I cant seem to locate a good or blue printed curve for a Larry Teal mouthpiece.  Any curve I have results in a too much resistance.  Id appreciate any assistance if someone has a good schedule.

thanks
Phil

I seem to recall from a saxophone master class in the late 60's given by Don Sinta that the Larry Teal model was Selmer's attempt to recreate the earlier version of the C* mouthpiece with the "O" shaped chamber rather than the arch. I don't know if this helps or not.

John

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "sigmund451" <sigmund451@...> wrote:
>
> I cant seem to locate a good or blue printed curve for a Larry Teal mouthpiece.  Any curve I have results in a too much resistance.  Id appreciate any assistance if someone has a good schedule.
> 
> thanks
> Phil
>

Hi Phil, I can't help you re: alto mp design, but I  looked up about L  T 
in my "The Devil's Horn" by M Segell, and pages 236-7 described briefly his  
saxophone  professorship at U of Michigan 1953+, which might help  you in 
further search..  I have 2  Selmer alto mps with my Mark 6  and have had some 
acquaintance with a 1938 BA tenor, but to me, mp facings is an  unexplored 
jungle.  I did look in Google Patents and USPTO databases,  and found no 
issued patents or references thereto.  Much luck,   Don

This agrees with what I had been led to believe -- that the facings are standard Selmer, but that the chamber is different.
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: "John" 
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 22:54:16 
To: 
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Looking for a good curve for a Larry Teal Alto

I seem to recall from a saxophone master class in the late 60's given by Don Sinta that the Larry Teal model was Selmer's attempt to recreate the earlier version of the C* mouthpiece with the "O" shaped chamber rather than the arch. I don't know if this helps or not.

John

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "sigmund451"  wrote:
>
> I cant seem to locate a good or blue printed curve for a Larry Teal mouthpiece.  Any curve I have results in a too much resistance.  Id appreciate any assistance if someone has a good schedule.
> 
> thanks
> Phil
>




------------------------------------

Got a Mouthpiece Work question?  Send it to MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com

Visit the site at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MouthpieceWork to see the Files, Photos and Bookmarks relating to Mouthpiece Work.

To see and modify your groups, go to http://groups.yahoo.com/mygroupsYahoo! Groups Links

I believe the facing is longer and the tip opening is smaller....I've got
one somewhere, and will try to find it and compare it....I took lessons in
the 1960's from Dr. Ron Attinger, who was Professor Teal's first Phd.
student. He made us all use these pieces. I hated them! At the time I was
Dr. Attinger's student I was using a metal Berg 130/0 SMS on tenor, and it
was quite a change. I recall that the Teal mouthpieces were very much a "one
trick pony" with no flexibility. It was pretty good for playing the Ferling
etudes, but little else IMHO..and it's hard to make a living playing
Ferling!

 

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of zoot51@...
Sent: Sunday, February 14, 2010 7:03 PM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Looking for a good curve for a Larry Teal
Alto

 

  

This agrees with what I had been led to believe -- that the facings are
standard Selmer, but that the chamber is different. 
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry 

-----Original Message----- 
From: "John" <jtalcott47@... <mailto:jtalcott47%40msn.com> > 
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 22:54:16 
To: <MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> > 
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Looking for a good curve for a Larry Teal Alto


I seem to recall from a saxophone master class in the late 60's given by Don
Sinta that the Larry Teal model was Selmer's attempt to recreate the earlier
version of the C* mouthpiece with the "O" shaped chamber rather than the
arch. I don't know if this helps or not. 

John 

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> , "sigmund451" <sigmund451@...>
wrote: 
> 
> I cant seem to locate a good or blue printed curve for a Larry Teal
mouthpiece. Any curve I have results in a too much resistance. Id appreciate
any assistance if someone has a good schedule. 
> 
> thanks 
> Phil 
> 




------------------------------------ 

Got a Mouthpiece Work question? Send it to MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>  

Visit the site at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MouthpieceWork to see the
Files, Photos and Bookmarks relating to Mouthpiece Work. 

To see and modify your groups, go to http://groups.yahoo.com/mygroupsYahoo!
Groups Links 

 I have only measured one in 2007.  It had a .067" tip (C*) and a facing length that was a tad longer than 41.  The facing curve was close to an ellipse with a major/minor axis ratio of 4.  It had a nice even facing.
 


