Old short shank (Mouthpiece Work Yahoo Group)

FROM: dantorosian (dantorosian)

SUBJECT: Old short shank

No, it's not my new stage name.

I opened up an old short-shank alto piece for a client (from .057 to .083), and it played fine, but had a slightly shrill brightness to it. I had already reduced the baffle somewhat after opening it so much. I removed some more baffle, which improved it and gave it some more fullness, but there's still an unpleasant brightness to it.  I think removing more baffle will just start to make it inefficient/tubby. BUT - at the back end of the baffle where it drops straight down into the chamber, there's a little "ski jump" upward curve.  It's been my experience that stuff that protrudes into the chamber/baffle area like this (abrupt edges, baffle parts) often cause unpleasant brightness.  So my planned next step is to smooth that out.

Anyone have insight/advice?

Dan T

FROM: kwbradbury (Keith Bradbury)

SUBJECT: Re: Old short shank

I would take as much as you can off baffle near the tip first.  This reduces the brightness a lot for the amount of material removed.  Working in the throat, you need to take away a lot more material to get ta similar impact on brightness.  This could throw the intonation off (or fix it).  Curving sidewalls is fair game too.
 
Mojo Mouthpiece Work LLC
2925 Crane St., Vineland, NJ 08361 
Paypal to sabradbury79@... 
Check out: http://www.MojoMouthpieceWork.com
...and: http://www.facebook.com/mojomouthpiecework




________________________________
From: dantorosian <dtorosian@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, February 22, 2010 10:19:43 AM
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Old short shank

  
No, it's not my new stage name.

I opened up an old short-shank alto piece for a client (from .057 to .083), and it played fine, but had a slightly shrill brightness to it. I had already reduced the baffle somewhat after opening it so much. I removed some more baffle, which improved it and gave it some more fullness, but there's still an unpleasant brightness to it. I think removing more baffle will just start to make it inefficient/ tubby. BUT - at the back end of the baffle where it drops straight down into the chamber, there's a little "ski jump" upward curve. It's been my experience that stuff that protrudes into the chamber/baffle area like this (abrupt edges, baffle parts) often cause unpleasant brightness. So my planned next step is to smooth that out.

Anyone have insight/advice?

Dan T

FROM: frymorgan (Morgan)

SUBJECT: Re: Old short shank

It depends on what kind of "brightness" there is.  Opening one up that much, I would expect you would have to not only have to take down the baffle, but lower the floor up to maybe 1/2" from the tip some in order to compensate.  If it's too buzzy, lower baffle, or open it up a hair again and leve a wider tip rail.  If it's too nasal (which the Selmers can get too easily), lower about 1/4" to 1/2" from the tip.  the curve may be part of it, what kind of curve are you using?

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "dantorosian" <dtorosian@...> wrote:
>
> No, it's not my new stage name.
> 
> I opened up an old short-shank alto piece for a client (from .057 to .083), and it played fine, but had a slightly shrill brightness to it. I had already reduced the baffle somewhat after opening it so much. I removed some more baffle, which improved it and gave it some more fullness, but there's still an unpleasant brightness to it.  I think removing more baffle will just start to make it inefficient/tubby. BUT - at the back end of the baffle where it drops straight down into the chamber, there's a little "ski jump" upward curve.  It's been my experience that stuff that protrudes into the chamber/baffle area like this (abrupt edges, baffle parts) often cause unpleasant brightness.  So my planned next step is to smooth that out.
> 
> Anyone have insight/advice?
> 
> Dan T
>

FROM: dantorosian (Dan Torosian)

SUBJECT: Re: Old short shank

This html message parsed with html2text ---------------------------Thanks for the input, guys.  

Radial curve, 44 long, .083" tip. The .035 and .050 measurements are a tiny
bit short (like 1/4 mm), making a slight high spot there, but it plays really
easily, so I'm thinking the curve is OK. Tip rail is about .035" - not too
thin. I have indeed taken the baffle down considerably \\- I took some more
off today about 1/4" from the tip. Helped some, but then I went ahead and took
down the "ski jump" at the back end of the baffle. That eliminated quite a bit
of the "nasal" unpleasantness. I'm going to have the client play-test it again
before I do anything else.  

