Mouthpiece Work / The need for a standard mouthpiece sizing system
FROM: saxgourmet (STEVE GOODSON)
SUBJECT: The need for a standard mouthpiece sizing system
What is a 7*? If you ask one manufacturer, you get one answer, if you ask a different manufacturer, you get another answer. This has got to be pretty confusing to consumers who lack the equipment and knowledge of how to measure mouthpieces. I would propose that all of us in the mouthpiece manufacturing business adopt a common standard, but am unsure as to what to propose to my peers in the industry. I think that it goes without saying that tip openings are best expressed in 1/1000ths of an inch (or millimeters, for those so inclined), but should facing lengths and chamber sizes be included? If so, what is the best way to express them so the configuration can be easily understood by consumers? I was always an admirer of the old Berg Larsen system. I knew right away the tip opening (in 1/1000ths), chamber size (0,1,2,3), and facing length (M or SMS). I would think that some variation of this would be very helpful. I don't know if the industry has any interest in this sort of clarification, but I am willing to ask. If nothing else, we might adopt it for our own Saxgourmet brand. Any thoughts would be appreciated! sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc STEVE GOODSON SAXOPHONE DESIGNER TO THE STARS our products are ALL rated cid:339191121@25022009-09F4 Steve is a member of hd_logo NAMMbelieve2nasaconf_GIF PLEASE VISIT MY WEBSITES <http://www.nationofmusic.com/> http://www.nationofmusic.com/ (retail sales and discussion forum) <http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/SaxophoneRepair/> http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/SaxophoneRepair/ (discussion group) <http://www.saxgourmet.com/> http://www.saxgourmet.com/ (saxophone history and information) <http://saxophonethoughts.blogspot.com/> http://saxophonethoughts.blogspot.com/ (my personal saxophone blog) READ MY ARTICLES ON SAXOPHONE DESIGN IN EACH ISSUE OF THE SAXOPHONE JOURNAL The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves BASIC SHOP RATE................$100/HR IF YOU WATCH.....................$125/HR IF YOU ASK QUESTIONS......$150/HR IF I HAVE TO LISTEN TO A CONCERT LONGER THAN FIVE MINUTES WHEN YOU PICK UP YOUR HORN....$250/HR The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side." Hunter S. Thompson CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information or otherwise protected by law. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
FROM: dantorosian (Dan Torosian)
SUBJECT: Re: The need for a standard mouthpiece sizing system
This html message parsed with html2text ---------------------------My 2 cents: When I'm talking with other players, we sometimes use the Otto Link numbers as a reference for tenor and bari pieces - .005" increments with a tenor 7 at .100 and a bari 7 at .110. Alto and soprano, I refer to actual tip openings more. I guess giving tip opening (in thousandths) and facing length (in 1/2-mms) would be a simple, informative number system (.105 48). BTW - are the Berg numbers actually chamber sizes, or different baffle heights? The "zeros" are so much brighter than the "twos" or "threes". Dan T STEVE GOODSON wrote: > What is a 7*? If you ask one manufacturer, you get one answer, if you ask a > different manufacturer, you get another answer. This has got to be pretty > confusing to consumers who lack the equipment and knowledge of how to > measure mouthpieces. > > I would propose that all of us in the mouthpiece manufacturing business > adopt a common standard, but am unsure as to what to propose to my peers in > the industry. I think that it goes without saying that tip openings are best > expressed in 1/1000ths of an inch (or millimeters, for those so inclined), > but should facing lengths and chamber sizes be included? If so, what is the > best way to express them so the configuration can be easily understood by > consumers? > > I was always an admirer of the old Berg Larsen system. I knew right away the > tip opening (in 1/1000ths), chamber size (0,1,2,3), and facing length (M or > SMS). I would think that some variation of this would be very helpful. > > I don't know if the industry has any interest in this sort of clarification, > but I am willing to ask. If nothing else, we might adopt it for our own > Saxgourmet brand. Any thoughts would be appreciated! > > **** > > **_sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc_**** __** > > **STEVE GOODSON** > > **SAXOPHONE DESIGNER TO THE STARS** > > **** > > **our products are ALL rated** > > **** > > **__** > > **__** > > **Steve is a member of** > > > **** > > **** > > **PLEASE VISIT MY WEBSITES > [http://www.nationofmusic.com/](http://www.nationofmusic.com/ > "http://www.nationofmusic.com/") (retail sales and discussion forum) > > [http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/SaxophoneRepair/](http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/SaxophoneRepair/ > "http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/SaxophoneRepair/") (discussion group) > [http://www.saxgourmet.com/](http://www.saxgourmet.com/ > "http://www.saxgourmet.com/") (saxophone history and information) > > [http://saxophonethoughts.blogspot.com/](http://saxophonethoughts.blogspot.com/ > "http://saxophonethoughts.blogspot.com/") (my personal saxophone blog)** > > **** > > **READ MY ARTICLES ON SAXOPHONE DESIGN IN EACH ISSUE OF**** __THE SAXOPHONE > JOURNAL > __**The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic > hallway where thieves > > **BASIC SHOP RATE................$100/HR** > > **IF YOU WATCH.....................$125/HR** > > **IF YOU ASK QUESTIONS......$150/HR** > > **IF I HAVE TO LISTEN TO A CONCERT** > > **LONGER THAN FIVE MINUTES WHEN** > > **YOU PICK UP YOUR HORN....$250/ HR** > > **** > > **_The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic > hallway where thieves and pimps run free and good men die like dogs. There's > also a negative side." Hunter S. Thompson_** > > **__****__** > > **CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is > for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential > and privileged information or otherwise protected by law. Any unauthorized > review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the > intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy > all copies of the original message**.
FROM: saxgourmet (STEVE GOODSON)
SUBJECT: Re: The need for a standard mouthpiece sizing system
I seem to recall (and will stand for correction) that the 0,1,2,3 system was CLAIMED by Berg to be chamber sizes, but agree with you that it more accurately reflected the baffles. That being said, I have seen several different style baffles using the same number. From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Dan Torosian Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2010 12:13 PM To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] The need for a standard mouthpiece sizing system My 2 cents: When I'm talking with other players, we sometimes use the Otto Link numbers as a reference for tenor and bari pieces - .005" increments with a tenor 7 at .100 and a bari 7 at .110. Alto and soprano, I refer to actual tip openings more. I guess giving tip opening (in thousandths) and facing length (in 1/2-mms) would be a simple, informative number system (.105 48). BTW - are the Berg numbers actually chamber sizes, or different baffle heights? The "zeros" are so much brighter than the "twos" or "threes". Dan T STEVE GOODSON wrote: What is a 7*? If you ask one manufacturer, you get one answer, if you ask a different manufacturer, you get another answer. This has got to be pretty confusing to consumers who lack the equipment and knowledge of how to measure mouthpieces. I would propose that all of us in the mouthpiece manufacturing business adopt a common standard, but am unsure as to what to propose to my peers in the industry. I think that it goes without saying that tip openings are best expressed in 1/1000ths of an inch (or millimeters, for those so inclined), but should facing lengths and chamber sizes be included? If so, what is the best way to express them so the configuration can be easily understood by consumers? I was always an admirer of the old Berg Larsen system. I knew right away the tip opening (in 1/1000ths), chamber size (0,1,2,3), and facing length (M or SMS). I would think that some variation of this would be very helpful. I don't know if the industry has any interest in this sort of clarification, but I am willing to ask. If nothing else, we might adopt it for our own Saxgourmet brand. Any thoughts would be appreciated! sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc STEVE GOODSON SAXOPHONE DESIGNER TO THE STARS our products are ALL rated cid:339191121@25022009-09F4 Steve is a member of hd_logo NAMMbelieve2nasaconf_GIF PLEASE VISIT MY WEBSITES <http://www.nationofmusic.com/> http://www.nationofmusic.com/ (retail sales and discussion forum) <http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/SaxophoneRepair/> http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/SaxophoneRepair/ (discussion group) <http://www.saxgourmet.com/> http://www.saxgourmet.com/ (saxophone history and information) <http://saxophonethoughts.blogspot.com/> http://saxophonethoughts.blogspot.com/ (my personal saxophone blog) READ MY ARTICLES ON SAXOPHONE DESIGN IN EACH ISSUE OF THE SAXOPHONE JOURNAL The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves BASIC SHOP RATE................$100/HR IF YOU WATCH.....................$125/HR IF YOU ASK QUESTIONS......$150/HR IF I HAVE TO LISTEN TO A CONCERT LONGER THAN FIVE MINUTES WHEN YOU PICK UP YOUR HORN....$250/HR The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side." Hunter S. Thompson CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information or otherwise protected by law. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
FROM: frymorgan (Morgan)
SUBJECT: Re: The need for a standard mouthpiece sizing system
Depends on how you define chamber and baffle when you have a piece with a superlong baffle like a Berg. If you call the chamber what's under the window (and distinct from the throat), then for Bergs baffle heights ARE chamber sizes. The only standardization that makes any sense for tip openings is standrd units (inches or mm), measured from the outside of the tip rail. FAcing length and schedule, chamber sizes, etc. vary too much to standardize anything IMO. --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "STEVE GOODSON" <saxgourmet@...