________________________________
From: sigmund451 <sigmund451@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, February 14, 2010 4:41:30 PM
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Looking for a good curve for a Larry Teal Alto

  
I cant seem to locate a good or blue printed curve for a Larry Teal mouthpiece. Any curve I have results in a too much resistance. Id appreciate any assistance if someone has a good schedule.

thanks
Phil





      

I have found alto curves unforgiving even for a small discrepancy to the
proposed facing and thus making it resistant. You have to stick religiously
to the schedule. Vintage Meyer curve is a wonder up to .080 and you can find
the schedule on the forum.
Hope this helps,
Sakshama


On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 7:24 AM, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...>wrote:

>
>
>  I have only measured one in 2007.  It had a .067" tip (C*) and a facing
> length that was a tad longer than 41.  The facing curve was close to an
> ellipse with a major/minor axis ratio of 4.  It had a nice even facing.
>
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* sigmund451 <sigmund451@...>
> *To:* MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> *Sent:* Sun, February 14, 2010 4:41:30 PM
> *Subject:* [MouthpieceWork] Looking for a good curve for a Larry Teal Alto
>
>
>
> I cant seem to locate a good or blue printed curve for a Larry Teal
> mouthpiece. Any curve I have results in a too much resistance. Id appreciate
> any assistance if someone has a good schedule.
>
> thanks
> Phil
>
>
>  
>

This agrees pretty well with facings I have had success with for classical pieces of similar design (small, round chamber).  Maj/min axis ratio I use is closer to 5, and length is 42 at the .0015 feeler.


--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:
>
>  I have only measured one in 2007.  It had a .067" tip (C*) and a facing length that was a tad longer than 41.  The facing curve was close to an ellipse with a major/minor axis ratio of 4.  It had a nice even facing.
>  
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: sigmund451 <sigmund451@...>
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sun, February 14, 2010 4:41:30 PM
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Looking for a good curve for a Larry Teal Alto
> 
>   
> I cant seem to locate a good or blue printed curve for a Larry Teal mouthpiece. Any curve I have results in a too much resistance. Id appreciate any assistance if someone has a good schedule.
> 
> thanks
> Phil
>

can you explain simply what the maj/min axis ratio means ?  Thank you.




________________________________
From: Morgan <frymorgan@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, February 15, 2010 1:39:38 AM
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Looking for a good curve for a Larry Teal Alto

  
This agrees pretty well with facings I have had success with for classical pieces of similar design (small, round chamber). Maj/min axis ratio I use is closer to 5, and length is 42 at the .0015 feeler.

--- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@ ...> wrote:
>
>  I have only measured one in 2007.  It had a .067" tip (C*) and a facing length that was a tad longer than 41.  The facing curve was close to an ellipse with a major/minor axis ratio of 4.  It had a nice even facing.
>  
> 
> 
> ____________ _________ _________ __
> From: sigmund451 <sigmund451@ ...>
> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Sun, February 14, 2010 4:41:30 PM
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Looking for a good curve for a Larry Teal Alto
> 
>   
> I cant seem to locate a good or blue printed curve for a Larry Teal mouthpiece. Any curve I have results in a too much resistance. Id appreciate any assistance if someone has a good schedule.
> 
> thanks
> Phil
>





      

If you have the software to view a Power Point slide show, take a look at the clinic area of my site.  There are slides showing what an elliptical facing curve shape looks like.  Ellipse shapes are defined by their major and minor axes.
 

Check out: http://www.MojoMouthpieceWork.com




________________________________
From: T P <tpinwa@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, February 16, 2010 7:52:09 PM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Looking for a good curve for a Larry Teal Alto

  
can you explain simply what the maj/min axis ratio means ?  Thank you.



      

We're talking about using an elliptical section rather than a radial (circular) section to define the facing curve.  One way to define an ellipse is by the lengths of the two axes.  When they are equal, the ellipse is a circle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipse

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, T P <tpinwa@...> wrote:
>
> can you explain simply what the maj/min axis ratio means ?  Thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: Morgan <frymorgan@...>
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Mon, February 15, 2010 1:39:38 AM
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Looking for a good curve for a Larry Teal Alto
> 
>   
> This agrees pretty well with facings I have had success with for classical pieces of similar design (small, round chamber). Maj/min axis ratio I use is closer to 5, and length is 42 at the .0015 feeler.
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@ ...> wrote:
> >
> >  I have only measured one in 2007.  It had a .067" tip (C*) and a facing length that was a tad longer than 41.  The facing curve was close to an ellipse with a major/minor axis ratio of 4.  It had a nice even facing.
> >  
> > 
> > 
> > ____________ _________ _________ __
> > From: sigmund451 <sigmund451@ ...>
> > To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> > Sent: Sun, February 14, 2010 4:41:30 PM
> > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Looking for a good curve for a Larry Teal Alto
> > 
> >   
> > I cant seem to locate a good or blue printed curve for a Larry Teal mouthpiece. Any curve I have results in a too much resistance. Id appreciate any assistance if someone has a good schedule.
> > 
> > thanks
> > Phil
> >
>

Thank you




________________________________
From: Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, February 16, 2010 8:53:55 PM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Looking for a good curve for a Larry Teal Alto

  
If you have the software to view a Power Point slide show, take a look at the clinic area of my site.  There are slides showing what an elliptical facing curve shape looks like.  Ellipse shapes are defined by their major and minor axes.
 