Dan  

Morgan wrote:

> It depends on what kind of "brightness" there is. Opening one up that much,
> I would expect you would have to not only have to take down the baffle, but
> lower the floor up to maybe 1/2" from the tip some in order to compensate.
> If it's too buzzy, lower baffle, or open it up a hair again and leve a wider
> tip rail. If it's too nasal (which the Selmers can get too easily), lower
> about 1/4" to 1/2" from the tip. the curve may be part of it, what kind of
> curve are you using?  
>  
>  \\--- In
> [MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com](mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com),
> "dantorosian" ..> wrote:  
>  >  
>  > No, it's not my new stage name.  
>  >  
>  > I opened up an old short-shank alto piece for a client (from .057 to
> .083), and it played fine, but had a slightly shrill brightness to it. I had
> already reduced the baffle somewhat after opening it so much. I removed some
> more baffle, which improved it and gave it some more fullness, but there's
> still an unpleasant brightness to it. I think removing more baffle will just
> start to make it inefficient/tubby. BUT - at the back end of the baffle
> where it drops straight down into the chamber, there's a little "ski jump"
> upward curve. It's been my experience that stuff that protrudes into the
> chamber/baffle area like this (abrupt edges, baffle parts) often cause
> unpleasant brightness. So my planned next step is to smooth that out.  
>  >  
>  > Anyone have insight/advice?  
>  >  
>  > Dan T  
>  >  
>  
>

FROM: frymorgan (Morgan)

SUBJECT: Re: Old short shank

Dan, I've been thinking bout your "ski jump" issue, because I never get that.  Are you using just the tip of the file to shape it?  FWIW, I have the file all the way down into the mouthpiece to avoid this ski jump or lake effect.

FROM: dantorosian (Dan Torosian)

SUBJECT: Re: Old short shank

This html message parsed with html2text ---------------------------The "ski jump" was part of the original baffle (at the very back end) - it
wasn't created by the refacing/opening process. To be clear - when holding the
mouthpiece upside down (the way you usually would to work on the tip or
baffle) and sighting down the baffle, there's a rollover behind the tip (made
much higher by opening the piece), then a section that slopes down (toward the
"ceiling"). At the back of that, just where it drops off into the chamber,
there was a little upturn. I used riffler files to remove material way back
there.  

Dan  

Morgan wrote:

>  
>  Dan, I've been thinking bout your "ski jump" issue, because I never get
> that. Are you using just the tip of the file to shape it? FWIW, I have the
> file all the way down into the mouthpiece to avoid this ski jump or lake
> effect.  
>  
>

FROM: petesajazzer (Peter M Healey)

SUBJECT: Re: Old short shank

I possess a Selmer LT Alto mouthpiece I imagine similar to those in the recent discussion.While this is my favourite piece I wondered if it could be worked to make it less resistant and more free blowing without losing it's tonal quality?

PeterH
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Dan Torosian 
  To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 12:45 PM
  Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Old short shank

  The "ski jump" was part of the original baffle (at the very back end) - it wasn't created by the refacing/opening process.  To be clear - when holding the mouthpiece upside down (the way you usually would to work on the tip or baffle) and sighting down the baffle, there's a rollover behind the tip (made much higher by opening the piece), then a section that slopes down (toward the "ceiling").  At the back of that, just where it drops off into the chamber, there was a little upturn.  I used riffler files to remove material way back there.

  Dan

  Morgan wrote: 

    Dan, I've been thinking bout your "ski jump" issue, because I never get that. Are you using just the tip of the file to shape it? FWIW, I have the file all the way down into the mouthpiece to avoid this ski jump or lake effect.

FROM: kwbradbury (Keith Bradbury)

SUBJECT: Re: Selmer LT

If it has a facing curve similar to what I reported, then yes.  I would make the facing curve longer and more radial.  It will sound similar but articulate (and blow) easier but probably a tad slower.  

 
Mojo Mouthpiece Work LLC
2925 Crane St., Vineland, NJ 08361 
Paypal to sabradbury79@yahoo.com 
Check out: http://www.MojoMouthpieceWork.com
...and: http://www.facebook.com/mojomouthpiecework




________________________________
From: Peter M Healey <petermhealey@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, February 26, 2010 5:35:42 AM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Old short shank

  
I possess a Selmer LT Alto mouthpiece I imagine similar to those in the recent discussion.While this is my favourite piece I wondered if it could be worked to make it less resistant and more free blowing without losing it's tonal quality?
 