> wrote: > > I seem to recall (and will stand for correction) that the 0,1,2,3 system was > CLAIMED by Berg to be chamber sizes, but agree with you that it more > accurately reflected the baffles. That being said, I have seen several > different style baffles using the same number. > > > > > > > > From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com] > On Behalf Of Dan Torosian > Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2010 12:13 PM > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] The need for a standard mouthpiece sizing > system > > > > > > My 2 cents: > > When I'm talking with other players, we sometimes use the Otto Link numbers > as a reference for tenor and bari pieces - .005" increments with a tenor 7 > at .100 and a bari 7 at .110. Alto and soprano, I refer to actual tip > openings more. I guess giving tip opening (in thousandths) and facing > length (in 1/2-mms) would be a simple, informative number system (.105 48). > > BTW - are the Berg numbers actually chamber sizes, or different baffle > heights? The "zeros" are so much brighter than the "twos" or "threes". > > Dan T > > STEVE GOODSON wrote: > > > > What is a 7*? If you ask one manufacturer, you get one answer, if you ask a > different manufacturer, you get another answer. This has got to be pretty > confusing to consumers who lack the equipment and knowledge of how to > measure mouthpieces. > > > > I would propose that all of us in the mouthpiece manufacturing business > adopt a common standard, but am unsure as to what to propose to my peers in > the industry. I think that it goes without saying that tip openings are best > expressed in 1/1000ths of an inch (or millimeters, for those so inclined), > but should facing lengths and chamber sizes be included? If so, what is the > best way to express them so the configuration can be easily understood by > consumers? > > > > I was always an admirer of the old Berg Larsen system. I knew right away the > tip opening (in 1/1000ths), chamber size (0,1,2,3), and facing length (M or > SMS). I would think that some variation of this would be very helpful. > > > > I don't know if the industry has any interest in this sort of clarification, > but I am willing to ask. If nothing else, we might adopt it for our own > Saxgourmet brand. Any thoughts would be appreciated! > > > > > > sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc > > STEVE GOODSON > > SAXOPHONE DESIGNER TO THE STARS > > > > our products are ALL rated > > > > cid:339191121@25022009-09F4 > > > > Steve is a member of > > hd_logo NAMMbelieve2nasaconf_GIF > > > > > > PLEASE VISIT MY WEBSITES > <http://www.nationofmusic.com/> http://www.nationofmusic.com/ (retail sales > and discussion forum) > <http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/SaxophoneRepair/> > http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/SaxophoneRepair/ (discussion group) > <http://www.saxgourmet.com/> http://www.saxgourmet.com/ (saxophone history > and information) > <http://saxophonethoughts.blogspot.com/> > http://saxophonethoughts.blogspot.com/ (my personal saxophone blog) > > > > READ MY ARTICLES ON SAXOPHONE DESIGN IN EACH ISSUE OF THE SAXOPHONE JOURNAL > The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic > hallway where thieves > > BASIC SHOP RATE................$100/HR > > IF YOU WATCH.....................$125/HR > > IF YOU ASK QUESTIONS......$150/HR > > IF I HAVE TO LISTEN TO A CONCERT > > LONGER THAN FIVE MINUTES WHEN > > YOU PICK UP YOUR HORN....$250/HR > > > > The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic > hallway where thieves and pimps run free and good men die like dogs. There's > also a negative side." Hunter S. Thompson > > > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is > for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential > and privileged information or otherwise protected by law. Any unauthorized > review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the > intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy > all copies of the original message. >
FROM: moeaaron (Barry Levine)
SUBJECT: Re: The need for a standard mouthpiece sizing system
I'd guess that the use of small simple numbers rather than measurements was an attempt at simplification so that a "moderate" facing opening would be a similar number whether one was talking abut soprano, alto, tenor, or baritone mouthpieces. The same situation exists with respect to reeds. Many people are just not good with numbers or measurements, at all. The simple numbers are less intimidating. Also, suppose a player likes the SuperMachismo Mouthpiece ® in a "5" facing, but decides he/she needs a bigger tip opening. Then why not just get the next number of the same mouthpiece? This could be a way of subtly inducing brand loyalty via the line of least resistance - the alternative is that the consumer has to go find a mouthpiece chart etc. to figure out what the next size is (of course, tip facing is hardly the only determinant of how a piece will play). I also recall being totally ignorant about mouthpieces. And I can't recall any of my early teachers giving me much information about mouthpieces - not until Jerry Bergonzi let me photocopy some booklets he had on the subject. In the past at least it was possible to go try out different mouthpieces in the past to get some idea. It's more complicated now. Barry > From: "STEVE GOODSON" <saxgourmet@...> > Reply-To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com > Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2010 11:20:17 -0600 > To: <MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com> > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] The need for a standard mouthpiece sizing system > > > > What is a 7*? If you ask one manufacturer, you get one answer, if you ask a > different manufacturer, you get another answer. This has got to be pretty > confusing to consumers who lack the equipment and knowledge of how to measure > mouthpieces. > > > > I would propose that all of us in the mouthpiece manufacturing business adopt > a common standard, but am unsure as to what to propose to my peers in the > industry. I think that it goes without saying that tip openings are best > expressed in 1/1000ths of an inch (or millimeters, for those so inclined), but > should facing lengths and chamber sizes be included? If so, what is the best > way to express them so the configuration can be easily understood by > consumers? > > > > I was always an admirer of the old Berg Larsen system. I knew right away the > tip opening (in 1/1000ths), chamber size (0,1,2,3), and facing length (M or > SMS). I would think that some variation of this would be very helpful. > > > > I don¹t know if the industry has any interest in this sort of clarification, > but I am willing to ask. If nothing else, we might adopt it for our own > Saxgourmet brand. Any thoughts would be appreciated! > > > > > > sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc > > STEVE GOODSON > > SAXOPHONE DESIGNER TO THE STARS > > > > our products are ALL rated > > > > > > Steve is a member of > > > > > > > > PLEASE VISIT MY WEBSITES > http://www.nationofmusic.com/ (retail sales and discussion forum) > http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/SaxophoneRepair/ (discussion group) > http://www.saxgourmet.com/ (saxophone history and information) > http://saxophonethoughts.blogspot.com/ (my personal saxophone blog) > > > > READ MY ARTICLES ON SAXOPHONE DESIGN IN EACH ISSUE OF THE SAXOPHONE JOURNAL > The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway > where thieves > > BASIC SHOP RATE................$100/HR > > IF YOU WATCH.....................$125/HR > > IF YOU ASK QUESTIONS......$150/HR > > IF I HAVE TO LISTEN TO A CONCERT > > LONGER THAN FIVE MINUTES WHEN > > YOU PICK UP YOUR HORN....$250/HR > > > > The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway > where thieves and pimps run free and good men die like dogs. There's also a > negative side." Hunter S. Thompson > > > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for > the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and > privileged information or otherwise protected by law. Any unauthorized review, > use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended > recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of > the original message. > > > > > >
FROM: saxgourmet (STEVE GOODSON)
SUBJECT: Re: The need for a standard mouthpiece sizing system
Barry: I would think that a system that gives you the absolute values (rather than undefined 7 vs 8) would be far simpler for consumers to understand. I think most people are plenty smart enough to understand the difference between a .105 and a .120. We are trying to make the purchasing process more transparent. I dont know of any other manufacturer who publishes multiple views of the mouthpiece so you can compare the chamber, baffle, beak etc. like we do. Compare some web sites and I think you will see what I mean. We also give a video tour (albeit maybe not world class video, Steven Spielberg has nothing to fear from us) of all our mouthpieces, which I also think is unique. We think the consumer should make an informed decision if they are buying on the internet. Very few retail stores stock much of a selection of mouthpieces. I know it is a hard decision for consumers to make, so we want to provide as much information as possible. Providing mouthpieces to send out on trial would force us to radically reconsider our pricing, so this is not an option for us. From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Barry Levine Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2010 2:16 PM To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] The need for a standard mouthpiece sizing system I'd guess that the use of small simple numbers rather than measurements was an attempt at simplification so that a "moderate" facing opening would be a similar number whether one was talking abut soprano, alto, tenor, or baritone mouthpieces. The same situation exists with respect to reeds. Many people are just not good with numbers or measurements, at all. The simple numbers are less intimidating. Also, suppose a player likes the SuperMachismo Mouthpiece ® in a "5" facing, but decides he/she needs a bigger tip opening. Then why not just get the next number of the same mouthpiece? This could be a way of subtly inducing brand loyalty via the line of least resistance - the alternative is that the consumer has to go find a mouthpiece chart etc. to figure out what the next size is (of course, tip facing is hardly the only determinant of how a piece will play). I also recall being totally ignorant about mouthpieces. And I can't recall any of my early teachers giving me much information about mouthpieces - not until Jerry Bergonzi let me photocopy some booklets he had on the subject. In the past at least it was possible to go try out different mouthpieces in the past to get some idea. It's more complicated now. Barry From: "STEVE GOODSON" <saxgourmet@...> Reply-To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2010 11:20:17 -0600 To: <MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] The need for a standard mouthpiece sizing system What is a 7*? If you ask one manufacturer, you get one answer, if you ask a different manufacturer, you get another answer. This has got to be pretty confusing to consumers who lack the equipment and knowledge of how to measure mouthpieces. I would propose that all of us in the mouthpiece manufacturing business adopt a common standard, but am unsure as to what to propose to my peers in the industry. I think that it goes without saying that tip openings are best expressed in 1/1000ths of an inch (or millimeters, for those so inclined), but should facing lengths and chamber sizes be included? If so, what is the best way to express them so the configuration can be easily understood by consumers? I was always an admirer of the old Berg Larsen system. I knew right away the tip opening (in 1/1000ths), chamber size (0,1,2,3), and facing length (M or SMS). I would think that some variation of this would be very helpful. I dont know if the industry has any interest in this sort of clarification, but I am willing to ask. If nothing else, we might adopt it for our own Saxgourmet brand. Any thoughts would be appreciated! sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc STEVE GOODSON SAXOPHONE DESIGNER TO THE STARS our products are ALL rated Steve is a member of PLEASE VISIT MY WEBSITES http://www.nationofmusic.com/ (retail sales and discussion forum) http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/SaxophoneRepair/ (discussion group) http://www.saxgourmet.com/ (saxophone history and information) http://saxophonethoughts.blogspot.com/ (my personal saxophone blog) READ MY ARTICLES ON SAXOPHONE DESIGN IN EACH ISSUE OF THE SAXOPHONE JOURNAL The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves BASIC SHOP RATE................$100/HR IF YOU WATCH.....................$125/HR IF YOU ASK QUESTIONS......$150/HR IF I HAVE TO LISTEN TO A CONCERT LONGER THAN FIVE MINUTES WHEN YOU PICK UP YOUR HORN....$250/HR The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side." Hunter S. Thompson CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information or otherwise protected by law. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
FROM: kwbradbury (Keith Bradbury)
SUBJECT: Re: The need for a standard mouthpiece sizing system
I mark mouthpieces with tip opening in inches, facing length from the glass gage (mm*2) and ellipse ratio. I can regenerate the entire facing curve target from these 3 numbers.