Check out: http://www.MojoMout hpieceWork. com




________________________________
From: T P <tpinwa@yahoo. com>
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Tue, February 16, 2010 7:52:09 PM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Looking for a good curve for a Larry Teal Alto

  
can you explain simply what the maj/min axis ratio means ?  Thank you.





      

Thank you




________________________________
From: Morgan <frymorgan@yahoo.com>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, February 17, 2010 12:50:17 AM
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Looking for a good curve for a Larry Teal Alto

  
We're talking about using an elliptical section rather than a radial (circular) section to define the facing curve. One way to define an ellipse is by the lengths of the two axes. When they are equal, the ellipse is a circle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipse

--- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, T P <tpinwa@...> wrote:
>
> can you explain simply what the maj/min axis ratio means ?  Thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________ _________ _________ __
> From: Morgan <frymorgan@. ..>
> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Mon, February 15, 2010 1:39:38 AM
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Looking for a good curve for a Larry Teal Alto
> 
>   
> This agrees pretty well with facings I have had success with for classical pieces of similar design (small, round chamber). Maj/min axis ratio I use is closer to 5, and length is 42 at the .0015 feeler.
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@ ...> wrote:
> >
> >  I have only measured one in 2007.  It had a .067" tip (C*) and a facing length that was a tad longer than 41.  The facing curve was close to an ellipse with a major/minor axis ratio of 4.  It had a nice even facing.
> >  
> > 
> > 
> > ____________ _________ _________ __
> > From: sigmund451 <sigmund451@ ...>
> > To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> > Sent: Sun, February 14, 2010 4:41:30 PM
> > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Looking for a good curve for a Larry Teal Alto
> > 
> >   
> > I cant seem to locate a good or blue printed curve for a Larry Teal mouthpiece. Any curve I have results in a too much resistance. Id appreciate any assistance if someone has a good schedule.
> > 
> > thanks
> > Phil
> >
>





      

I just came into possession of a Larry Teal alto piece, and I plan to try an elliptical facing on it.  It measures very small (about .060) but
I'm thinking of using an axis ratio of 5 and opening it up to a stock C* (.067, yes?).

I usually use a radial facing, kind of on the long side, for sax mouthpieces, but it doesn't seem to work well on some classical pieces. They lose a certain comfortable, reliable resistance. So - all of you guys who have worked on lots of legit pieces - does this sound like a good plan?

Dan

I'm quite sure that a number of folks on this list would say that .060  
is a tiny tip opening, but it is definitely in line with the intended  
design of this mouthpiece.  There are a great many top professional  
classical players that play on Selmer mouthpieces with a tip opening  
of .058-.062 and using hard reeds.  One of the most popular U.S.  
refacers for these sorts players usually closes down Soloist and S80  
mouthpieces to around .060, and they are really popular.

Not trying to suggest that there is anything wrong with opening it up,  
just want to make sure you know it isn't "wrong".

Regards,
Walter


On Feb 25, 2010, at 5:28 PM, dantorosian wrote:

> I just came into possession of a Larry Teal alto piece, and I plan  
> to try an elliptical facing on it. It measures very small (about . 
> 060) but
> I'm thinking of using an axis ratio of 5 and opening it up to a  
> stock C* (.067, yes?).
>
> I usually use a radial facing, kind of on the long side, for sax  
> mouthpieces, but it doesn't seem to work well on some classical  
> pieces. They lose a certain comfortable, reliable resistance. So -  
> all of you guys who have worked on lots of legit pieces - does this  
> sound like a good plan?
>
> Dan
>
> 

That's pretty close to what I use in this situation. True length about 23mm so .0015 feeler ~41. Nothing wrong with .060, though, FWIW.

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "dantorosian" <dtorosian@...> wrote:
>
> I just came into possession of a Larry Teal alto piece, and I plan to try an elliptical facing on it.  It measures very small (about .060) but
> I'm thinking of using an axis ratio of 5 and opening it up to a stock C* (.067, yes?).
> 
> I usually use a radial facing, kind of on the long side, for sax mouthpieces, but it doesn't seem to work well on some classical pieces. They lose a certain comfortable, reliable resistance. So - all of you guys who have worked on lots of legit pieces - does this sound like a good plan?
> 
> Dan
>

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "dantorosian" <dtorosian@...> wrote:
>
> I just came into possession of a Larry Teal alto piece, and I plan to try an elliptical facing on it.  It measures very small (about .060) but
> I'm thinking of using an axis ratio of 5 and opening it up to a stock C* (.067, yes?).
> 
> I usually use a radial facing, kind of on the long side, for sax mouthpieces, but it doesn't seem to work well on some classical pieces. They lose a certain comfortable, reliable resistance. So - all of you guys who have worked on lots of legit pieces - does this sound like a good plan?
> 
> Dan

Yes, the larger tip opening, .066"-.068" (around 1.70 mm), with about 21 mm facing length (42 on a Brand type scale) will greatly improve the LT.