PeterH

FROM: dantorosian (Dan Torosian)

SUBJECT: Re: Selmer LT (ellipse question)

This html message parsed with html2text ---------------------------Keith,  
  
When I use the spreadsheet for elliptical curves, I get target numbers that
are nearly indistinguishable from radial numbers. With a small tip opening,
they only differ by .1 or .2 on the gauge (the difference is larger with a
larger tip opening). These are pretty close to the margin of error in
refacing. Am I getting something wrong here? I did some cutting and pasting,
so maybe I screwed up the spreadsheet. I'm also a little confused about the
tip rail measurement (it's different from the radial spreadsheet)  
  
For ratio = 5, opening =.067, tip rail = 1.5mm, a radial facing with "zero
point" of 50.3, and an elliptical facing with "zero point" of 50.5 yield:  
  
Feeler Radial Elliptical  
.0015 43.0 43.1  
.005 36.9 36.9  
.010 31.4 31.3  
.016 26.4 26.3  
.024 21.0 20.9  
.035 15.0 14.8  
.050 8.1 8.0  
  
Thanks.  
  
Dan T  
  
Keith Bradbury wrote:

> If it has a facing curve similar to what I reported, then yes. I would make
> the facing curve longer and more radial. It will sound similar but
> articulate (and blow) easier but probably a tad slower.
>
>  
>
>
> Mojo Mouthpiece Work LLC
>
> 2925 Crane St., Vineland, NJ 08361  
>  _Paypal to[sabradbury79@yahoo.com](mailto:sabradbury79@...)_  
>  Check out: _[http://www.MojoMout
> hpieceWork.com](http://www.mojomouthpiecework.com/)_
>
> ...and:
> [http://www.facebook.com/mojomouthpiecework](http://www.facebook.com/mojomouthpiecework)
>
>  
>
>
>  
>
>
> * * *
>
> **From:** Peter M Healey tiscali.co.uk>  
>  **To:** MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com  
>  **Sent:** Fri, February 26, 2010 5:35:42 AM  
>  **Subject:** Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Old short shank  
>  
>
>
> I possess a Selmer LT Alto mouthpiece I imagine similar to those in the
> recent discussion.While this is my favourite piece I wondered if it could be
> worked to make it less resistant and more free blowing without losing it's
> tonal quality?
>
> PeterH
>

>>  
>

FROM: kwbradbury (Keith Bradbury)

SUBJECT: Re: Selmer LT (ellipse question)

Looks like you have some errors in your spreadsheet.  Here is what I get using your feelers, etc (two columns on right):

For ratio = 5, opening =.067, tip rail = 1.5mm 
      
    Mojo Calcs 
Feeler     Radial     Elliptical Radial Elliptical 
.0015        43.0         43.1 43.0 43.1 
.005          36.9         36.9 37.2 36.9 
.010          31.4         31.3 31.8 31.3 
.016          26.4         26.3 27.0 26.3 
.024          21.0         20.9 21.8 21.0 
.035          15.0         14.8 16.0 15.2 
.050             8.1           8.0 9.4 8.8 

Try inputting a ratio=1 in your elliptical calcs to see if the numbers match your radial calcs.  




________________________________
From: Dan Torosian <dtorosian@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, February 27, 2010 2:23:25 PM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re:Selmer LT (ellipse question)

  
Keith,

When I use the spreadsheet for elliptical curves, I get target numbers that are nearly indistinguishable from radial numbers.  With a small tip opening, they only differ by .1 or .2 on the gauge (the difference is larger with a larger tip opening).  These are pretty close to the margin of error in refacing.  Am I getting something wrong here?  I did some cutting and pasting, so maybe I screwed up the spreadsheet.  I'm also a little confused about the tip rail measurement (it's different from the radial spreadsheet)

For ratio = 5, opening =.067, tip rail = 1.5mm, a radial facing with "zero point" of 50.3, and an elliptical facing with "zero point" of 50.5 yield:

Feeler     Radial     Elliptical
.0015        43.0         43.1
.005          36.9         36.9
.010          31.4         31.3
.016          26.4         26.3
.024          21.0         20.9
.035          15.0         14.8
.050             8.1           8.0

Thanks.

