward McLean" <ed@...> wrote:

> --- In MouthpieceWork@ <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>  yahoogroups. com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@ > wrote:
> >
> > "I have levelled the table, reinstated the lay and narrowed the tip
> > rail. This has effectively raised the wedge baffle, making the area
> > immediately behind the tip slightly higher (0.001") than the tip itself. It blows OK, but I feel that it might be improved with some material
> > removed from this area, but have no idea by how much and where exactly. 
> > Should this be across the entire width of the tip area or as a 'dimple' in the centre and what will be the resultant response ?"
> > 
> > Hold the straight side of a reed, or a plastic straight edge up against the baffle, so it touches the tip rail. You can then easily judge the degree of curvature and height (relative to the tip rail) of the first 1/4" of the baffle. For a good roll-over baffle, the surface should be just slightly curved (convex), dropping away from the tip. Too curved, and there is resistance and stuffiness. As you start to remove material, it gets better and better, opening up and blowing freer. Too close to straight though, and the sound becomes brittle and harsh. It should be even, from corner to corner. IMO.
> >
> Thank you Keith & Lancelot for your helpful replies.
> I will do as you say, with care and frequent test blowing.
> I appreciate this site very much, for the insight and pleasure it has 
> given me, on the technical aspects of mouthpieces. Thanks all.
> 
> Eddie McLean
>

 

Wyman's pictures on page 40 of the .pdf, and it is marked p 26.

Ready for a sing along?

One hundred and ninety-nine pages of thesis to read, One hundred and ninety-nine pages! 

Read it out loud, click page down! 

198 pages to read!

(repeat 198 more times)

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:
>
> Ferron has some pics.  So does the Wyman thesis avialable in the Files - Literature section for download.   
> 
> I recall seeing a cutaway page of Runyon mouthpieces.  It was done by a retailer in Europe I think.  This was years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: fidlershorns <grassinospam@...>
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Mon, February 8, 2010 10:39:58 PM
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Oddly Enough, Mouthpiece Work
> 
>   
> Does someone have a cut away side view of mouthpieces with the different style baffle shapes that they can post or send the URL for? It would help with 3-d picturing the depth of the shapes.
>