I think measuring the tip opening from inside the tip rail makes more sense than outside the tip rail (the very tip). But this will never be standardized.
It is impossible to classify baffle and chamber shapes across brands with a simple system. There are too many complex variations.
________________________________
From: Morgan <frymorgan@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, March 6, 2010 2:11:48 PM
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The need for a standard mouthpiece sizing system
Depends on how you define chamber and baffle when you have a piece with a superlong baffle like a Berg. If you call the chamber what's under the window (and distinct from the throat), then for Bergs baffle heights ARE chamber sizes.
The only standardization that makes any sense for tip openings is standrd units (inches or mm), measured from the outside of the tip rail.
FAcing length and schedule, chamber sizes, etc. vary too much to standardize anything IMO.
--- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, "STEVE GOODSON" <saxgourmet@ ...> wrote:
>
> I seem to recall (and will stand for correction) that the 0,1,2,3 system was
> CLAIMED by Berg to be chamber sizes, but agree with you that it more
> accurately reflected the baffles. That being said, I have seen several
> different style baffles using the same number.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com]
> On Behalf Of Dan Torosian
> Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2010 12:13 PM
> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] The need for a standard mouthpiece sizing
> system
>
>
>
>
>
> My 2 cents:
>
> When I'm talking with other players, we sometimes use the Otto Link numbers
> as a reference for tenor and bari pieces - .005" increments with a tenor 7
> at .100 and a bari 7 at .110. Alto and soprano, I refer to actual tip
> openings more. I guess giving tip opening (in thousandths) and facing
> length (in 1/2-mms) would be a simple, informative number system (.105 48).
>
> BTW - are the Berg numbers actually chamber sizes, or different baffle
> heights? The "zeros" are so much brighter than the "twos" or "threes".
>
> Dan T
>
> STEVE GOODSON wrote:
>
>
>
> What is a 7*? If you ask one manufacturer, you get one answer, if you ask a
> different manufacturer, you get another answer. This has got to be pretty
> confusing to consumers who lack the equipment and knowledge of how to
> measure mouthpieces.
>
>
>
> I would propose that all of us in the mouthpiece manufacturing business
> adopt a common standard, but am unsure as to what to propose to my peers in
> the industry. I think that it goes without saying that tip openings are best
> expressed in 1/1000ths of an inch (or millimeters, for those so inclined),
> but should facing lengths and chamber sizes be included? If so, what is the
> best way to express them so the configuration can be easily understood by
> consumers?
>
>
>
> I was always an admirer of the old Berg Larsen system. I knew right away the
> tip opening (in 1/1000ths), chamber size (0,1,2,3), and facing length (M or
> SMS). I would think that some variation of this would be very helpful.
>
>
>
> I don't know if the industry has any interest in this sort of clarification,
> but I am willing to ask. If nothing else, we might adopt it for our own
> Saxgourmet brand. Any thoughts would be appreciated!
>
>
>
>
>
> sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
>
> STEVE GOODSON
>
> SAXOPHONE DESIGNER TO THE STARS
>
>
>
> our products are ALL rated
>
>
>
> cid:339191121@ 25022009- 09F4
>
>
>
> Steve is a member of
>
> hd_logo NAMMbelieve2nasacon f_GIF
>
>
>
>
>
> PLEASE VISIT MY WEBSITES
> <http://www.nationofmusic.com/> http://www.nationof music.com/ (retail sales
> and discussion forum)
> <http://launch. groups.yahoo. com/group/ SaxophoneRepair/>
> http://launch. groups.yahoo. com/group/ SaxophoneRepair/ (discussion group)
> <http://www.saxgourmet.com/> http://www.saxgourm et.com/ (saxophone history
> and information)
> <http://saxophonetho ughts.blogspot. com/>
> http://saxophonetho ughts.blogspot. com/ (my personal saxophone blog)
>
>
>
> READ MY ARTICLES ON SAXOPHONE DESIGN IN EACH ISSUE OF THE SAXOPHONE JOURNAL
> The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic
> hallway where thieves
>
> BASIC SHOP RATE........ ........$ 100/HR
>
> IF YOU WATCH....... ......... .....$125/ HR
>
> IF YOU ASK QUESTIONS... ...$150/HR
>
> IF I HAVE TO LISTEN TO A CONCERT
>
> LONGER THAN FIVE MINUTES WHEN
>
> YOU PICK UP YOUR HORN....$250/ HR
>
>
>
> The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic
> hallway where thieves and pimps run free and good men die like dogs. There's
> also a negative side." Hunter S. Thompson
>
>
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is
> for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential
> and privileged information or otherwise protected by law. Any unauthorized
> review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
> intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy
> all copies of the original message.
>
FROM: moeaaron (Barry Levine)
SUBJECT: Re: The need for a standard mouthpiece sizing system
> > From: "STEVE GOODSON" <saxgourmet@...> > Reply-To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com > Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2010 14:55:17 -0600 > To: <MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com> > Subject: RE: [MouthpieceWork] The need for a standard mouthpiece sizing > system > > > Barry: > > I would think that a system that gives you the absolute values (rather than > undefined 7 vs 8) would be far simpler for consumers to understand. I think > most people are plenty smart enough to understand the difference between a > .105 and a .120. > It may not be a question of smarts, but of being in practice. I think many people just don't do *any* kind of numerical quantitive thinking in their day-to-day lives. If they did learn it in school (which is often not the case), they've forgotten. It's part of how we got into this economic mess. It's surprising - but I find that some musicians have a hard time locating tunes in fakebooks. I believe they just don't have a real solid notion of alphabetical order - it's not at their fingertips. > > We are trying to make the purchasing process more transparent. I don¹t know of > any other manufacturer who publishes multiple views of the mouthpiece so you > can compare the chamber, baffle, beak etc. like we do. Compare some web sites > and I think you will see what I mean. We also give a video tour (albeit maybe > not world class video, Steven Spielberg has nothing to fear from us) of all > our mouthpieces, which I also think is unique. We think the consumer should > make an informed decision if they are buying on the internet. > Agreed that your marketing is about as transparent as the medium allows. > > Very few retail stores stock much of a selection of mouthpieces. I know it is > a hard decision for consumers to make, so we want to provide as much > information as possible. Providing mouthpieces to send out on trial would > force us to radically reconsider our pricing, so this is not an option for us. > I'm not suggesting you adopt a different strategy. Times have changed. I recall going down to E.U. Wurlitzer, and some years later to Mars music. It certainly enabled me to rule out some mouthpieces right off the bat. And yes, both those emporia are now gone. > > > From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com] > On Behalf Of Barry Levine > Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2010 2:16 PM > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] The need for a standard mouthpiece sizing system > > > > > > I'd guess that the use of small simple numbers rather than measurements was an > attempt at simplification so that a "moderate" facing opening would be a > similar number whether one was talking abut soprano, alto, tenor, or baritone > mouthpieces. The same situation exists with respect to reeds. > > Many people are just not good with numbers or measurements, at all. The > simple numbers are less intimidating. > > Also, suppose a player likes the SuperMachismo Mouthpiece ® in a "5" facing, > but decides he/she needs a bigger tip opening. Then why not just get the next > number of the same mouthpiece? This could be a way of subtly inducing brand > loyalty via the line of least resistance - the alternative is that the > consumer has to go find a mouthpiece chart etc. to figure out what the next > size is (of course, tip facing is hardly the only determinant of how a piece > will play). > > I also recall being totally ignorant about mouthpieces. And I can't recall > any of my early teachers giving me much information about mouthpieces - not > until Jerry Bergonzi let me photocopy some booklets he had on the subject. > > In the past at least it was possible to go try out different mouthpieces in > the past to get some idea. It's more complicated now. > > Barry > > > >> From: "STEVE GOODSON" <saxgourmet@...