Dan T

Keith Bradbury wrote: 
  
>If it has a facing curve similar to what I reported, then yes.  I would make the facing curve longer and more radial.  It will sound similar but articulate (and blow) easier but probably a tad slower.  
>
> 
>Mojo Mouthpiece Work LLC
>2925 Crane St., Vineland, NJ 08361 
>Paypal to sabradbury79@ yahoo.com 
>Check out: http://www.MojoMout hpieceWork. com
>...and: http://www.facebook.com/mojomouthpiecework
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________
From: Peter M Healey <petermhealey@ tiscali.co. uk>
>To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
>Sent: Fri, February 26, 2010 5:35:42 AM
>Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Old short shank
>
>  
>I possess a Selmer LT Alto mouthpiece I imagine similar to those in the recent discussion.While this is my favourite piece I wondered if it could be worked to make it less resistant and more free blowing without losing it's tonal quality?
>
>PeterH
> 
>

FROM: dantorosian (Dan Torosian)

SUBJECT: Re: Selmer LT (ellipse question)

This html message parsed with html2text ---------------------------That makes more sense. I'll download a clean copy of the spreadsheet (that I
haven't mangled) and give it another run. Thanks a lot.  
  
DT  
  
Keith Bradbury wrote:

> Looks like you have some errors in your spreadsheet. Here is what I get
> using your feelers, etc (two columns on right):
>
> For ratio = 5, opening =.067, tip rail = 1.5mm  
> ---  
> |   
>  |   
>  |   
>  |   
>  
> |   
>  |   
>  | Mojo Calcs  
> Feeler Radial Elliptical | Radial | Elliptical  
> .0015 43.0 43.1 | 43.0 | 43.1  
> .005 36.9 36.9 | 37.2 | 36.9  
> .010 31.4 31.3 | 31.8 | 31.3  
> .016 26.4 26.3 | 27.0 | 26.3  
> .024 21.0 20.9 | 21.8 | 21.0  
> .035 15.0 14.8 | 16.0 | 15.2  
> .050 8.1 8.0 | 9.4 | 8.8  
>  
> Try inputting a ratio=1 in your elliptical calcs to see if the numbers match
> your radial calcs.
>
>  
>
>
> * * *
>
> **From:** Dan Torosian .net>  
>  **To:** MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com  
>  **Sent:** Sat, February 27, 2010 2:23:25 PM  
>  **Subject:** Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re:Selmer LT (ellipse question)  
>  
>
>
> Keith,  
>  
>  When I use the spreadsheet for elliptical curves, I get target numbers that
> are nearly indistinguishable from radial numbers. With a small tip opening,
> they only differ by .1 or .2 on the gauge (the difference is larger with a
> larger tip opening). These are pretty close to the margin of error in
> refacing. Am I getting something wrong here? I did some cutting and pasting,
> so maybe I screwed up the spreadsheet. I'm also a little confused about the
> tip rail measurement (it's different from the radial spreadsheet)  
>  
>  For ratio = 5, opening =.067, tip rail = 1.5mm, a radial facing with "zero
> point" of 50.3, and an elliptical facing with "zero point" of 50.5 yield:  
>  
>  Feeler Radial Elliptical  
>  .0015 43.0 43.1  
>  .005 36.9 36.9  
>  .010 31.4 31.3  
>  .016 26.4 26.3  
>  .024 21.0 20.9  
>  .035 15.0 14.8  
>  .050 8.1 8.0  
>  
>  Thanks.  
>  
>  Dan T  
>  
>  Keith Bradbury wrote:
>

>> If it has a facing curve similar to what I reported, then yes. I would make
the facing curve longer and more radial. It will sound similar but articulate
(and blow) easier but probably a tad slower.

>>

>>  
>
>>

>> Mojo Mouthpiece Work LLC

>>

>> 2925 Crane St., Vineland, NJ 08361  
>  _Paypal to[sabradbury79@ yahoo.com](mailto:sabradbury79@...)_  
>  Check out: _[http://www.MojoMout hpieceWork.
> com](http://www.mojomouthpiecework.com/)_
>>

>> ...and: .com/mojomouthpiecework

>>

>>  
>
>>

>>  
>
>>

>> * * *

>>

>> **From:** Peter M Healey tiscali.co. uk>  
>  **To:** MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com  
>  **Sent:** Fri, February 26, 2010 5:35:42 AM  
>  **Subject:** Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Old short shank  
>  
>
>>

>> I possess a Selmer LT Alto mouthpiece I imagine similar to those in the
recent discussion.While this is my favourite piece I wondered if it could be
worked to make it less resistant and more free blowing without losing it's
tonal quality?

>>

>> PeterH

>>

>>>  
>
>
>  
>