The tenor LT is atrocious!  I don't know what Larry Teal was thinking, but the tenor LT has a cold, hard, lifeless tone.

For the tenor LT, open to .078"-.080" (about 2.00 mm), with a 22-23 mm facing length (44-46 on the Brand scale).

You will then not have to play #4 reeds, can back off to a softer reed with better low register and warmer tone.

I've done this on a number of LT's and Soloist tenors. 

The C* facing is much too small for tenor sax... the D and E much better.

Paul

While I agree that tenor LT's are practically useless by modern convention
due to their very small tip opening, I don't see much point in opening up an
alto LT, specifically, other than it being a blank that someone has
available to them to have modified.

I feel the alto LT is what it is BECAUSE of it's small tip opening (and
longer facing).  I'm not convinced the round chamber vs. horseshoe chamber
vs. square chamber ("does throat shape matter?" discussion) really makes
much of a difference.

I may be biased because I played an LT on alto for a long time so I feel I
"get" what they are all about, but once an LT is opened to greater than a C*
facing, my opinion is that you might as well have started with a Soloist.

I'm not against refacing them - I'm just not in support of modifying them
heavily.

Consider me a member of the "LT Preservation Society".

My $0.02

- EZ

On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 3:00 PM, tenorman1952 <tenorman1952@...>wrote:

>
>
>
>
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com <MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "dantorosian" <dtorosian@...> wrote:
> >
> > I just came into possession of a Larry Teal alto piece, and I plan to try
> an elliptical facing on it. It measures very small (about .060) but
> > I'm thinking of using an axis ratio of 5 and opening it up to a stock C*
> (.067, yes?).
> >
> > I usually use a radial facing, kind of on the long side, for sax
> mouthpieces, but it doesn't seem to work well on some classical pieces. They
> lose a certain comfortable, reliable resistance. So - all of you guys who
> have worked on lots of legit pieces - does this sound like a good plan?
> >
> > Dan
>
> Yes, the larger tip opening, .066"-.068" (around 1.70 mm), with about 21 mm
> facing length (42 on a Brand type scale) will greatly improve the LT.
>
> The tenor LT is atrocious! I don't know what Larry Teal was thinking, but
> the tenor LT has a cold, hard, lifeless tone.
>
> For the tenor LT, open to .078"-.080" (about 2.00 mm), with a 22-23 mm
> facing length (44-46 on the Brand scale).
>
> You will then not have to play #4 reeds, can back off to a softer reed with
> better low register and warmer tone.
>
> I've done this on a number of LT's and Soloist tenors.
>
> The C* facing is much too small for tenor sax... the D and E much better.
>
> Paul
>
>

After 37 years of being a dedicated Selmer products consumer, it has become obvious to me that the quality and the results of the saxophone and clarinet products are inconsistent and the only way to pick a winner and leave happy is to carefully play test as big a batch of the item that you are considering for purchase as possible. Narrow down and separate the winners from the rejects and retest. Personal tastes also play a big part in this discussion and product selection.

my 1.66 cents

> my 1.66 cents

Is this a Canadian currency, tax or inflation joke?

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "gregwier" <gregwier@...> wrote:
>
> 
> 
> After 37 years of being a dedicated Selmer products consumer, it has become obvious to me that the quality and the results of the saxophone and clarinet products are inconsistent and the only way to pick a winner and leave happy is to carefully play test as big a batch of the item that you are considering for purchase as possible. Narrow down and separate the winners from the rejects and retest. Personal tastes also play a big part in this discussion and product selection.
> 
> my 1.66 cents
>

  A question regarding this.....what does an axis ratio of 5 mean?   As a non math guy I am trying to understand some basic concepts here.  thanks     

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "dantorosian" <dtorosian@...> wrote:
>
> I just came into possession of a Larry Teal alto piece, and I plan to try an elliptical facing on it.  It measures very small (about .060) but
> I'm thinking of using an axis ratio of 5 and opening it up to a stock C* (.067, yes?).
> 
> I usually use a radial facing, kind of on the long side, for sax mouthpieces, but it doesn't seem to work well on some classical pieces. They lose a certain comfortable, reliable resistance. So - all of you guys who have worked on lots of legit pieces - does this sound like a good plan?
> 
> Dan
>