> >> Reply-To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com >> Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2010 11:20:17 -0600 >> To: <MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com> >> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] The need for a standard mouthpiece sizing system >> >> >> >> >> What is a 7*? If you ask one manufacturer, you get one answer, if you ask a >> different manufacturer, you get another answer. This has got to be pretty >> confusing to consumers who lack the equipment and knowledge of how to measure >> mouthpieces. >> >> >> >> I would propose that all of us in the mouthpiece manufacturing business adopt >> a common standard, but am unsure as to what to propose to my peers in the >> industry. I think that it goes without saying that tip openings are best >> expressed in 1/1000ths of an inch (or millimeters, for those so inclined), >> but should facing lengths and chamber sizes be included? If so, what is the >> best way to express them so the configuration can be easily understood by >> consumers? >> >> >> >> I was always an admirer of the old Berg Larsen system. I knew right away the >> tip opening (in 1/1000ths), chamber size (0,1,2,3), and facing length (M or >> SMS). I would think that some variation of this would be very helpful. >> >> >> >> I don¹t know if the industry has any interest in this sort of clarification, >> but I am willing to ask. If nothing else, we might adopt it for our own >> Saxgourmet brand. Any thoughts would be appreciated! >> >> >> >> >> >> sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc >> >> STEVE GOODSON >> >> SAXOPHONE DESIGNER TO THE STARS >> >> >> >> our products are ALL rated >> >> >> >> >> >> Steve is a member of >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> PLEASE VISIT MY WEBSITES >> http://www.nationofmusic.com/ (retail sales and discussion forum) >> http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/SaxophoneRepair/ (discussion group) >> http://www.saxgourmet.com/ (saxophone history and information) >> http://saxophonethoughts.blogspot.com/ (my personal saxophone blog) >> >> >> >> READ MY ARTICLES ON SAXOPHONE DESIGN IN EACH ISSUE OF THE SAXOPHONE JOURNAL >> The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic >> hallway where thieves >> >> BASIC SHOP RATE................$100/HR >> >> IF YOU WATCH.....................$125/HR >> >> IF YOU ASK QUESTIONS......$150/HR >> >> IF I HAVE TO LISTEN TO A CONCERT >> >> LONGER THAN FIVE MINUTES WHEN >> >> YOU PICK UP YOUR HORN....$250/HR >> >> >> >> The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic >> hallway where thieves and pimps run free and good men die like dogs. There's >> also a negative side." Hunter S. Thompson >> >> >> >> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is >> for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential >> and privileged information or otherwise protected by law. Any unauthorized >> review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the >> intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all >> copies of the original message. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
FROM: heli_av8tor (Tom De Winter)
SUBJECT: Re: The need for a standard mouthpiece sizing system
Steve,
I understand that a trial period would increase the cost of doing business.
However, have you considered a pass-around of some of your pieces?
Tom De Winter
----- Original Message -----
From: STEVE GOODSON
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2010 2:55 PM
Subject: RE: [MouthpieceWork] The need for a standard mouthpiece sizing system
Barry:
I would think that a system that gives you the absolute values (rather than undefined 7 vs 8) would be far simpler for consumers to understand. I think most people are plenty smart enough to understand the difference between a .105 and a .120.
We are trying to make the purchasing process more transparent. I don't know of any other manufacturer who publishes multiple views of the mouthpiece so you can compare the chamber, baffle, beak etc. like we do. Compare some web sites and I think you will see what I mean. We also give a video tour (albeit maybe not world class video, Steven Spielberg has nothing to fear from us) of all our mouthpieces, which I also think is unique. We think the consumer should make an informed decision if they are buying on the internet.
Very few retail stores stock much of a selection of mouthpieces. I know it is a hard decision for consumers to make, so we want to provide as much information as possible. Providing mouthpieces to send out on trial would force us to radically reconsider our pricing, so this is not an option for us.
From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Barry Levine
Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2010 2:16 PM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] The need for a standard mouthpiece sizing system
I'd guess that the use of small simple numbers rather than measurements was an attempt at simplification so that a "moderate" facing opening would be a similar number whether one was talking abut soprano, alto, tenor, or baritone mouthpieces. The same situation exists with respect to reeds.
Many people are just not good with numbers or measurements, at all. The simple numbers are less intimidating.
Also, suppose a player likes the SuperMachismo Mouthpiece ® in a "5" facing, but decides he/she needs a bigger tip opening. Then why not just get the next number of the same mouthpiece? This could be a way of subtly inducing brand loyalty via the line of least resistance - the alternative is that the consumer has to go find a mouthpiece chart etc. to figure out what the next size is (of course, tip facing is hardly the only determinant of how a piece will play).
I also recall being totally ignorant about mouthpieces. And I can't recall any of my early teachers giving me much information about mouthpieces - not until Jerry Bergonzi let me photocopy some booklets he had on the subject.
In the past at least it was possible to go try out different mouthpieces in the past to get some idea. It's more complicated now.
Barry
From: "STEVE GOODSON" <saxgourmet@...>
Reply-To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2010 11:20:17 -0600
To: <MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] The need for a standard mouthpiece sizing system
What is a 7*? If you ask one manufacturer, you get one answer, if you ask a different manufacturer, you get another answer. This has got to be pretty confusing to consumers who lack the equipment and knowledge of how to measure mouthpieces.
I would propose that all of us in the mouthpiece manufacturing business adopt a common standard, but am unsure as to what to propose to my peers in the industry. I think that it goes without saying that tip openings are best expressed in 1/1000ths of an inch (or millimeters, for those so inclined), but should facing lengths and chamber sizes be included? If so, what is the best way to express them so the configuration can be easily understood by consumers?
I was always an admirer of the old Berg Larsen system. I knew right away the tip opening (in 1/1000ths), chamber size (0,1,2,3), and facing length (M or SMS). I would think that some variation of this would be very helpful.
I don't know if the industry has any interest in this sort of clarification, but I am willing to ask. If nothing else, we might adopt it for our own Saxgourmet brand. Any thoughts would be appreciated!
sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
STEVE GOODSON
SAXOPHONE DESIGNER TO THE STARS
our products are ALL rated
Steve is a member of
PLEASE VISIT MY WEBSITES
http://www.nationofmusic.com/ (retail sales and discussion forum)
http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/SaxophoneRepair/ (discussion group)
http://www.saxgourmet.com/ (saxophone history and information)
http://saxophonethoughts.blogspot.com/ (my personal saxophone blog)
READ MY ARTICLES ON SAXOPHONE DESIGN IN EACH ISSUE OF THE SAXOPHONE JOURNAL
The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves
BASIC SHOP RATE................$100/HR
IF YOU WATCH.....................$125/HR
IF YOU ASK QUESTIONS......$150/HR
IF I HAVE TO LISTEN TO A CONCERT
LONGER THAN FIVE MINUTES WHEN
YOU PICK UP YOUR HORN....$250/HR
The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side." Hunter S. Thompson
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information or otherwise protected by law. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
FROM: saxgourmet (STEVE GOODSON)
SUBJECT: Re: The need for a standard mouthpiece sizing system
We have a lot of people stop by our office and try mouthpieces, and are always happy to have them. We also show and have our mouthpieces available at all the trade shows we attend as well as all the seminars I teach and other appearances I make. We sold a little less than a thousand mouthpieces last year, so there is beginning to be a lot of our product floating around. Since we have only been in the business (with our own original designs sold under our own brand) since mid-2008, we think we have done very well. I know you can look at our feedback on eBay (we maintain a store there) and see what actual buyers think. We cannot, of course, control or influence the feedback in any way. I am unfamiliar with a pass around ..this is a new term to me. Do the other manufacturers do this? I never heard of it I guess I am no longer young enough to know everything! From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tom De Winter Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2010 4:01 PM To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] The need for a standard mouthpiece sizing system Steve, I understand that a trial period would increase the cost of doing business. However, have you considered a pass-around of some of your pieces? Tom De Winter ----- Original Message ----- From: STEVE GOODSON <mailto:saxgourmet@...> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2010 2:55 PM Subject: RE: [MouthpieceWork] The need for a standard mouthpiece sizing system Barry: I would think that a system that gives you the absolute values (rather than undefined 7 vs 8) would be far simpler for consumers to understand. I think most people are plenty smart enough to understand the difference between a .105 and a .120. We are trying to make the purchasing process more transparent. I dont know of any other manufacturer who publishes multiple views of the mouthpiece so you can compare the chamber, baffle, beak etc. like we do. Compare some web sites and I think you will see what I mean. We also give a video tour (albeit maybe not world class video, Steven Spielberg has nothing to fear from us) of all our mouthpieces, which I also think is unique. We think the consumer should make an informed decision if they are buying on the internet. Very few retail stores stock much of a selection of mouthpieces. I know it is a hard decision for consumers to make, so we want to provide as much information as possible. Providing mouthpieces to send out on trial would force us to radically reconsider our pricing, so this is not an option for us. From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Barry Levine Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2010 2:16 PM To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] The need for a standard mouthpiece sizing system I'd guess that the use of small simple numbers rather than measurements was an attempt at simplification so that a "moderate" facing opening would be a similar number whether one was talking abut soprano, alto, tenor, or baritone mouthpieces. The same situation exists with respect to reeds. Many people are just not good with numbers or measurements, at all. The simple numbers are less intimidating. Also, suppose a player likes the SuperMachismo Mouthpiece ® in a "5" facing, but decides he/she needs a bigger tip opening. Then why not just get the next number of the same mouthpiece? This could be a way of subtly inducing brand loyalty via the line of least resistance - the alternative is that the consumer has to go find a mouthpiece chart etc. to figure out what the next size is (of course, tip facing is hardly the only determinant of how a piece will play). I also recall being totally ignorant about mouthpieces. And I can't recall any of my early teachers giving me much information about mouthpieces - not until Jerry Bergonzi let me photocopy some booklets he had on the subject. In the past at least it was possible to go try out different mouthpieces in the past to get some idea. It's more complicated now. Barry From: "STEVE GOODSON" <saxgourmet@...> Reply-To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2010 11:20:17 -0600 To: <MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] The need for a standard mouthpiece sizing system What is a 7*? If you ask one manufacturer, you get one answer, if you ask a different manufacturer, you get another answer. This has got to be pretty confusing to consumers who lack the equipment and knowledge of how to measure mouthpieces. I would propose that all of us in the mouthpiece manufacturing business adopt a common standard, but am unsure as to what to propose to my peers in the industry. I think that it goes without saying that tip openings are best expressed in 1/1000ths of an inch (or millimeters, for those so inclined), but should facing lengths and chamber sizes be included? If so, what is the best way to express them so the configuration can be easily understood by consumers? I was always an admirer of the old Berg Larsen system. I knew right away the tip opening (in 1/1000ths), chamber size (0,1,2,3), and facing length (M or SMS). I would think that some variation of this would be very helpful. I dont know if the industry has any interest in this sort of clarification, but I am willing to ask. If nothing else, we might adopt it for our own Saxgourmet brand. Any thoughts would be appreciated! sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc STEVE GOODSON SAXOPHONE DESIGNER TO THE STARS our products are ALL rated Steve is a member of PLEASE VISIT MY WEBSITES http://www.nationofmusic.com/ (retail sales and discussion forum) http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/SaxophoneRepair/ (discussion group) http://www.saxgourmet.com/ (saxophone history and information) http://saxophonethoughts.blogspot.com/ (my personal saxophone blog) READ MY ARTICLES ON SAXOPHONE DESIGN IN EACH ISSUE OF THE SAXOPHONE JOURNAL The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves BASIC SHOP RATE................$100/HR IF YOU WATCH.....................$125/HR IF YOU ASK QUESTIONS......$150/HR IF I HAVE TO LISTEN TO A CONCERT LONGER THAN FIVE MINUTES WHEN YOU PICK UP YOUR HORN....$250/HR The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side." Hunter S. Thompson CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information or otherwise protected by law. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
FROM: fidlershorns (fidlershorns)
SUBJECT: Re: The need for a standard mouthpiece sizing system
Harrelson Trumpets http://www.harrelsontrumpets.com/demolist.htm --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "STEVE GOODSON" <saxgourmet@...> wrote: > I am unfamiliar with a "pass around" ..this is a new term to me. Do the > other manufacturers do this? I never heard of it I guess I am no longer > young enough to know everything! > >
FROM: kymarto (kymarto123@...)
SUBJECT: Re: The need for a standard mouthpiece sizing system
I agree with Morgan. Chamber and baffle designs are too diverse to categorize usefully. But it sure would be nice (and kudos, Steve, for suggesting it) if there were some standardization to tip openings.
I'm totally pessimistic about the chances for a couple of reasons. First is the fact that manufacturers IMO are not going to adopt any system--rational and useful as it might be--that confuses their consumers. This would be especially true if you were trying to get a standardized set of numbers to
represent tip openings. If an "old" Link 7 equaled a "new" Link 6 this would cause no end of problems. So the only possibility, I think, would be to get on neutral ground, using standard measurements in mm or inches (perish the thought that we would extend the use of the Imperial system, which,
except for the US of A, would be rightfully dead and buried by now).
At worst, it would be very helpful, Steve, if you could persuade makers to at least provide a chart of tip openings relating numbers to a standard system of measurement. The makers could keep their fives and sixes and sevens, but at least consumers would have a way of finding out what those
numbers really mean. Better would be to have the actual standard measurement printed on the box, if not stamped underneath the old number on the mpc itself.
Good luck,
Toby
Morgan <frymorgan@...> wrote: Depends on how you define chamber and baffle when you have a piece with a superlong baffle like a Berg. If you call the chamber what's under the window (and distinct from the throat), then for Bergs baffle heights ARE
chamber sizes.
The only standardization that makes any sense for tip openings is standrd units (inches or mm), measured from the outside of the tip rail.
FAcing length and schedule, chamber sizes, etc. vary too much to standardize anything IMO.
--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "STEVE GOODSON" <saxgourmet@...> wrote:
>
> I seem to recall (and will stand for correction) that the 0,1,2,3 system was
> CLAIMED by Berg to be chamber sizes, but agree with you that it more
> accurately reflected the baffles. That being said, I have seen several
> different style baffles using the same number.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of Dan Torosian
> Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2010 12:13 PM
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] The need for a standard mouthpiece sizing
> system
>
>
>
>
>
> My 2 cents:
>
> When I'm talking with other players, we sometimes use the Otto Link numbers
> as a reference for tenor and bari pieces - .005" increments with a tenor 7
> at .100 and a bari 7 at .110. Alto and soprano, I refer to actual tip
> openings more. I guess giving tip opening (in thousandths) and facing
> length (in 1/2-mms) would be a simple, informative number system (.105 48).
>
> BTW - are the Berg numbers actually chamber sizes, or different baffle
> heights? The "zeros" are so much brighter than the "twos" or "threes".
>
> Dan T
>
> STEVE GOODSON wrote:
>
>
>
> What is a 7*? If you ask one manufacturer, you get one answer, if you ask a
> different manufacturer, you get another answer. This has got to be pretty
> confusing to consumers who lack the equipment and knowledge of how to
> measure mouthpieces.
>
>
>
> I would propose that all of us in the mouthpiece manufacturing business
> adopt a common standard, but am unsure as to what to propose to my peers in
> the industry. I think that it goes without saying that tip openings are best
> expressed in 1/1000ths of an inch (or millimeters, for those so inclined),
> but should facing lengths and chamber sizes be included? If so, what is the
> best way to express them so the configuration can be easily understood by
> consumers?
>
>
>
> I was always an admirer of the old Berg Larsen system. I knew right away the
> tip opening (in 1/1000ths), chamber size (0,1,2,3), and facing length (M or
> SMS). I would think that some variation of this would be very helpful.
>
>
>
> I don't know if the industry has any interest in this sort of clarification,
> but I am willing to ask. If nothing else, we might adopt it for our own
> Saxgourmet brand. Any thoughts would be appreciated!
>
>
>
>
>
> sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
>
> STEVE GOODSON
>
> SAXOPHONE DESIGNER TO THE STARS
>
>
>
> our products are ALL rated
>
>
>
> cid:339191121@25022009-09F4
>
>
>
> Steve is a member of
>
> hd_logo NAMMbelieve2nasaconf_GIF
>
>
>
>
>
> PLEASE VISIT MY WEBSITES
> <http://www.nationofmusic.com/> http://www.nationofmusic.com/ (retail sales
> and discussion forum)
> <http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/SaxophoneRepair/>
> http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/SaxophoneRepair/ (discussion group)
> <http://www.saxgourmet.com/> http://www.saxgourmet.com/ (saxophone history
> and information)
> <http://saxophonethoughts.blogspot.com/>
> http://saxophonethoughts.blogspot.com/ (my personal saxophone blog)
>
>
>
> READ MY ARTICLES ON SAXOPHONE DESIGN IN EACH ISSUE OF THE SAXOPHONE JOURNAL
> The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic
> hallway where thieves
>
> BASIC SHOP RATE................$100/HR
>
> IF YOU WATCH.....................$125/HR
>
> IF YOU ASK QUESTIONS......$150/HR
>
> IF I HAVE TO LISTEN TO A CONCERT
>
> LONGER THAN FIVE MINUTES WHEN
>
> YOU PICK UP YOUR HORN....$250/HR
>
>
>
> The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic
> hallway where thieves and pimps run free and good men die like dogs. There's
> also a negative side." Hunter S. Thompson
>
>
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is
> for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential
> and privileged information or otherwise protected by law. Any unauthorized
> review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
> intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy
> all copies of the original message.
>
FROM: saxgourmet (STEVE GOODSON)
SUBJECT: Re: The need for a standard mouthpiece sizing system
There is such a chart at www.saxgourmet.com we've been providing this sort of information to the saxophone community absolutely free for many years I doubt many of the manufacturers would wish to cooperate....most of them don't even show consumers pictures of the chamber and baffle on their websites! I'll figure out a way to do some sort of "pass around" program for some of our products..it sounds reasonable enough. I know we can figure out a way to make it work for us. From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of kymarto123@... Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2010 11:41 PM To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The need for a standard mouthpiece sizing system I agree with Morgan. Chamber and baffle designs are too diverse to categorize usefully. But it sure would be nice (and kudos, Steve, for suggesting it) if there were some standardization to tip openings. I'm totally pessimistic about the chances for a couple of reasons. First is the fact that manufacturers IMO are not going to adopt any system--rational and useful as it might be--that confuses their consumers. This would be especially true if you were trying to get a standardized set of numbers to represent tip openings. If an "old" Link 7 equaled a "new" Link 6 this would cause no end of problems. So the only possibility, I think, would be to get on neutral ground, using standard measurements in mm or inches (perish the thought that we would extend the use of the Imperial system, which, except for the US of A, would be rightfully dead and buried by now). At worst, it would be very helpful, Steve, if you could persuade makers to at least provide a chart of tip openings relating numbers to a standard system of measurement. The makers could keep their fives and sixes and sevens, but at least consumers would have a way of finding out what those numbers really mean. Better would be to have the actual standard measurement printed on the box, if not stamped underneath the old number on the mpc itself. Good luck, Toby Morgan <frymorgan@...> wrote: Depends on how you define chamber and baffle when you have a piece with a superlong baffle like a Berg. If you call the chamber what's under the window (and distinct from the throat), then for Bergs baffle heights ARE chamber sizes. The only standardization that makes any sense for tip openings is standrd units (inches or mm), measured from the outside of the tip rail. FAcing length and schedule, chamber sizes, etc. vary too much to standardize anything IMO. --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> , "STEVE GOODSON" <saxgourmet@...> wrote: > > I seem to recall (and will stand for correction) that the 0,1,2,3 system was > CLAIMED by Berg to be chamber sizes, but agree with you that it more > accurately reflected the baffles. That being said, I have seen several > different style baffles using the same number. > > > > > > > > From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> ] > On Behalf Of Dan Torosian > Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2010 12:13 PM > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com> > Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] The need for a standard mouthpiece sizing > system > > > > > > My 2 cents: > > When I'm talking with other players, we sometimes use the Otto Link numbers > as a reference for tenor and bari pieces - .005" increments with a tenor 7 > at .100 and a bari 7 at .110. Alto and soprano, I refer to actual tip > openings more. I guess giving tip opening (in thousandths) and facing > length (in 1/2-mms) would be a simple, informative number system (.105 48). > > BTW - are the Berg numbers actually chamber sizes, or different baffle > heights? The "zeros" are so much brighter than the "twos" or "threes". > > Dan T > > STEVE GOODSON wrote: > > > > What is a 7*? If you ask one manufacturer, you get one answer, if you ask a > different manufacturer, you get another answer. This has got to be pretty > confusing to consumers who lack the equipment and knowledge of how to > measure mouthpieces. > > > > I would propose that all of us in the mouthpiece manufacturing business > adopt a common standard, but am unsure as to what to propose to my peers in > the industry. I think that it goes without saying that tip openings are best > expressed in 1/1000ths of an inch (or millimeters, for those so inclined), > but should facing lengths and chamber sizes be included? If so, what is the > best way to express them so the configuration can be easily understood by > consumers? > > > > I was always an admirer of the old Berg Larsen system. I knew right away the > tip opening (in 1/1000ths), chamber size (0,1,2,3), and facing length (M or > SMS). I would think that some variation of this would be very helpful. > > > > I don't know if the industry has any interest in this sort of clarification, > but I am willing to ask. If nothing else, we might adopt it for our own > Saxgourmet brand. Any thoughts would be appreciated! > > > > > > sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc > > STEVE GOODSON > > SAXOPHONE DESIGNER TO THE STARS > > > > our products are ALL rated > > > > cid:339191121@25022009-09F4 > > > > Steve is a member of > > hd_logo NAMMbelieve2nasaconf_GIF > > > > > > PLEASE VISIT MY WEBSITES > <http://www.nationofmusic.com/> http://www.nationofmusic.com/ (retail sales > and discussion forum) > <http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/SaxophoneRepair/> > http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/SaxophoneRepair/ (discussion group) > <http://www.saxgourmet.com/> http://www.saxgourmet.com/ (saxophone history > and information) > <http://saxophonethoughts.blogspot.com/> > http://saxophonethoughts.blogspot.com/ (my personal saxophone blog) > > > > READ MY ARTICLES ON SAXOPHONE DESIGN IN EACH ISSUE OF THE SAXOPHONE JOURNAL > The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic > hallway where thieves > > BASIC SHOP RATE................$100/HR > > IF YOU WATCH.....................$125/HR > > IF YOU ASK QUESTIONS......$150/HR > > IF I HAVE TO LISTEN TO A CONCERT > > LONGER THAN FIVE MINUTES WHEN > > YOU PICK UP YOUR HORN....$250/HR > > > > The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic > hallway where thieves and pimps run free and good men die like dogs. There's > also a negative side." Hunter S. Thompson > > > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is > for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential > and privileged information or otherwise protected by law. Any unauthorized > review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the > intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy > all copies of the original message. >
FROM: wdaleiden (William Daleiden)
SUBJECT: Re: The need for a standard mouthpiece sizing system
Categorizing baffles with a number is about the same as labeling the MP curve facing with a number at least there's some reference. Through the help of the experts at this website, I found that using a graphical representation of the curves (based on measurements) to be the best starting point for comparing mouthpieces. So why not try to represent the baffle in the same way? Take a series of measurements starting at the center of the tip; then, at a standard set of distances from the tip (something easy like 2mm intervals). At each interval measure the distance from the baffle to your glass gage. The first number would be the same as the tip opening. You then would the have two sets of curve numbers one for the facing radius and the other, an internal "curve" (although sometimes there would be very little curve). I realize that there is more to the baffle than a simple cross sectional measurement but with my mind's eye I can more
easily vision where baffle is or how far it extends. I think this might be a bit more objective than to say something like....its just like a Ponzol only its more rounded bla bla bla. I don't have very many MP's and am not spending hundred of $$ to buy until I can compare before I order (I won't talk of returning on this forum). Also, true enough that some of the best MP's are not in production any more. I wouldn't be able to get a new MP to act as an old one unless I had the original in my hand.
Incidentally, I do like the pictures and videos of the mouthpieces....so very helpful.
Again, my deepest thanks for the information present in this forum.
my $.02
Cheers,
Bill Daleiden
A NEW Tune, LLC
(920) 264-5827
--- On Sun, 3/7/10, STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...> wrote:
From: STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...>
Subject: RE: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The need for a standard mouthpiece sizing system
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, March 7, 2010, 9:06 AM
There is such a chart at www.saxgourmet. com we’ve been providing this sort of information to the saxophone community absolutely free for many years
I doubt many of the manufacturers would wish to cooperate……..most of them don’t even show consumers pictures of the chamber and baffle on their websites!
I’ll figure out a way to do some sort of “pass around” program for some of our products….it sounds reasonable enough. I know we can figure out a way to make it work for us.
From: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:MouthpieceW ork@yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp
Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2010 11:41 PM
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The need for a standard mouthpiece sizing system
I agree with Morgan. Chamber and baffle designs are too diverse to categorize usefully. But it sure would be nice (and kudos, Steve, for suggesting it) if there were some standardization to tip openings.
I'm totally pessimistic about the chances for a couple of reasons. First is the fact that manufacturers IMO are not going to adopt any system--rational and useful as it might be--that confuses their consumers. This would be especially true if you were trying to get a standardized set of numbers to represent tip openings. If an "old" Link 7 equaled a "new" Link 6 this would cause no end of problems. So the only possibility, I think, would be to get on neutral ground, using standard measurements in mm or inches (perish the thought that we would extend the use of the Imperial system, which, except for the US of A, would be rightfully dead and buried by now).
At worst, it would be very helpful, Steve, if you could persuade makers to at least provide a chart of tip openings relating numbers to a standard system of measurement. The makers could keep their fives and sixes and sevens, but at least consumers would have a way of finding out what those numbers really mean. Better would be to have the actual standard measurement printed on the box, if not stamped underneath the old number on the mpc itself.
Good luck,
Toby
Morgan <frymorgan@yahoo. com> wrote:
Depends on how you define chamber and baffle when you have a piece with a superlong baffle like a Berg. If you call the chamber what's under the window (and distinct from the throat), then for Bergs baffle heights ARE chamber sizes.
The only standardization that makes any sense for tip openings is standrd units (inches or mm), measured from the outside of the tip rail.
FAcing length and schedule, chamber sizes, etc. vary too much to standardize anything IMO.
--- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, "STEVE GOODSON" <saxgourmet@. ..> wrote:
>
> I seem to recall (and will stand for correction) that the 0,1,2,3 system was
> CLAIMED by Berg to be chamber sizes, but agree with you that it more
> accurately reflected the baffles. That being said, I have seen several
> different style baffles using the same number.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com]
> On Behalf Of Dan Torosian
> Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2010 12:13 PM
> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] The need for a standard mouthpiece sizing
> system
>
>
>
>
>
> My 2 cents:
>
> When I'm talking with other players, we sometimes use the Otto Link numbers
> as a reference for tenor and bari pieces - .005" increments with a tenor 7
> at .100 and a bari 7 at .110. Alto and soprano, I refer to actual tip
> openings more. I guess giving tip opening (in thousandths) and facing
> length (in 1/2-mms) would be a simple, informative number system (.105 48).
>
> BTW - are the Berg numbers actually chamber sizes, or different baffle
> heights? The "zeros" are so much brighter than the "twos" or "threes".
>
> Dan T
>
> STEVE GOODSON wrote:
>
>
>
> What is a 7*? If you ask one manufacturer, you get one answer, if you ask a
> different manufacturer, you get another answer. This has got to be pretty
> confusing to consumers who lack the equipment and knowledge of how to
> measure mouthpieces.
>
>
>
> I would propose that all of us in the mouthpiece manufacturing business
> adopt a common standard, but am unsure as to what to propose to my peers in
> the industry. I think that it goes without saying that tip openings are best
> expressed in 1/1000ths of an inch (or millimeters, for those so inclined),
> but should facing lengths and chamber sizes be included? If so, what is the
> best way to express them so the configuration can be easily understood by
> consumers?
>
>
>
> I was always an admirer of the old Berg Larsen system. I knew right away the
> tip opening (in 1/1000ths), chamber size (0,1,2,3), and facing length (M or
> SMS). I would think that some variation of this would be very helpful.
>
>
>
> I don't know if the industry has any interest in this sort of clarification,
> but I am willing to ask. If nothing else, we might adopt it for our own
> Saxgourmet brand. Any thoughts would be appreciated!
>
>
>
>
>
> sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
>
> STEVE GOODSON
>
> SAXOPHONE DESIGNER TO THE STARS
>
>
>
> our products are ALL rated
>
>
>
> cid:339191121@ 25022009- 09F4
>
>
>
> Steve is a member of
>
> hd_logo NAMMbelieve2nasacon f_GIF
>
>
>
>
>
> PLEASE VISIT MY WEBSITES
> <http://www.nationof music.com/> http://www.nationof music.com/ (retail sales
> and discussion forum)
> <http://launch. groups.yahoo. com/group/ SaxophoneRepair/>
> http://launch. groups.yahoo. com/group/ SaxophoneRepair/ (discussion group)
> <http://www.saxgourm et.com/> http://www.saxgourm et.com/ (saxophone history
> and information)
> <http://saxophonetho ughts.blogspot. com/>
> http://saxophonetho ughts.blogspot. com/ (my personal saxophone blog)
>
>
>
> READ MY ARTICLES ON SAXOPHONE DESIGN IN EACH ISSUE OF THE SAXOPHONE JOURNAL
> The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic
> hallway where thieves
>
> BASIC SHOP RATE........ ........$ 100/HR
>
> IF YOU WATCH....... ......... .....$125/ HR
>
> IF YOU ASK QUESTIONS... ...$150/HR
>
> IF I HAVE TO LISTEN TO A CONCERT
>
> LONGER THAN FIVE MINUTES WHEN
>
> YOU PICK UP YOUR HORN....$250/ HR
>
>
>
> The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic
> hallway where thieves and pimps run free and good men die like dogs. There's
> also a negative side." Hunter S. Thompson
>
>
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is
> for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential
> and privileged information or otherwise protected by law. Any unauthorized
> review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
> intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy
> all copies of the original message.
>
FROM: kymarto (Toby)
SUBJECT: Re: The need for a standard mouthpiece sizing system
This is a good idea, but I wonder if there is a snowball's chance in hell of getting makers to implement it.
Toby
----- Original Message -----
From: William Daleiden
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 5:16 AM
Subject: RE: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The need for a standard mouthpiece sizing system
Categorizing baffles with a number is about the same as labeling the MP curve facing with a number at least there's some reference. Through the help of the experts at this website, I found that using a graphical representation of the curves (based on measurements) to be the best starting point for comparing mouthpieces. So why not try to represent the baffle in the same way? Take a series of measurements starting at the center of the tip; then, at a standard set of distances from the tip (something easy like 2mm intervals). At each interval measure the distance from the baffle to your glass gage. The first number would be the same as the tip opening. You then would the have two sets of curve numbers one for the facing radius and the other, an internal "curve" (although sometimes there would be very little curve). I realize that there is more to the baffle than a simple cross sectional measurement but with my mind's eye I can more easily vision where baffle is or how far it extends. I think this might be a bit more objective than to say something like....its just like a Ponzol only its more rounded bla bla bla. I don't have very many MP's and am not spending hundred of $$ to buy until I can compare before I order (I won't talk of returning on this forum). Also, true enough that some of the best MP's are not in production any more. I wouldn't be able to get a new MP to act as an old one unless I had the original in my hand.
Incidentally, I do like the pictures and videos of the mouthpieces....so very helpful.
Again, my deepest thanks for the information present in this forum.
my $.02
Cheers,
Bill Daleiden
A NEW Tune, LLC
(920) 264-5827
--- On Sun, 3/7/10, STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...> wrote:
From: STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...>
Subject: RE: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The need for a standard mouthpiece sizing system
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, March 7, 2010, 9:06 AM
There is such a chart at www.saxgourmet. com we’ve been providing this sort of information to the saxophone community absolutely free for many years
I doubt many of the manufacturers would wish to cooperate……..most of them don’t even show consumers pictures of the chamber and baffle on their websites!
I’ll figure out a way to do some sort of “pass around” program for some of our products….it sounds reasonable enough. I know we can figure out a way to make it work for us.
From: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:MouthpieceW ork@yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp
Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2010 11:41 PM
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The need for a standard mouthpiece sizing system
I agree with Morgan. Chamber and baffle designs are too diverse to categorize usefully. But it sure would be nice (and kudos, Steve, for suggesting it) if there were some standardization to tip openings.
I'm totally pessimistic about the chances for a couple of reasons. First is the fact that manufacturers IMO are not going to adopt any system--rational and useful as it might be--that confuses their consumers. This would be especially true if you were trying to get a standardized set of numbers to represent tip openings. If an "old" Link 7 equaled a "new" Link 6 this would cause no end of problems. So the only possibility, I think, would be to get on neutral ground, using standard measurements in mm or inches (perish the thought that we would extend the use of the Imperial system, which, except for the US of A, would be rightfully dead and buried by now).
At worst, it would be very helpful, Steve, if you could persuade makers to at least provide a chart of tip openings relating numbers to a standard system of measurement. The makers could keep their fives and sixes and sevens, but at least consumers would have a way of finding out what those numbers really mean. Better would be to have the actual standard measurement printed on the box, if not stamped underneath the old number on the mpc itself.
Good luck,
Toby
Morgan <frymorgan@yahoo. com> wrote:
Depends on how you define chamber and baffle when you have a piece with a superlong baffle like a Berg. If you call the chamber what's under the window (and distinct from the throat), then for Bergs baffle heights ARE chamber sizes.
The only standardization that makes any sense for tip openings is standrd units (inches or mm), measured from the outside of the tip rail.
FAcing length and schedule, chamber sizes, etc. vary too much to standardize anything IMO.
--- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, "STEVE GOODSON" <saxgourmet@. ..> wrote:
>
> I seem to recall (and will stand for correction) that the 0,1,2,3 system was
> CLAIMED by Berg to be chamber sizes, but agree with you that it more
> accurately reflected the baffles. That being said, I have seen several
> different style baffles using the same number.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com]
> On Behalf Of Dan Torosian
> Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2010 12:13 PM
> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] The need for a standard mouthpiece sizing
> system
>
>
>
>
>
> My 2 cents:
>
> When I'm talking with other players, we sometimes use the Otto Link numbers
> as a reference for tenor and bari pieces - .005" increments with a tenor 7
> at .100 and a bari 7 at .110. Alto and soprano, I refer to actual tip
> openings more. I guess giving tip opening (in thousandths) and facing
> length (in 1/2-mms) would be a simple, informative number system (.105 48).
>
> BTW - are the Berg numbers actually chamber sizes, or different baffle
> heights? The "zeros" are so much brighter than the "twos" or "threes".
>
> Dan T
>
> STEVE GOODSON wrote:
>
>
>
> What is a 7*? If you ask one manufacturer, you get one answer, if you ask a
> different manufacturer, you get another answer. This has got to be pretty
> confusing to consumers who lack the equipment and knowledge of how to
> measure mouthpieces.
>
>
>
> I would propose that all of us in the mouthpiece manufacturing business
> adopt a common standard, but am unsure as to what to propose to my peers in
> the industry. I think that it goes without saying that tip openings are best
> expressed in 1/1000ths of an inch (or millimeters, for those so inclined),
> but should facing lengths and chamber sizes be included? If so, what is the
> best way to express them so the configuration can be easily understood by
> consumers?
>
>
>
> I was always an admirer of the old Berg Larsen system. I knew right away the
> tip opening (in 1/1000ths), chamber size (0,1,2,3), and facing length (M or
> SMS). I would think that some variation of this would be very helpful.
>
>
>
> I don't know if the industry has any interest in this sort of clarification,
> but I am willing to ask. If nothing else, we might adopt it for our own
> Saxgourmet brand. Any thoughts would be appreciated!
>
>
>
>
>
> sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
>
> STEVE GOODSON
>
> SAXOPHONE DESIGNER TO THE STARS
>
>
>
> our products are ALL rated
>
>
>
> cid:339191121@ 25022009- 09F4
>
>
>
> Steve is a member of
>
> hd_logo NAMMbelieve2nasacon f_GIF
>
>
>
>
>
> PLEASE VISIT MY WEBSITES
> <http://www.nationof music.com/> http://www.nationof music.com/ (retail sales
> and discussion forum)
> <http://launch. groups.yahoo. com/group/ SaxophoneRepair/>
> http://launch. groups.yahoo. com/group/ SaxophoneRepair/ (discussion group)
> <http://www.saxgourm et.com/> http://www.saxgourm et.com/ (saxophone history
> and information)
> <http://saxophonetho ughts.blogspot. com/>
> http://saxophonetho ughts.blogspot. com/ (my personal saxophone blog)
>
>
>
> READ MY ARTICLES ON SAXOPHONE DESIGN IN EACH ISSUE OF THE SAXOPHONE JOURNAL
> The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic
> hallway where thieves
>
> BASIC SHOP RATE........ ........$ 100/HR
>
> IF YOU WATCH....... ......... .....$125/ HR
>
> IF YOU ASK QUESTIONS... ...$150/HR
>
> IF I HAVE TO LISTEN TO A CONCERT
>
> LONGER THAN FIVE MINUTES WHEN
>
> YOU PICK UP YOUR HORN....$250/ HR
>
>
>
> The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic
> hallway where thieves and pimps run free and good men die like dogs. There's
> also a negative side." Hunter S. Thompson
>
>
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is
> for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential
> and privileged information or otherwise protected by law. Any unauthorized
> review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
> intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy
> all copies of the original message.
>
FROM: wdaleiden (William Daleiden)
SUBJECT: Re: The need for a standard mouthpiece sizing system
We can start with this forum's members.
Bill Daleiden
A NEW Tune, LLC
(920) 264-5827
--- On Sun, 3/7/10, Toby <kymarto123@...> wrote:
From: Toby <kymarto123@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The need for a standard mouthpiece sizing system
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, March 7, 2010, 9:14 PM
This is a good idea, but I wonder if there is a snowball's chance in hell of getting makers to implement it.
Toby
----- Original Message -----
From: William Daleiden
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 5:16 AM
Subject: RE: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The need for a standard mouthpiece sizing system
Categorizing baffles with a number is about the same as labeling the MP curve facing with a number at least there's some reference. Through the help of the experts at this website, I found that using a graphical representation of the curves (based on measurements) to be the best starting point for comparing mouthpieces. So why not try to represent the baffle in the same way? Take a series of measurements starting at the center of the tip; then, at a standard set of distances from the tip (something easy like 2mm intervals). At each interval measure the distance from the baffle to your glass gage. The first number would be the same as the tip opening. You then would the have two sets of curve numbers one for the facing radius and the other, an internal "curve" (although sometimes there would be very little curve). I realize that there is more to the baffle than a simple cross sectional measurement but with my mind's eye I can more
easily vision where baffle is or how far it extends. I think this might be a bit more objective than to say something like....its just like a Ponzol only its more rounded bla bla bla. I don't have very many MP's and am not spending hundred of $$ to buy until I can compare before I order (I won't talk of returning on this forum). Also, true enough that some of the best MP's are not in production any more. I wouldn't be able to get a new MP to act as an old one unless I had the original in my hand.
Incidentally, I do like the pictures and videos of the mouthpieces. ...so very helpful.
Again, my deepest thanks for the information present in this forum.
my $.02
Cheers,
Bill Daleiden
A NEW Tune, LLC
(920) 264-5827
--- On Sun, 3/7/10, STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@cox. net> wrote:
From: STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@cox. net>
Subject: RE: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The need for a standard mouthpiece sizing system
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Sunday, March 7, 2010, 9:06 AM
There is such a chart at www.saxgourmet. com we’ve been providing this sort of information to the saxophone community absolutely free for many years
I doubt many of the manufacturers would wish to cooperate……..most of them don’t even show consumers pictures of the chamber and baffle on their websites!
I’ll figure out a way to do some sort of “pass around” program for some of our products….it sounds reasonable enough. I know we can figure out a way to make it work for us.
From: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:MouthpieceW ork@yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of kymarto123@ybb. ne.jp
Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2010 11:41 PM
To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: The need for a standard mouthpiece sizing system
I agree with Morgan. Chamber and baffle designs are too diverse to categorize usefully. But it sure would be nice (and kudos, Steve, for suggesting it) if there were some standardization to tip openings.
I'm totally pessimistic about the chances for a couple of reasons. First is the fact that manufacturers IMO are not going to adopt any system--rational and useful as it might be--that confuses their consumers. This would be especially true if you were trying to get a standardized set of numbers to represent tip openings. If an "old" Link 7 equaled a "new" Link 6 this would cause no end of problems. So the only possibility, I think, would be to get on neutral ground, using standard measurements in mm or inches (perish the thought that we would extend the use of the Imperial system, which, except for the US of A, would be rightfully dead and buried by now).
At worst, it would be very helpful, Steve, if you could persuade makers to at least provide a chart of tip openings relating numbers to a standard system of measurement. The makers could keep their fives and sixes and sevens, but at least consumers would have a way of finding out what those numbers really mean. Better would be to have the actual standard measurement printed on the box, if not stamped underneath the old number on the mpc itself.
Good luck,
Toby
Morgan <frymorgan@yahoo. com> wrote:
Depends on how you define chamber and baffle when you have a piece with a superlong baffle like a Berg. If you call the chamber what's under the window (and distinct from the throat), then for Bergs baffle heights ARE chamber sizes.
The only standardization that makes any sense for tip openings is standrd units (inches or mm), measured from the outside of the tip rail.
FAcing length and schedule, chamber sizes, etc. vary too much to standardize anything IMO.
--- In MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com, "STEVE GOODSON" <saxgourmet@. ..> wrote:
>
> I seem to recall (and will stand for correction) that the 0,1,2,3 system was
> CLAIMED by Berg to be chamber sizes, but agree with you that it more
> accurately reflected the baffles. That being said, I have seen several
> different style baffles using the same number.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com]
> On Behalf Of Dan Torosian
> Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2010 12:13 PM
> To: MouthpieceWork@ yahoogroups. com
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] The need for a standard mouthpiece sizing
> system
>
>
>
>
>
> My 2 cents:
>
> When I'm talking with other players, we sometimes use the Otto Link numbers
> as a reference for tenor and bari pieces - .005" increments with a tenor 7
> at .100 and a bari 7 at .110. Alto and soprano, I refer to actual tip
> openings more. I guess giving tip opening (in thousandths) and facing
> length (in 1/2-mms) would be a simple, informative number system (.105 48).
>
> BTW - are the Berg numbers actually chamber sizes, or different baffle
> heights? The "zeros" are so much brighter than the "twos" or "threes".
>
> Dan T
>
> STEVE GOODSON wrote:
>
>
>
> What is a 7*? If you ask one manufacturer, you get one answer, if you ask a
> different manufacturer, you get another answer. This has got to be pretty
> confusing to consumers who lack the equipment and knowledge of how to
> measure mouthpieces.
>
>
>
> I would propose that all of us in the mouthpiece manufacturing business
> adopt a common standard, but am unsure as to what to propose to my peers in
> the industry. I think that it goes without saying that tip openings are best
> expressed in 1/1000ths of an inch (or millimeters, for those so inclined),
> but should facing lengths and chamber sizes be included? If so, what is the
> best way to express them so the configuration can be easily understood by
> consumers?
>
>
>
> I was always an admirer of the old Berg Larsen system. I knew right away the
> tip opening (in 1/1000ths), chamber size (0,1,2,3), and facing length (M or
> SMS). I would think that some variation of this would be very helpful.
>
>
>
> I don't know if the industry has any interest in this sort of clarification,
> but I am willing to ask. If nothing else, we might adopt it for our own
> Saxgourmet brand. Any thoughts would be appreciated!
>
>
>
>
>
> sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
>
> STEVE GOODSON
>
> SAXOPHONE DESIGNER TO THE STARS
>
>
>
> our products are ALL rated
>
>
>
> cid:339191121@ 25022009- 09F4
>
>
>
> Steve is a member of
>
> hd_logo NAMMbelieve2nasacon f_GIF
>
>
>
>
>
> PLEASE VISIT MY WEBSITES
> <http://www.nationof music.com/> http://www.nationof music.com/ (retail sales
> and discussion forum)
> <http://launch. groups.yahoo. com/group/ SaxophoneRepair/>
> http://launch. groups.yahoo. com/group/ SaxophoneRepair/ (discussion group)
> <http://www.saxgourm et.com/> http://www.saxgourm et.com/ (saxophone history
> and information)
> <http://saxophonetho ughts.blogspot. com/>
> http://saxophonetho ughts.blogspot. com/ (my personal saxophone blog)
>
>
>
> READ MY ARTICLES ON SAXOPHONE DESIGN IN EACH ISSUE OF THE SAXOPHONE JOURNAL
> The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic
> hallway where thieves
>
> BASIC SHOP RATE........ ........$ 100/HR
>
> IF YOU WATCH....... ......... .....$125/ HR
>
> IF YOU ASK QUESTIONS... ...$150/HR
>
> IF I HAVE TO LISTEN TO A CONCERT
>
> LONGER THAN FIVE MINUTES WHEN
>
> YOU PICK UP YOUR HORN....$250/ HR
>
>
>
> The Music Business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic
> hallway where thieves and pimps run free and good men die like dogs. There's
> also a negative side." Hunter S. Thompson
>
>
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is
> for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential
> and privileged information or otherwise protected by law. Any unauthorized
> review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
> intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy
> all copies of the original message.
>